Re: Flatbed scanners vs Pro Photo CDs
Re: Flatbed scanners vs Pro Photo CDs
- Subject: Re: Flatbed scanners vs Pro Photo CDs
- From: tflash <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:21:21 -0500
For the record, tflash wrote none of that,
Todd
>
> tflash wrote:
>
>
>
> <rant>This situation reminds me of the early transistor radios. They
>
> often loudly touted the number of transistors inside, never
>
> mentioning why more transistors should make it perform better than a
>
> basic five-tube radio, and also never mentioning that many of those
>
> transistors were not fully utilized, sometimes only used as diodes,
>
> sometimes simply soldered to isolated pads on the printed circuit
>
> board!</rant>
>
>
Tubes? Transistors?
>
>
> Another question to ask: why are the specs of a $400 scanner so
>
> similar to those of an $1,100 one? Definitely something fishy here.
>
>
Quality hardware and manufacturing practices are points to consider
>
here. It's a backwards/forwards game where sometimes you pay for
>
quality because it's there, sometimes someone offers the same
>
hardware components to more than one buyer. A manufacturer may try to
>
roll out overruns or stock which didn't pass muster on quality with
>
the buyer. Sometimes these refusals are merely esthetic (light green
>
circuit boards, etc.). So instead of heaving the overruns and
>
refusals, the manufacturer reroutes the stock to option buyers (like
>
Radio Shack). This can result in similarly featured devices - some so
>
similar the only difference is really the name, some so different the
>
only similarities are the specs on the individual components.
>
>
> Jan Steinman wrote:
>
> Unless you part with $400-$1100 on a whim, I'd recommend taking some
>
> difficult material down and having it scanned on each. That's what I
>
> did when I bought a film scanner, and the side-by-side results were
>
> enlightening. For a distant second best evaluation, find some good
>
> magazine reviews.
>
>
>
> IMHO, the situation has gotten so bad that scanner specs are nearly
>
> meaningless -- just like printer specs.
>
>
>
>
Which is good advice. After all, mechanical, digital and optical
>
interpolations are in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
--
>
joel johnstone
>
designtype
>
Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
>
email: work: email@hidden
>
color geek in residence, reality notwithstanding
>
_______________________________________________
>
colorsync-users mailing list
>
email@hidden
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users