35mm slides scanner clarification questions

In article <Xns976E49E159319ReplyID DeleteThis @216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> wrote:

> You're qute adamant that your product is a superior solution,

Where have I stated that it is superior?

That you are reading in. I stated the features and my experience with it
and told you the name of a very sucessful commercial operation that your
dealer knows well and can check with (Wolfes).

We are not in any position to try to compete with Nikon nor do we try
to. You seem to feel that we should. We can't.

If you have further questions we will happily answer them honestly.

But don't ask for comparisons from us because we don't do them.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today Bob Salomon commented courteously on the subject at
hand

>> You're qute adamant that your product is a superior
>> solution,
>
> Where have I stated that it is superior?

Not much, just every damn word you've used to describe the
Braun 4000. You've not said anybody elses scanner is lousy, at
least you're bright enough to not do that, but the tone of
your comments clearly shows you are constantly in "sales
mode".

Come on, Bob. Come out of the closet and tell us some of the
not-so-nice features of a 4000, or the really bad stuff. I
don't know what, but I'm sure they're there. Then, how about
MTBF, and compare that objectively to your competition. Or,
let me guess, you don't know your own or Nikon's.

> That you are reading in. I stated the features and my
> experience with it and told you the name of a very
> sucessful commercial operation that your dealer knows well
> and can check with (Wolfes).
>
> We are not in any position to try to compete with Nikon nor
> do we try to. You seem to feel that we should. We can't.

Are you learning impaired? Whether you or your company
(HP/Braun) are true competors of a Nikon XXX, you are, by
definition, "competing" with them. You've been in "compete"
mode since you first answered my OP, although now you're in
backpeddle mode trying to salvage a hopeless situation - that
you created for yourself.

> If you have further questions we will happily answer them
> honestly.

I stopped asking when it became apparent that the answers are
at best incomplete, and at worst, severely biased.

> But don't ask for comparisons from us because we don't do
> them.

Why not? Take a look an many products web sites for a side-by-
side comparo to key comptive products? I hardly expect you to
give a ringing endorsement of Nikon, but is astounds me that
you have zero.zero knowledge of what they can do, or what they
can't.

Back to my opening remarks, please tell me what I /really/
need to know, including the warts, of a Braun 4000. If you
can't or won't, I "understand". I also won't spend my money
with Braun.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976E49E159319ReplyID.TakeThisOut@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour.TakeThisOut@beez.wax> wrote:

> and
> a solution that involves going to one specific store in the
> entire U.S. doesn't make me "all warm and fuzzy."

We have 900 dealers in the USA selling our products in photo. Adrays is
one of them. We don't tell you which store you should buy from. That is
your decision.

We told you of one specific store your store knows well who does use the
product as somewhere your dealer can check for you. We never told you to
buy from a KS store.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976E5358447EAReplyID.TakeThisOut@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour.TakeThisOut@beez.wax> wrote:

> you drive rice burners

No I drive German

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976E54912450EReplyID.DeleteThis@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour.DeleteThis@beez.wax> wrote:

> Then, how about
> MTBF

Since the original 3600 version was introduced in 2002 at Photokina we
have had 2 units that had to be replaced. One was a 3600 and one is a
4000 with a defective reverse switch out of the box. That unit will be
replaced as soon as our next shipment is received.

You asked earlier for the negatives and the positives and we told them
to you.

If you had asked about repairs then we would have also answered your
question.

As I mentioned long ago. This scanner has a 2 year warranty against
manufacturing defects. That is a very long warranty period for a scanner
or any piece of consumer electronics. There would not be a 2 year
warranty against manufacturing defects if we had a MTBF that did not
support an extended warranty period.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <bob_salomon-BDE584.16225417022006 RemoveThis @news.isp.giganews.com>,
Bob Salomon <bob_salomon RemoveThis @mindspring.com> writes
>> Have you ever determined how long it would take to scan an 8x11
>> area at 2000+ dpi?
>> James Silverton
>> Potomac, Maryland.
>
>Let me suggest another solution, assuming you have a DSLR with a macro
>lens that goes to 1:1.
>
For most DSLRs you don't even need that - given the cropped focal plane.
So, unless you have a full frame dSPR, either a macro that goes to
1:1.3, 1:1.6 or 1:2 will be adequate, depending on your flavour of dSLR.

