Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!



Well, if ICE isn't a critical requirement, why not look at the Polaroid (or
the Canon, which has an equivalent to ICE, and scans at 4000 dpi) which
several people have suggested? And why, if the Nikon is required do you
resist the suggestions for a second machine solely for supporting the
scanner? Several options on how to do this inexpensively have been offered,
but you continue the refrain of how much trouble it would be to port your
apps to the new computer. Why bother moving them, if you're content with the
machine you have otherwise?




----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!


> Rob writes:
>
> > You forgot to mention ICE, which is the
> > requirement that paints you into a corner.
>
> I can do without ICE, as long as I get substantially better resolution
and/or
> dynamic range (and no _less_ than the LS-2000, in any case).
>
> > No.  It's a non-sensical comparison.  If the
> > film manufacturers had stopped making film for
> > your Leica, the comparison might make sense.
>
> The fact that they have not illustrates my point.  Imagine what
photography
> would be like if film formats changed every 18 months.  Would
photographers run
> out and buy new lenses and bodies with the same blind willingness with
which
> they buy new computer hardware and software?


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.