Dan wrote: > To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon > image were viewed through a veil of haze, while the > Leafscan is clear. Must be something wrong with my monitor at work. The differences look very subtle to me. Someone else made a good point though - how long did the leafscan take to produce the scan compare to the Nikon? How long from holding the piece of film to having the TIFF file on the computer? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scan... Shough, Dean
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scan... Shough, Dean
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scan... Alessandro Pardi
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks... Raphael Bustin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP s... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: B... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (wa... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolutio... Dan Honemann
- RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscann... Rob Geraghty
- RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscann... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Moreno Polloni
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Moreno Polloni
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... rafeb
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Dave King
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Dave King
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... rafeb