Digital BW, The Print

Does anybody know if there are any new medium format film scanners in the works.  
The current line-up is getting long in the tooth and want to know before I plunk 
down the dough.  I've been renting a Nikon 8000 ED which has been working great 
for my B+W work.  However, CCD's (& CMOS) technology seems to be moving so fast 
that I'm suprised no new film scanners have been announced with greater resolution, 
faster, etc.  Any info would be appreciated...thanks...

-Murph

Murph,

> The current line-up is getting long in the tooth...

I'd be interested in knowing what about the current line-up is long in the
tooth in your opinion?

> However, CCD's (& CMOS) technology seems to be
> moving so fast
> that I'm suprised no new film scanners have been announced with
> greater resolution,
> faster, etc.  Any info would be appreciated...thanks...

They probably won't get any higher resolution than a 10k sensor which, over
a 2.25" span is why the current crop are 4k scanners), and they probably
won't get much faster.  CCD properties haven't gotten such that they require
less light to register the density of the film...that's a noise issue...
You are scanning, and have an exposure time of X, and scan, say, 10,000
lines...so it's quite deterministic to see that 10,000 times X is your
minimum scan time.

Do you really need more than 4k SPI?

Austin

On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 08:48  PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

>

snip

>>
>
> Do you really need more than 4k SPI?

Dunno, do we? ;)  I'd like an 11k spi drum scanner but isn't going to 
happen ...With the new Minolta 35mm film scanner announced at 5400 
spi... I'd assume 120 is next. and so on and so on...


Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

> ...With the new Minolta 35mm film scanner announced at 5400
> spi... I'd assume 120 is next. and so on and so on...

The sensor size is limited in width to what is available from the sensor
manufacturers.  Minolta doesn't make it's own linear CCD.  I don't know what
they use for a sensor in that unit...yet...but it's only 5300 sensing
elements wide, and it is tri-linear (RGB).  To scan 120, they would need a
sensor 2.25 times wider...

We also don't know how good the 5400 SPI is...as with their previous
scanners, it seemed to me that tests showed that they didn't live up to
their purported specs.

What is the "and so on and so on"?  You are physically limited in the number
of sensing elements you can get over a particular span, where you don't get
a substantial increase in noise.  Second, the larger (wider) the sensor, you
run into physical limitations of the scanning mechanism, as in optics and
scanning it self.  That all ain't gonna be cheap.

These are no small tasks, and I just don't see a market that makes this type
of development worthwhile (for a bit company that is), and I don't see
people willing to pay for it either.  Let's see how the Minolta scanner
does...  I'm sure someone will get one, and some tests will pop up...soon...

Regards,

Austin

Austin: I'm certainly a technical type person. But I remember some guy
named Moore back 30 years ago who came up with this idea about
computers getting twice as fast and half the size every 18 months or
something like that. I said "sure, for a few years maybe". (I didn't
invest in Intel back then either) When someone told me that someday
computers would be so small they could be battery powered and we could
 carry them around in our hands, I didn't believe him either. Now, I'm
believing just about anything. Like I opened, I don't understand this
stuff but I wonder if your constraints are realistic. Maybe in 2003,
but 2004?
Bob Michaels
 
> The sensor size is limited in width to what is available from the sensor
> manufacturers.  Minolta doesn't make it's own linear CCD.  I don't
know what
> they use for a sensor in that unit...yet...but it's only 5300 sensing
> elements wide, and it is tri-linear (RGB).  To scan 120, they would
need a
> sensor 2.25 times wider...
> 
> We also don't know how good the 5400 SPI is...as with their previous
> scanners, it seemed to me that tests showed that they didn't live up to
> their purported specs.
> 
> What is the "and so on and so on"?  You are physically limited in
the number
> of sensing elements you can get over a particular span, where you
don't get
> a substantial increase in noise.  Second, the larger (wider) the
sensor, you
> run into physical limitations of the scanning mechanism, as in
optics and
> scanning it self.  That all ain't gonna be cheap.
> 
> These are no small tasks, and I just don't see a market that makes
this type
> of development worthwhile (for a bit company that is), and I don't see
> people willing to pay for it either.  Let's see how the Minolta scanner
> does...  I'm sure someone will get one, and some tests will pop
up...soon...

