Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Minolta Dimage Elite II


  • To: lexa@www.lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Minolta Dimage Elite II
  • From: "" <al@greenspace.freeserve.co.uk>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:07:16 -0000
  • Content-description: Mail message body
  • Organization: greenspace.freeserve.co.uk
  • Priority: normal
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

Tomek Zakrzewski wrote:

> Are there any people with experience on Minolta Dimage Scan Eilte II? I
> wasn't able to find any online review of this scanner.

Hi Tomek,

As you may have seen from other posts (or the archives) the Elite is not 
without its
problems.  But much depends what you want to use it for.

If you are using mainly negatives and these are properly exposed, then I suspect
you wouldn't have any particular problems.  The main hardware issues I (and at
least one other member of the list) have had are in the deep areas of slides.

I'll post a link to an example soon but I know Ralf Schmode has already 
provided a
link to his examples.

Of course, you may get lucky and get a unit with no hardware issues, in which 
case
you'll want to know about the software.

On the plus side, the software itself is pretty good and gives good colour 
rendition
on both slides and negatives.  Images from negatives are punchy and well
balanced.  ICE works well (I am a fan!) but appears to soften images very 
slightly.
(However, it has been suggested that the hardware may incorporate some covert
sharpening which may get switched off when ICE is switched on.)  I haven't 
needed
to use ROC at all.  GEM is quite good at smoothing out grain but can make broad
areas of colour become unnaturally uniform.  Some images can take this better
than others.

On the down side, using autoexposure on slides can cause slight clipping of
highlight detail.  Also, autoexposure will only extend exposure time for
underexposed slides: for overexposed slides, it doesn't reduce exposure time
sufficiently.  With negatives, the reason the images look punchy is because the
software clips highlights as well.  This seems to be during the process of 
inverting
the image and removing the mask.  So by the time you get the option in the
software to set the black and white points, some data is already lost for good.
Pictures with subtle highlight detail (like wedding dresses or other white 
textiles)
definately lose usable data.  Finally, (and this could be user error) I had a 
few
instances where focus was slightly out until I re-focussed and re-scanned.

Of course, there is the alternative option of using Vuescan instead of the 
Minolta
software which only clips data if set to do so.  And can reduce exposure time 
better
than the Minolta software.

If the hardware worked as it should, I wouldn't hesitate in recommending this
scanner.  Unfortunately, as it stands at the moment, only get it if you can 
return it if
you are unsatisfied.

Hope this helps,



Al Bond

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.