«

Hi all,

I'd appreciate some advice. About two years ago, I bought a Minolta DiMAGE
Scan Dual III film scanner for scanning of 35mm color transparencies, B&W
negatives and color negatives.

I'm now considering buying an Epson 4990 scanner for scanning my 4x5 film
(again, both transparencies and negatives).

The specs on the two units are as follows:

=====

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual III

Optical Resolution: 2,820 DPI
Color Depth: 16 bit
Dynamic Range (Dmax): 4.8 (calculated)

=====

Epson 4990

Optical Resolution: 4,800 x 9,600 DPI
Color Depth: 48 bit
Dynamic Range (Dmax): 4.0

=====

I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson. The
Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has much
better Dmax rating. With the exception of Dmax, the Epson is a clear
winner. Does anyone have any experience with these types of devices to help
me understand if the Epson (with it's lower Dmax rating) can produce 35mm
scans equal to, or better than, the Minolta. Thanks in advance for any
advice.

Terry

"Terry Smith" <> wrote:
>
> I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
> The
> Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has much
> better Dmax rating.

My bet would be that the Minolta edges out the Epson on resolution as well
as shadow detail capture.

The reason is that the Epson is actually a 2400 ppi scanner that oversamples
the image. It uses an "offset" CCD, which is two 2400 ppi CCDs half a pixel
width offset, and steps the scanner at 4800 ppi. This _does_ improve
resolution (and noise) over a simple 2400 ppi scanner, but probably doesn't
bring it quite up to the 2800 ppi level.

The even newer Epson V700 _might_ edge out your Minolta for 35mm work, if
you scanned at 6400 ppi, applied noise reduction, and downsampled. If you
think of it as a 3200 ppi scanner, you'll be closer to reality.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:e2k6o0$l10$...
>
> "Terry Smith" <> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
>> The
>> Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has
>> much
>> better Dmax rating.
>
> My bet would be that the Minolta edges out the Epson on resolution as well
> as shadow detail capture.
>
> The reason is that the Epson is actually a 2400 ppi scanner that
> oversamples the image. It uses an "offset" CCD, which is two 2400 ppi CCDs
> half a pixel width offset, and steps the scanner at 4800 ppi. This _does_
> improve resolution (and noise) over a simple 2400 ppi scanner, but
> probably doesn't bring it quite up to the 2800 ppi level.
>
> The even newer Epson V700 _might_ edge out your Minolta for 35mm work, if
> you scanned at 6400 ppi, applied noise reduction, and downsampled. If you
> think of it as a 3200 ppi scanner, you'll be closer to reality.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

Thank you David.


"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:e2k6o0$l10$...
>
> "Terry Smith" <> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
>> The
>> Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has
>> much
>> better Dmax rating.
>
> My bet would be that the Minolta edges out the Epson on resolution as well
> as shadow detail capture.
>
> The reason is that the Epson is actually a 2400 ppi scanner that
> oversamples the image. It uses an "offset" CCD, which is two 2400 ppi CCDs
> half a pixel width offset, and steps the scanner at 4800 ppi. This _does_
> improve resolution (and noise) over a simple 2400 ppi scanner, but
> probably doesn't bring it quite up to the 2800 ppi level.
>
> The even newer Epson V700 _might_ edge out your Minolta for 35mm work, if
> you scanned at 6400 ppi, applied noise reduction, and downsampled. If you
> think of it as a 3200 ppi scanner, you'll be closer to reality.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

> Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual III
>
> Optical Resolution: 2,820 DPI
> Color Depth: 16 bit
> Dynamic Range (Dmax): 4.8 (calculated)
> =====
> Epson 4990
>
> Optical Resolution: 4,800 x 9,600 DPI
> Color Depth: 48 bit
> Dynamic Range (Dmax): 4.0
> =====
>
> I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson. The
> Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has much
> better Dmax rating. With the exception of Dmax, the Epson is a clear
> winner. Does anyone have any experience with these types of devices to help
> me understand if the Epson (with it's lower Dmax rating) can produce 35mm
> scans equal to, or better than, the Minolta. Thanks in advance for any
> advice.

I think another critical issue is the (calculated) note after the
Minolta's 4.8 Dmax. I'm pretty sure that means it's based on the number
of output bits, not the real Dmax. Scanners with 16 bit output have a
theoretical maximum Dmax of 4.8 but the sensors rarely (never) meet
that limit. From what I've read, most scanner manufacturers have gone
to this system which over-states their Dmax. But once one did it, the
claim is they all had to. If the Epson has 16 bit output then they're
NOT using the "theoretical value" which should be called "BS value"
instead. That gives some hope that you might actually see a Dmax of
4.0.

I have a DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II which also has a "BS value" of 4.8.
While I've been told the scans don't meet that value (and no film I
know of has that much range anyway), it gives me great scans with lots
of shadow detail that can be brought out in PhotoShop or other
programs. While looking for some web sites that discuss these issues, I
found

http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html

which seems to do a good job.

Hoping this helps.