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Hi Austin...


>
> We also don't know how good the 5400 SPI is...as with their previous
> scanners, it seemed to me that tests showed that they didn't live up to
> their purported specs.

Once again I've been debating the microtek/minolta/polaroid specs... 
the polaroid was out as I couldn't find one, the microtek is the same 
as the polaroid so I may go that route, but have to bring it up from 
the States... and the new minolta was just a curiousity, same light 
source, higher res...

>
> What is the "and so on and so on"?

an old expression...

> You are physically limited in the number
> of sensing elements you can get over a particular span, where you 
> don't get
> a substantial increase in noise.  Second, the larger (wider) the 
> sensor, you
> run into physical limitations of the scanning mechanism, as in optics 
> and
> scanning it self.  That all ain't gonna be cheap.

No, but as time marches on many things become doable, smaller, and 
cheaper.. and so on. Since they came out with a 5400 spi scanner for 
35, I assumed that the 120 wouldn't be far along.

>
> These are no small tasks, and I just don't see a market that makes 
> this type
> of development worthwhile (for a bit company that is), and I don't see
> people willing to pay for it either.

Those that can, buy an Imacon.

>   Let's see how the Minolta scanner
> does...  I'm sure someone will get one, and some tests will pop 
> up...soon...

I'm sure... I'm very curious about that manual focus knob though ;)
Best,
Carolyn

Murph writes:

> The current line-up is getting long in the tooth
> and want to know before I plunk down the dough.

It doesn't matter how long in the tooth they are as long as they do a good
job.

Bob writes:

> But I remember some guy named Moore back 30 years
> ago who came up with this idea about computers
> getting twice as fast and half the size every
> 18 months or something like that.

Moore's law does not apply to analog devices, and both scanners and
electronic ("digital") cameras are analog devices.  A digital device such as
a microprocessor or memory chip doesn't have to understand anything except
on and off, and so tolerances are generous.  In an analog device, every
electron affects the results, and so the worse the tolerances, the worse the
results.  For this reason, analog devices cannot be improved at any speed
coming even remotely close to obeying Moore's law.  And digital photography
is currently dependent on improvements in analog devices; that has been what
kept digital photography so long in coming, and that is what prevents it
from matching film even after years of development.

> When someone told me that someday computers would
> be so small they could be battery powered and we could
> carry them around in our hands, I didn't believe him
> either.

I did, but I also predicted that most people would still be using computers
with real keyboards and large displays, and I was right.

> Maybe in 2003, but 2004?

2004 will be practically identical to 2003, for digital photography and
scanners, just as these fields have been in previous years.  When you look
past the hype (not an easy task, since the hype completely obscures the view
most of the time), you see that progress really isn't as fast as it is
claimed to be.

Carolyn writes:

> Since they came out with a 5400 spi scanner for
> 35, I assumed that the 120 wouldn't be far along.

Since they never quite managed 4000 dpi for 120, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Additionally, each increase in resolution is a smaller improvement than its
predecessor in scanners.  A resolution of 4000 dpi is only a small
improvement over 2700 or 2900 dpi, despite the apparent jump.  A resolution
of 5400 dpi represents an even tinier jump.  Furthermore, unless you shoot
everything on a tripod on fine-grained film, you may not see any difference
at all between 4000 and 5400 dpi, and you may not even see a difference
between 2700 and 4000.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Carolyn Frayn" <carolynfrayn@...>
To: <digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Any New Film Scanners Coming?


>
> On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 08:48  PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >
> > Do you really need more than 4k SPI?
>
> Dunno, do we? ;)  I'd like an 11k spi drum scanner but isn't going to
> happen ...With the new Minolta 35mm film scanner announced at 5400
> spi... I'd assume 120 is next. and so on and so on...
>

Carolyn,

Supposedly B&W films resolve to a dpi equivalence of 3000 to 7000 dpi. I
imagine that in real world situations you have much less than that by the
time you take into account optical issues when you shoot. Some people
suggest that about 2500 dpi true optical resolution would be plenty for B&W
film scanning. So a true 4000 dpi scanner should really do the job.

