Which are six variables to match, varying from film to film and led to led. And then you sample CMY into RGB.
Well, I disagree.
Oh really?
That would be why the original light source was so botched then.
Honestly, does it look as of the designers had 'high end' in mind when they created that mess of lenses to try and even out the light from 3 inadequate LEDs?
They clearly screwed it. They apparently went the way Bose pioneered in audio domain: "we don't care much how the hardware performs, we'll make up for everything in software". This "mostly" works. Until it stops. But all that doesn't change the fact that this scanner is one of five worth spending one's time on, short of some drum machines and Imacon's X range. If that doesn't make it "higher-end" then I don't know what does. It has better film handling than Nikon 5000, it has better glass than Nikon 5000, subjectively it has better Dmax than Nikon 5000/9000. Except intrinsic differences in edge-to-edge performance caused by drum scanning, either virtual (Imacon) or real (Heidelberg) it outperforms both (I have only older Imacon) on 135 in terms of outcome quality and I don't even start talking about total mount and scan time per frame. So yes, "really" :-)