Actually, Nikon has the Coolscan 8000, and Polaroid is now also shipping
(it's name escapes me) a medium format, 4000 dpi scanner. The Nikon has the
ASF ICE^3 suite.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <email@example.com>
> I believe you may be mistaken or misinformed. The new 4000 ppi scanners
> 35mm film scanners and not medium format scanners; hence they will not
> handle 120 films
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of TREVITHO@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:52 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.
> In a message dated 23/5/01 9:28:55 am, Jerry.Oostrom@Alcatel.nl writes:
> << If you ever want to use your scanner for other purposes (full res
> etc., full quality), then you are better off with another more expensive
> scanner with ICE or FARE (dust removal algorithms), >>
> Apparently some photographers are using 4000 ppi scanners for digital
> picture submissions. The new 4000 scanners from Polaroid and Nikon which
> 120 film make this an interesting proposition for me. However, I am
> on several points and Cornwall is not the place to find these scanners in
> Dust seems to be a big concern. Just how much time is spent dust busting a
> scan? A test I did on PCD was giving me about 15 minutes work on dust
> which is far too long.
> Does ICE lose scan quality?
> Is a cheap, if you call £3,000 cheap, scanner a workable substitute for a
> drum scan?
> I can currently get 50Mb CGI drum scans at £7.50 each which are absolutely
> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce about
> fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is this possible
> considering the amount of time that dust busting might take?
> Bob Croxford
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com