In a message dated 6/18/2001 6:59:21 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Are you suggesting that the LS-40 represents better value (less resolution > and D-Max, but also less expensive), or that the differences in > resolution/D-Max are so small as to be insignificant, or that this scanner > has less bugs than others and so is worth the trade-offs in res/D-Max? Or > all of the above? It's a good value, and the difference in resolution/D-Max isn't significant for what I scan. If you want to scan things larger than 35mm, use a slide feeder or scan mainly slide film or ISO 50 film (none of which I do myself), then you might make different tradeoffs. Regards, Ed Hamrick
- Re: filmscanners: GEM Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
- Re: filmscanners: GEM Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: GEM Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: GEM Norman Quinn
- Re: filmscanners: GEM rafeb
- Re: filmscanners: GEM Derek Clarke
- Re: filmscanners: GEM Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions want... Ron Carlson
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted EdHamrick
- RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted Dan Honemann
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted EdHamrick
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions want... Peter
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions ... Edwin Eleazer
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions ... Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted Lynn Allen
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions want... Peter
- RE: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions ... Dan Honemann
- Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opini... Steve Greenbank
- filmscanners: On dust tflash
- RE: filmscanners: On dust Frank Nichols
- Re: filmscanners: On dust Isaac Crawford