Check the sample scan from hamrick's page, the scan from Polaroid and LS2000
didn't make much different. You may argue the Kodak Q60's resolution is not
good. I also have tried an ISO 100 negative and a slide on two different
Polaroid 4000, both look not much different with my LS2000's scan (may be
very very little better). Being a semi-digital pro that demanding an
affordable higher resolution scanner, that is the major reason why I didn't
change from LS2000 to Polaroid. The quoted resolution is no everything, the
system MTF of a 4000dpi scanner (at 4000dpi) may be much lower than a
2700dpi one (at 2700dpi).
Just hoping for the coming Kodak 3600dpi scanner will do better.
One word for the Vuescan, its ICE cleaning performance is not as good as the
Nikon's original software. Also, for slide scanning, nothing beat the Nikon
for color accuracy (also with Nikon's original software).
C.H.Ling
On the other side of the question, if you look at the Tony Sleep
scanner page and read the review, he would not fully agree with you.
He found the increase in resolution to be very impressive and
significant. The examples are pretty impressive. He did find that the
Nikon's scratch removal to be superior.
http://www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/pol4000/pol4000.htm
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|