On 15 Jul 2003 at 22:28, Herb Chong wrote:
> rumor has it that Nikon is going to be dropping the 4000ED and replacing it with
> a new model, possibly at a lower cost. nothing substantial enough for me to know
> whether i should believe the rumor or not. the list price plus rebate has
> dropped to
TED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 22:21
Subject: Re: Funny news
> Two darned good reasons for me to look into dumping the FS 4000 in
> favor of the 4000ED. But the last time I looked, the price of the
> 4000ED would buy me about four weekends of racing, where the FS4000
> only cost me about one and a half. :-)
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:16:04 -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
> the Nikon 4000ED has a full roll holder. you put the entire roll
> in. it also is much faster. the minimal processing 4000dpi scan
> takes under 40 seconds per frame. the change in speed is negligible
> to drop to 1000 dpi.
Two darned good r
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 18:36
Subject: Re: Funny news
> That depends on the scanner. Even ignoring the time required to swap
> six-frame strips, scanning is much slower at 4000 ppi than at 1000 dpi
> on my Canon FS4000. Like, 100
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:31:48 +0400, Boris Liberman wrote:
> The town where I live has only one Pro Foto Shop. It has many Foto
> Shops, but only one grades itself as Pro. Anyway, my two most recent
> films were scanned at 4000dpi with Nikon CoolScan 4000.
Boy, I wish I could get that in my area
A 4000 dpi scan with a bit depth of 16 bits/color give a file that is around 120 mb.
See if turning on ICE cleans up the scans without hurting resolution too much. FARE on
the Canon scanners works great without hurting resolution; I do not have to do any
post scan clean up with FARE set to stand
6 matches
Mail list logo