It will be quick, but the results will not be as good as a Nikon 5000
scan though, for several reasons, including:

* limited true resolution - the dSLR has a Bayer matrix sensor requiring
interpolation of two colours for each pixel, whilst the scanner
generates an rgb sample at every pixel.
* limited Dmax of the dSLR - most are only 12-bits whilst the scanner is
16-bits. You could counteract this by exposure bracketing by 4 stops on
the dSLR and merging the results - even getting an improved Dmax.
* no dust removal, but if your film is Kodachrome then ICE won't work
reliably, unless you get the Nikon 9000 scanner with Pro-ICE.
* increased optical distortion and loss of sharpness at the edges - the
scanner lens only has to maintain performance along the sensor axis (to
the edge of the short side of the frame), and moves across the film with
the rest of the scan mechanism, while the macro lens on the dSLR has to
maintain performance right across the field - and the corners of a 35mm
frame are almost twice as far off axis as the short edges.

I could go on, but you should get the picture - a dSLR route may seem
fast, but only if you can tolerate a significant performance sacrifice,
and even then, loading up individual slides into the copier takes longer
than loading a stack of slides into the bulk feeder.

At the moment, the best solution for this requirement is the Nikon with
the bulk film loader. Buying new, that restricts the choice to the
LS-5000, but you will get very good prices on used LS-4000 scanners,
which take the SF-210 bulk adapter as well. Actual scan times on the
LS-4000 are roughly twice those on the LS-5000 (38s per frame compared
to 20s) but most of the actual time is taken by pre-scanning for
autofocus and autofocus and then post processing for ICE and colour
management. So the end result is that on similar machines, the LS-4000
scans are about 20-30s longer than LS-5000 scans.

Something nobody seems to have mentioned so far, which may be important:
although the SF-210 only takes 50 slides at a go, the hopper is
refillable during the batch making it essentially an unlimited volume
bulk scanner. So kick it off with 50 scans and come back a couple of
hours later and add in another 40 or so.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today Kennedy McEwen commented courteously on the subject at
hand

Kennedy, while I wasn't too smart on dedicated scanners even a
few days ago, I already knew you are spot-on about any DSLR
priced anything under the trophosphere, certainly something
like my Canon Rebel XT.

Bob Solomon's "suggestion" is just another example of a
saleman doing anything he can to hawk his wares, without any
regard to what his customers will find out - later. If I made
my money on commisions, I'd be volume-oriented, too. But, not
in a camera NG where nobody knows you're the resident company
shill.

>>Let me suggest another solution, assuming you have a DSLR
>>with a macro lens that goes to 1:1.
>>
> For most DSLRs you don't even need that - given the cropped
> focal plane. So, unless you have a full frame dSPR, either
> a macro that goes to 1:1.3, 1:1.6 or 1:2 will be adequate,
> depending on your flavour of dSLR.
>
> It will be quick, but the results will not be as good as a
> Nikon 5000 scan though, for several reasons, including:
>
> * limited true resolution - the dSLR has a Bayer matrix
> sensor requiring interpolation of two colours for each
> pixel, whilst the scanner generates an rgb sample at every
> pixel. * limited Dmax of the dSLR - most are only 12-bits
> whilst the scanner is 16-bits. You could counteract this
> by exposure bracketing by 4 stops on the dSLR and merging
> the results - even getting an improved Dmax. * no dust
> removal, but if your film is Kodachrome then ICE won't work
> reliably, unless you get the Nikon 9000 scanner with
> Pro-ICE. * increased optical distortion and loss of
> sharpness at the edges - the scanner lens only has to
> maintain performance along the sensor axis (to the edge of
> the short side of the frame), and moves across the film
> with the rest of the scan mechanism, while the macro lens
> on the dSLR has to maintain performance right across the
> field - and the corners of a 35mm frame are almost twice as
> far off axis as the short edges.
>
> I could go on, but you should get the picture - a dSLR
> route may seem fast, but only if you can tolerate a
> significant performance sacrifice, and even then, loading
> up individual slides into the copier takes longer than
> loading a stack of slides into the bulk feeder.
>
> At the moment, the best solution for this requirement is
> the Nikon with the bulk film loader. Buying new, that
> restricts the choice to the LS-5000, but you will get very
> good prices on used LS-4000 scanners, which take the SF-210
> bulk adapter as well. Actual scan times on the LS-4000 are
> roughly twice those on the LS-5000 (38s per frame compared
> to 20s) but most of the actual time is taken by
> pre-scanning for autofocus and autofocus and then post
> processing for ICE and colour management. So the end
> result is that on similar machines, the LS-4000 scans are
> about 20-30s longer than LS-5000 scans.
>
> Something nobody seems to have mentioned so far, which may
> be important: although the SF-210 only takes 50 slides at a
> go, the hopper is refillable during the batch making it
> essentially an unlimited volume bulk scanner. So kick it
> off with 50 scans and come back a couple of hours later and
> add in another 40 or so.



