I need input from someone who has experience with both the Nikon LS-2000 and Polaroid 4000 scanners. I am trying to decide if I should buy a 4000 to improve the image quality for 11x16 prints. However, I wouldn't buy the 4000 on the basis of resolution alone. The image quality would have to be comparable to the LS-2000 I have, especially for color negatives.

I have heard rumors of a new Nikon 35 mm scanner. Does anybody know anything about this?

Thanks for any response.

Eric

-- Eric B. (ericblair@earthlink.net), June 19, 1999

Answers

That Polaroid scanner is not ready for prime time yet, I am sorry to say. On paper, the specs are great, but the machine doensn't work yet as advertised. (Many have said this also about the nikon too though.) My problems are: A scsi time out error that was fixed by the new Polaroid Insight 3.1 scanning software. Now the errors are scanning a different frame than the one selected, a dark band through the middle of the scan in high tone subjects, and random lockups in the preview stage. I am running a Mac 8500 150 200 megs ram OS 8.6. Polaroid was somewhat helpful when I pursued them on these issues, but now their response is just to send the whole thing in for repair.

I haven't used the Nikon much. Just in the store. I was amazed at how little difference there was in the scans between the $700 scanner and the $1700 scanner. The only difference was perhaps an extra half stop of tone in the shadow values on the $1700 model. I still think the shadows go too dark on nearly all desktop scanners. On the lighttable, you can see all sorts of interesting details in the shadows that these scanners just black out.

I don't think much of the Digital ICE feature yet. I scan fresh transparencies typically, so I don't need their image repairing software. Who beats up their negs that much? I am skeptical as to whether Digital Ice should be the basis of your purchase. The polaroid has some simple software generated dust reduction features.

With the polaroid, you also need a real fast processor. The system I have described above has plenty of ram, but the processor is too slow. Something around 400-500 mghz should be pretty good. The scan time at full res does work as advertised, but all the post scan processing does take a fair amount of time.

One last note. In forums, you generally only hear from people who have been irritated to death by the problems their expensive purchases have caused. Me included.

-- Lorenzo (Lorenzo46@hotmail.com), June 22, 1999.

Lorenzo, what do you mean by "doesn't work as it's advertised"?

I recently bought the Polaroid SprintScan 4000. I haven't found any real problems yet, but then again I haven't worked on it much yet. To me, the most annoying thing about it is the touchy film carrier mechanism.

Mine came with Polacolor Insight 2.0. I am using a G3 (350 megahertz) with 192 MB RAM.

-- Patricia Lee (patricia.s.lee@lmco.com), June 22, 1999.

Thanks for your feedback. I am new to this forum, but it looks to be a nice one.

I find that the Nikon LS-2000 has very good shadow detail, although a 4x scan is recommended to reduce noise. Lorenzo, I hope your judgement was not based on the preview image, which is always too dark and crude regardless of the settings. I even installed the newer Nikon software to no avail. I use the RGB values to set the black and white points accurately. Both the Nikon film strip holder and slide holder are dreadful to center correctly. There is also very little depth of field so focusing accurately on one part of the image may compromise another part. I guess that these limitations are to be expected with "cheap" desktop scanners.

I am not familiar with any image processing times more than a few seconds with the Nikon scanner (even with 56 MB 48-bit files). I hope your computer and not the Polaroid scanner is the slow part. Once the scan is finished, can't you just save it as a TIF file and work with it in Photoshop?

I am surprised to hear Lorenzo say that 200 MB of RAM is plenty; I would think that at least 384 would be necessary to avoid hitting the hard drive when working with multiple layers in Photoshop. I am currently using an unlocked PII (400) at 464 MHz with 768 MB of RAM and 32 GB total disk space. I have worked with several 60-80 MB composite files without too much difficulty, so my hardware should be sufficient. However, I may upgrade to a PIII @585 or 620 MHz and add a fast 27 GB drive in August.

I wish the Imaging Resource would do a full review of the Polaroid 4000. Any ideas as to when a review will be available?

Thanks again, Eric

-- Eric B. (ericblair@earthlink.net), June 24, 1999.

There is a review of the Polaroid 4000 at: http://luminous- landscape.com/digital1.htm#Scanner

-- Steve Rosenblum (srosenblum@maybaum.med.umich.edu), June 24, 1999.

I have a Nikon LS-2000, and have spent considerable time with it now, probably have scanned 500 slides/film. I'm getting much better scans now that I have some experience with it. I recently scanned the same image over and over in several different ways, and have found out a few things. To get the very best scans, what I do is select 16x oversampling (provides for a lenthly scan), and ICE with sharpening (again, more scan time). Using the ICE with sharpening appears to work better than the unmasking filter in Photoshop. I have never been impressed with ANY software based "dust removal"! Nikon's ICE is hardware related, changing the focus of the lens as it scans to eliminate surface debris, scratches, etc, and works very well. I also turn off the Nikon color management. Everything else is LEFT ALONE, for Photoshop to work with! Photoshop's curves and histograms, etc. can provide a truly outstanding image from the LS- 2000's raw scan with ICE (sharpened). I use ICE with sharpening, because MOST of my films/slides have SOME dust or possibly a small scratch or something on them. SOme folks say that their transparencies are in immaculent condition, but I think most people's film and slides are not. Also, with Nikon's LED technology, these specks and scratches are probably more easily picked up by the scanner.

I have never used the manual focus on the LS-2000, I have no need to; the autofocus is excellent every time.

I read that review that Steve mentioned and can only say that any review is better than no review. As far as I'm concerned the review doesn't say much. He never mentions 16x oversampling, and discards ICE as something he's not interested in (although I think most people would be). He has no LS-2000 to compare it to (he has an LS-1000), other than just one scan he saw in the store, which I don't believe is much of any comparison. He states that the 4000 has better shadow detail, but again this is only his interpetation based on the scan he did in the store.

I too would really like to see a professional, thorough review of the ss4000. If it were a better scanner, I would probably get one.

Polaroid should make a twain driver for their scanner, I think it's the least they could do considering the price we pay for these things.

Alan Stater

-- Alan Stater (stater@worldnet.att.net), June 26, 1999.