I was only able to point this out because you mentioned it before.
You're right about the film scanning portion of the review needing to be
rewritten. I read right over the top of this item the first time and
it didn't register.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>It's rather hard to find in the review but if you read
>><http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_13.htm>
>>you'll see that the scanner produced much better film scan results when
>>the film height adjusters were set to other than the factory supplied
>>position.
>>
>>So much better, in fact, that after the setting change the reviewer
>>declares the V700 to produce better film scan results than the Nikon
>>4000 dedicated film scanner. This is exactly the opposite of his first
>>opionion of the scanner.
>>
>>Someone testing the V750 who didn't know this little tidbit might
>>declare much worse performance.
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I thought about saying something, but was
> afraid of sounding like a shill for a scanner I've never seen, as I've
> already posted about that test and page 13 several times.
>
> I think Vincent does himself and the scanner a disservice by not
> rewriting the original 35mm scan test page or posting a big warning on
> it. The page where he makes this discovery is one a 35mm only reader
> might easily skip. Even the page name is misleading in this regard.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|