|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Art, I know what I see. The 4000 + was not as sharp as the canon. The GRAIN was sharp, but the IMAGE was not. So I don't think it's a focus problem. A comparison scan as good as I could get it on both scanners, at the same image size, under high magnification resulted in the canon being sharper. Possibly a bad lens on the Polaroid. It happens. But I sent a polaroid tech an image by email at top resolution (A very small area) and he said it was sharp. What can I say. It wasn't as sharp as the canon. I thought the software that came with the polaroid was pretty bad. I didn't care for the insight at all, just didn't like it. I think it was fairly easy to use, so I feel confident that I made the sharpest scan I could with it. I hated the silverfast software. I could never live with it. Didn't like anything about it. Way too complex for my needs. Tried about 20 scans, for a full day. Used both software packages. The SHARPNESS of the scan was about the same with them. Canon beat them both, IN SHARPNESS. That's the first thing I look at because if a 1200 dollar scanner can't deliver sharper results than a 2720 DPI Canon Scanner, I'm not interested in taking it much further. Yes, I could have had a bad lens on it, no doubt. Jerry > This simply flies in the face of every (and I mean every) review ever > reported with these scanners, which, if I were making such statements, > would make me wonder if I wasn't making some major error in my testing. > > Don't you find it at least somewhat troubling that your conclusions > (which were rather rushed, at that) are so contrary to those of all > other users of both the SS4000 and the SS4000+ scanners? > > It seems to me that either you should be selling that FS2710 back to > Canon so it can be studied for it's miraculous resolution properties, or > your SS4000+, in spite of the Polaroid rep's response, (what country are > you in, BTW) is defective, or you were misunderstanding the software you > were using with it. > > Otherwise, I suggest all FS2710 owners should hold onto their scanners > until something better comes along than the current 4000 dpi film > scanners on the market, since the SS4000+ is equated in terms of scan > quality to the Nikon 4000 (without the DOF issues) and better than the > FS4000. So I'm not sure where that leaves you. > > Art > > Jerry Olson wrote: > > > Neal, I'm in exactly the same boat as you. I have the 2710 and it is > > excellent for most things. I too, wanted a 4000 dpi scanner. > > > > I just tried the polaroid 4000+ and was very disappointed. It isn't as > > sharp as my 2710. In fact, it is very noticeable less sharp. The > > polaroid tech said to e mail him a sample, at 4000 dpi, (very small > > area). He thought it was just fine, and perfectly acceptable. He has > > obviously never seen a sharp scan. So I'm returning it, and will get the > > Canon 4000. I hear that is a sharp scanner. (Can't afford the Nikon, at > > twice the price). > > > > Also, the software that comes with polaroids scanner is fairly dismal. I > > couldn't get a decent black and white scan with either Silverfast OR the > > Polacolor insight software. The scans looked extremely dark in the pre > > scan, and about 4 stops too light in photoshop. Silverfast must not be > > designed for black and white photos, as all the tools were grayed out, > > so you couldn't alter the scan in the prescan mode! > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > >>Before you say 4000 dpi compared to 2900 dpi, I use my > >>current scanner Canon FS2720, for scanning slides and > >>making 4x6 prints and web or emailing. Occasionally > >>maybe an 8x10, but really if I want a decent 8x10, I > >>usually send it off to The Slideprinter in Denver. > >>That said, I'm looking for which one of these will do > >>the best with slides. I don't think they are even > >>difficult slides, but my present scanner the Canon > >>FS2720, just can't do an accurate job with a few of > >>them. Will the Canon FS4000 significantly out perform > >>the FS2720 or just produce more dpi. The Nikon has a > >>different light source, will it produce significantly > >>better results than the FS2720. Most comparisons I've > >>seen deal mostly with cropping, and dpi, and ICE, but > >>I'm really not interested in that as much as getting > >>an accurate, sharp, scan from a slide. > >> > >>I've also tried multipass in Vuescan with little > >>improvement. I think I'm getting alot out of the > >>FS2720, it just isn't quite enough. > >> > >> > > - > 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.