I sure wish I was the expert that people seem to think I am <g>. I think
Dmax is like every other test....such as lens tests. The 'numbers' are very
useful for comparisons, but only if the same test is done. So, for example,
I have great faith in Gary Reese's lens tests, because the same person, whom
I trust, is doing them. Compare this to two different magazines testing two
different lenses and then comparing the results.
That's what we have here. Dmax is an advertising number.
So, my experience and I can only say what I've found.
I love the SS4000. Honestly I believe that it is a combination of 'color
qualities', which Dmax reflects, and resolution. For example, from what
I've read, the Nikon 2000 has a higher dmax (but lower resolution) than the
Polaroid. But, I read a review, that I believe, that said the shadow detail
of the Polaroid was superior to the Nikon. So much for dmax numbers.
As for me, I bought the Polaroid for one reason: resolution.
I have an Epson 1270 printer. Makes 13x19 inch prints. Simple math - the
Polaroid does about 5500x3500. 5500/19=289. Good prints, in my opinion,
need around 240 or better for great prints. 2700 dpi can make stellar
8x10s, even 11x14. 13x19 takes a Polaroid.
My office (upstairs--I work at home) is covered with nice glossy prints. I
doubt if anyone other than an expert could tell that they are scanned and
printed on an inkjet printer. They sure fool me.
I don't have any experience with the Canon, but the people on the
filmscanners list give it high marks for a combination of quality and price.
The Scanwit is cheaper, and probably a touch lower quality. Both are great
value for their price.
OK, so this was useless rambling....
Tom
From: "Don Mabey" <mabeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tom:
>
> A question or two if I may?
>
> I know you have a Polaroid SS 4000. The Polaroid site seems to imply that
the scanner has a DMax of 3.9. Is this the case.
>
> I have tried a Canon FS2720 for a week and liked it a lot but it reports a
DMax of 3.2.
>
> Is the difference in DMax what really differentiates the two scanners? I
know the Polaroid scans up to 4000 dpi compared to the 2720 dpi of the Canon
but the differentiation in DMax should result in much more detail in shadows
and highlights should it not?
>
> You once mentioned that you thought the Kodak 3600 was worth a look. I
have tried to find a review of the scanner but have not been able to do so.
The price is $500/600 less in Canadian funds but the DMax does not seem to
be as high as that of the SS 4000.
>
> So how important is the DMax figure in the purchase decision of a scanner?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Mabey
> Mabeyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > ** Original Subject: RE: [OM] Film Scanners
> > ** Original Sender: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ** Original Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:57:31 -0300
>
> > ** Original Message follows...
>
> >
> > According to the Polaroid person that subscribes to the filmscanners
list,
> > they are working on a slide feeder to feed an entire 36 exposure set of
> > slides. They're also working on a feeder for a 36 exposure negative
strip,
> > but the slide holder is supposed to come first.
> >
> > I'd switch to slides for that.
> >
> > Tom
>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|