>There is a factual error in the review.
>
>The reason they couldn't see any difference in resolution between the
>Minolta Dual Dimage II (which they indicate has a resolution of 2438
>dpi), and the Nikon rated at 2900 dpi, (as they mention in the body of
>the article) is because the Minolta Dual Dimage II has a resolution of
>2820 dpi. The older version one (SCSI) had the 2438 dpi resolution. The
>newer Dual II is USB interfaced, as mentioned in the chart.
>
>Art
>
>
>Winsor Crosby wrote:
>>
>> The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at
>>
>> http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html
>> --
>> Winsor Crosby
>> Long Beach, California
Also see URL for some questionable results of the test.
<http://www.macworld.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000154.html>
They also used Nikon Scan 3.0 which maps deep shadows very darkly; i.e., it
has inferior dark shadow detail to 3.1.
Mike Duncan
