Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No. It should be expensive. And the primary reasons that it is three times the money are its purported higher 35 mm resolution - AND the fact that it can also scan 120. The 35-120 scanners are MUCH more expensive than the 35 only scanners. Ted, as a 35 guy, doesn't need a multi-format scanner. B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Gary Williams Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:53 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Totally off topic.... Polaroid scanner Subject: Re: [Leica] Totally off topic.... Polaroid scanner > Ted, > > I've recently bought a Minolta Scan Multi Pro > (actually, the name's even longer, but that will do). > "Only" 3200 pixels per inch for 120, but 4800 ppi for > 35mm, and it produces real 16 bit scans with a higher > claimed dynamic range than the Nikon or Polaroid. So > far I'm very happy with it indeed. > > Nick Isn't the Minolta almost 3x more money than the Polaroid? It should be dynamite. Gary - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html