Hey guys, get off his back already! He has an LS-30, he has
a system that works, but when he considered making a modest upgrade, he
faced a big set of problems. Let's stop beating it to death.
Hersch
At 06:57 PM 08/25/2001, you wrote:
Well, if ICE isn't a critical
requirement, why not look at the Polaroid (or
the Canon, which has an equivalent to ICE, and scans at 4000 dpi)
which
several people have suggested? And why, if the Nikon is required do
you
resist the suggestions for a second machine solely for supporting
the
scanner? Several options on how to do this inexpensively have been
offered,
but you continue the refrain of how much trouble it would be to port
your
apps to the new computer. Why bother moving them, if you're content with
the
machine you have otherwise?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski"
<atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> Rob writes:
>
> > You forgot to mention ICE, which is the
> > requirement that paints you into a corner.
>
> I can do without ICE, as long as I get substantially better
resolution
and/or
> dynamic range (and no _less_ than the LS-2000, in any case).
>
> > No. It's a non-sensical comparison. If the
> > film manufacturers had stopped making film for
> > your Leica, the comparison might make sense.
>
> The fact that they have not illustrates my point. Imagine
what
photography
> would be like if film formats changed every 18 months.
Would
photographers run
> out and buy new lenses and bodies with the same blind willingness
with
which
> they buy new computer hardware and software?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
http://mail.yahoo.com
