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

["Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>]

"Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 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).

Then I suggest you find someone on the list you can send some film to, and
have them do raw scans with vuescan.  Do raw scans with vuescan from the
LS2000, then crop both sets with vuescan and adjust them on your own
computer.  Then you'll have a meaningful comparison which is not operator
dependent.

> 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?

If I had a Leica, and Leica offered a combination which produced twice the
resolution
of my existing gear, it would probably make sense.  That would be a similar
comparison
to going from 2700ppi to 4000ppi (which isn't really double but why be
picky?).
Like I said, it doesn't make sense to compare apples and oranges.  If you
want a
camera related comparable issue, how about looking at lenses - some
manufacturers
haven't even made their cameras backward compatible with lenses from
previous
models.  If the second hand ads are anything to go by, I'd have said that a
lot of people
do replace camera lenses and bodies with the same "blind willingness".

Rob