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

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

> > Since you say it yourself that this is only the
> > *theoretical* dynamic range then why do you already
> > exclude the Polaroid without making any actual test.
>
> I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and
> some sample
> scans I've seen appear to support this.  Specifically, it appears
> to have a
> smaller dynamic range.

Scanner testing is VERY operator dependant.  I know someone who can get
better scans from an Epson 1640 than most anyone can get from their high end
scanner.  I don't know what you've heard, or what scans you've seen...but I
believe it's fair to say that it wasn't necessarily very scientific
testing...

I also don't know how you can "see" an apparently smaller dynamic range and
attribute it to the scanner.  It could be the image, it could be the
operation of the scanner...it is not necessarily attributable to the scanner
it self.  I just don't believe you can conclude that.

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, just that I don't believe it's
really based on solid footing.