Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000

Tris Schuler wrote:
> Firewire may or may not be an improvement--SCSI strikes me as the best
> going at present. The increased Dmax would be welcome, if in fact that's a

Astonishing conclusion.

SCSI is old fashined for a long time already. SCSI is expensive,
demands heavy 50 or 66 wires cables $70-$80 each etc. etc. I have the
SCSI for many years, 10 possibly. I liked to have SCSI in my MS-DOS
abd Win 3.1 PC because the IRQ+DMA manual device confuguration was
a horror. With SCSI I used the one IRQ and the rest was done better
on the SCSI side. But we are talking here an old, old story.

Since 1998 I have even SCSI-2 UW with 66 pin thin connector and
all I got for it is the necessity to get 66->50 pin converters,
each for $20 approx. To the present time I have not found any
reasonable priced consumer device using SCSI-2. They all (including
recent Nikon or Canon scanners) use 50 Pin slow SCSI-1 connection.

Both USB and Firewire (IEEE-1394) are the result of a decade of
research and inventivenes. These are both modern interfaces well
suited for the future. They support both portable devices and the
computers alike. The cables are thin and cheaper, they provide
even power supply to the devices, automatic device recognition,
automatic hub configuration and despite the thin cables the
advaces in transmission speed are incredible. Both Firewire and
USB-2 work at up to 400 resp. 480 Mbit/sec. Only SCSI-3 is faster
than that. Firewire-2 is in the making. See these sites for both
editorials and shopping.



> real-world figure. I've been pleased with the shadow detail I retrieve with
> the SS4000, though. I shoot a lot at night (pitch dark, not that
> just-after-sunset stuff) and if I use a proper emulsion and expose the
> scene intelligently my shadows, as a rule, look good--as shadows go,
> always. <g>
> Anyway, I was just curious what your take on it was. I own the earlier
> version and like this equipment. At least it works as billed (except for
> the lamp switch--they still haven't got that right, and yes, I've installed
> the firmware update), which is more than you can apparently say for other
> scanners out there. So far I've read not one horror story authored by a
> Polaroid user.
> Tris

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.