I realize this may be a old question, but I am just now able to get a new film scanner. Question: Nikon Coolscan or Polariod 4000 They are both the same price. Thank you for any help on this question.

-- Michael Geib (apmichael@yahoo.com), June 18, 2000

Answers

Well, I have to say I'm a Nikon freak but in this case I bought the Polaroid. It depends what you need though, the Nikon is better at some things. Here's the reason I bought the Polaroid, higher resolution which is very usable (4000ppi vs. 2800ppi) and give incredible detail. Larger file sizes 58MB or 124MB (48 bit) for pin sharp 13x19 on Epson 1270 and fantastic 17x22 off Epson 3000. Now... You MUST buy Silverfast scanning software as Polacolor is rather limited and Silverfast lets you multisample like the Nikon :) The Nikon would be perfect if I was restoring or scanning many slides. Its digital ice is a real time saver and scanning tons of slides is very simple. Personally my film is kept in great condition so I dont often work with banged up negatives, BUT if I was I would get the Nikon... the Dmax of the Nikon is 3.6 but I couldn't see real world difference in shadow noise. Either one is great though and you can't go wrong, that probably didn't make your decision any easier, sorry! :)

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), June 18, 2000.

I can second the above. I've got a Coolscan 2000 and have been very happy with it. There was a special offer on when i got mine to include photoshop LE & SilverFast which i can't recommend highly enough.

Haven't used the Polaroid, so i can't really comment on that. Bit i would say that to get the full benefit of the 4000ppi you should be using fine grain slow films. Even with 'only' 2700 ppi on the Nikon, its beyond the limit of film grain on some films.

Also focus becomes an issue, especially when images are enlarged to A3 and beyond.

all the best

Martin

-- Martin Ellis (inca@globalnet.co.uk), June 19, 2000.