On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:46:46 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Well, technically, there is no reason that has to match either...it's by > someone's choice (or pure dumb luck) that it does. I've given the two > bit/three state example that holds perfectly true. I ain't doing this again, it has been done to death and can be re-visited in the archives at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ . Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Mike Duncan
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... shAf
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Mike Duncan
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... shAf
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Alessandro Pardi
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Alessandro Pardi
- RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Julian Robinson
- re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Alan Womack
- Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
- Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... Alan Tyson
- Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan & VS Negative dynami... EdHamrick