Impressive. [More so after I just shelled out big bucks to replace my dead LS-1000... ;-( ] The trick is going to be in the light source. [Also maybe a problem with Newton's rings with the glass...] Moving the diffuser back far enough outside the DOF, while still keeping even illumination. [How did you turn off the scanner's reflected illumination?] For B&W, you should be able to handle any D-Max issues by adding more lights, a dimmer, and making multiple scans... The argument is made that film (and drum) scanners will ALWAYS be better than flatbeds, because the lighter mass of the film is easier to move with precision than the heavier mass of the CCD sensor. Sounds like codswallop to me. I think the real value here is you've shown that flatbeds offer a possibility, especially for medium and large format, if they are designed properly for transmissive media. Though a dedicated film scanner is better today, the flatbed technolgy may be improving to a point where the issue will be moot. [I think the new Microtek http://www.microtekusa.com/as1800f.html has been pretty innovative here. But this is also pretty high cost.] Not to really start a flame war, (those flaming claws look imposing), dedicated film scanners today have better resolution, D-max, color precision, speed, repeatability, ruggedness, etc. One can always make a dedicated piece of equipment work better than a general purpose piece of equipment. But the flatbed technology shouldn't be dismissed off-hand. The real question is, is there a consumer market for an excellent flatbed film scanner which will drive the prices down? We've seen huge price decreases in the general purpose consumer flatbeds. It is not clear that manufactureres would break their price structure in order to add a feature only a small number of consumers would find useful.