I won't be much help since the only scanners I've used don't have ICE. On
the other hand I haven't missed it and I've heard reports that it sometimes
alters the image in ways one may not wish.
Tom C.
From: Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Pentax Discussion List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: advice for filmscanner
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:46:27 -0700
Tom (and other film scanner owners), do you think Digital ICE support in
the
hardware is worthwhile?
From what I can tell, the Konica-Minolta Elite series has hardware ICE
while
the Dual series does not. There's obviously a big price difference. Someone
else this morning mentioned they'd pick ICE support over higher resolution.
I have to balance scanner speed, quality, and cost; US$600 is about my
spending limit and batch scanning is a must.
Tim
On 10/3/05 11:18, Tom C wrote:
> I've used the Scan Dual IV for a year and a half. Before that I had the
> original Dimage Scan Dual. l was never disappointed with either for the
> money, and the IV is much nicer.
>
> I don't have experience with any other film scaners (except Pacific
Image),
> but from what I've read in reviews, the Scan Dual IV produces results
equal
> to other scanners costing twice the price.
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [email protected]
>> To: Pentax Discussion List <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: advice for filmscanner
>> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:43:20 -0700
>>
>>
>> I'm on the precipice of enablement for one of these. I'll be interested
to
>> see what others say. Comments in the PDML archives are generally
positive.
>>
>> t
>>
>> On 10/3/05 6:12, Frank Wajer wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> how about the Konica Minolta Dimage scan dual IV?
>>> Looks like a nice scanner to me? Anyone use this one?
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
