"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some sample > scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have a > smaller dynamic range. Anthony, can I ask *where* you've "consistently heard" this? What I've read in this group has been the opposite, hence my surprise. Rob
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! JFMahony91
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! JFMahony91
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! JFMahony91
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Johnny Deadman
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Mike Duncan
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! JFMahony91
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Robert Meier
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Anthony Atkielski
- Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Arthur Entlich