It was not I who posed the question, "So am I delusional according died-in-the-wool scanners?" in my post or who made a point of noting that they grounded their question in the comparative findings based on an empirical test situation. I was merely suggesting the sorts of clarifications and information that I would need to attempt an answer to your posed question. Since it was not my question and I have no real interest in either resolving the issues I raised or in going to the trouble to determine empirically for myself if your findings are delusional or not, I have no need to test it for myself.
In point of fact, I did not read your post as merely throwing out an idea as much as asking for an answer to a question which will either verify what you appear to have concluded or disproves what you think you observed. -----Original Message----- From: filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk [mailto:filmscanners_ow...@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Norm Carver Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 9:39 PM To: lau...@advancenet.net Subject: [filmscanners] film scanning: new option My dear Solomon, I appreciate your response, but, me thinks you do get a bit carried away.... I was merely throwing out an idea, not writng a scientific treatise. Of course, if one is doing a comparison, one uses the same negative for both--otherwise what is the point! And keeps all other variables to a minimum. As for all other issues, I suggest if you are interested you test it for yourself Norm Carver ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to listser...@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
