I didn't take the two samples into Photoshop yet and play with them and
do USM filtering, etc., but I did look at them closely.
The Minolta seems to be excessively contrasty, and the shadows block up
quicker than the Nikon. Take a look at the area under the blue-purple
flower, especially right near her hair. There is much more information
in the Nikon scan than the Minolta. It isn't as "sharp" but there is
more data, texture, color, information.
Also, look at her hair in that same area. Note how the Nikon hair looks
like hair, with depth and gradients that make it look 3D and shiny.
With the Minolta, the hair looks dry and very bleached and un-natural,
with no real luster or third dimension.
Finally, take a look at her lips and the lipstick. On the Nikon scan I
can tell that it is a metallic luster lipstick, and I can see the soft
curves in her lips.
Now, take a look at the Minolta scan. I can see a highlight in the lips
but is it due to the shine of the light, or the metallic sheen in the
lipstick formula? And look at the left lower portion of the lower lip.
It is almost flat in contour on the Minolta, while the Nikon gives it
some curve (although not a lot).
The Minolta seems to be lacking the subtlety of those in-between colors,
almost like it is working a a lower bit depth.
Art
Simon Lamb wrote:
> Take a look at these two images from the Imaging Resource web site and
> showing two scans made of a test image using the LS8000 and Multi Pro. Both
> used ICE. The Minolta definitely looks like it is doing sharpening in the
> scanner.
>
> LS 8000 image:
>
> Multi Pro image:
>
> Simon
>
> On 7/4/02 6:20 am, "david/lisa soderman" <scapes@wi.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Howdy there,
>>
>>Here's an URL that might interest some of you:
>>
>>www.dreamscapesphoto.com/files/p23graintest.htm
>>
>>I came across some 6x6 neg scans that I did before I exchanged my Nikon
>>8000ED
>>unit. I decided to post those scans in contrast to these from the Minolta
>>Scan
>>Multi Pro.
>>
>>Please try not to get hung up about differences in color, contrast,
>>brightness, etc..
>>The main objective of the test was to compare GRAIN and ICE.
>>These tests are far from perfect, but they're close enough to get the point
>>across.
>>
>>6x6 Kodak Portra 160NC color neg film. (rated @ 80 ISO)
>>
>>To me, the Minolta scans look extremely grainy for a moderately slow
>>negative film.
>>
>>Is anyone else out there scanning color negs with the Scan Multi Pro? If
>>so, what kind of results are you getting? Is this typical? Am I
>>over-reacting? Do I have a defective unit? Am I doing something wrong?
>>Would anyone care to trade a Nikon 8000ED for a Minolta Scan Multi Pro?
>>
>>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
