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: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!



I have been following the recent reports on Nikon 8000 vs Minolta Multi Pro
with some interest since I have both machines. I am in the middle of a book
project scanning 100's of 35mm & 6x6 b&w and faded color of Japan from the
50's
and 60's. I also was using a Leafscan 45 before these 2 scanners appeared.

Here are my general impressions so far (had the Minolta only about a week (60
scans), the others many months).
1. Software: The Leaf, in spite of its ancient windows beginnings is head and
shoulders above the others in logical layout and continuity. The Nikon 3.1 is
about as inept a piece of software as I have ever used. Non intuitive system
with windows and controls scattered about without any apparent logic. Also
every now and then for no apparent reason it will reset to color when I am
working in b&w. Minolta is much better and more intuitive. (Why do software
people think that all we do every day is use their program?)

2 Scans: (all at 300-400 dpi x enlargement of 4x to 8x --b&w 8mb to 15mb
files)
I have never found the need for larger files even for exhibition prints 2' x
3'.

Leaf 45 gave good scans that needed little or no sharpening. Dust and
scratches
seldom in evidence. Slow and somewhat limited in dpi but certainly usable.

Nikon 8000: good scans with little evidence of dust or scratches. Minimal
or no
sharpening req'd. Ice much too slow for production use, but ROC is a miracle.
Overall scan times seem roughly twice of the Minolta and the illogical mix of
previews and thumbnails increases the time considerably.

Minolta Pro: Scans are fast and detailed, but in many cases show excessive
grain, and dust and scrathes that did not show up on the Nikon. I have NOT
tried defocusing slightly but that may help. No additional sharpening --in
fact
considerable use of Photoshop filters to soften harsh grain in mainly 35 b&w.

If I was at the office I would be able to be more precise, but these are my
thoughts so far. I am currently traveling so cannot immediately make any
comparative scans, but am anxious to do so on my return end of April. Would
appreciate suggestions for a meaningful test.


Norm Carver

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.