RE: filmscanners: My replacement 8000 is banding like the first one :-(

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> >> Also since the 8000 presumably has a heavier scanning head than
> >> the smaller
> >> scanners (more ccd etc), the mechanical constraints are more
> >> serious and it
> >> may therefore be the most sensitive to such things and which
> may not show
> >> up as problems on their 35mm scanners.
> >
> >This scanner moves the CCD and the light source, instead of the film?  Is
> >that so?  That's certainly a place to look for trouble, since
> they both have
> >to be on opposite sides of the film, and have to be synchronized...
>
> Dare I say it, but I suspect a scanner moving the film is "less
> accurate" than
> a scanner that moves the scan "head".

I don't believe either is "less accurate" at all, it's the complications of
the two differing mechanisms that is at issue, both should be equally as
"accurate".  I believe moving the film is going to be far less complicated.
Also, if the CCD/light source moved, you would either have to position the
film in the right position for scanning, or the film would have to be moved
into position anyway.