> It has nothing to do with Nyquist.
You are mistaken, it has everything to do with Nyquist.... 1/R is the basis of recordable resolution, period...
> It has to do with the different between how many pixels one can make vs the actual optical resolution of the sampling mechanism (how many bars it can separate).
This is Nyquist and 1/R, you are contradicting yourself.....
> In a drum that would be related to the stepper motor and the choices of steps where the samples are taken.
That is ONE variable of the drum scan, its equivalent to one axis of resolution on a XY scan. At 8000 dpi, this equates to 157 pp/mm. A diffraction limited lens viewing film at f2.8 can deliver 1500/2.8 = 536 lp/mm, almost 4x the resolution of a 8000 lines / inch on the drums rotation. A lens has more potential than revolving drum. A drum scanners native image can be thought of as threads of a screw. I think you are overlooking the potential of a sharp optics.
> You probably never tested a Premier, it's better than the older ICG's, for certain. The Cezanne is not close. It don't think it would be equal to any drum scanner.
I have compared scans from a Howtek 8000 I owned, and still use vs. the Premier, I can see little or no differences. As you know. the basis of the premier was the Howtek 8000. A friend of mine a few years back, went to visit Phil when considering an upgrade from his 8000 to the Premier, he brought film he had scanned on his 8000, and Phil could barely match it after tweaking it for quite some time. Bottom line, the last generation of Howtek scanners, mainly the 4500 and 8000 scanners were great scanners, period. (of course, anyone can get a bad sample) After comparing Howtek scans to Cezanne scans, for color film, I would consider them nearly the same, hence why I finally left the drum world and went flat bed. However, if I was scanning B&W, I would still own a drum.
As for the price of scanners, lets get real, we all know scanners in the early 90's were in the 200k price range.... I was comparing prices of todays scanners, not early 90's like you converted my reference to... no company can sell a $30k scanner if it performs like a consumer level "soft" scanner as you have implied many times for the Cezanne. Others on this list have mentioned their Cezanne scans have equaled or beat drum scans, yet somehow, you continue to ignore what they write. You accuse everyone of defending their scanners, instead, it appears from your posts, it's you who continually defends your Aztek....
> The Seybold test is not considered authoritative.
It was the last non biased, independently juried scanner test I have read about....do you have any other tests to share?