Very Computer

I have only seen one comparison of the Nikon Coolscan LS1000 with the Polaroid SprintScan
35 Plus.

Although the Polaroid has an optical density rating of 3.4 compared to Nikon's 3.4 rating,
the Polaroid scans had more shadow detail and information.

I have also heard that the Polaroid is much more forgiving of scratches and dust, and that
the Nikon LS2000's multi-scanning ability can improve shadow detail, etc., but that it can
also smear and distort some originals, and it can't handle Black & White.

Does anyone have opinions here?
And has anyone seen any tests or reports on the new Polaroid 4000?

Quote:> The Nikon's lightsource is from LEDs and this "collimated" light picks up dusk
> more noticably than the fluorescent lamp used in the Polariod but also,
> apparently looks sharper as well.

In the past I had a Polaroid Sprintscan 35 Plus. I had some errors in not lining
the RGB chanles on some scanningheights (I had three scanners changed). Therefore
I tried Nikon Super Coolscan.

In spite of the "collimated" light it was not as sharp as the Polaroid.
Only grain (and scratches) were more accentuated with the Nikon.
Test-material was Kodachrome slide.

The 27-28 Mb Nikon had the same sharpness as 18 Mb Photo-CD. So brings not extra
than a 18 Mb file. The Polaroid had more details, and was more sharp.
If you test with another more sensitive and more grainy film, you don't see
differences any more.

Colour and general scans I found it much easier to get good results with the
Polaroid than with the Nikon. The Silverfast-software brought more quality to
Nikon, but it didn't equal the Polaroid.
Only the not lining RGB chanels were unacceptable for me. Therefore I returned the
scanner and didn't buy another one, because I found the quality to less for the
price (in that time). Also the quality of the Nikon I found not high enough. The
price-tag was in relation of the few scannings that I had to do with 35 mm. I am
more used to bigger film-format. (120 rolls, 4x5 inch).

--
Regards, Lon Obers
------------------------------------------------------------
        for e-mail change "nospam" in "iae"

        http://www.iae.nl/users/lobers

   **** Umax scan examples with transparency adapter ****
        http://www.iae.nl/users/lobers/Umax/index.htm
------------------------------------------------------------

First my disclaimer, I work for Polaroid but not in the scanner group. The
opinions I am providing are mine and do not represent Polaroid.
 I have discussed the merits of SS + Vs LS  2000 with knowledgeable folks
both within and outside of Polaroid  and the following seems to be the
consensus.
The LS 2000 uses a condenser type light source and as many of you know from
expierience with condensor type enlargers they are very subseptable to dust.
With this type of light source the "Digital Ice" technology was required to
make the product acceptable. I have seen scans from a LS 2000 without "Ice"
compared to the same image scanned on a SS 35+ with the software dust
removal off. The scans from the LS2000 showed many times more dust than the
SS35+ scans. Personally I think they have done an admirable job selling a
technology they needed to make an acceptable product as a feature. Marketing
means a lot.
The LS 2000 requires its time consuming multi scan to produce the 3.6 OD. I
have not found publised the OD for a single pass scan but it is obviously
less than 3.6, probably around 3.4. The potential 3.6 OD comes at a price
which is usually sharpness as pointed out by others in this group.
Unfortunatly independent determination of O.D is not easy so as in the film
recorder business when customers ask about spot size I say forget the spec.,
look at the images. It would be nice to see some reviewer actually measure
O.D.
All in all the LS 2000 is a fine machine, I just think the SS + equally as
good and in some area's better at less money.