That's exactly my position :-[
--
Clive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of barry
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:42 AM
> To: chmphoto@sbcglobal.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest]
> filmscanners Digest for Tue 17 Jun, 2003
>
>
> Geez I was all ready to buy one now I have to look around again.
>
> :-(
>
>
> Barry T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: barry@nwsca.com
> Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 17
> Jun, 2003
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Topic: [filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners
> Digest for Mon
> 16 Jun, 2003
> ==============================================================
> ==============
> =======
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:02:00 -0500
> From: "Clive Moss" <chmphoto@sbcglobal.net>
> ----------------------------------------
> The review says:
> "In our testing, we had the CanoScan connected via its SCSI port to a
> slightly aging PowerMac G3 433 MHz CPU, with 192 MB of RAM, and the =
> scanning
> software running in a 170 MB partition. Here are the times we
> measured =
> for a
> maximum-resolution RGB scan of our black/white resolution
> target film:"
>
> --=20
> Clive
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk=20
> > [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of barry
> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 8:58 AM
> > To: chmphoto@sbcglobal.net
> > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest]=20
> > filmscanners Digest for Mon 16 Jun, 2003
> >=20
> >=20
> > Was this a USB or SCSI connection measurement.
> >=20
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
>
> Topic: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Mon 16 Jun, 2003
> ================================================================
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:57:42 -0400
> From: "barry" <barry@nwsca.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> Was this a USB or SCSI connection measurement.
>
> Doug which are you using?
>
> Barry T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: barry@nwsca.com
> Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Mon 16
> Jun, 2003
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Topic: [filmscanners] Canon FS-4000 Scan Speed
> =========================================
> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:30:49 -0400
> From: "Doug Franklin" <jehosephat@mindspring.com>
> ----------------------------------------
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:21:51 -0500, Clive Moss wrote:
>
> > review. He measured between 6 and 12 minutes per scan at maximum
> > resolution, depending on options chosen. [...] Is that a
> real number?
>
> It sounds about right to me. I like the scanner, but it _is_ slow.
>
> > How much faster does it scan at lower res -- or to ask the question
> > differently -- at what res would it take about a minute for
> a full frame
> > scan?
>
> Couldn't tell you. It does scan faster at lower resolutions, but I've
> never timed it.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
