On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: > Not that I really want to comment on this at all, but I've found that if I > don't, maybe nobody will (too often, and not often enough). :-) > > Given: That the stepper mechanism is accurate, and not just a piece of > trash... > Then: It would not matter whether the copy is moved or the scanning head is > moved. True enough, Lynn, but our entire job in this listserv sometimes seems to be second-guessing the manufacturers and telling them what they did wrong. <g> Jawed had expressed an opinion on which of two schemes might work better. I simply wanted to point out that, for better or for worse, most film scanners worked the other way. My personal guess is that the better way is the one that moves the smaller mass -- all else being equal. rafe b.
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like t... Wilson, Paul
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Lynn Allen
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Wilson, Paul
- Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is bandi... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... rafeb
- Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is bandi... Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Lynn Allen
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is bandi... Raphael Bustin
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Lynn Allen
- Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is bandi... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... EdHamrick
- RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding l... Hemingway, David J