Re: filmscanners: Shadows and Scanwit 2720s

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Bigboy9955@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 08/09/2001 8:22:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> artistic@ampsc.com writes:
> 
> << The second Dimage Scan has fewer bad elements, but it appears to suffer
>  from a wide area of miscalibrated elements.  I am still trying to
>  determine if this problem is due to the calibration routine failing
>  sometimes, which might, in part be a software problem. >>
> 
> Like I said, I'm *sure* I don't know what I'm doing (yet?)!  The only thing I
> noticed so far is a print with a deep blue sky and no clouds had a faint
> "wavy" look to it (I don't even know the terminology!!).  From what I've read
> on this list blues are tough so I'm hoping this *may* be expected for a blue
> sky.
> 
> Are you going to send back your second SDII, Art?
> Ed

I'm doing some more testing to try to determine where the problem is
coming from.  I know that the individual elements are either weak
sensors either bring out of calibration or beyond calibration to bring
to "standard".  The wide streak needs to be more carefully diagnosed.  I
am going to try to find out if Minolta has a software routine I can get
at to force a full calibration.  The HP S-20 had a software method to do
a calibration on the CCD (although that might have only been for its
reflective scans)  They provided a little photographic-like print with
black and white areas which you feed into the unit during this software
routine.

The images I have been feeding the scanner are the type I work with on a
regular basis.  I haven't even given it a "hard" image yet.  Everything
has been no more than one f-stop underexposed, so I don't think I have
been particularly unfair to Minolta or this product.  Again, the images
people have sent me to review from this scanner, overall have been very
good (one person who returned his for a refund did have streaking in his
images, be he returned it way before I even saw the images (so don't
blame me!)

To me, the minimal things any film scanner should do is:

1) provide a scan lacking streaking, banding, variation of exposure
within a frame or out of focus images

2) provide a scan that can viewed at pixel level and doesn't show
defects of individual elements within a normal exposure range and can be
printed at 200 dpi (referencing it's "optical resolution" without
obvious noise in the shadows.

3) provide reasonable and reliable software to function with it and do
basic adjustments of exposure and color balance

4) provide a readable manual that makes sense to the average person who
would make such a purchase.

5) reasonably handle negs and slides at least one f-stop over and under
exposed, and more reasonably 2 stops in each direction from "exact"
exposure.

5) provide an output that is reasonably color balances and of proper
exposure

I am waiting to hear from Minolta before I go any further in this
matter, but yes, should the scanner not meet these standards, I think it
is not a "film scanner"... and certainly not a middle priced one.

Art