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]

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV vs. Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II



Paul,  I have the Coolscan IV at work and it is a nice mid- range scanner.
It gives a esolution that lets you print comfortably at 8x10, it works
rather fast and scanning is easy.

I guess the DSE II is pretty much the same class of machine. I didn´t use it
yet but I think the 4,8dmax is a number calculated by the scanners bit
resolution . The theoretical maximum so to say. I am almost sure the scanner
will not show 4,8 in real world scanning. Minolta claims the same numbers
for their new Multi Pro MF scanner, so I guess its just mathematics.

The big pice difference would not let me hesitate and I´d take the Minolta.
Here in Ger*money* the Minolta will - as far as I have heard - only be
slightly cheaper than the Nikon..

greetings Bernhard

----- Original Message -----
From: "patton paul" <ppatton@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 3:27 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV vs. Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II


> I'm a serious amateur photographer and have been thinking about purchasing
> a Nikon Coolscan IV.  Its advantages include 2900 dpi resolution and ICE.
> However, at nearly $800.00, the price makes me hesitant.  I recently
learned
> that Minolta has marketed a filmscanner called the Dimage Scan Elite II,
> which has specifications that seem very similar to the Coolscan IV, but
costs
> only $400.00.  Could anyone please comment on the relative quality of
these
> two scanners?  The DSE II has 2,820 dpi resolution and ICE.  Its dynamic
> range is 4.8, which is better than the Coolscan's 3.6.  Could someone
please
> explain whether this difference is significant?  The light source in the
> DSE II is a cold cathode fluorescent tube, whereas that for the Coolscan
is
> an LED.  What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two
> light sources?  Are the two machines roughly comparable, as their specs
> seem to suggest, or is the Nikon Coolscan really worth the extra money?
> __________________________________________________________________






 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.