Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
I am not involved with this thread, and I don't have a Nikon. I do have a
low end (Acer Scanwit) and want to comment on this attitude.
I don't think anyone questions that you get what you pay for and $3,000 is
certainly not going to compete with $30,000. However, basic functionality
should be there, and obvious problems should not. Limited Dmin/Dmax, limited
resolution, limited consistency, etc. are some of the trade off's you (I)
would expect to see. However, if the banding is a result of pushing beyond
the capabilities of the hardware in order to support published
specifications, then that is false advertising. I have no intention of
complaining about banding (yellow stains) in my Scanwit - I expect it for
the price. If I had purchased a Nikon 8000, it would go back several times
and then permanently for that problem.
Also, only by providing feedback (complaints) can companies know what the
market wants, and improve. I say, "keep them honest". If they say it will do
something and it doesn't, you should hold their feet to the fire until they
make it right.
Also, a few years ago you could say the same thing about printing your own
prints using an ink-jet. Now it is accepted as professional quality by
many - even with price points of less than $1000. (Some as low as $250)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Preston Earle
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:43 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
> "Lawrence Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect."
> Preston wonders:
> If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a
> $3,000 scanner? Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum
> scanner or
> even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart). Those scans will be
> "perfect". There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some
> cost $3,000,
> and why some cost $30,000. You don't really think that these three
> price-level scanners give the same quality, do you?
> If your prints sell for "hundreds of $", then $30 to $50 for a
> high-end scan
> can't be too expensive.
> Preston Earle, who is now ducking.
> I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never