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

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

Once again, don't believe the specs you read placed by manufacturers. 
It isn't true.
 
> 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?

Because Imacon can, because they use different technologies which are
apparently better enough in results for some to pay that much extra. But
the "lower end" market is being well served by the companies you mention
(and Minolta and Canon, etc.), so their isn't enough demand for more
expensive products (like Imacon) so prices stay high on the top end
products.

I also "assume" Imacon offers much more customer support for that price
(at least I would hope so!)

Art