Re: film/print scanner question

[Bob W8IMO <w8imo@xxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

I believe you're right about the film size.  A long time ago I shot some 
120, but not a lot so film size never entered my thought process.

As for the power, I don't do a lot of scanning so my 4400 gets connected 
when I am. 

Our primary reason for getting a new flatbed was that my old IBM 
flatbed* was connected via the parallel port on my PCs and the newest 
drivers I could find were either W95 and maybe W98.  My wife wants to 
scan knitting patterns and stuff like that and the 4400 does that well 
and she gets a pdf file. I have scanned maybe three photos and about a 
dozen slides.  The slides were scanned just to see how they would come 
out. I still have my Canoscan FS2710* film scanner and Vuescan works 
with it and XP or Linux.

*One of the first awards I earned when I was a new Ham Radio Operator 
was the "Junk Hunter" certificate so I still have the IBM FB and the 
FS2710 and other things like that.  Anybody want an IBM Thinkpad 300? 8^)

Bob

Rich Mason wrote:
> Bob, some things I noticed about the 8800 vs the 4400:  The 4400 
> doesn't seem able to scan film larger than 35mm, is this correct? 
>  That would be a deal breaker for me, but I'm not sure about the 
> person this is in aid of.  The 8800 uses white LED light and the 4400 
> uses fluorescent and draws a lot more power on standby (1.5 Watts for 
> the 8800 vs 4 Watts w/ the 4400)--that's money going down the drain 
> for no good reason.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich