Re: To David Soderman: A Little Test

[rafe.bustin@xxxxxxxxxxx]

[rafe b, to Kennedy McEwen:]

> > Umm, yes. I'm afraid I see your point.  Seems rather
> > crass, doesn't it?

[Dave King:]
> Is it possible the designers knew from the start the 3 CCD approach wouldn't
> be as good as 1, and intended for "production" work where speed is
> frequently as (or more) important than quality?  I'd bet newspapers and
> magazines around the world buy a lot of nikon scanners.


It's all speculation, but it all comes down to some scenario 
like that.  Nikon was hoping / expecting that this problem would 
be seen rarely, and that they would deal with it via the 
"Super Fine Scan" fix.  Obviously, the symptoms are too 
awful for them to be up-front about the issue; their strategy 
involves (!!!) irate customers calling in, and tech-support 
people offering the "fix" of checking the SuperFine Scan 
box.  At which time the customer gets to consider the speed 
implications of that fix...  Hence my comment about Nikon's 
strategy being somewhat crass.

But your comment is well taken.  Consider that I'd had my 
scanner for well over a month, under heavy use, before I 
first noticed banding -- and that was only after it was 
pointed out to me by Lawrence Smith, on Tony Sleep's 
listserv.


rafe b.

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.