Digital BW, The Print

I used Fugi REALA 100 predominantly. The effect is especially 
noticeable at 200x.





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Staver" 
<daniel@p...> wrote:
> > The Dig. Ice function on the 5400 results 
> > in substantial image degradation.
> 
> I haven't noticed image degradation at all with ICE enabled. Which 
type
> of film did you scan?
> 
> > was shocked how bad the results were with Dig Ice activated. 
> > WITHOUT the Dig. Ice turned on, the Dimage scan for most 
negatives was
> 
> > comparable in quality to the Nikon WITH Dig. Ice activated. Even 
here,
> I 
> > give a slight edge to the Nikon in quality, crispness etc. Of 
course,
> with the Dig 
> > Ice turned off,  there is substantially more time/work involved in
> cleaning up the 
> > scans on the Dimage.  You will be disappointed if you expect  the
> 5400dpi 
> > to result in a better scan than the Nikon 4000dpi. IT DOESN'T. 
> 
> I can't comment on the Nikon, but my 5400dpi scans look better than 
the
> 4000dpi scans I got from my previous Canon FS4000US. They don't 
seem to
> resolve more detail, but the grain looks better and more detailed 
than a
> 4000dpi image upsampled to 5400dpi. In other words the 5400dpi seems
> useful purely as an upsampling method.
> 
> > 2. The Dimage was significantly  slower.  With Dig. Ice 
> > turned on and 4x multisampling at 5400dpi, a scan takes at least 
40
> minutes 
> > compared to about 15-20 for the Nikon. With Dig Ice off , the 
Dimage
> can do a 
> > 5400 dpi scan(4x multisample) in about 15 minutes.
> 
> The scanner is MUCH slower with C41 films and ICE enabled than with
> slides or BW negatives. Part of the reason for the slowness is also 
that
> the Minolta software enables the grain dissolver when you use ICE,
> without the option to switch it off. Vuescan lets you scan with
> dust-removal without using the grain dissolver, and that easily 
halves
> the scanning times. Unfortunately the dust removal in Vuescan 
affects
> the entire image, so I prefer to use the Minolta software for this 
and
> do something else while it's scanning.
> 
> I have never noticed any improvement when using multisampling with 
this
> scanner, so I would only use it if I specifically noticed a problem 
with
> a certain slide or negative that I thought could be solved by using
> multisampling. I have not come across such a slide or negative yet.
> 
> > 3. The scanning process with the Dimage is markedly impeded by 
> > simultaneous work in Photoshop. I don't have an explanation 
> > for this , and neither did Minolta's technical help. I have a GIG 
of
> RAM so 
> > memory should not be an issue. All of the scan times are markedly
> prolonged 
> > with Photoshop being used simutaneously, and in some cases the 
scanner
> will 
> > simply abort the scan leaving you nothing after an hour scan. The
> Nikon 
> > scanner does not seem to be affected specifically by Photoshop, 
but
> I've  
> > found it too will occasionally abort a scan for unknown reasons.
> 
> I've never had any aborted scans or performance problems when using
> Photoshop, but I'm on a PC (1gig ram) with windows XP, so it could 
be a
> hardware/os specific issue.
> 
> > 4. The Nikon is known for some softness around the edges due 
> > to a very  narrow depth of field and failure to hold the negative 
> > perfectly flat . I have found this to be true for the Nikon, but 
could
> not determine 
> > in a test scans if the Dimage was any better. 
> 
> Unfortunately, there IS a problem with edge to edge sharpness. A 
glass
> holder would be desirable, but I don't think such a thing exists for
> this scanner.
> 
> > 5. Dimage scans in general are more contrasty . I prefer the 
> > Nikon in this regard since I can always adjust the contrast in
> Photoshop 
> > and don't want to lose any detail up front.
> > 6. There was one test negative I used that the Dimage totally 
> > failed to give a good scan on. On two attempts the scan was
> overexposed and 
> > blown out on the high end.I thought maybe the scanner had broke, 
but
> it 
> > worked fine on another negative minutes later. No explanation. The
> Minolta 
> > technical help said simply" if you think the scans are 
overexposed,
> send it 
> > back to us so we can test it". The Nikon did a great job on this
> negative.
> 
> I prefer Vuescan for BW negatives. The included film profiles does
> wonders for many BW negatives which doesn't look all that good when
> scanned with the Minolta software. Especially TMAX-100 and Tri-X 
looks
> much better when scanned with Vuescan.
> 
> I've also found the Minolta to be much better at handling difficult
> negatives than my previous Canon. 
> 
> > 7. The Minolta is cheaper by a few hundred dollars, so if 
> > cost is a factor it may be the only way to go. Do not use the 
digital
> ice if you want 
> > high quality scans. The Nikon wins otherwise. I hope this 
> > helps anyone who might be looking at these two scanners. 
> 
> I'm a little puzzled by the image degradation you're experiencing 
with
> ICE, as it does not reflect my experience with this scanner. I can
> hardly tell the difference between scans done with and without ICE,
> except that the dust is gone when ICE is enabled of course.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no