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: Any advancement on the Microtek 4000T (SS4000)

I'm quite surprised by this statement and it makes me wonder if you
happened to get a unit that had poor response.  Most people were quite
pleased with the shadow response on the SS4000 (which is electronically
supposed to be very similar to the 4000T).  Of course, the SS4000plus
and 4000TF do have the additional A/D bit depth conversion, so there was
some room for improvement, although people in the know have admitted the
differences between the two is not what the theoretical numbers would
show, in that the original SS4000 made best use of the CCD and design to
eek out good shadow detail, and that increasing the bit depth made some
improvements but not to the degree the math might imply.

I do now of a person who bought a Canon FS 4000 and ended up getting a
SS4000+ and found a large difference in the shadow detail/response with
the SS4000+, so I doubt the FS4000 Canon will be a step up for you.


anthony@ohalloran.co.uk wrote:

> Hi
> I've been generally happy with my Microtek 4000T over the past 1.5
> years. The one thing that I find unacceptable is it's inability to get
> good detail out of the shadows of slides - even well exposed ones. I've
> tried Vuescan which has helped lots but still not good enough. Is the
> 4000dpi Canon (or similar) any better? I can't justify an Imacon as I'll
> probably get hold of a Canon EOS 1Ds in about a years time.
> Regards
> Anthony

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.