Martin

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Terry Smith" <> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
> > The
> > Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has much
> > better Dmax rating.
>
> My bet would be that the Minolta edges out the Epson on resolution as well
> as shadow detail capture.
>
> The reason is that the Epson is actually a 2400 ppi scanner that oversamples
> the image. It uses an "offset" CCD, which is two 2400 ppi CCDs half a pixel
> width offset, and steps the scanner at 4800 ppi. This _does_ improve
> resolution (and noise) over a simple 2400 ppi scanner, but probably doesn't
> bring it quite up to the 2800 ppi level.
>
> The even newer Epson V700 _might_ edge out your Minolta for 35mm work, if
> you scanned at 6400 ppi, applied noise reduction, and downsampled. If you
> think of it as a 3200 ppi scanner, you'll be closer to reality.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I have a V700, it matches my Nikon LS2000 quite well, not quite but
very close in resolution, but in color depth and tonal range it is
better, a 2700ppi to 2700ppi scan the Ls2000max. A faster scanner too.
If you can afford it I'd get the V700 $549. The 4990 was only OK with
35mm, but a lot of folks use it for LF negs and tranies.

Tom

So can I assume the V700 should be much better with LF negs and trannies
than the 4990?


"tomm42" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> I have a V700, it matches my Nikon LS2000 quite well, not quite but
> very close in resolution, but in color depth and tonal range it is
> better, a 2700ppi to 2700ppi scan the Ls2000max. A faster scanner too.
> If you can afford it I'd get the V700 $549. The 4990 was only OK with
> 35mm, but a lot of folks use it for LF negs and tranies.
>
> Tom
>

So how did Epson get the Dmax on the 4990 up to 4.0 from the 4870's "up to
3.8 ??


"tomm42" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Terry Smith" <> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
>> > The
>> > Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has
>> > much
>> > better Dmax rating.
>>
>> My bet would be that the Minolta edges out the Epson on resolution as
>> well
>> as shadow detail capture.
>>
>> The reason is that the Epson is actually a 2400 ppi scanner that
>> oversamples
>> the image. It uses an "offset" CCD, which is two 2400 ppi CCDs half a
>> pixel
>> width offset, and steps the scanner at 4800 ppi. This _does_ improve
>> resolution (and noise) over a simple 2400 ppi scanner, but probably
>> doesn't
>> bring it quite up to the 2800 ppi level.
>>
>> The even newer Epson V700 _might_ edge out your Minolta for 35mm work, if
>> you scanned at 6400 ppi, applied noise reduction, and downsampled. If you
>> think of it as a 3200 ppi scanner, you'll be closer to reality.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>
> I have a V700, it matches my Nikon LS2000 quite well, not quite but
> very close in resolution, but in color depth and tonal range it is
> better, a 2700ppi to 2700ppi scan the Ls2000max. A faster scanner too.
> If you can afford it I'd get the V700 $549. The 4990 was only OK with
> 35mm, but a lot of folks use it for LF negs and tranies.
>
> Tom
>

So how did Epson get the Dmax on the 4990 up to 4.0 from the 4870's "up to
3.8 ??


"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:e2k6o0$l10$...
>
> "Terry Smith" <> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
>> The
>> Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has
>> much
>> better Dmax rating.
>
> My bet would be that the Minolta edges out the Epson on resolution as well
> as shadow detail capture.
>
> The reason is that the Epson is actually a 2400 ppi scanner that
> oversamples the image. It uses an "offset" CCD, which is two 2400 ppi CCDs
> half a pixel width offset, and steps the scanner at 4800 ppi. This _does_
> improve resolution (and noise) over a simple 2400 ppi scanner, but
> probably doesn't bring it quite up to the 2800 ppi level.
>
> The even newer Epson V700 _might_ edge out your Minolta for 35mm work, if
> you scanned at 6400 ppi, applied noise reduction, and downsampled. If you
> think of it as a 3200 ppi scanner, you'll be closer to reality.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

So how did Epson get the Dmax on the 4990 up to 4.0 from the 4870's "up to
3.8 ??


<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>> Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual III
>>
>> Optical Resolution: 2,820 DPI
>> Color Depth: 16 bit
>> Dynamic Range (Dmax): 4.8 (calculated)
>> =====
>> Epson 4990
>>
>> Optical Resolution: 4,800 x 9,600 DPI
>> Color Depth: 48 bit
>> Dynamic Range (Dmax): 4.0
>> =====
>>
>> I'd like to sell my Minolta and do ALL my scanning with the new Epson.
>> The
>> Epson has much better resolution and color depth, but the Minolta has
>> much
>> better Dmax rating. With the exception of Dmax, the Epson is a clear
>> winner. Does anyone have any experience with these types of devices to
>> help
>> me understand if the Epson (with it's lower Dmax rating) can produce 35mm
>> scans equal to, or better than, the Minolta. Thanks in advance for any
>> advice.
>
> I think another critical issue is the (calculated) note after the
> Minolta's 4.8 Dmax. I'm pretty sure that means it's based on the number
> of output bits, not the real Dmax. Scanners with 16 bit output have a
> theoretical maximum Dmax of 4.8 but the sensors rarely (never) meet
> that limit. From what I've read, most scanner manufacturers have gone
> to this system which over-states their Dmax. But once one did it, the
> claim is they all had to. If the Epson has 16 bit output then they're
> NOT using the "theoretical value" which should be called "BS value"
> instead. That gives some hope that you might actually see a Dmax of
> 4.0.
>
> I have a DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II which also has a "BS value" of 4.8.
> While I've been told the scans don't meet that value (and no film I
> know of has that much range anyway), it gives me great scans with lots
> of shadow detail that can be brought out in PhotoShop or other
> programs. While looking for some web sites that discuss these issues, I
> found
>
> http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html
>
> which seems to do a good job.
>
> Hoping this helps.
>
> Martin
>