RE: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF

["Mark T." <markthomasz@ozemail.com.au>]

At 07:22 AM 6/07/01 +0100, Derek wrote:
>Er how do you know? Have you tried it?
>
>It's interesting, because this is a flatbed that's snuck onto the market
>with a built in proper transparency lid, 2400x4800dpi optical resolution
>and 48 bits colour depth. This is an incredible spec for a flatbed,
>especially at the price.
>
>About the only Achilles heel is lack of speed. Making it USB-only costs.

While Jack may have a slight ulterior motive! .. there are *other* reasons 
why most flatbeds can't filmscan well..

F'rinstance, 'another' potential Achilles heel is the lack of dynamic range 
- will this one drag the details out of my Kodachrome shadows like the Acer 
can..?


Hmm.  Can you have 2 Achilles heels?  I do - should know as I've broken 
both of 'em..
But I think in this case I am guilty of metaphor abuse... :)


MT


>JPhipps@asf.com (Jack Phipps) wrote:
>
> > I think you'd be a lot happier with the Acer 2740 at a similar price.
> >
> > Jack Phipps
> > Applied Science Fiction
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jlsillars@aol.com [mailto:Jlsillars@aol.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:58 PM
> > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Subject: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF
> >
> >
> > Has anyone tried or heard any reports about the Canoscan 2400 UF?  They
> > claim
> > 2400 dpi, and it is going for about $450.  Sounds like buying the
> > Brooklyn Bridge or swampland in Florida, but thought I would ask.
> >
> > Jim Sillars (old, but not COMPLETELY senile)
> >