It is interesting that you mention things like unsharpness and "veils"
In the case of two scanners I'm comparing (which will again remain
nameless), on first examination, one appears to have better color
saturation and "cleaner colors" which almost make it look sharper, due
to higher contrast.
However, the truth is hidden. When I took both images, both supposedly
having no sharpening done via the manufacturers software, the one which
had the "nicer" stronger contrast and color could barely take any
unsharp masking before the shadows became a mass of colored confetti.
On the other hand, the one with more muted colors and lower contrast
(and what you might even call a very slight "veil") was able to handle
incredible amounts of unsharp masking without the slightest increase in
shadow noise, and without great loss of dynamic range, which on the
first unit caused the highlights to blow out.
Using the same slide, I tried several different renditions of the
original image using the manufacturer's software to try to rule out my
damaging the scan via adjustments during processing the scan. No matter
how the scan presented, the same differences continued to exist.
This whole matter reminds me of stereo speaker sales. I bet I could
produce scans from pretty much any film scanner within a generally
similar price range and weigh the argument to one side or the other
based upon which scans I chose to show. This is why there is nothing
like hands-on experience in making this type of decision.
Bernhard Ess wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
>>Bernhard Ess wrote:
>>>BTW, I have re- studied the sample scans of the Minolta and the Nikon
>>>on imaging- resource, and unfortunately I have come to the conclusion
>>>the Nikon ist the better scanner in almost every respect:
>>If you re-studied the article it disagrees with your statement. I quote
>>(with recognition of the article copyright to Imaging-Resource):
> Simon, you are right about their arguments, but they keep telling themselves
> that the scans should speak for themselves - having read the review I was
> very positive about the Minolta, but having re- examined the scans in detail
> I changed my view - did you look at them quietly? What I found is that the
> bigger - upsampled - resolution of 4800 doesn´t give more detail, but more
> unsharpness - but the difference in noise is just *very* strong in the dark
> areas. And there is this strange veil above the Minolta scans - which makes
> everything come out more clearly and nicer colours fir the Nikon.
> I repost those deciding links: it was
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSMP/DSMTRAIN6ADJ.HTM for the Minolta
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS8K/C8TRAIN9.HTM for the Nikon 8000.
> Watch exactly at the lower part of the locomotive where it really dark - I
> opened the pics in photoshop side to side - for me this seems like as if the
> Nikon is a clear winner here.
> Don´t misunderstand me here please - I don´t try to make one machine bad and
> another one good - I have no personal preference to one brand or another - I
> just try to find out which machine I will spend *so much* money for.... And
> those scans seem like the most exact measure I have at hand...
> greetings Bernhard