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

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

OK, thought I might try the SS 120.  Read a lot about it and the main issues
seem to be fiddly holders (especially trying to line up the 35mm neg.
strips) and no ICE.  Can any users let me know thoughts re. the holders and
whether the need for ICE is less than the Nikon/Minolta due to the different
type of light source.

Thanks.

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.


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