🚀 go-pugleaf

Rob wrote:
> 
> Colin D wrote:
> >
> > Colin D wrote:
> >
> >>Noons wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
> >>>
> >>>Sounds yummy...
> >>>
> >>>Comments?
> >>
> >>I recently bought a Canon 9950F scanner, similar specs but 9600 x 4800
> >>optical res, with dual lamps, one either side of the ccd sensor to
> >>eliminate shadows from textured copy. Also film, 30 frames of 35mm, 8
> >>frames of 6x4.5, or 6 frames of 6x6 or 4 of 6x9, and 1 frame of 5x4
> >>
> >>Scan speed 11.1 msec per line.  here is a review:
> >>
> >>http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm
> >>
> >>It appears, by this reviewer's testing, the Canon is a whisker ahead of
> >>the Epson.  Me though, I'm rapt.
> >>
> >>Colin D.
> >
> >
> >
> > Addendum:  The 120 film holder will also hold a pano frame of 6 x 17 mm
> > in one shot.
> >
> > Colin D.
> 
> Do you think that its a 4800dpi optical and the 9500dpi is the tricked
> up bit.(double stepped)

The specs say 4800 x 9600 optical, so unless they're stretching the
truth, it's not double-stepped or interpolated.  I tend to believe them,
though.  I can't see Canon laying themselves open to charges of false
representation.

Colin D.