Re: Proposal for Scanner Comparison

[Jerry Olson <jerryolson@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Art,

 I tried unsharp masking. Didn't work, just added grainy like particles,
even at a fairly low 100 amount, threshold 3, and radius of .07, my
usual settings. My Digital Canon images can easily take 500 amount
without showing any artifacts at all. But not the polaroid scanner! The
grain in the sky was very sharp when brought into photoshop, but the
cross lit brick wall taken on a tripod at f8 with a canon macro lens and
ISO 100 Fujicolor was not. That image was sharper on the 2710 F. That
would indicate a lens that wasn't all that sharp, although why the sky
grain is sharp and the brick wall wasn't is a little confusing. The
negative is VERY sharp.  I really disliked both insight software and
Silver fast.  

When using silver fast when scanning black and white negatives, I was
unable to get any scan that was acceptable. All the tools were grayed
out, like curves, levels, etc. Prescans came in terribly dark, even
though the neg was a properly exposed one. Then when it opened in
photoshop it was about 4 stops overexposed. I tried every setting
imaginable all day yesterday, from both softwares, and had terrible luck
with black and white negs.  Color negs could be made perfect on the
prescan with the tools, but when imported into photoshop they were so
far off there was no reason to do any prescan fixes in the first place,
as they all had to be done over in photoshop.  I have my monitor
calibrated with Spyder's Color cal device, and on my other scanner, what
I see on the monitor is the way it prints. So my monitor is ok.

I just got fed up and boxed up the scanner. It's going back tomorrow.

I'll try the canon. Can't afford the nikon.

There's no point in getting any 4000 dpi scanner if it isn't as good as
my Canon 2710FS.  

Jerry

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