Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!
- From: "david/lisa soderman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:50:33 -0500
- Unsubscribe: mailto:email@example.com
There were several questions and comments that various folks had to say re:
the sample scans that I recently posted.
I'll try to respond to everything at one time. I hope this works out.
First, no I did not do the scans at the same time. Back around Thanksgiving
time, I had the Nikon LS8000 for a short time. I just happened to save a
few of the test scans. I saved one @2000ppi w/no ICE...and one @4000ppi
w/ICE. I think there was even a 4000ppi scan w/VueScan & Ed's IR cleaning.
The VueScan one was the only one that I did set at "superfine scan" mode.
(No choice w/VueScan). Honestly, I didn't notice banding in my type of
"people" portraiture. Then again, I didn't test the unit for an extended
period of time. If I had only known, I surely would have kept the Nikon.
In mid-December, I exchanged the Nikon unit for the Minolta Scan Multi Pro.
At the time, I was "gun shy" from all the negative reports coming in re: the
Nikon unit. Also at the time, there weren't many reports on the Minolta.
What little feedback there was - was all great. It was the busiest time of
year for my business. By the time I actually got the unit out of the box
and began testing it, the store said it was too late to return it. I never
filled out the warranty card; the scanner is basically brand new. What to
do next? (hear the violins in background)
I decided to try scanning that same neg that I used the Nikon on. I was
immediately horrified when I saw the grainy/gritty look...especially on the
faces of people! Also, there was scads of dust, dirt, debris and scratches
everywhere. ICE helped, but did not clean it all up. Also, the
grainy/gritty look was still there. Any scanning without ICE on this
machine would be a time consuming extravaganza of cleanup.
I never did use 4800ppi on the Minolta, because of it's interpolation on 6x6
negs. So, everything I posted was @ 3200 ppi.
No, I haven't ever used GEM on the scans to minimize grain. I tried and
tried...but still haven't ever seen the "progress bar" even begin to move a
fraction of an inch - even after 45 minutes. I simply gave up on GEM with
And no, I haven't tried the "defocusing" idea yet. I've been wasting lots
of my time on this machine lately. The only reason that I've recently had
this much time to fiddle around with it is because I've been home sick with
a bad cold. But as soon as I recover, I've got to make a decision re: what
to do with this thing. First, I need to know whether this is typical
performance for negs...or whether I have a defective unit. Then I'll know
whether to sell it...or have it repaired first; then sell it.
I've yet to hear *any* input from anyone else who scans negs with the
Minolta Scan Multi Pro. So I can only assume that everyone else out there
is scanning transparencies. Actually, no that I think about it, Jack Phipps
from Applied Science Fiction mentioned that he has made good neg scans on
it. I wonder if he's seen the posted scans. I must remember to send him a
CD with full rez samples.
I find it interesting that when I posted my 1st batch of scans a few days
ago, (Minolta scans only), nobody found the grain objectionable. Only when
placed next to the Nikon scans did anyone complain. (Myself included!)
When I find time, I'll try the "defocusing" idea - even though I think it's
preposterous to need to do so on such a costly box.
Also, I would like to point out that the "crud"/grain/noise is still
present...even at lower resolutions like 1600ppi. I don't know if I'll have
time to illustrate that though.
Meanwhile... any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions are warmly
Joyfully, -david soderman- <><
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or