Hi David, Very interesting comparisons.
What I find particularly interesting is that the Minolta shows more detail (including all the junk (DDSG-dust, dirt, scratches and grain)) than the Nikon does. Have you attempted defocusing yet? The Minolta claims to be about 20% higher resolution, 4800 versus 4000 dpi, and the original scan does look sharper to me, but at what cost? Honestly, I prefer the Minolta scan post dICE to the Nikon post dICE, and if the grain is still too intense for some would GEM help? My suggestion is try defocusing the Minolta scan and then use dICE and see what it looks like, then compare all of them using USM and see which gives the best final scan. Art david/lisa soderman 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? > > -david soderman- <>< > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
