I was surprised to see the note about graininess when scanning color
negatives with the SS4000 and the Microtek, given that I never read such
complaints on the list. This worries me a bit: I already have two printers,
one for BW and one for color, but I'd find it hard to explain why I need
the
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
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
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
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
The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at
http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
The MacWorld review of film scanners can be found at
http://www.macworld.com/2001/10/reviews/filmscanners.html
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
Too bad they use NikonScan 3.0. NikonScan 3.1 gets more shadow detail at
default settings.
Mike Duncan