The problem is that the resolution calculated from sensors or samples per
inch don't correspond to actual optical resolution. The Nikon 8000 scanning
at 4000 dpi tested out at ~2,900 dpi. optical resolution but that should be
very good for our purposes. I would guess that the Polaroid and Minolta MF
scanners are similar. Comparing Polaroid 120 scans to scans of the same
negatives on a Howtek 4000 which has an optical resolution of ~3500 dpi
there is a difference. While I like having that extra bit of data, I am not
sure the final print is better. If anything it may just be making it easier
to get a print I like.

If the next generation of 5400 dpi CCD scanners can deliver 75% as optical
resolution then they would be at 4000 dpi and that would be very nice!

The Aztek Premier drum scanner gives an optical resolution of over 7000 dpi
from an 8000 dpi scan so you wouldn't lose a bit of information on the film.
Not quite sure how you would handle files that big though. Not to mention
that you could get a nice new car for the price. <G>

Martin

Anthony,

> Moore's law...

Not to nitpick, OK, well, I will...Moore's purported "law" is not a law what
so ever.  It was an assertion.  An assertion that most everyone in the field
was well aware of long before Moore heralded it in some, otherwise not
notable public statement, and for some silly reason, he is credited with
coming up with it in the first place.  Kind of like Gates invented software.

Sorry, but that's one of those silly things that bugs me...

Austin

> Dunno, do we? ;)  I'd like an 11k spi drum scanner but isn't going to 
> happen ...With the new Minolta 35mm film scanner announced at 5400 
> spi... I'd assume 120 is next. and so on and so on...

The new Minolta also has a grain-dissolver, which is a built-in diffuser
that's supposed to reduce the grain without sacrificing detail. It can
be switched on and off in software. I suppose it's the same thing they
sell at http://www.scanhancer.com and that they just took the idea and
incorporated it in their hardware. Nevertheless, it's nice to see that
they're actually doing more than just increasing the dpi all the time. 

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 12:52  AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Furthermore, unless you shoot
> everything on a tripod on fine-grained film, you may not see any 
> difference
> at all between 4000 and 5400 dpi, and you may not even see a difference
> between 2700 and 4000.
>

I do not shoot on a tripod, use a variety of films and speeds.  I 
certainly see a difference in the print when making larger prints by 
upsampling compared to higher original samplings.. As for the 
difference between any res specs, results also depend highly on the 
different scanners used, the software and the operator...

Carolyn

Hi Martin..

>
> Supposedly B&W films resolve to a dpi equivalence of 3000 to 7000 dpi. 
> I
> imagine that in real world situations you have much less than that by 
> the
> time you take into account optical issues when you shoot. Some people
> suggest that about 2500 dpi true optical resolution would be plenty 
> for B&W
> film scanning. So a true 4000 dpi scanner should really do the job.

When you shoot color, or color for B&W and B&W, and require very good 
scans for all, how does that change the specs for sampling resolutions?

>
> The problem is that the resolution calculated from sensors or samples 
> per
> inch don't correspond to actual optical resolution. The Nikon 8000 
> scanning
> at 4000 dpi tested out at ~2,900 dpi. optical resolution but that 
> should be
> very good for our purposes. I would guess that the Polaroid and 
> Minolta MF
> scanners are similar.

Thank you for that information.

> Comparing Polaroid 120 scans to scans of the same
> negatives on a Howtek 4000 which has an optical resolution of ~3500 dpi
> there is a difference. While I like having that extra bit of data, I 
> am not
> sure the final print is better. If anything it may just be making it 
> easier
> to get a print I like.

I know how precise you are and what you achieved with your Polaroid is 
the reason I went looking for one once it was required. Thanks for that 
info as well...


> If the next generation of 5400 dpi CCD scanners can deliver 75% as 
> optical
> resolution then they would be at 4000 dpi and that would be very nice!

