I'll add my 2 cents here. First of all, a Tango is not a Premier. I hired someone to do a scan on a Tango, an experienced operator and got a scan that wasn't as good, quite visibly I might add, than the Howtek 4500. (The one I purchased right after I figured out how much it was going to cost me to do all the scans I wanted.) I will say there are likely a couple of people that can get quality out of a Tango that others can't. There is some hot-wiring they can do, apparently. Cramer sent me a test neg a while back and the Premier blew away the sharpness of his Tango.

I think the major difference isn't the aperture itself. The Premier can do 3 microns. However, there isn't any film (non-military) that can scan that low without showing grain anti-aliasing. That said, the mechanisms to support a 3 micron result require twice the "sharpness" required to do a 6 micron scan. The Premier moves over a 64,000 of an inch with each pass (turn around the circumference). Every part of the process, from the lead screw, to the components in the optics box have to be better made, have higher tolerance.

Given this, I entirely and totally reject all notions of there is only so much detail in a particular image based on film format, fstop, etc. It simply hasn't borne out in my testing. Every test that indicates that there is no more detail than 4K, for instance has been done with a scanner with limits at that level.

The other aspect is "how to scan" an image. Most folks in labs are going to give you a top and bottom that isn't clipped and let the scan run... WCI's and NancyScan's business model is one of volume, get the project out the door. In my opinion, setting white and black points isn't how to scan an image, certainly not in b&w. Other folks make the image look like they want the print to be. That isn't right either. If you want to be successful at scanning, you have to give the photographer the capacity to make the print they want. A lot of film compress the midtones, or a certain section of the midtones, lighting affects it, etc. Certainly it should give the ends a wide berth, but it should also separate with micro adjustments, each area of the midtones so that the printer can grab these sections with a mask and manipulate them to get the desired effect. The better a printer someone is, the more subtle their vision is, the better a scan you will get.

Further, I say screw resolution. It's too easy - for any drum scanner (and not consumer machines). Especially when printing with an inkjet. I can do a scan with any size film that will show the edge of a building sharp, at say 16x20. I don't bother opening up the lens to a wider aperture because the difference is so minimal it's silly, IMO. I'm building an iPhone app, as many of you know, and I didn't bother with a depth of field, or hyperfocal distance calculator, because I think its a waste of time. Close the lens down and get some depth of field! Use a loupe to see if things are in focus.

The real meat of a great scan is whether or not you can deliver all the tones of the original scene, and separated out so that you can print it. That's the hard part.

Lenny