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 5400 scan Elite Tests



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ellis Vener" <ellis@ellisvener.com>

Thanks for the reply and tips Ellis.

> three items here:
>1.) at full resolution the Minolta (@5400ppi and true 16 bit per
>channel color depth)  is going to be creating larger data files than
>the Canon FS4000.
>2.) Firewire and USB 2.0 are much, much faster than regular USB, which
>I assume you were using. USB 2.0 maybe faster than firewire depending
>on the implementation.
>3.) ICE will slow you down.

After battling with extremely long scan times I managed to find a usb 2.0
driver on the Intel site that actually got the USB2 going on my motherboard.
Just did a test and scan times are down from 30 minutes per slide to less
than 10! (5400 dpi, 48 bit, 3x sampling on Vuescan). I managed to fiddle
with the colour settings and the scans are now fantastic! The Canon scans
still seems slightly sharper, but with a few levels of sharpening on PS,
there is no real difference. I am quite fussy about the sharpness of my
slides and the test slide I chose is very sharp under a 10x loupe. Maybe I
should try the manual focus thing on the Minolta?

Another note: Ice works much better than Fare, but it does soften the image
substantially. That is why I'm not using Ice at full blast, but rather at
medium setting, which in comparison has about the same effect (noise
reduction) as Fare at its highest setting. Also at extremely high
magnification, my FS4000 scans had some strange black pixels (random) in
thedarker areas, which I thought were Fare artifacts, since I once checked
and they weren't there without Fare. The Minolta with Ice has none of that.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a substitute for properly cleaning
slides. (I normally take the slides out of the frame, give them a good wipe
with a very soft, lint free cloth, put them back in the frame, then brush
them off with a soft brush, and just before they go into the scanner, I blow
them with compressed air. If any dirt is still left behind after that, it
really wants to be there :-)!)

> Thanks for this first look. I think in general you are going to b
>helped by more RAM and switching from USB to USB 2.0 or Firewire. what
>would really like to see is a Firewire 800 implementation as it is a 2x
>faster standard than Firewire or USB 2.0

Thanks, I've ordered 512Mb more RAM. Unfortunately, living at the end of the
world, everything takes at least a week, so I'll see next week when it
comes.
Thanks for the Firewire 800 tip; I never knew about it. Maybe I'll upgrade
to that, but I'm quite happy for the time being with USB2 since I got it
working.

Now, If only I could figure out how to archive these massive files? At 3 or
less scans per cd, it could become an expensive exercise by the time I have
re-scanned most of my 5000+ slide library :-(. I know I could store them in
8 bit format (file size now 'only' 100Mb) but I feel as if too much data has
been lost?

Regards
Thys

---------------------------------------------------------
         Thys van der Merwe
Portfolio of African Images:
http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/teknovis
Cell: (+27) 83-441-3108
Tel: (+27) 35-753-3766
Fax: (+27) 35-753-4489
-----------------------------------------------------------

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