Even after encountering it many times, I am still astounded when I hear people put down slide film. All I can say is that I have been shooting film since the dawn of the digital age, yet still remember the thrill of getting my first box of slides back. The incredible colors, clarity, brilliance, and resolution. A roll of Elite Chrome 200, shot in my dads old Minolta XG-7, with a 50mm lens, looikng out over the Chicago skyline from the top of the Hancock Center. Wow, people, n a row boat, maybe 1/2 mile away, and the oars clearly visible! I had never experienced this with negative film before.
Since then I have discovered that slides scan better and more easily than negs too: better colors with less need for tweaking to get rght, sharper, with less grain allowing for easer sharpening without the need for blurring filters, and better resolution. Yet still you hear the crazy talk on the Net, the Urban Legend that slde is more difficult to scan. The exact opposite is true!
Photo Engineer, I respect you greatly, and dont want to offend you, but when I read your comments about Ektar being 2-3 generations ahead of slide, I thought to myself, yes, but 2-3 generations behind slide in results. I have tried to love it too, but been let down too many times when my slide shots came out great, and the Ektar paled in comparison. The one exception being sunsets, where it equals slide film results for impact and beauty.
The people who design scanners have little understanding of negative films. A true expert can get more out of a negative than a slide. And, R&D on slide films is considerably less advanced than that of negative film due to the market.