Yes it would. ;)

>
> The Aztek Premier drum scanner gives an optical resolution of over 
> 7000 dpi
> from an 8000 dpi scan so you wouldn't lose a bit of information on the 
> film.
> Not quite sure how you would handle files that big though.

I play with 1.5 gig PS files, though layers and layers of course, not a 
flattened image file size. PS has a size limit of 2.51 GIG's. So even a 
Scanmate 11k  would fit in nicely... I've been reading about people 
seeing a big difference in those huge scans of 35mm, so how can it be 
said with completely certainty that what we have now is near the limit 
for desktop CCD's and the quality of the scans won't improve with 
higher res etc. I'm just curious... and I don't have your engineering 
degrees so forgive me for being naive in this respect.

> Not to mention
> that you could get a nice new car for the price. <G>

Well, that's just it, can't justify it just yet ;)

Carolyn

The first real 2D CCD that was any pratical use in imaging dates back to 
the 70's and that was a 1 k by 1 k (1 megapixel) monochromic CCD. That 
sucker was expensive - so expensive that no one but the US DOD could 
afford it. At that time the 1 k one dimensional CCD was still 
expensive.  The amount of progress we have made in this area has not 
been anywhere near the progress technoloy has made in other areas. They 
can be produced today for a heck of a lot less money but they haven't 
improved that much in capability - except maybe much better dynamic 
range. Compare this to semiconductor memory. At the same time this CCD 
was being developed the PC was someone's wet dream. In the early 80, 64 
k of memory was a big deal. Now most have at least a half a gig in them 
and you can buy a 250 meg simm for about 100 bucks.  One of the problems 
is the physics behind the CCD.  It was thought CMOS sensors would solve 
this but they come with their own set of problems.

Of course if you really want to see a jump in scanner technology all 
that has to happen is for me to go out and buy a new one to upgrade the 
one I have. Then within a week the next generation will be released :-).

Truman

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Carolyn writes:
>
>  
>
>>Since they came out with a 5400 spi scanner for
>>35, I assumed that the 120 wouldn't be far along.
>>    
>>
>
>Since they never quite managed 4000 dpi for 120, I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>Additionally, each increase in resolution is a smaller improvement than its
>predecessor in scanners.  A resolution of 4000 dpi is only a small
>improvement over 2700 or 2900 dpi, despite the apparent jump.  A resolution
>of 5400 dpi represents an even tinier jump.  Furthermore, unless you shoot
>everything on a tripod on fine-grained film, you may not see any difference
>at all between 4000 and 5400 dpi, and you may not even see a difference
>between 2700 and 4000.
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I'd be interested in knowing what about the current line-up is 
>long in the tooth in your opinion?


Oh no, not again...


Clayton

Hello Austin,

>Not to nitpick, OK, well, I will...

At least you know that you are nitpicking, that's a step in the right
direction.   

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Carolyn Frayn" <carolynfrayn@...>
To: <digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Any New Film Scanners Coming?


> Hi Martin..
>
> >
> > Supposedly B&W films resolve to a dpi equivalence of 3000 to 7000 dpi.
> > I
> > imagine that in real world situations you have much less than that by
> > the
> > time you take into account optical issues when you shoot. Some people
> > suggest that about 2500 dpi true optical resolution would be plenty
> > for B&W
> > film scanning. So a true 4000 dpi scanner should really do the job.
>
> When you shoot color, or color for B&W and B&W, and require very good
> scans for all, how does that change the specs for sampling resolutions?

Theoretically color neg films are lower resolution and therefore less
demanding. Color neg and chromogenic B&W films are reported to have
resolutions of 1300 to 3000 and color slide film is 2000 to 6000. So the
requirement for color slide are about the same as B&W.
>
> >
(snip)
> >
> > The Aztek Premier drum scanner gives an optical resolution of over
> > 7000 dpi
> > from an 8000 dpi scan so you wouldn't lose a bit of information on the
> > film.
> > Not quite sure how you would handle files that big though.
>
> I play with 1.5 gig PS files, though layers and layers of course, not a
> flattened image file size. PS has a size limit of 2.51 GIG's. So even a
> Scanmate 11k  would fit in nicely... I've been reading about people
> seeing a big difference in those huge scans of 35mm, so how can it be
> said with completely certainty that what we have now is near the limit
> for desktop CCD's and the quality of the scans won't improve with
> higher res etc. I'm just curious... and I don't have your engineering
> degrees so forgive me for being naive in this respect.

