Dmax for my Minolta Film Scanner vs. Epson 4990 ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Terry Smith, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

    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, Apr 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "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, Apr 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

    "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
    >
    >
     
    Terry Smith, Apr 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

    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
    >
    >
     
    Terry Smith, Apr 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Terry Smith

    Guest

    > 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
     
    , Apr 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Terry Smith

    tomm42 Guest

    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
     
    tomm42, Apr 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

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


    "tomm42" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    >
     
    Terry Smith, Apr 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

    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:...
    >
    > 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
    >
     
    Terry Smith, Apr 27, 2006
    #8
  9. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

    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
    >
    >
     
    Terry Smith, Apr 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Terry Smith

    Terry Smith Guest

    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:...
    >> 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
    >
     
    Terry Smith, Apr 27, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eberhard Funke

    Re: Scanner & Dmax

    Eberhard Funke, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    Eberhard Funke
    Jul 31, 2003
  2. Albert Ma

    epson (or others) flat bed scanner vs film scanner

    Albert Ma, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    688
    Michael A. Covington
    Oct 30, 2004
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    386
  4. =?Utf-8?B?V29vc3Rlcg==?=

    Epson Perfection Scanner 4990 Application Hang

    =?Utf-8?B?V29vc3Rlcg==?=, Feb 15, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    795
    McGrandpa
    Feb 21, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,444
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page