|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Jerry Olson wrote: > Art, if the polaroid lens is not as sharp as the canon, that would be > the reason the main subject, the brick wall wasn't as sharp as the canon > lens in the canon scanner. THe image was a brick wall cross lit by the > sun, a VERY sharp situation for showing what a good lens can do. > Jerry, A poor lens would also show poor grain resolution. Is the brick wall in a different location than the sky (like the sky is at the top and the brick wall at the bottom of a vertical image?) If this were so, perhaps the film carrier was angled in some manner and focus was varied by this. Did you try reversing the film orientation and seeing it that had any effect? I really don't know what else to say. If your results were typical, everyone would be running out to buy Canon FS2710 units at less than half the price of these 4000 dpi scanners. I can't directly compare the FS 2710 with the SS4000+, BUT, I am in correspondence with someone who has both the FS-2710 and the Minolta Dual II. And I have the Minolta Dual II and the SS4000+. The person who has the Canon and the Minolta has sent me samples. The Canon has considerably nosier shadows (with green noise) than the Minolta. The Minolta is also sharper, but it suffers from grain (and other spots) aliasing (it is both actually sharper and it is perceptually much sharper due to the aliasing - in fact you might like it) ;-) The Minolta with the slow exposure in Vuescan really cleans up the shadows. As of the last time I heard, this feature is less effective with the Canon. Now, I have the Minolta Dual II and the SS4000+, as I stated, and the SS4000+ blows the Minolta out of the water for both "real" sharpness and for shadow detail. It is also faster to use, and I prefer the software to the Minolta. Having not used the Canon's software, I can't comment on it. We are going to have to agree to disagree in this matter, because we each have our own experiences. I would ultimately be interested if you are able to find a scanner sharper than the Canon FS-2710, using your criterion. Art > >>I honestly do not understand how the below statement can be accurate. I >>can see how the image can be sharp while the grain is not, through >>diffused lighting, but not how the grain can be sharp while the image is >>not, unless it was in different areas of the image. >> >>As to the software, I can only assume it doesn't fit your workflow >>habits, but I find it both easy to work with and effective. >> > > For me, I just didn't like the way it worked. With the canon, when I > scan a slide or negative, it takes about 5 minutes in the preview scan > to correct all the things that need correcting. The prescan is usually > very accurate as far as color goes, and not too much is needed in > photoshop. Negatives take longer. BUt this isn't my complaint with the > polaroid. I can do all that in photoshop. I was ONLY interested in a > sharper image than I was getting with the canon, which is pretty darn > good, I'm finding out. > > Jerry > - > 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.