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: Scan Dual IV vs Scan Dual II



>if time were money (it
>isn't for me) I'd opt for a scanner with dICE.

Preston, I have to wonder if time were money if you would actually save a
whole lot by using dICE since using it often slows down the scan speed a
great deal.  If one cleaned one's film and dust out of the scanner, would
one have to spend more than a minimal amount of time touching up dust on the
film scans without dICE as compared to the amount of time a dICE scan would
take?  It make be a toss up.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Preston Earle
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 8:31 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scan Dual IV vs Scan Dual II


"Berry Ives" wrote: "Okay, does anyone have experience on both the
Minolta SD2 and SD4? If so, please share that with me. I've read the
specs already."
------------------------

I don't usually do "Me too" posts, but I want to second Arthur Entlich's
post (and I hope my agreeing with him doesn't spoil his Curmudgeon Score
too badly <G>). I had a SDII and replaced it with a SDIII when the SDII
got where it wouldn't "take in" the film holder to start a scan. The
quality difference between the II and III is dramatic. There is almost
no banding on the III, where that was a significant problem on the II.

I haven't tried the Minolta software solutions for grain and dust. (I
believe Vuescan gives noticeably better color than the OEM software), so
I can't comment on that issue. I do know that on the III model,
spots/dust are still a significant problem, and if time were money (it
isn't for me) I'd opt for a scanner with dICE. Grain is also a problem,
thought it doesn't seem to be as bad as with the II. I haven't gone back
to scan some old 5247 negative which had huge grain issues when scanned
on the II, but scans of modern film seem to have fewer grain problems.

I understand the main difference between the III and IV is the
resolution and that the overall quality is otherwise very similar.

Preston Earle
PEarle@triad.rr.com


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


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.759 / Virus Database: 508 - Release Date: 9/9/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.759 / Virus Database: 508 - Release Date: 9/9/2004

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