> >There is a factual error in the review.
>>
>>The reason they couldn't see any difference in resolution between the
>>Minolta Dual Dimage II (which they indicate has a resolution of 2438
>>dpi), and the Nikon rated at 2900 dpi, (as they mention in the body of
>>the article) is because the Minolta Dual Dimage II has a resolution of
>>2820 dpi. The older version one (SCSI) had the 2438 dpi resolution. The
>>newer Dual II is USB interfaced, as mentioned in the chart.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>
>>Winsor Crosby wrote:
>>>
>>> The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Winsor Crosby
>>> Long Beach, California
>
>Also see URL for some questionable results of the test.
>
><>
>
>They also used Nikon Scan 3.0 which maps deep shadows very darkly; i.e., it
>has inferior dark shadow detail to 3.1.
>
>Mike Duncan
To be completely fair magazines have about a 3 month lead time
between finished articles and publication. Was v.3.1 out then?
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
