Re: Re[2]: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?

["Jim Ives" <flyboy9990@earthlink.net>]

Tim,
    I have a SS4000 and have never had a problem with it of any kind.

Jim Ives
 http://flyboy999.freeyellow.com
 flyboy9990@earthlink.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Thomas" <matt@stevet.net>
To: "Matt BenDaniel" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?


> Tim,
>
>   I bought the SS4000 from Matt BenDaniel and it has been working great
>   for me.  Fortunately, I have not had the problem Matt B describes
>   with negatives.
>
>   I would suggest also purchasing a copy of VueScan ($40,
>   www.hamrick.com), regardless of what scanner you eventually purchase.
>
> -Matt Thomas
>
> Thursday, January 10, 2002, 8:27:38 AM, you wrote:
>
> MB> Tim,
>
> MB> My SS4000 produced high quality output.  I sold mine because I moved
to
> MB> medium format.  4000 DPI is overkill except for tech pan.  Yes, the
> MB> price has become very attractive.
>
> MB> I did have a nagging problem with it, even thoguh I sent to back to
the
> MB> factory for repair.  It sometimes dismally failed to properly
recognize
> MB> negative frame positions.  I think that may have something to do with
> MB> the fact that AP negatives tend to be very dark.  The workaround was
to
> MB> exit the control application and try again.  It usually but not always
> MB> worked on the second try.  I have heard of two other AP users that had
> MB> the same problem.  It is clearly a design flaw.
>
> MB> Matt
>
> MB> Tim Kearsley wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm a complete newcomer to this list and to film astrophotography,
though I
> >> have some CCD imaging experience.  I now want to break free of the tiny
> >> imaging area that CCDs (at least those I can afford!) permit and do
some
> >> wider angle work.
> >>
> >> My question relates to the suitability of film scanners for
astronomical
> >> subjects.  At the moment the price of the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 here
in
> >> the UK is fairly attractive.  Does anyone have experience of how
suitable or
> >> otherwise this model is for astro use?  I read the excellent review of
an
> >> earlier Sprintscan model (the 35 I believe) on Philip Perkins' web site
and
> >> he concluded that this was a very useful bit of kit.  How does this
later
> >> (and cheaper I presume) model compare?
> >>
> >> Many thanks,
> >>
> >> Tim Kearsley
> >> Northamptonshire
> >> England
> >>
> >> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
> >>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>
>
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>