On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:12:38 -0400 Dan Honemann ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> One
> thing I've discovered here, however, is that often it takes my posts a
> full
> 8-12 hours after sending them before they show up on the list; not sure
> if
> that is a problem on my end, or par for the course
I believe that my responses to your criteria are accurate, but, if they aren't
you will certainly receive additional ones.
Dan Honemann wrote:
> I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I
> read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi.
This places you into the Nikon 4000 (
Doug,
Thanks for your thoughts (and useful links) on scanners.
I like your work; in particular, this one:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=137114
I'm prepared for the learning curve and dazzled already. Mostly I'm
impressed with the intelligent folks and posts found on this list.
ysis.
Regards,
Doug
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Honemann" <>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:30 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions
wanted
> > Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is
&
> Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is
> important, like
>
> dpi,
I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I
read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi.
> density range,
Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most
importan
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed,
> > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides
> > though.
>
> I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on
> colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression
Peter wrote:
> I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed,
> in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides
> though.
I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on
colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction
levels because o
