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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Stratton" <cstrat@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: [OM] Scanning - prints or negatives?
> As a Nikon LS-2000 user, formerly an HP Photosmart S20 user, I must say
that
> the 'Digital Ice' dust removal of the LS-2000 is a killer feature. While
it
> won't totally remove big chunks of dust or dirt, it gets rid of the usual
> stuff so well that manual spot touch-up is almost never required after
> scanning. A BIG timesaver.
>
> On the other hand, if you are going to print larger than 12"x18", the
extra
> dpi of the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 will certainly prove it's worth.
>
> Chip Stratton
> cstrat@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|