Polaroid ProPalette 7000 driver for Mac

[scott_durocher]

I am hoping (praying, actually) that someone here can help me. I have a Polaroid

ProPalette 7000 hooked up to a Mac G4, running classic. My HDD crashed and took

my printer drivers with it. I have recovered a lot of stuff, but the

chooser-level printer driver for the ProPalette is MIA. Needless to say, my

installation disks are also whereabouts unknown. I'm only looking for a Mac

driver, nothing else. All the other imaging software is here (SA Print Assistant

3.0, Palette Export, etc), Can anyone help me out? Do you know where I can find

the driver online, or can I persuade someone to send it to me? I would

appreciate it; I have orders waiting for slides. Scott

[travishoover]

Did a quick google search, and found this site:

 

http://www.helpdrivers.com/ingles/listado/panel.asp?marca=Polaroid&perif=escaneres

 

There are drivers listed for the Pro Palette 7000 for Mac. Just an FYI, I have never used this site, and have no idea if the downloads are reliable or not, so download at your own risk! Good luck!

[scott_durocher]

Tried them already. They only have updates and RasterPlus. Not what I need.

[scott_durocher]

Well, I found someone who was willing to share. I recently got an email from someone named Ulrich who is also looking, but your email address gets bounced back.

If you're still looking, Ulrich, I can help you.

Scott

[clift_d]

On 5/29/2008 at 12:35 PM, scott_durocher said:

Well, I found someone who was willing to share. I recently got an email from someone named Ulrich who is also looking, but your email address gets bounced back.

If you're still looking, Ulrich, I can help you.

Scott

I know I'm a bit late to this one, but I'm also trying to find Mac drivers for one of these units - for the Polaroid ProPalette 8035 in my case. Does anyone have a Polaroid Mac driver CD for these film recorders that I could get a copy of?

Daniel

[clift_d]

The drivers for Polaroid Palette for Mac can now be found at the following link:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ebctuokc4s31q6b/Polaroid_Palette_for_Mac.zip/file

This is legacy OEM Polaroid software for their no longer available film recorders, and should work with the Palette CI-5000 and HR-6000, and ProPalette 7000 and 8000/8035/8045/8067 film recorders. The software runs on PowerMacintosh on Mac OS 8.5 - 9.2.1, and requires a computer with a CD drive and a SCSI interface.

If you get it running, please share your setup and results.

Edited December 21, 2022 by clift_d

[clift_d]

Just in case the Mediafire link goes down, the CDR image is now also available for download from the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/polaroid-202

The disc image will allow you to install Rasterplus 2.02 and Palette Export 2.0, and there are updates to Rasterplus 2.06 and Palette Export 2.01 available elsewhere online.

[clift_d]

By the way, for people who have a ProPalette 7000 or 8000, you might want to grab a copy of CFR Film Table Commander:

https://www.srs1software.com/CfrFilmTableCommander.aspx

It’s a film table editor for the 7000 & 8000 that only runs on Windows (alas), but which has now been made available as freeware by its creators. There’s no knowing how long it will stay available so you should grab it while you can. The online FAQ says that it will only edit the PC film tables but it seems to also recognise the Macintosh film tables if you add a .FLM code to the end of the film table file name in Windows Explorer.

Edited December 22, 2022 by clift_d

[clift_d]

Just to add to the post above, it appears that CFR Film Table Commander running on Windows can actually be used to edit / generate film tables for a ProPalette 7000 / 8000 running on Mac OS 9. As above, to recognise Mac film tables in CFR Film Table Commander on Windows you just need to add a .FLM file code to the end of the film table file name. To use film tables generated / saved from CFR Film Table Commander on Windows, with Rasterplus on the Macintosh, you just need to change the Type & Creator codes of the film table with ResEdit as follows:

Type 'TEXT' -> 'CFFT'
Creator 'dosa' -> 'NPoL'

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by clift_d

[rodeo_joe1]

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier these days just to point a 35mm camera at a decent flat-screen monitor? 

I'm pretty sure that colour clarity and screen resolutions have moved on in the last 22 years.

[clift_d]

For some simpler images maybe, but the ProPalette 80xx is supposed to have a dynamic resolution upto a maximum file size of 8192 x 5460 for 35mm. That's better than 40MP, supposedly better than the resolving power of FP4+, and something which I think you'd struggle to match with any monitor. As a comparison my 24MP digital rangefinder only produces an image 5976 x 3992 pixels. I'm mainly looking to see whether it would offer a route for moving B&W digital images onto film for darkroom printing. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by clift_d

[rodeo_joe1]

Pixels ain't resolution, and vice-versa. 

The thickness of a film emulsion comes into play, as well as scatter-diffusion, etc. All of which degrade the apparent sharpness of a film image. 

IME 24 megapixels is plenty enough to match and exceed the sharpness of any useably fast (> 50 ISO) film. 

But I see that film-printer can take film up to 5x4, so maybe using a 6x9cm back (at least) might give reasonable quality. 35mm dupes would be a complete waste of time IMO.

Here's a tight crop from a 35mm frame, shot directly on Tmax-100, which is probably the finest grained 100 ISO film you can get. 

And the same subject, at the same magnification, taken on a mere 12 megapixel Canon 5D Mk1. 

Here's the size of the crop outlined in the full frame:

No dupe improves on the original, and a 35mm film dupe certainly isn't going to improve on a digital original. 

[clift_d]

I'm not sure there's that that much benefit to using larger negative formats with these units in terms of overall resolution. The various film adapter backs have their own specifically matched lenses, which image the full front face of the CRT onto the full film frame, so the maximum number of lines is the same whether across a 35mm or 4x5 film frame, i.e. 8192 lines. Therefore I'm assuming the limiting factor for 35mm might be grain size, whereas on 4x5 it might be a question of whether the scan lines become apparent at bigger enlargement ratios

Edited January 4, 2023 by clift_d

[clift_d]

So far I've only really focussed on B&W output, but here's a couple of initial test images.

The original of both images is on the left, including a blown up detail, while the output file and detail are on the right. The original image files were shot in greyscale at 5976 x 3992 pixels, and they have been output at this resolution using the ProPalette 8000 onto 35mm Ilford XP2+, which has then been lab processed and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 5000 at 5782 × 3946, and Levels adjustment applied in Photoshop to match the appearance of the scan to the original JPEG.

There's still a way to go, as well as some colour testing, but it's clear that the grain of the film is one limiting factor in these examples, so next experiments will be with finer grained film - I have a couple of rolls of RPX25 to play with, and perhaps some experiements to determine the role played by the contrast of the original file going in. Unfortunately I don't have facilities to process 4x5, as I'd be interested to whether it might be possible to image the scan lines on the larger film.

[rodeo_joe1]

It's not just grain. All the fine detail has been blurred away - the fronds on the spikey leaf and the centre of the flower for example. 

Like I said, pixels ain't necessarily resolution, and if the CRT scanning spot diameter is bigger than the pixel spacing, then the number of pixels outputted isn't worth very much. 

Using a slower film or a larger film format may well reduce the granularity, but it won't bring back detail lost to a slightly de-focussed CRT.