--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976ED8CEE9824ReplyID DeleteThis @216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> wrote:

> If I made
> my money on commisions, I'd be volume-oriented, too.

So would I but like you I am salaried. You make far to many assumptions.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:39:43 -0500, Bob Salomon
<bob_salomon DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote:

Bob,

Let it go. This Mopar guy is over the top and quite possibly trying to
bait you at this point. In any case, the conversation is no longer
productive.

I'm sure you're aware of the sales rule that there are some people
that you're never going to sell to, no matter how much of your time
they take up. They may or may not buy from someone else, but that
should not be your problem.

Every trade show has at least one booth visitor like our friend Mopar
here. What I do is try to get rid of the guy as fast as possible.

Father Kodak


>In article <Xns976E49E159319ReplyID DeleteThis @216.196.97.131>,
> All Things Mopar <nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> wrote:
>
>> You're qute adamant that your product is a superior solution,
>
>Where have I stated that it is superior?
>
>That you are reading in. I stated the features and my experience with it
>and told you the name of a very sucessful commercial operation that your
>dealer knows well and can check with (Wolfes).
>
>We are not in any position to try to compete with Nikon nor do we try
>to. You seem to feel that we should. We can't.
>
>If you have further questions we will happily answer them honestly.
>
>But don't ask for comparisons from us because we don't do them.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976ED8CEE9824ReplyID RemoveThis @216.196.97.131>, All Things Mopar
<nunofyour RemoveThis @beez.wax> writes
>Today Kennedy McEwen commented courteously on the subject at
>hand
>
>Kennedy, while I wasn't too smart on dedicated scanners even a
>few days ago, I already knew you are spot-on about any DSLR
>priced anything under the trophosphere, certainly something
>like my Canon Rebel XT.
>
Definitely not - I have only used dSLRs in anger for 3 months. I spent
a long time waiting for something that met my desires (rather than
needs) came within my price range and it recently did. Till then, I had
only played with what I could borrow and decided it wasn't quite what I
wanted.

>Bob Solomon's "suggestion" is just another example of a
>saleman doing anything he can to hawk his wares, without any
>regard to what his customers will find out - later. If I made
>my money on commisions, I'd be volume-oriented, too. But, not
>in a camera NG where nobody knows you're the resident company
>shill.
>
Actually, I have the opposite experience of Bob, whom I have knonw
through the context of Usenet for many years. Yes he is in the business
and whilst that may bias his viewpoint, I find that his comments are
generally valid and he only pushes his stuff when it could be a solution
to a problem. It doesn't stop him suggesting alternative solutions
either, such as the one that I responded to.

Just because someone has an axe to grind doesn't make them an
executioner. We all have our own axes...
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <dt90gs$blj$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> writes
>
>I've been paying a lot of attention to scanning over the past 5 years, and
>I'd never heard of the Braun before (and couldn't find much of anything on
>it with google). What that means is that anyone using it will have
>absolutely no user-to-user support, and have no sample scans to see if they
>are getting what they should be from the scanner.
>
>So even if it's a decent scanner, the Braun is a really bad idea.
>
As you know, I haven't exactly been unaware of scanner developments in
that time either, but the logical conclusion of your critique is never
to buy anything - because peer support simply won't exist unless a
significant number of people don't take that advice, and buy before you
do.

