ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

Re: filmscanners: MacWorld Film Scanner Review



>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
>>
>> http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html
>> --
>> Winsor Crosby
>> Long Beach, California

Also see URL for some questionable results of the test.

<http://www.macworld.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000154.html>

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





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.