Oostrom, Jerry wrote: > BTW. Lately I had sent in my scanner for service, and when I received it > back (problem not solved, at best only marginal improvements!) I received an > extra filmholder and slideholder! Maybe using double holders will fix the service problem? Or some poor guy now has a scanner with holders at all? This seems to be becoming a standard operating procedure in the industry, returning the unit unrepaired. Since shipping isn't cheap (you usually have to pay at least one way) and you are without your unit (no smug comments!) for weeks at a time, you eventually just give up and live with the defect. Maybe its cheaper than actually hiring staff to fix these things? Art
- RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Lynn Allen
- RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Lynn Allen
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Kevin Power
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Kevin Power
- RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Oostrom, Jerry
- re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Alan Womack
- RE: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Oostrom, Jerry
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Phil
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Collin Ong
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scans Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scan... Collin Ong
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scan... Richard N. Moyer
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res ... Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, decent,... Richard N. Moyer
- Re: filmscanners: OT :Fast, dec... Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res scan... Todd Radel
- Re: filmscanners: Fast, decent, low res ... Arthur Entlich