Coolscan Iv Ed [ls-40]

[Tony]

Can users of the above scanner please comment. I'm interested in scanning my slides.

Also, where can I get it at the lowest price? What is the lowest price you know?

Are there alternatives to the Coolscan?

Thanks.

[Shadus]

Lowest price i know -> $1100+ @AP
Excellent scanner.
Alternative is CanoScan

[Bluestrike]

Quote: Originally posted by Shadus Lowest price i know -> $1100+ @AP Excellent scanner. Alternative is CanoScan

There is no ALTERNATIVE!!!!!


Anyway, using it too very good !!!!
Cost abt $1.1K at AP.

The only thing I don't like is the USB1.1 transfer rate which can get to be a bore if you scanning at the highest DPI. Even in Jpeg, a file size can reach abt on average 15MB. So you know the speed of USB1.1.................................

[Red Dawn]

Quote: Originally posted by Bluestrike The only thing I don't like is the USB1.1 transfer rate which can get to be a bore if you scanning at the highest DPI. Even in Jpeg, a file size can reach abt on average 15MB. So you know the speed of USB1.1.................................

just put the thing in, and surf clubsnap and photo.net, drink coffee, watch CNN, watch national geographic while it's scanning, and u'll find time passes more easily

i scan at full res producing 70 megabytes 16 bit TIFF files and that's how i pass time while waiting for it. try it

[Larry]

Quote: Originally posted by Shadus Lowest price i know -> $1100+ @AP Excellent scanner. Alternative is CanoScan

another option is the BenQ ScanWit 2740S with ICE.

[Mystix]

quality wise btw the scanwit and the coolscan izit very obvious?

[rueyloon]

Quote: Originally posted by Bluestrike There is no ALTERNATIVE!!!!! Anyway, using it too very good !!!! Cost abt $1.1K at AP.

for the price/performance, there is no ALTERNATIVE, this is the best......

scanning takes anywhere from 3mins to 6 mins depending on what functions you turn on.

I'm not really convienced that the scanner is slow due to USB 1.1, I always thought it is due to the slowness of the physical moving parts ? no ?

hmm...

[Bluestrike]

Quote: Originally posted by rueyloon I'm not really convienced that the scanner is slow due to USB 1.1, I always thought it is due to the slowness of the physical moving parts ? no ? hmm...

Sad to disapoint you old frd....

The fact speak for itself!
Try scanning at a 1000dpi and 2900dpi both at the same setting and see for yourself ... which is faster!
hehhehheee

[nhyone]

Quote: Originally posted by Bluestrike Try scanning at a 1000dpi and 2900dpi both at the same setting and see for yourself ... which is faster!

This doesn't imply the transfer is the bottleneck. Scanning at 2900dpi means the scanner must move almost 3x slower than at 1000dpi. Even when there is no other bottleneck.