Bob, Version 5.0.x is posted on www.polaroidwork.com in the support section. There is a newer Beta version 5.5 on my FTP site. ftp.polaroid.com/pub/imaging/input
David -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Finally, I can talk about the SS4000+ (LONG) Is there a new version of Insight that will work with the former SS4000? Is it out of Beta yet? I have tried to look for Insight updates on the Polaroid site, but I seem to lack the roadmap for finding them. On 2/6/02 2:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich) >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Some of you might have noticed that I haven't been complaining much >about my film scanner lately. Those same people probably know I'm not >easy to please... > >So, did my Minolta Dual II suddenly get fixed, or was it replaced with a >new one that worked "like butter"? > >No such luck. > >What did happen is that over the last few months I have had what I can >honestly call "the pleasure" of testing the new Polaroid SS4000+ >scanner. In spite of the "storm", Polaroid has been pretty busy >working on new projects like the SS4000+. new versions of Insight, and >other goodies, ignoring any "doom and gloom" being reported about their >future. > >I was under non-disclosure until now to discuss the unit while >Polaroid was busy working out a few minor bugs in the software and >firmware, which, as far as I can determine, are now eradicated. > >Since I have never had a SS4000 I cannot directly compare it. But I can >compare it to the other film scanner I have owned, so here's the rundown. > >The SS4000+ I had, came in what appears to be the same shell as the >SS4000. I don't know yet if the production units will look like that or >not, since I've yet to see them on "the street". > >As anyone who has been reading this forum knows, the SCSI interfacing is >gone from the SS4000+. This unit has both USB and firewire. My >pre-production unit came with a firewire card included, but I don't know >if that is standard packaging. Unfortunately, since my computer is >running WIN 98SE, I was told I should use USB v1.1, which is slower than >the firewire. > >The first thing I noticed, is the unit is pretty large and substantial. >I guess I'd call it "solid". After seeing and feeling the heft of the >SS4000+, the HP S-10, S-20 and Minolta Dual II I've used previously seem >somewhat like toys. > >Installation: > >My computer system subscribes to the concept of the "if anything can >possibly go wrong during installation, it will" theory, so I was >expecting problems on installation of the unit and the software >(Insight). I have very rarely installed new software, let alone a >hardware peripheral without some disaster, be it a lock-up and partial >install leading up to 3 days of hair pulling while my computer lay in >pieces on the floor while I'm on the phone with tech support. So, I was >nervous about this, especially since I already had another film scanner >on the other USB port and this was a "beta" unit. > >Well, I was in for a pleasant surprise. The SS4000+ installed without >any glitches at all. It just installed the software, and became one of >the TWAIN devices available to me in Photoshop, Insight worked as stand >alone software as well, and the scanner hardware was recognized by the >computer OS. > >Time to scan... Insight came with sketchy help files, being in beta at >the time, and I have to admit I was scratching my head a couple of >times, but that's been improved upon in newer versions. My policy with >film scanner drivers has always been to only use them to capture the >image and then send it on to Photoshop for the real work. And indeed, >that's how I started my workflow with the SS4000+. But, as I let my >hair down, I began to appreciate the easy layout of Insight, and let the >natural flow take over, and I found myself using more of the features in >it before sending the file over to Photoshop. > >Now, Insight is "no Photoshop" but it is actually amazing how many >features it does have built in. In fact, if you only need to get a good >scan off the film, and don't need to do cut and paste, or compositing or >design, you can get a perfectly good result with just Insight. It has >many of the same image adjusting options that are in Photoshop, like >brightness, contrast, color balance, curves (with a histogram), >sharpening, and even resampling options for the output file. > >The trickiest part of using Insight is its reliance on film profiles. >You could avoid this by sending a "raw" scan to something like Photoshop >and playing with color balance and curves, but I found it easier to use >the profiles within Insight, which provide a starting point to adjust >from. Transparencies were relatively simple because you aren't dealing >with dye coupler masks that make negative color film orange, so you have >a few basic profiles for transparencies; Slide, Kodachrome, and >underexposed slide. With negatives its a bit more tricky because you >have to select a profile, and Polaroid doesn't have one for every film >made. Sometimes you have to guess at what film profile will work best >for your film type. The good thing is that this function is a software >matter done after the pre-scan, so you can quickly see what affect the >profile has on the image, and you can run through them until you find >the best one for the film you are working with. > >The hardware is basically a large shoebox shaped case. It has only one >button, a big orange one that turns the scanner on, and two LEDS that >tell you its status. There is a good sized panel in the front that has >a slot to allow the carriers in, and which "floats" independently from >the rest of the front, so that the carrier position can be raised or >lowered for focusing. There is also a slot in the back of the unit to >allow the carrier to pass through partially during scans. The unit >makes a series of different sounds depending upon the function >activated. Overall, it is both quieter and faster than the other >scanners I have owned. > >The slide carrier takes 4 mounted 35mm slides, the film carrier