Re: Noise on my SS4000

["Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@xxxxxxx>]

When I'm not using my SS4000, I try to keep a small towel draped over 
it. Is there a dust cover made for it? I'm not sure the towel helps, 
but I haven't noticed getting dusty scans, despite the fact that my 
workstation generally does get dusty. (I have vague intentions of 
trying the Friedrich air cleaner/filter Consumer Reports recommended 
in its recent survey of them.)

I'd rather have the 4000+ Art has, but I'm still using my 4000 for 
old 35mm slides and negatives. I plan to use it also for 
newly-exposed film in the case of images I want scanned at more 
samples per inch than the highest (2048 spi) of the five Kodak 
PhotoCD resolutions with which I'm experimenting, mostly at 16 bits.

Three 36-exposure rolls of film - I'm starting with Kodak's Supra - 
are developed and scanned uncut and returned in plastic sleeves along 
with the Kodak PhotoCD CD and a print of the 108 small thumbnails. 
For about $100 total, including the cost of the film and the 
mailing/shipping, i.e., for about a dollar per exposure, at Jim's 
Digital Photo Lab (1-877-762-7894) in Littleton, Colorado. For my 
first few orders I've been satisfied with everything except a lack of 
communication from Jim's about when orders are received and shipped. 
But I'd appreciate any references to other labs.

Other than cropping, the Kodak PhotoCD scans typically seem to me to 
require little if any work in Photoshop except for some sharpening. I 
don't doubt that Art can do better scans, but I do doubt that I could 
or would anytime soon. And sometime soon I expect to switch to a 
digital camera. (I wish I knew when "soon" is.)

The highest-resolution Kodak PhotoCD scans also seem to me to print 
ok up to at least 8 x 10 in the case of the Supra 400. And the 
minimally-handled, sleeved negatives together with the CD seem to me 
an inexpensive supplement to whatever Photoshop files I might try to 
archive. Instead of creating those via the 4000, I could instead send 
negatives back for Kodak Pro PhotoCD scans at 4096 spi. But I haven't 
done it.

I've been experimenting with Supra because I believe Kodak designed 
it both not to distort colors and to scan well. I'd appreciate any 
suggestions about alternatives.

Sam               samcc@vom.com


>I am using the SS4000+, which is a higher bit capture, and may have 
>different characteristics than the SS4000.  The noise 
>characteristics of the SS4000 have usually been discussed by those 
>who own them as low relative to similar CCD scanners in the 
>marketplace.
>
>My experience with PCD was awful, and I would NEVER use it again. 
>In my case the turn around time was weeks, the color was way off 
>(very green and dark).  The images were not fully cleaned and I 
>ended up with a lot of cleaning work.  In some cases the cropping 
>was off or the scan was not squared properly.  Finally, the one disk 
>I had done (and its on a Kodak gold disk) doesn't read for some 
>files.
>
>In fairness, the company that did the work went out of business 
>(deservingly).  I like knowing where my films are (especially after 
>10:00 PM ;-)).  I love having access to a good scanner, allowing me 
>to scan what I need when I need it, the way I need it, and at the 
>resolution I require.  I'd never trade.  BUT, if you have a very 
>good lab you trust to work well and quickly, there might be some 
>advantage. I have yet to see a PCD scan that is as good as mine, but 
>again, I haven't studies one in many years, and I image the PCD 
>systems have improved as have desktop scanners.
>
>Art
>
>Scott Whittle wrote:
>
>>Thanks everyone for the input on cleaning out my dusty SS4000.  I did try
>>spraying out the dust, although I'm not sure how much good it did.  I did
>>some comparisons between a Kodak Photo CD scan (18MB) vs a 4000DPI scan I
>>did with the SS4000, and was shocked to see that there was a lot more noise
>>in the SS4000 scan.  It just looked "grainier", if that makes sense.  Makes
>>me think that maybe I should just be making $1.75 scans at the lab and save
>>myself the headache of spending hours trying to get a decent scan out of the
>>Polaroid.  The time saved would be significant...I spent $65 to for 30
>>perfect PhotoCD scans, in comparison to the 5 or so hours it took to make
>>those same 30 scans at home and then spot, adjust, etc.  Comments, anyone?
>>
>>Scott W
>>scottwhittle@scottwhittle.com

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.