by philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Philip Homburg)
Oct 30, 2006 at 03:09 PM
In article <g8m1h.15178$DH5.907@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Plus there's a true point light source which yields maximum sharpness
with
>minimal flare. And because it uses photomultipliers, the dynamic range is
>greater and smoother in spite of what Nikon marketing says. Drum scanning
>software is also better in most cases. These advantages are just as true
for
>roll film as for sheets. It's not just resolution because not all pixels
are
>created equal. A 100MB scan from 35mm on a drum will blow up better than
the
>same size scan made on a Nikon or Imacon.
It's a pity that there are only very few sites on the net that show the
difference between a good scan on a modern Nikon scanner and a scan of the
same frame on a drum scanner.
It is much easier to spend money on a more expensive scan if you know what
kind of improvement you can expect.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency