Re: Proposal for Scanner Comparison

[Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@xxxxxxx>]

Jerry,

I don't own the Canon 2710, but I do own the Minolta Dual II (2820 dpi) 
and have access to the Polaroid SS4000+.  On first blush, I came to some 
similar conclusion as you did, but that quickly changed when I used 
unsharp masking.  I was able to get nearly noiseless, non-artifacted 
results also without regard  to how much I pushed the unsharp masking 
with the SS4000+ scan, resulting in a very sharp, even hypersharp image, 
if I wanted it.

The Minolta scanned image, on the other hand, fell apart very quickly 
with a bit of USM, very much restricting how much it could be sharpened.

  Also, if you are not using Insight, make sure the unit is focusing. 
Silverfast and maybe Vuescan have an option to manually focus.  Insight 
has the autofocus on, as I recall (check preferences to see if there is 
anything to check there), I can't recall, and I'm not running the 
software right now.).  Also, make sure on the last page of Insight (the 
page you are on just prior to final scanning) that you have the 
resolution set to 4000 dpi.  I seem to recall it defaulting at 2000 or 
something like that.

Art

Jerry Olson wrote:

> Hi Phil,
> 
> Will be anxiously awaiting your tests.
> 
> First impressions with the polaroid 4000 plus aren't as good as I was
> expecting. The images scanned at 4000 DPI Optical are not as sharp as the Canon
> 2710 FS which it was going to replace. I also got more shadow detail from the
> canon, but learning the software correctly would probably fix that. However if
> I can't get past the sharpness problem, I'll be returning it. The problem may
> be with the scanner, as the differenceis quite noticeable. The results should
> have been reversed.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Carl Grohs wrote:
> 
> 
>>From: "Phil.Lippincott" <phil.lippincott@worldnet.att.net>
>>Subject: Re: Proposal for Scanner Comparison
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>I personally am also planning now on a new web site where
>>over 40 scanner comparisons , with objective benchmarks will be online for
>>people to see first hand what they do versus the marketing claims.
>>
>>Phil Lippincott
>>
>>*************************
>>
>>Wonderful idea, can't  wait. A source for unbiased information with which to
>>make an informed decision-what a novel idea! Just curious, if you don't
>>mind, what will be the source of the scanners tested? I would find it hard
>>to believe that the manufacturers themselves would be willing to participate
>>in holding their equipment up to independent testing.
>>
>>Warmest Regards,
>>Carl Grohs, Jr.    Design Directions    Eden, NC
>>
>>Good scan info site:
>>www.scantips.com
>>List archives:
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scan
>>
>>-
>>Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
>>subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>>
> 
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
> 
> 


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