--- Paul Secinaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There has been some discussion of this on
> the comp.periphs.scanners newsgroup on Usenet, and
> my
> understanding is that the 4.2 dmax claim is based on
> the maximum theoretical dynamic range you could ever
> get out of a 42-bit scan, neglecting noise and other
> factors. In practice I suspect the real dmax will
> be
> somewhat less, but nonetheless I think the new Nikon
> scanner will be unmatched in its price bracket,
It seems like you are correct because, if I got the
definitions right, log10(2^(42/3))=4.21. If you use
multiple scans for one final scan you can reduce noise
a lot. I don't think you can reduce it to 0, though.
If you lose just two bits you are down to 3.6.
I also have to agree with you that the Nikon sounds
very interesting. It seems I definitely would go for
Nikon and not Canon. Actually, I would even prefere
the Nikon then the Polaroid. I had troubles with
Polaroid and it took many phone calls, emails and a
few months to resolve the problems.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
