ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] Re: rebuild your scanner and get better results



I have been in correspondence with the person involved with this website
for many months now regarding this matter, and I do not find his claims
to be unreasonable.  He is not claiming better resolution.  He is
claiming better color fidelity with considerably less grain, dirt, dust,
scratches and other surface defects with negatives on the Minolta Pro.

The Minolta scanners, and in particular the Pro when used with negative
film, tends to show great exaggeration of grain and surface defects.
Due to my owning a Minolta Dual II which does not even have dICE, I was
interested in this matter, because it too suffers from these problems.

I have been reporting for over a year now my surprise that the Minolta
Dual II suffers from these "defects" as it is supposed to be a cold
cathode diffused lighting source.   One consideration I gave was that
possibly it was overfocused for the scanner resolution, leading to
Nyquist errors being added to the scan and offered that perhaps
selective defocusing might reduce them.

At that time, although I mentioned it might be something odd with the
lighting source, I never expected Minolta would opt for doing something
to collimate the light (perhaps via a condenser) in order to create the
"perceived" sharper image hardened grain and edges tend to do.  But it
may be just what has been done, and to my way of thinking, this only
serves to degrade the image scan, because it makes it very difficult to
use USM successfully.

Although I don't use the Minolta much now, I have used the Polaroid Dust
and Scratch filter with the Minolta scans to some advantage, but I think
that ultimately, the better answer is a diffused light source.

Art

Major A wrote:

>>Intresting link
>>http://www.visicon.se/mp/
>>
>
> Is it just me, or do these guys see an enhancement in resolution that
> isn't there?
>
> They forget to mention that scanning times also increase, and they
> probably get more noise as well.
>
> Interesting nevertheless!
>
> Maybe I should put that diffusor back into the LS-30 that I used when
> debugging a hardware problem the other day?
>
>   Andras
>
> ===========================================================================
> Major Andras
>     e-mail: andras@users.sourceforge.net
>     www:    http://andras.webhop.org/
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>


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