On 02/01/07, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For years I've been touting the various iterations of the Imacon here often > to be met with comments about people not seeing any appreciable difference, > comments (based on some technical crap or web articles) that a good flat > bed scanner is comparable or almost as good, etc. I'm very glad to see > that someone finally agrees with my assessment of the scanner. Now, if you > want to "kick it up a notch," get a good scan on a real drum scanner, like > the Heidelberg Tango (when "good enough" is not good enough). Compare that > to any of the Epsons, and even some Imacons. Be careful that you don't > step on your jaw <LOL>
Just because a scanner doesn't employ a drum system of some type doesn't mean it's not capable. Flat bed scanners from the likes of Heidelberg have been around and quite capable for 15 years or more and some of the recent consumer flatbeds offer very good performance. The Imacon scanners are good but they still only use essentially the same sensors as the best flat bed scanners and they are generally less flexible WRT acceptable media types and sizes. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
