Epson does seem to be the only manufacturer that has focussed on the
longevity/archivability question and that's what attacts me to their
products. I'm thinking of getting an Epson 2000P only because I don't have
room for anything larger.
Since I have a photo archive from 1866 onward, the longevity question is
quite important to me.
Hart Corbett
----------
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001, 1:50 PM
>
> In a message dated 01/22/2001 1:35:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << You are looking at 2 separate entities. Scan quality can benefit from
> higher res,
> and that can show via Epson printers, so yes, you can get a better result.
> But
> Epsons have defects all their own, which I personally find fairly
> objectionable -
> the residual coarseness of the dither patter and some sharp discontinuities
> in the
> gamut which make for some quite jarring transitions in tone, specially WRT
> greens.
> I recently saw samples from a Canon S800 Photo inkjet in Tokyo and they were
> very
> much more 'photographic'. It was only a quick look, but they seemed much
> more like
> good colour photographic prints than the samples from Epson 870 and 1270
> also
> displayed, let alone my own 1200. >>
>
>
> So, are the Epsons still the "best" around for the money? I don't hear much
> talk about HP, Canon, or Lexmark being of astounding quality. Or are Epson
> people that biased?
> Ed in Atlanta
>
>
