I am in the midst of doing some A:B scanner comparisons, and I've got to
say that I give anyone who can figure out a fully generic method to do
this a lot of credit.
I find I'm dealing with different resolutions, different software
interfaces, different methods of profiling the films, different
saturations, color renditions, and probably half a dozen other variables
that make the whole process rather impossible to control.
And beyond that, each scanner reacts differently based upon the film
type and subject matter.
I've come to the conclusion that all I can do is try to get the "best
scan" I know how (including Photoshop manipulation) and then look at the
results and try to make an evaluation.
I recognize this is very subjective, both in terms of my abilities
within PS, and how I see the results, which wouldn't be too satisfying
if I was attempting to report my results to others (I'm not).
I've decided that, similar to benchmark results of computer hardware, a
scanner company can try to make their scanner hardware/software combo
produce a scan that for the "average image" seems to "look the best",
which might not in fact be the best method of processing the image, or
the company might attempt to produce the most "usable" image (which may
not look the best, but might have more info in it with proper
manipulation) but probably not both.
As a result, I'm beginning to realize that just looking at the output
file may only tell part of the story, at best.
Art
Bernhard Ess wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Jackson" <Ian_Jackson@blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro Manual URL
>
>
>
>>However I was surprised to read Bernhard's comment about the Nikon
>>beating the Minolta "on every count" on the visual results. I wonder if
>>he was comparing the review pictures or the real thing?
>>
>
> Ian,
>
> I was comparing the review pictures, but as they use always exactly the same
> slides this should be a valuable test. I am amazed that they rate the
> Minolta highest themselves, because the sample scans speak another
> language... What do you think when looking at them? And what would you base
> your choice upon? The manufacturors announcments?
>
> I think Nikon has always built good scanners, specially the new ED glass
> line seems to meet high standards, the only issue seems to be the banding
> problem in the 8000, that seems to show up eventually, but which should be
> fixed in the future (I hope). Despite that problem everyone who has the 8000
> seems to like the results it gives.
>
> On the Yahoo Piezography list there have been some threads concerning the
> 8000, one guy has posted scans of both the Nikon 8000 and the Heidelberg
> Tango drum scanner - the Nikon compares quite good in this "test" - the link
> to the scans is: )
>
> Of course mine is just another "opinion" but I don´t think I will have the
> chance to compare them side to side - unfortunately...
>
> greetings from Berlin,
>
> Bernhard
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
