Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV


C

Chris

Has anyone given this a good workout yet?

I couldn't find a good test by googling.
I was particularly interested in whether the Nikon coolscan V was worth
twice the price for the nice ICE?

Pip pip
(U.K prices b.t.w.)
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jerry C.

Chris said:
Has anyone given this a good workout yet?

I couldn't find a good test by googling.
I was particularly interested in whether the Nikon coolscan V was worth
twice the price for the nice ICE?

Pip pip
(U.K prices b.t.w.)
=====================================================
Frankly Chris, I don't know for sure, for I own neither, but I faced
that exact same question. I did examine closely the "Scanner Bake-off"
results and the Minolta resolution bested the older Coolscan IV and was
slightly behind the older Nikon 4000. I checked with a couple of camera
store employees that are scanner knowledgeable. They liked the new
Nikon Coolscan V, but said they doubted there would be a noticeable
difference on prints up through 16x20, and the Scan Dual IV is
absolutely the better value. One person thought the Nikon would be
faster, but I pointed out the mfr spec sheets showed the opposite to be
true. Then he amended his opinon that the Nikon 5000 (the $1100
printer) was the one he valued for the faster speed. These were only
their opinions, of course.

Jerry C.
 
C

CSM1

Chris said:
Has anyone given this a good workout yet?

I couldn't find a good test by googling.
I was particularly interested in whether the Nikon coolscan V was worth
twice the price for the nice ICE?

Pip pip
(U.K prices b.t.w.)
--
Chris Notton
Replace "nospam" with my surname to reply by email
Sostituisca il "nospam" con il mio cognome per rispondere
}<////(*>
USA.
I own one, It is not the best scanner in the world. When it works, it works
very well. I have found that the Scanner I have can be a little flakey
sometimes.

I upgraded the software from Version 1.0.0 to Version 1.0.1 from Minolta's
download site and it helped.

The problems I have with the Minolta Dimage ScanDual 4 is, after scanning
about 20 to 40 frames of Slides, the scanner seems to stop transferring the
just scanned image to the computer. It requires a complete unplugging of the
scanner from the power and USB and a Reboot of the computer to clear the
operation and get the scanner to start working again.

It seems to be a heat build up inside the scanner. Maybe not enough
ventilation?
I put a thermometer inside on the printed circuit board, when the
temperature gets to about 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the scanner gets flakey.

My Computer is Windows 98 SE, AMD 2000+, 1 GB of RAM, Gigabyte Motherboard
and VIA USB 2.0 on Board.
 
A

Alex Stols

CSM1 said:
USA.
I own one, It is not the best scanner in the world. When it works,
it works
very well. I have found that the Scanner I have can be a little
flakey
sometimes.

I upgraded the software from Version 1.0.0 to Version 1.0.1 from
Minolta's
download site and it helped.

The problems I have with the Minolta Dimage ScanDual 4 is, after
scanning
about 20 to 40 frames of Slides, the scanner seems to stop
transferring the
just scanned image to the computer. It requires a complete
unplugging of the
scanner from the power and USB and a Reboot of the computer to clear
the
operation and get the scanner to start working again.

It seems to be a heat build up inside the scanner. Maybe not enough
ventilation?
I put a thermometer inside on the printed circuit board, when the
temperature gets to about 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the scanner gets
flakey.

My Computer is Windows 98 SE, AMD 2000+, 1 GB of RAM, Gigabyte
Motherboard
and VIA USB 2.0 on Board.
I have owned one for a few weeks only, and I did participate in the
'bake off'. I wasn't too disappointed with my score, although I'll
have to wait for explanations of the results that I can understand...
The problems you have never occurred here as yet, but they might :) I
haven't scanned very much so far, and mostly BW.

My question to you is: do you use Vuescan? I would like to compare
results, especially for color negatives, using Vuescan.
 
K

Keith Patterson

I got this scanner 3 weeks ago, as I couldn't get good 35mm scans from my
flatbed CanoScan D2400U. I really, really wanted the
Nikon, but couldn't justify the price for a hobby. So far the scans from
the Scan Dual IV have been everything I need. Newly shot negs and slides
are fine - no problems with dirt. Older stored slides have some dirt and
are more problematical, because the scanner does not have the ICE software.
My workaround is brushing the slide before scanning, and using all the image
tweaking facilities built into the software that comes with the scanner so
that the bare minimum has to be done afterwards in PhotoShop Elements 2,
which is also bundled with the scanner. Not perfect, but we all have to
work within our means. I like the interface with the software very much
indeed, as it happens, also the speed of scanning, even though I have only
USB 1 on my PC which runs W98SE with 512MB RAM. (I've been used to as much
as 20 to 30 minutes scanning MF 6X9 colour negs on the flatbed previously )

Is the nikon worth twice the price? That depends on you and your pocket and
your outlook on life ...

