Recently, hanninen.antti@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<hanninen.antti@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> posted:
> I do have the same problem with the money - I really wouldnt like to
> use 2700 euros for a new Nikon, or 1500 for used 8000. About 1000
> euros could maybe some day be affordable :). At the moment I own Canon
> 8400F, which can scan medium format, but the result is nowhere near to
> what I get out of 35mm frames with my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV.
>
> I would like to know about the Minolta Multi Pro vs. Nikon.. The Dmax-
> stuff? Does it have poorer, better or same ability to record
> highlights and shadows? The given Dmax or D-range values of course do
> not tell everything, but could give some help comparing these
> scanners.
> I think they both have enough resolution for most purposes, of course
> would be nice if it really got every detail out of even 50 ASA slide
> films. But the differences might be bigger or more im****tant with the
> dynamic?
>
Frankly, I think you'll find more variation between users of these
scanners than between the scanners. The dynamic range of either is
suitable for capturing the image for most purposes. Keep in mind that
these are low mid-range units that will do a decent job on most images. If
you need to get beyond the capabilities of these scanners (and users), a
professional using a high-end drum scanner can do the job. I use those
kinds of services for about 5% or less of my work.
> Some comments on the earlier topics:
>
> Grain problem: I really think at this level in equipment, the scanners
> should be able to reproduce the REAL grain of film.
>
Well, no, they won't.
> My Scan Dual IV
> at 3200 dpi can do that with most B&W negatives, at least with 100 ASA
> or more. Some problems with Agfa 25 APX, because the grain is so
> small. 8000 dpi should be fine to record the grain from any film, I
> think.
> This means, there should not be grain aliasing problem, if you use
> high enough dpi when scanning. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I
> think this problem exists only when the scanner cant record the real
> grain, just the picture it produces.
>
Grain aliasing can even be an issue when drum scanning. To understand
more, it might be better to start a discussion in comp.periphs.scanners,
as there are some very knowledgeable folks in that group that can get very
specific about such issues. There are also very detailed discussions on
grain aliasing in the archives for that group.
> Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide
> films.
>
That hasn't been my experience. Keep in mind that most "pros" shooting
during the introduction of scanners (more than 25 years ago) were using
slide films to make editorial decisions easier, so the equipment was
optimized for that kind of film. Negative films were not designed to be
scanned, and therefore exhibit more artifacts than slide films.
> Slide films have way higher density level, than negatives.
> Velvia 50 is said to have Dmax up to 3,8 or something.
>
However, this level of scanner has Dmax capabilities of > 4, so that isn't
the problem one runs into.
Neil
|
