I am addressing your comments, directly... My point being that if you took the time to remount your slides for scanning you'd get much better results from either scanner.
No scanner is going to do it's best with curved film. What are you trying to achieve, the best scan with the equipment you own or the easiest scan. You can't have both. If you slide shooters recall, Kodak brought out special curved field lenses to handle projecting slides in cardboard mounts. Scanners don't use them. Part of quality scanning is preparing the artwork. You've discovered a weakness in these two scanners. A very simple procedure (remounting the slides you want the best scans of) will cure the problem. Heaven forbid someone mention to you the quality improvement that can be gained from oil mounting your slides for scanning (not on these two scanners, though). Mr. Bill Laurie Solomon wrote: > I am going to assume that you are using my post to piggy-back on and are > not attempting to address the comments in my post with your remark. > Whether of not one should scan slides in cardboard mounts, no amount of > autofocusing is ever going to bring the center and the edges into > optimal focus if the film isn't flat, or if the lights on these scanners > were brighter, the lens could use a smaller aperture which would help, > but that's the realm of professional scanners, my point about the > comparative assessment of the two scanners still holds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
