[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Mike Kersenbrock" <michaelk@aracnet.com>]

Op's wrote:
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
> > Arthur,
> > I make no claims to expertise or to being even all that knowledgable with
> > respect to film recorders.  I recently picked up cheap on Ebay a Polaroid
> > Digital Palette 5000s film recorder to play araound with and learn something
> > about film recorders and recording.

That's not the best one, but it works okay.  I've a 3000, a 5000,
a 5000s, and a 7000.  I've used both 5000's and now use the 7000.

> It is obsolete and 35mm; and may have
> > been a bad buy since it looks as if the lamp inside may be going which may
> > cost a couple of hundred to fix or replace.

Doesn't have a "lamp", it has a 3" CRT in it.

> It claims to be a 4K recorder,
> > but I suspect that it is probably more accurately a 2K + recorder only
> > capable at its maximum 4K setting of nominally achieving 4K.

No, although "addressable" as a 4K, it's quite a bit less as you
suggest.  However, it's not really "bad" unless you're looking for
sharply focused images.  You'll get images but a bit fuzzy if critically
inspected.  Depends what one is using it for.  The 5000/500s is made
for doing power-point sorts of images, and it'll do those great. Photos
it'll do "okay" but as I said, not crisp/sharp.  Okay for presentations
or family get-togethers, probably less good for critical uses.

It does *much* better (from what I've seen) than taking 35mm photographs
of one's computer monitor screen's CRT. :-)


>
> Laurie
>
> As I mentioned before the CRT in these recorders are about 2"  and have never 
>given a sharp

They're rated as being 3"

> image -  the newer FRecorders are 7" tubes.

Which is what my Polaroid 7000 is.

Mike K.

>
> Rob
>

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