takes up >to six frames of unmounted 35mm film. The slide carrier is very easy to >work with, the film carrier was, at least for me, awkward. It >could be made quicker to use, in my opinion. If you are doing >"production scans" best to have at least two carriers at hand so you can >load one while scanning the other. > >Prescans are very quick, and are large so you can really see what >you are looking at. Some prescans on other film scanners I've had are >very small or such low resolution that they are difficult to determine >what one is looking at. > >Scan Quality: Well, this is what its really all about, I suppose. No >matter how nice the software is, or how pretty the box the scanner >comes in, if the scans are no good, what's the point? > >The scan quality from the SS4000+ was amazing. Since the SS4000+ seems >to recalibrate before each scan, I didn't see any streaking, or "lazy >sensors", and believe me, after the problems I had with other >scanners, I was looking for problems. I looked for color fringing, or >images out of registration, but there was none. Then I looked for the >usual party of "noisemakers" in the shadows of slides. Nope. I tried >playing with levels in Photoshop to force some stuff hidden in the >shadows to show itself. It wasn't until I ended up with an image that >was beyond recognition that I was able to make anything approaching >"noise" show up. > >Basically, this scanner does not create noise in shadows, under any >normal scanning conditions. The next thing I looked at was the >gradients and grain. Now, I know that many claim that scanners in the >2400 to 2700 dpi range amplify grain, and that may explain what I'm >about to write. I think the thing that most amazed me was how grainless >most scans from the SS4000+ of my slides were, compared to the other >scanners I have used. As a result of the exaggerated grain my others >scanners have exhibited, I got into the habit of being very judicious >with using unsharp masking, because it usually made the grain that much >more apparent. > >Well, with the SS4000+ at 4000 dpi, my scans could handle pretty much >any level of unsharp masking I threw at them without showing grain. At >first, I suspected Polaroid had defocused the unit to reduce grain, but >this isn't the case. The sharpness of the image was certainly there. I >think it has something to do with the lighting design. Both >dust/dirt/defects and grain get suppressed without sacrificing sharpness >(the unit has auto focus, by the way, and it seems to do a good job of it). > >My Minolta Dual II is sharper than my previous HP S-10 and S-20, BUT, >I've had to put up with pretty serious increases in the amount of grain, >dust and dirt that shows up on the scans. Again, I suspect it is the >lighting used. The SS4000+ seems to take advantage of the lighting >design to maintain the image sharpness while leaving behind the parts >that don't really add to the image. And while the scans do require some >unsharp masking, as do all scans, getting them up to the original >definition, adds no noise or defects. In fact, I was able to >push the USM (unsharp masking) to the point where the image was looking >sharper than the original and still didn't exhibit noise or distracting >artifacts. > >Since depth of field issues often come up in regard to film scanners, I >can tell you I saw no softness on the edges of any slides I scanned >unless it was there on the source slide to begin with. > >You need to have a goodly amount of hard drive or other storage space >available because the scans are about 56 megs (in 8 bit color) or 112 >megs (in 16 bit color), depending on how you wish to capture them. > >Although I did not get a chance to use Silverfast with the SS4000+ (I >had a beta version available, but didn't have the time) it should be >available for the SS4000+ now or in the near future. I believe it >allows for multipass scanning, although I don't know if you'd see much >advantage since the scanner is already so noiseless. > >Since the SS4000+ has a higher bit depth than the SS4000, it should, in >theory, have a better dynamic range than the later. Others have >mentioned that the SS4000 is pretty much noiseless in shadows, so I >guess the SS4000+ is just quieter still. Lastly, the one sent to me >didn't come with a cleaning brush, so I assume the problem with dust >getting in the carrier positioning sensor has been resolved, as well. > >Is the SS4000+ "magic"? No. I still struggled somewhat to get decent >scans from my older negatives which are grainy or fading, and although >it is considerably faster than the other scanners I've worked >with, for production use, it would be nice to have an automated slide >feeder. But, it is the best film scanner I have used, by quite a >distance. If it is in your price range, it will certainly save you some >headaches that other scanners serve up. > >Art > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------- >Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >filmscanners' >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title >or body > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from rly-za05.mx.aol.com (rly-za05.mail.aol.com >[172.31.36.101]) by air-za02.mail.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id >MAILINZA22-0206050515; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 05:05:15 -0500 >Received: from wan-a-97.adsl.alcom.co.uk (wan-a-97.adsl.alcom.co.uk >[212.47.80.97]) by rly-za05.mx.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id >MAILRELAYINZA51-0206050435; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 05:04:35 -0500 >X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 01:42:31 -0800 >Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Accept-Language: en-us >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) >Gecko/20011128Netscape6/6.2.1 >X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-UIDL: _uxG.OqPY8.sulphur >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] Finally, I can talk about the SS4000+ (LONG) > Bob Goldstein 408/253-4489 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
