On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 06:13 AM, Thys wrote:
> Hi
>
> After hunting everywhere for a proper review of the Minolta 5400, and
> not
> really finding any, I decided to buy the thing. I have been playing
> around
> with it for a short while only, but I thought I'll share my initial
> impr
Just to make a side note:
for a sustained transfer Firewire is still beating USB2.0 attaining
full ~40 MB/s (or even more) whilst USB2.0 performance is still
highly-depedent on particular drivers and chipsets. So far having
USB2.0
HDD remote device I wasn't able to go over 17 MB/s hooked up to my
U
Thys,
I too bought one of these about a week ago. I'm just starting on the
learning curve.
> After opening the box, I was very disappointed to find it had an
> external
> power supply which was an American version only. (110V fixed, with a
> very
> strange looking 2 bladed plug). How can they se
> - Image quality - sharpness: The Canon was definitely sharper and more
> snappy on the same image. This could be (and I suspect it is) the
> effect of
> Digital Ice vs Canon Fare. I intend to do another test with Ice off
> (unfortunately I scanned all my Canon samples with Fare on) The
> differen
sirius wrote:
>>- Image quality - sharpness: The Canon was definitely sharper and more
>>snappy on the same image. This could be (and I suspect it is) the
>>effect of
>>Digital Ice vs Canon Fare. I intend to do another test with Ice off
>>(unfortunately I scanned all my Canon samples with Fare on)
- Original Message -
From: "Ellis Vener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks for the reply and tips Ellis.
> three items here:
>1.) at full resolution the Minolta (@5400ppi and true 16 bit per
>channel color depth) is going to be creating larger data files than
>the Canon FS4000.
>2.) Firewire an
Thys,
In my few tests with it, I've found that manual focussing 'on-screen' rather
than using the knob on the front of the scanner seemed to give me much
better results.
And saving the files as tiffs with lossless LZW compression reduces them to
about a third.
Bob Frost.
- Original Message
>- Original Message -
>From: "Ellis Vener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Thanks for the reply and tips Ellis.
>
>> three items here:
>>1.) at full resolution the Minolta (@5400ppi and true 16 bit per
>>channel color depth) is going to be creating larger data files than
>>the Canon FS4000.
>>2.)
> The Canon scans
> still seems slightly sharper, but with a few levels of sharpening on
> PS, there is no real difference. I am quite fussy about the sharpness
> of my slides and the test slide I chose is very sharp under a 10x
> loupe. Maybe I should try the manual focus thing on the Minolta?
I
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks Bob
>In my few tests with it, I've found that manual focussing 'on-screen'
rather
>than using the knob on the front of the scanner seemed to give me much
>better results.
Does that mean several preview scans while changing
- Original Message -
From: "Henning Wulff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Vuescan does nominally support the scanner, but it always wants to
>'warm up the lamp' for 3 or 4 minutes before every step, so it takes
>40 minutes to do one scan. Useless.
Henning
Maybe you should check Vuescan again, becau
11 matches
Mail list logo
