[filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta ScanMulti Pro!

["Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>]

Well, I've just done it.  I cancelled my replacement Multi Pro until we all
get to the bottom of this grain issue.  I really want to get to a definitive
answer before committing to spend my hard earned cash on what will be an
investment for the next few years.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "david/lisa soderman" <scapes@wi.net>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:50 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000 vs.Minolta
ScanMulti Pro!


> Howdy all,
>
> I'm back.
> There were several questions and comments that various folks had to say
re:
> the sample scans that I recently posted.
> I'll try to respond to everything at one time.  I hope this works out.
>
> First, no I did not do the scans at the same time.  Back around
Thanksgiving
> time, I had the Nikon LS8000 for a short time.  I just happened to save a
> few of the test scans.  I saved one @2000ppi w/no ICE...and one @4000ppi
> w/ICE.  I think there was even a 4000ppi scan w/VueScan & Ed's IR
cleaning.
> The VueScan one was the only one that I did set at "superfine scan" mode.
> (No choice w/VueScan).  Honestly, I didn't notice banding in my type of
> "people" portraiture.  Then again, I didn't test the unit for an extended
> period of time.  If I had only known, I surely would have kept the Nikon.
>
> In mid-December, I exchanged the Nikon unit for the Minolta Scan Multi
Pro.
> At the time, I was "gun shy" from all the negative reports coming in re:
the
> Nikon unit.  Also at the time, there weren't many reports on the Minolta.
> What little feedback there was - was all great.  It was the busiest time
of
> year for my business.  By the time I actually got the unit out of the box
> and began testing it, the store said it was too late to return it.  I
never
> filled out the warranty card; the scanner is basically brand new.  What to
> do next?   (hear the violins in background)
>
> I decided to try scanning that same neg that I used the Nikon on.  I was
> immediately horrified when I saw the grainy/gritty look...especially on
the
> faces of people!  Also, there was scads of dust, dirt, debris and
scratches
> everywhere.  ICE helped, but did not clean it all up.  Also, the
> grainy/gritty look was still there.  Any scanning without ICE on this
> machine would be a time consuming extravaganza of cleanup.
>
> I never did use 4800ppi on the Minolta, because of it's interpolation on
6x6
> negs.  So, everything I posted was @ 3200 ppi.
>
> No, I haven't ever used GEM on the scans to minimize grain.  I tried and
> tried...but still haven't ever seen the "progress bar" even begin to move
a
> fraction of an inch  - even after 45 minutes.  I simply gave up on GEM
with
> the Minolta.
>
> And no, I haven't tried the "defocusing" idea yet.  I've been wasting lots
> of my time on this machine lately.  The only reason that I've recently had
> this much time to fiddle around with it is because I've been home sick
with
> a bad cold.  But as soon as I recover, I've got to make a decision re:
what
> to do with this thing.  First, I need to know whether this is typical
> performance for negs...or whether I have a defective unit.  Then I'll know
> whether to sell it...or have it repaired first; then sell it.
>
> I've yet to hear *any* input from anyone else who scans negs with the
> Minolta Scan Multi Pro.  So I can only assume that everyone else out there
> is scanning transparencies.  Actually, no that I think about it, Jack
Phipps
> from Applied Science Fiction mentioned that he has made good neg scans on
> it.  I wonder if he's seen the posted scans.  I must remember to send him
a
> CD with full rez samples.
>
> I find it interesting that when I posted my 1st batch of scans a few days
> ago, (Minolta scans only), nobody found the grain objectionable.  Only
when
> placed next to the Nikon scans did anyone complain.  (Myself included!)
>
> When I find time, I'll try the "defocusing" idea - even though I think
it's
> preposterous to need to do so on such a costly box.
> Also, I would like to point out that the "crud"/grain/noise is still
> present...even at lower resolutions like 1600ppi.  I don't know if I'll
have
> time to illustrate that though.
>
> Meanwhile... any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions are warmly
> welcome.
>
> Joyfully,  -david soderman- <><
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
>

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