Message-Id: <mailto:199410051333.IAA25735@library.wustl.edu> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 06:33:24 -0700 From: Steve Davis <mailto:daviss@ELWHA.EVERGREEN.EDU> Subject: Re: Slide Scanners To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB <mailto:IMAGELIB@ARIZVM1.BITNET>
I've tested the Polaroid scanner. I regularly use the Nikon Coolscan, and an older Kodak, the "RFS", so I have something to compare it to. With Windows, (I don't know about the Mac,) I found the software to lack some very necessary, or at least convenient options. For instance, there is no gamma control. It scans slides OK without a gamma correction, but it did a really poor job with color negatives. Also, it tended to leave fine vertical scan lines through the images. Hopefully, it just needed to have some dust blown out.The Kodak we have is fast in scanning, but low in resolution. It has lousy software, and takes forever to set up for a good scan. However, it ultimately produces clean scans. The Nikon does an excellent job, but it's a very delicate little thing, and won't take any abuse. After a year we had to send it to Nikon for parts replacements. But then we let students use it, and they can be rough.
On Wed, 5 Oct 1994, Trudy Jacoby wrote:
> To confuse the slide scanner issue further:
> I am looking for information on the relative quality, ease, time, etc. on
> the Nikon Coolscan, the Polaroid Sprint Scan and the Kodak RFS 2035 or 2035
> Plus.
>
> I know the Kodak scanners are more expensive, but might it be worth the
> extra expense?
> I have been told that there may be a software problem with the Polaroid.
> Does anyone know anything about this?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Trudy Jacoby
>
> Trudy Jacoby
> Trinity College, Hartford CT
> mailto:trudy.jacoby@trincoll.edu
> 203-297-2194
>