Ok, logical you are right. It is just my feel only, because Nik*n's scanner
was always the benchmark in many test site. As I'm interested to know why
you said Elite II is better than IV ED, so I went to
www.imaging-resource.com and have a glance, it shown that the ICE of Elite
II is not as effective as other scanners (obviously talking about Nik*n
scanner) and the resolution is 50.8cycles/mm and IV ED is 57 cycles/mm, for
color test it is hard to say, you can download the Q-60 target test result
and see it yourself but I prefer the IV ED's saturation.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Scharf" <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> C.H.,
>
> I don't think its meaningful to compare your experience of the Scan
> Speed to the current line of Minolta scanners. These are older
> scanners that are well out of production; such statements comparing
> to their performance to the current line of scanners e.g. the Dimage
> Scan Elite II or the Dimage III is not a fair comparison. You're
> assuming that a Mfr. can cannot improve the overall performance of
> their products relative to their competition. This is not to say the
> Nikon LS4000 you have is not a terrific scanner, it is; you get what
> you pay for. But the Minolta Scan Elite II is a better scanner than
> the Nikon Coolscan IV ED.
>
< 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 >
|