Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Pat writes:

> 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?

Because I understand that it has less dynamic range, and since I scan slides
almost exclusively, I cannot afford to compromise on that point.

Isn't there anyone building scanners like this besides Polaroid and Nikon?
Aren't there any dedicated scanner manufacturers that build comparable scanners?
Why does everything from Imacon start at $10,000?

> And why, if the Nikon is required do you
> resist the suggestions for a second machine
> solely for supporting the scanner?

Because it's an extra couple thousand dollars, and it requires room that I do
not have.  It is indeed the most realistic option, but still not very practical.

> Why bother moving them, if you're content with
> the machine you have otherwise?

Because it would be hard to use the second machine with nothing at all on it,
although I suppose that's doable.  It makes the scanner awfully expensive,
though--I'd end up paying $3000 for a 10% improvement in scans.