AFAIK, the cheapest UK price is from Amazon at £249.99, p&p "free" - I paid
slightly more from a local store so I can take it back in person if it
expires through overwork before the 1 year warranty expires.

BTW, a scan from my ScanDual IV is in the scanner bake-off results from Jim
Hutchinson
 
C

CSM1

I have owned one for a few weeks only, and I did participate in the
'bake off'. I wasn't too disappointed with my score, although I'll
have to wait for explanations of the results that I can understand...
The problems you have never occurred here as yet, but they might :) I
haven't scanned very much so far, and mostly BW.

My question to you is: do you use Vuescan? I would like to compare
results, especially for color negatives, using Vuescan.
Hello Alex,

I use the standard Minolta Scan Dual Software that came with the scanner on
a CD. I then upgraded to the Version 1.0.1 from a download from Minolta.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jim Hutchison

I have owned one for a few weeks only, and I did participate in the
'bake off'. I wasn't too disappointed with my score, although I'll
have to wait for explanations of the results that I can understand...
The problems you have never occurred here as yet, but they might :) I
haven't scanned very much so far, and mostly BW.

My question to you is: do you use Vuescan? I would like to compare
results, especially for color negatives, using Vuescan.


Alex,

Maybe I can shed some light on it for you.

Your MTF rating is based on how *quickly* an edge changes from dark to
light. It counts the numbers of pixels it takes for the transition.

Then, using a formula, we derive a "line pairs per millimeter" number
that is the true resolution of the scanner. Hopefully! There are
some minor inconsistencies between what appears to be a sharp image,
and it's MTF number. But in general, the two closely correlate.

So on yours, it is interesting to note that more resolution may have
been had with manual as opposed to auto focus. Look at Bart van der
Wolf's image (3rd from the top). Same scanner as yours, but a much
sharper - and hence better MTF - than your scan.


Hope that helps.


jim h


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.jamesphotography.ca

-free downloads
-scanning service

Even a bit of humour...
 
A

Alex Stols

Jim Hutchison said:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:31:04 -0500, Alex Stols <> wrote:

Alex,

Maybe I can shed some light on it for you.

Your MTF rating is based on how *quickly* an edge changes from dark
to
light. It counts the numbers of pixels it takes for the transition.

Then, using a formula, we derive a "line pairs per millimeter" number
that is the true resolution of the scanner. Hopefully! There are
some minor inconsistencies between what appears to be a sharp image,
and it's MTF number. But in general, the two closely correlate.

So on yours, it is interesting to note that more resolution may have
been had with manual as opposed to auto focus. Look at Bart van der
Wolf's image (3rd from the top). Same scanner as yours, but a much
sharper - and hence better MTF - than your scan.


Hope that helps.


jim h
Jim,

Thanks for the explanation. I supposed that eventually you would give
us an idea of what the measurements are about exactly.
But: in fact my scanner is the Scan Dual IV, and Bart has the Minolta
Dual Scan Elite 5400, which is quite a different class I gather. No
wonder he gets sharper scans.

Are my results consistent with other scanner of the identical type,
that is what I am curious to know...!
 
A

Al

Has anyone given this a good workout yet?

I couldn't find a good test by googling.
I was particularly interested in whether the Nikon coolscan V was worth
twice the price for the nice ICE?

Pip pip
(U.K prices b.t.w.)
--
Chris Notton
Replace "nospam" with my surname to reply by email
Sostituisca il "nospam" con il mio cognome per rispondere
}<////(*>

The Minolta Dual IV is very sensitive to film defects. I am think that
it is partly due to the illumination system, not just the scan
sharpness. It shows dust and scratches that you would never see on a
flatbed scan. But if you take good care of your media it's a good
value.

One time in a lab I saw a double sided ionizing dust brush that you
just pull the film or slide through and it's completely cleaned in a
second. I wonder if these are available... if so it might cost less
than ICE.
 
C

CSM1

Al said:
The Minolta Dual IV is very sensitive to film defects. I am think that
it is partly due to the illumination system, not just the scan
sharpness. It shows dust and scratches that you would never see on a
flatbed scan. But if you take good care of your media it's a good
value.

One time in a lab I saw a double sided ionizing dust brush that you
just pull the film or slide through and it's completely cleaned in a
second. I wonder if these are available... if so it might cost less
than ICE.
Wayne Fulton at Scantips has a review.
http://www.scantips.com/dual2.html
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

Hecate

One time in a lab I saw a double sided ionizing dust brush that you
just pull the film or slide through and it's completely cleaned in a
second. I wonder if these are available... if so it might cost less
than ICE.
OK, this is off the wall, but Flash have just brought out a dust brush
- it's multi fibre, no chemicals and it picks up dust like anything.
IIRC, it's c. !1.89 for the handle and five dust brushes ;-)
 
R

RSD99

posted:
" ... One time in a lab I saw a double sided ionizing dust brush that you
just pull the film or slide through and it's completely cleaned in a
second. I wonder if these are available... if so it might cost less
than ICE.
...."

