>===== Original Message From "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =====
>> Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
>> the smaller
>> scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
>> serious and it
>> may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which may not show
>> up as problems on their 35mm scanners.
>
>This scanner moves the CCD and the light source, instead of the film? Is
>that so? That's certainly a place to look for trouble, since they both have
>to be on opposite sides of the film, and have to be synchronized...
Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is "less accurate" than
a scanner that moves the scan "head". The HP S20 seems to be the classic
case. Obviously multi-scanning in the LS4000/8000 doesn't require multiple
passes, but the LS40 does (Vuescan does multiple passes, Nikon Scan can't).
I've noticed that the LS40's multi-pass scans, and my old Primefilm 1800's
(el-cheapo scanner) multi-pass scans line up "perfectly" - so dare I say it,
but it seems like an "easy" thing to manufacture these days.
Unless the scanner is trying to resolve 4000ppi. Oops.
Jawed