I have used some of the stuff Bob sells, though being European I didn't
get it through his distribution facility. What I have used has tended
to be top end - expensive but good.

If it works well, why would you need peer support? That is a relatively
recent phenomena - 10 years ago few would have had any access to other
users of any product. It is a useful ability to tap other users for
help but, IMO, it is no reason to avoid a product.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today Kennedy McEwen commented courteously on the subject at
hand

> As you know, I haven't exactly been unaware of scanner
> developments in that time either, but the logical
> conclusion of your critique is never to buy anything -
> because peer support simply won't exist unless a
> significant number of people don't take that advice, and
> buy before you do.

The advertising community used to have the saying "nobody gets
it until everybody wants it", meaning that a "need" has to be
created in the minds of their customer target audience to
believe that the better mousetrap is already popular.
Similarly, the same thinking - rightly or wrongly - is often
employed by manufacturs deciding whether to attempt to compete
in a tough segment of their market or not, it's usually a big
bucks risky endeavor. The only ones to succeed, though, are
what car people call "segment busters", meaning they identify
a need/desire that customers don't even know they have yet,
where there's no real competition, and they "drive a Mack
truck" into the void.

So, the analogy here is that the Braun 4000 won't be a popular
choice until enough people hear about it and decide it has
Nikon, Epson, and the others beat cold. But, that is quite
difficult to do if you can't get any real owner testimonials
because no one will buy one because they never heard of it.
I'm not disparaging the Braun in this context, just adding a
different "spin" to the point I think you correctly made
above.

> I have used some of the stuff Bob sells, though being
> European I didn't get it through his distribution facility.
> What I have used has tended to be top end - expensive but
> good.
>
> If it works well, why would you need peer support? That is
> a relatively recent phenomena - 10 years ago few would have
> had any access to other users of any product. It is a
> useful ability to tap other users for help but, IMO, it is
> no reason to avoid a product.

Well, peer-to-peer support across a broad spectrum of consumer
products is an accelerating phenomenon highly encouraced by
the manufacturers to substitute for really expensive tech
support not only by phone and E-mail, but with their presence
in NGs such as this one. And, conversely, desperate customers
in trouble or those contemplating a purchase know they can't
get unbiased facts from any of the manufacturer of their
product du jour, so they turn to Usenet, Yahoo Groups, or off-
shoots of a company's products, such as the peer-to-peer
groups spawned off by dpreview.com.

I'm not asking you or anyone to believe my point-of-view,
particularly since a number of folks now think I've treated
Bob Solomon unfairly and too vindictively, but perhaps you'll
agree on how/why peer-to-peer help groups are so successful.
The only time they break down is if, somehow, the "experts"
assert their "superior" knowledge and get tangled up with an
intelligent but ignorant OPs.

I've seen this time and time again, and it happens to me
regularly. I'll take responsibility for a great deal of my own
angst by my posting style, but you can at least "relate" to
what I'm saying.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm RemoveThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> All Things Mopar <nunofyour RemoveThis @beez.wax> writes
>
>>Bob Solomon's "suggestion" is just another example of a
>>saleman doing anything he can to hawk his wares, without any
>>regard to what his customers will find out - later. If I made
>>my money on commisions, I'd be volume-oriented, too. But, not
>>in a camera NG where nobody knows you're the resident company
>>shill.
>>
> Actually, I have the opposite experience of Bob, whom I have knonw through
> the context of Usenet for many years. Yes he is in the business and
> whilst that may bias his viewpoint, I find that his comments are generally
> valid and he only pushes his stuff when it could be a solution to a
> problem.

Well, sort of. But he tends to be really insistent on the wonderfulness of
his suggestions when they are often really bad ideas.

I've been paying a lot of attention to scanning over the past 5 years, and
I'd never heard of the Braun before (and couldn't find much of anything on
it with google). What that means is that anyone using it will have
absolutely no user-to-user support, and have no sample scans to see if they
are getting what they should be from the scanner.

So even if it's a decent scanner, the Braun is a really bad idea.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions