on 6/19/02 6:35 PM, Damon Wood at deewhy_au@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Jim L'Hommedieu,
>
> thanks for letting all that off your chest! Obviously
> its a peice of shite! so to speak. Your kind advice
> will therefore either lead to purchase the mid - range
> canon. Weather we like it or not, all we are going to
> be able to afford without hard budgeting is a scanner
> that can scan at an average level for C-41 prints. Or
> else your up for thousands with a slide scanner.
>
> That really sucks I reckon. If I won lotto I would
> either get a super computer built for me (all the
> latest fruit) or the best of MAC (simply brilliant for
> Multimedia and Photography) with epson photo printers
> and the best home scanner money can buy.
>
> Thanks again! I appreciate it!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Damo
>
> =====
>
> Macrovision - Business Management Consulting
>
> 35 Labouchere Road, South Perth, Western Australia 6151
>
> PO Box +61 8 9474 9501
>
> Fax: +61 8 9474 9648
>
> Email: consult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Website: www.macrovision.com.au
I thought we went around a few weeks ago on the Epson 2450 as being a pretty
good option of the film scanners were too much $ or if you wanted flatbed
capability also... not optimal for a film scanner, but IIRC the resolution
is 1200 x 2400 and it comes with a transparency facility built in that can
accomodate multiple negatives or slides, or larger format negatives up to 4
x 5 or even larger. Seems like I've seen it advertised for around $400,
which is much less than a large-format film scanner. I suspect that's higher
than a flatbed scanner without the transparency capability, but the reviews
I remember suggest it is a very good flatbed scanner as well.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|