Not that I really want to comment on this at all, but I've found that if I
don't, maybe nobody will (too often, and not often enough). :-)
Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of
trash...
Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is
moved.
A 35mm neg or slide is, geographically, an entirely different matter from an
8"x10" reflective photo. Note, however, how much more expensive filmscanners
are than flatbed scanners. The Industrial Age has been in place for numerous
years--precision in either case is possible, yet expensive--and expensive in
proportion to scale, perhaps.
That, probably, is a Law of Physics. At least I'll think so until someone
markets a 4000dpi flatbed for $100US. (and then, I'd be suspicious) :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first
>one :-(
>Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:10:57 -0400
>
>At 12:03 PM 7/20/01 +0100, Jawed wrote:
>
>
> >Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is "less accurate"
>than
> >a scanner that moves the scan "head".
>
>
>I disagree, and I'm sure Austin will chime in here too <g>.
>
>All film scanners I've worked with move the film -- except
>for flatbeds with TPUs. The lamp and CCD stay put.
>
>This applies to:
>
>* Microtek 35t+
>* Polaroid SprintScan Plus
>* Minolta Scan Speed
>* Nikon 8000 ED
>* LeafScan 45
>
>All of the above scanners move the media. CCD
>and lamp are stationary.
>
>In fact, except for flatbeds posing as film
>scanners, I can't think of any film scanners
>that *don't* work that way.
>
>
>rafe b.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
