Ray wrote: >Is there anyone out there other than the participants who has any idea >what they are saying? Sorry if the techno-speak is losing people, Ray. If you want a short summary of the most important point it's "Optical Density as quoted by the manufacturer is probably meaningless as a way of choosing a scanner. Testing it yourself is really the best way to know whether it can do what you want it to." Given that, it's a shame that no retailer I'm aware of has a variety of scanners set up so that they *can* be tested by potential purchasers. :( (not in my part of the world anyway!) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
- Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 r... Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the b... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's ... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's ... photoscientia
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Ray Amos
- SV: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Rob Geraghty
- SV: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Ingemar Lindahl
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Viacheslav Zilberfayn
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Frank Paris
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? photoscientia
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Rob Geraghty