«

Hi,

I've just purchased a Minolta Scan Dual IV with the intention of digitizing
a large slide archive. I'm not at all satisfied with the results of my first
few scans. Specifically, the images are very soft compared to the excellent
sharp origonals, like a rubbish mail order developer.

I've tried scanning at all resolutions.
I've tried autofocus, spot autofocus and manual focus.
I've tried turning off all the digital 'enhancements' to just get raw scans.

Results are always the same- unacceptable (to me) lack of sharpness.

I'm happy to offer an example: http://195.224.48.67/example.jpg

In the origonal of this image the womans face, the snow & stones in the
foreground and even the bus and the bikers in the background are as sharp as
a razor.

So, do I have a lemon unit or were my expectations too high? I really can't
believe so.

Input from other Scan Dual owners much appreciated!

regards,

David

Sorry, please try: http://www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example.jpg

Sorry, posted a correction.

The jpg was saved with minimal compression and you'll have to take my work
that this is what the origonal scan looks like!

thanks in advance

David

Link doesn't work, so it's hard to tell what's wrong.

Be sure you're sharpening after you downsize for the web or it will
definitely look like mush.

* David N Williams <>:
> Hi,
>
> I've just purchased a Minolta Scan Dual IV with the intention of digitizing
> a large slide archive. I'm not at all satisfied with the results of my first
> few scans. Specifically, the images are very soft compared to the excellent
> sharp origonals, like a rubbish mail order developer.

> I'm happy to offer an example: http://www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example.jpg

> Input from other Scan Dual owners much appreciated!

I own a Scan Dual II, it's a bit older and a bit different beast.
I use Vuescan software with it (from hamrick.com) and I'm generally
happier with it than with minolta's offering.
On DS2 Vuescan offers not only automatic focus but manual preset with
clear maximum/minimum. Compare scans from different settings, you may
have a blown targeting motor or something like that if these scans are
identical.

Downsized sample doesn't tell much else than that you've serious
sharpness problem. Try scanning full-resolution (2540dpi or how much
does DS4 does..) and just crop some detail so that nature of sharpness
can be easily seen.

This is just a guess, I hope you're not trying to scan glass-mounted
slides? Though they wouldn't have that much softness, but moireé instead.

I can tell you from my experience that eye will blatantly lie sharpness
of a slide or negative when viewed without magnification. I've
enountered enough of these myself when I'm happily thinking of how I got
these beautifully sharp images and then they're revealed as a no-good
soft crap. I swear I get this same sh*t with digital too, the LCD
previews tells you nothing but how good their builtin USM filters are


--
Psi -- <http://www.iki.fi/pasi.savolainen>

David N Williams wrote:

>Sorry, please try: http://www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example.jpg

AAAAAHHHHHHH!!

I didn't know it was possible to screw up so bad.

"Bill" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
l6mdnRmsB8kaI8zenZ2dnUVZ_s-...
> David N Williams wrote:
>
>>Sorry, please try: http://www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example.jpg
>
> AAAAAHHHHHHH!!
>
> I didn't know it was possible to screw up so bad.

Not so bad... For a cameraphone...

Laurent --> I have one, only my son uses it. For fun...
--
= http://www.laurent-roy.com =

Thanks for both of your constructive comments....


"Laurent" <> wrote in message
news:4351c991$0$457$...
> "Bill" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
> l6mdnRmsB8kaI8zenZ2dnUVZ_s-...
>> David N Williams wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, please try: http://www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example.jpg
>>
>> AAAAAHHHHHHH!!
>>
>> I didn't know it was possible to screw up so bad.
>
> Not so bad... For a cameraphone...
>
> Laurent --> I have one, only my son uses it. For fun...
> --
> = http://www.laurent-roy.com =
>

Hi Pasi,

Thanks for the feedback. I've tried scanning with Vuescan and although it
appears to autofocus to a greater extent than the minolta software (the
buzzing before the scan is longer at least!) I get identical results.

I've rescanned at 3200dpi, which is the maximum on the IV, and just cropped
some of the rocks and the snow- www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example2.TIF ,
www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example3.TIF , these are the orgional raw scans -
hope that shows the problem better.

With regards manual / spot-auto focusing, I've tried a range of scans with
these options and can get no better results. With regards to a blown
targeting motor, I don't think so as I can make the focus a bit worse with
the manual option, I just can't make it an better!

I'm going to contact Minolta on Monday and get their diagnosis then return
it to the supplier for a replacement.

thanks

David







> I own a Scan Dual II, it's a bit older and a bit different beast.
> I use Vuescan software with it (from hamrick.com) and I'm generally
> happier with it than with minolta's offering.
> On DS2 Vuescan offers not only automatic focus but manual preset with
> clear maximum/minimum. Compare scans from different settings, you may
> have a blown targeting motor or something like that if these scans are
> identical.
>
> Downsized sample doesn't tell much else than that you've serious
> sharpness problem. Try scanning full-resolution (2540dpi or how much
> does DS4 does..) and just crop some detail so that nature of sharpness
> can be easily seen.
>
> This is just a guess, I hope you're not trying to scan glass-mounted
> slides? Though they wouldn't have that much softness, but moireé instead.
>
> I can tell you from my experience that eye will blatantly lie sharpness
> of a slide or negative when viewed without magnification. I've
> enountered enough of these myself when I'm happily thinking of how I got
> these beautifully sharp images and then they're revealed as a no-good
> soft crap. I swear I get this same sh*t with digital too, the LCD
> previews tells you nothing but how good their builtin USM filters are
>
>
> --
> Psi -- <http://www.iki.fi/pasi.savolainen>

* David N Williams <>:
> Hi Pasi,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I've tried scanning with Vuescan and although it
> appears to autofocus to a greater extent than the minolta software (the
> buzzing before the scan is longer at least!) I get identical results.
>
> I've rescanned at 3200dpi, which is the maximum on the IV, and just cropped
> some of the rocks and the snow- www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example2.TIF ,
> www.lanhousesouthwest.net/example3.TIF , these are the orgional raw scans -
> hope that shows the problem better.
>
> With regards manual / spot-auto focusing, I've tried a range of scans with
> these options and can get no better results. With regards to a blown
> targeting motor, I don't think so as I can make the focus a bit worse with
> the manual option, I just can't make it an better!
>
> I'm going to contact Minolta on Monday and get their diagnosis then return
> it to the supplier for a replacement.

Sorry but that looks like the original isn't sharp, it has motion blur
to north-east. On the other hand dust on original looks plenty sharp (in
example2.tif, upper-righthand corner, black spot), so scanner autofocus
appears to work correctly.

Do try and scan from some source that you're 100% sure that is sharp.
Something from which you have a very large (A4+) sharpish printout or
something that you've seen projected on the wall. You can even sandwich
something like razorblade in filmholder, hair could do too

(The dust blob may seem a bit 'blurred', but it's pretty much as sharp
as you can get _raw_ from scanner, it always needs more sharpening from
software)

--
Psi -- <http://www.iki.fi/pasi.savolainen>