Kinetronics
http://www.kinetronics.com/

You were probably looking at the StaticVac© ... many labs use it.

http://www.kinetronics.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/online-store/scstore/staticvac1.html
?L+scstore+tvtk9691ffc3f1c3+1138350269

= = = = = Begin Quote = = = = =
The Kinetronics StaticVac© uses an electronic ‘bipolar’ ionizing system. This is a
self-contained DC system that produces both positive and negative ions for complete static
elimination. This machine will clean all film sizes up to 70mm (2-3/4") including 35mm,
120, and APS.

The cleaning process begins as the film is passed through the StaticVac. The ionization
system eliminates the static on the film, and then the gentle StaticWiskTM brushes whisk
dust and lint off the film. The vacuum action draws the dust and lint into the foam
filter. There are three special mounting systems available that have been designed for use
with digital minilabs.
= = = = = End Quote = = = = =

Nice "stuff" ... but *not* inexpensive.
 
J

Jerry C.

CSM1 said:
USA.
I own one, It is not the best scanner in the world. When it works, it works
very well. I have found that the Scanner I have can be a little flakey
sometimes.

I upgraded the software from Version 1.0.0 to Version 1.0.1 from Minolta's
download site and it helped.

The problems I have with the Minolta Dimage ScanDual 4 is, after scanning
about 20 to 40 frames of Slides, the scanner seems to stop transferring the
just scanned image to the computer. It requires a complete unplugging of the
scanner from the power and USB and a Reboot of the computer to clear the
operation and get the scanner to start working again.

It seems to be a heat build up inside the scanner. Maybe not enough
ventilation?
I put a thermometer inside on the printed circuit board, when the
temperature gets to about 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the scanner gets flakey.

My Computer is Windows 98 SE, AMD 2000+, 1 GB of RAM, Gigabyte Motherboard
and VIA USB 2.0 on Board.
============================================================
I've recently bought the scanner and used it for two weeks scanning
hundreds of images. The results on clean slides appeared acceptable to
me (or very good). The speed seemed to be around 2 to 2-1/2 minutes for
a 39-40MB file, 3200 dpi resolution, 8 bit, with dust removal and pixel
polishing activated. My computer is a P3 1000mhz notebook with 768 MB
RAM. Batch scanning of 4 slides took around 8 minutes. 6 negs took a
little longer, but I don't remember how long.

I didn't notice any of the problems that Chris (above) noted. However,
I did notice on my dirty or scratched negatives (and I previously
thought they were all pretty clean) that the results were horrendous,
requiring a significant amount of time in Photoshop to fix. I used
compressed air, lintless cleaning clothes, and photo cleaning solvent
where appropriate, but to no avail. With that in mind, I've returned it
to the store (Canoga Camera in the Los Angeles area is reputable and
will take returns within 14 days) and am contemplating the Coolscan V to
see if ICE4 can save significant amounts of time on scratched negatives.

Jerry C.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Al

I've recently bought the scanner and used it for two weeks scanning
hundreds of images. The results on clean slides appeared acceptable to
me (or very good). The speed seemed to be around 2 to 2-1/2 minutes for
a 39-40MB file, 3200 dpi resolution, 8 bit, with dust removal and pixel
polishing activated. My computer is a P3 1000mhz notebook with 768 MB
RAM. Batch scanning of 4 slides took around 8 minutes. 6 negs took a
little longer, but I don't remember how long.

I didn't notice any of the problems that Chris (above) noted. However,
I did notice on my dirty or scratched negatives (and I previously
thought they were all pretty clean) that the results were horrendous,
requiring a significant amount of time in Photoshop to fix. I used
compressed air, lintless cleaning clothes, and photo cleaning solvent
where appropriate, but to no avail. With that in mind, I've returned it
to the store (Canoga Camera in the Los Angeles area is reputable and
will take returns within 14 days) and am contemplating the Coolscan V to
see if ICE4 can save significant amounts of time on scratched negatives.

Jerry C.

The reason seems to be the type of light source they are using in the
Dual IV. It acts like a condenser head enlarger which in the same way
makes every little scratch unbearable.

Mine is not returnable but I think if it were possible to put a very
thin piece of white diffusing plastic above the negative or slide that
it might help. Now I'm just looking for a source of the plastic - it
would be the thickness of an acetate filter and milk white.

Canon uses this material on their slide duplicator setups, but I don't
know where to buy it at a retail store.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top