Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>Just spotted notice of this sale in the morning mail.
><http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=F18000&cm_mmc=geekmail-_-newarrivals_html-_-15_jul_2005-_-naproduct>
>
>I have no idea how well this thing performs but I see that it doesn't
>cost very much and seems to have the unusual ability to take uncut 35mm
>film as well as slides.
>
>
That's the one possibly attractive thing about it. Even there, I suppose
many are like me, in that they have much more old film already in strips
or slide mounts that needs scanning than stuff that is of will be in
full rolls.
>The scan resolution only yields a 4MP image but if all you've got is a
>low end flat bed scanner this might be a better solution at not much
>expense.
>
>
You can get a perfectly good 2700 dpi or more last generation scanner
for that used.
>Based on the USB 1.1 speed this is pretty likely new old stock which is
>what Computer Geeks usually deals in. However, I see that it's still
>listed as a product by the manufacturer.
><http://www.scanace.com/en/product/1800afl.php>
>
>
Pretty scary page. Very limited specs and no views of the film handling
bits at all. But most important, no spec on Dmax. Don't you think that
if it was any good, it would be on the spec list?
>USB 1.1 is pretty slow but probably plenty fast enough to keep up with
>the data rate coming off the scanner.
>
>
If so, the scanner is too slow. OK, maybe I'm assuming that low res
should mean faster scans.
I wouldn't touch it without some test info.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|