Ouch! I have a tough time working with anything over 0.5 or 0.6 GB.

It is hard to judge the differences people see and how they evaluate it. A
lot may have to do with what they are going from and to. Maybe they don't
scan particularly well themselve but when they send it out for that big drum
scan the operator does a better job. Or perhaps the drum operator or
software did a bit of sharpening making a side by side comparison seem much
more different than it really is. No good answer to that.

No degrees in scanning or electronics here. It certainly makes sense to
pursue scanner resolution up to and probably a bit past the highest
resolution of the film, say 7000 dpi, just so you have the option to capture
everything off the best piece of film. Beyond that you are not gaining
anymore info just making larger files. Hopefully the tech will advance and
prices fall, making this possible.

Martin

>
> So the
> requirement for color slide are about the same as B&W.

Thank you.. ;)


>
> Ouch! I have a tough time working with anything over 0.5 or 0.6 GB.

;)

>
> It is hard to judge the differences people see and how they evaluate 
> it. A
> lot may have to do with what they are going from and to. Maybe they 
> don't
> scan particularly well themselve but when they send it out for that 
> big drum
> scan the operator does a better job. Or perhaps the drum operator or
> software did a bit of sharpening making a side by side comparison seem 
> much
> more different than it really is. No good answer to that.

Agreed... Same holds for output of course.

>
> No degrees in scanning or electronics here. It certainly makes sense to
> pursue scanner resolution up to and probably a bit past the highest
> resolution of the film, say 7000 dpi, just so you have the option to 
> capture
> everything off the best piece of film.

Good and Yes...

>  Beyond that you are not gaining
> anymore info just making larger files. Hopefully the tech will advance 
> and
> prices fall, making this possible.

Thanks Martin, for all your good info. I hope it will too. I'm not 
planning a move to digital capture, I doubt I will anyway, I'd spend 
far too much time adding grain to those files... ;)
Carolyn

Hi Martin,

> Theoretically color neg films are lower resolution and therefore less
> demanding.

Perhaps you might want to check here:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html

in general, I'd say that isn't really true.  Tri-X is listed at 100lp/mm,
and Fuji Superia 400 is listed at 100 as well...  Plus-X is listed at 125,
and a comparable Fuji Superia 100 is listed at 125 as well...so they seem to
be about the same. Of course, there are going to be exceptions, but I
believe in general, you can't make that generalization...yes, I see you said
"theoretically" ;-)

> So the
> requirement for color slide are about the same as B&W.

Hum.  As I'm sure you well know, not as far as density goes.  Perhaps for
resolution...

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Murph writes:
> 
> > The current line-up is getting long in the tooth
> > and want to know before I plunk down the dough.
> 
> It doesn't matter how long in the tooth they are as long as they do 
a good
> job.

True - the Nikon 8000ed I've rented has been working great, but it is 
nice to know what may be coming out soon as potential options before 
you spend this much cash...

-Murph

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

See:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

He demonstrates that there is a significan improvement going from 
2800 to 4000 DPI and still a little more improvement from 4000 to 
6000 DPI.

Thanks for your response - I've learned alot, just reading everyone's posts.  By long in 
the tooth, I meant that they've been around awhile relatively without new models.  
From someone who doesn't own a film scanner it seems like the current line-up has 
been there a while - buy maybe that's just my impatient nature working too.  Didn't 
mean to degrade the current line-up as a few posts convey'd.  

I'm thinking about buying the Nikon 8000 ED, but don't want to spend the cash if 
another scanner was coming out immenintly with higher resolution - just part of my 
due diligence.  The other problem is that I want to have flexibility to make large 
prints with my medium format scans.  

Anywall all the info is appreciated...thanks...

