<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:53 AM 02-02-01, Laurie Solomon wrote: > >(3) Inkjets have reached the level where there quality and other features > >come very close to those, if not in some instances surpass those, of > >inkjets. > ?????? Am I reading this wrong, it doesn't make sense to me. I suspect the last word was meant to be "dye-subs". :) Rob
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian Jackson
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Wilkinson
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Wilkinson
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian Jackson
- filmscanners: Re: selling digital images patton paul
- Re: filmscanners: Re: selling digital images Larry Berman
- Re: filmscanners: Re: selling digital images Barbara Abel
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- RE: filmscanners: real value? cjcronin
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: real value? John Matturri
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Mike Kersenbrock
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian Jackson
- RE: filmscanners: real value? Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Robert E. Wright
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Gordon Tassi
- Re: filmscanners: real value? Hersch Nitikman