-Murph

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> Murph,
> 
> > The current line-up is getting long in the tooth...
> 
> I'd be interested in knowing what about the current line-up is long in the
> tooth in your opinion?
> 
> > However, CCD's (& CMOS) technology seems to be
> > moving so fast
> > that I'm suprised no new film scanners have been announced with
> > greater resolution,
> > faster, etc.  Any info would be appreciated...thanks...
> 
> They probably won't get any higher resolution than a 10k sensor which, over
> a 2.25" span is why the current crop are 4k scanners), and they probably
> won't get much faster.  CCD properties haven't gotten such that they require
> less light to register the density of the film...that's a noise issue...
> You are scanning, and have an exposure time of X, and scan, say, 10,000
> lines...so it's quite deterministic to see that 10,000 times X is your
> minimum scan time.
> 
> Do you really need more than 4k SPI?
> 
> Austin

Carolyn writes:

> ... I've been reading about people seeing a big
> difference in those huge scans of 35mm, so how
> can it be said with completely certainty that
> what we have now is near the limit for desktop CCD's
> ...

We are far from the limit for desktop scanners.  However, pixels need to be
improved in quality, not just quantity.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "murph278" 
<maybeck@a...> wrote:
> 
>
> I'm thinking about buying the Nikon 8000 ED, but don't want to 
spend the cash if 
> another scanner was coming out immenintly with higher resolution - 
just part of my 
> due diligence. 

As Jerry used to say, there will surely be a new model coming out 
within 24hrs of your purchase...
Cheers,
Andre

What prevents creation of a desktop scanner that uses PMT technology
(without a drum)?  Are there any other scanning technologies besides
CCD/CMOS and PMT?

----- Original Message -----

From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 15:52
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Any New Film Scanners Coming?


> The first real 2D CCD that was any pratical use in imaging dates back to
> the 70's and that was a 1 k by 1 k (1 megapixel) monochromic CCD. That
> sucker was expensive - so expensive that no one but the US DOD could
> afford it. At that time the 1 k one dimensional CCD was still
> expensive.  The amount of progress we have made in this area has not
> been anywhere near the progress technoloy has made in other areas. They
> can be produced today for a heck of a lot less money but they haven't
> improved that much in capability - except maybe much better dynamic
> range. Compare this to semiconductor memory. At the same time this CCD
> was being developed the PC was someone's wet dream. In the early 80, 64
> k of memory was a big deal. Now most have at least a half a gig in them
> and you can buy a 250 meg simm for about 100 bucks.  One of the problems
> is the physics behind the CCD.  It was thought CMOS sensors would solve
> this but they come with their own set of problems.
>
> Of course if you really want to see a jump in scanner technology all
> that has to happen is for me to go out and buy a new one to upgrade the
> one I have. Then within a week the next generation will be released :-).
>
> Truman

Murph writes:

> True - the Nikon 8000ed I've rented has been working
> great, but it is nice to know what may be coming out
> soon as potential options before you spend this much cash...

You can just sell the scanner if a better one comes out.

I've had three Nikon scanners: the LS-30, the LS-2000, and the LS-8000ED.
The LS-30 is on semi-permanent loan to a photographer friend (who had never
scanned anything in her life prior to using the LS-30; needless to say, she
was pleasantly shocked to see just how good her favorite images looked when
they were scanned directly, as opposed to being entrusted to lab for
prints).  I still use the LS-2000, mainly for high-speed films where 2700
dpi is enough to get everything useful off the film.  I use the LS-8000ED
for slide films, B&W, and all MF scans.  While each scanner has been better
than its predecessor, they are all still useful.  I wouldn't mind replacing
the LS-2000 with a LS-4000ED, but I don't have the budget for that now (and
even if I replaced it, I'd keep the LS-2000).

On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:25  PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>>
>
> We are far from the limit for desktop scanners.  However, pixels need 
> to be
> improved in quality, not just quantity.

well sure, and improvement usually always comes in time... I just get 
my back up with all the "certainty" floating around... with respect, 
who can be 100% certain about what's to come, except maybe my dog. His 
future is fairly predictable... eat, drink out of the toilet, sleep...
Carolyn