Highway 61
Revisited
CliveC
Well-known
I had an opportunity to take my Canon 9000F head to head against a friend of mine's Minolta Scan Dual III. In terms of detail, I don't think either scanner had the edge, but my Canon seemed a tad sharper. The Minolta seemed to have more tonality.
He was using the Minolta software set to TIFF and maximum dpi (2820), so I don't know how much more Vuescan could improve things. As it stands, I'm not convinced I would see that much of an improvement if I went to a dedicated 35mm scanner of that vintage/class.
He was using the Minolta software set to TIFF and maximum dpi (2820), so I don't know how much more Vuescan could improve things. As it stands, I'm not convinced I would see that much of an improvement if I went to a dedicated 35mm scanner of that vintage/class.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I bought my Nikon 4000ED new in 2003 and it's been amazing. Haven't used it much in the past two years but I've also been too mobile to do so. I'm thinking of selling it to fund an 8000 but having them work side by side would be optimal.
You just can't beat the film flatness and sheer abilities of a dedicated film scanner over a flatbed.
Phil Forrest
You just can't beat the film flatness and sheer abilities of a dedicated film scanner over a flatbed.
Phil Forrest
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Any of the name brand film scanners made since 2000 will easily out perform the latest Epson flatbed. The trick is finding one in good condition with all the parts and compatibility with modern computers... but if it has USB and you can run Vue Scan then it's likely you're OK. When I ran older Minolta film scanners I would always be on the look out and buy spares when they were cheap so at one point I had three Dual Scan IVs. Tossed them when they broke... but in the end it would have been better to just get a newer $$$ Nikon Coolscan.
The different scanners also created files with different looks depending on their light source and other characteristics, combined with the type of film. What worked well with color slide film (the Nikons) wasn't always optimal for B&W film or color neg. Some of the Minoltas were better with B&W grain.
The different scanners also created files with different looks depending on their light source and other characteristics, combined with the type of film. What worked well with color slide film (the Nikons) wasn't always optimal for B&W film or color neg. Some of the Minoltas were better with B&W grain.
wallace
Well-known
Still using my Polaroid Sprintscan 35 plus, which is great but needs
SCSI connection.
SCSI connection.
kossi008
Photon Counter
+1 for the Canoscan FS 4000 US (or whatever it's called exactly).
Using it with the proprietary scan software, because I've never been able to set up Vuescan for it.
Am really happy with the results, it's just pretty slow over the USB 1.1 port...
Using it with the proprietary scan software, because I've never been able to set up Vuescan for it.
Am really happy with the results, it's just pretty slow over the USB 1.1 port...
btm240
Newbie
I'm lucky enough to have acquired a Microtek 120 tf.
It is a later version of the Polaroid Sprintscan.
It does 120 and I don't know what I'll do when it either dies or I can no longer connect the thing to a comp.
It has SCSI but thank goodness it also feayures fitrewire.
I have a MBP dedicated to running the scanner.
Need a proper workstation but….
It is a later version of the Polaroid Sprintscan.
It does 120 and I don't know what I'll do when it either dies or I can no longer connect the thing to a comp.
It has SCSI but thank goodness it also feayures fitrewire.
I have a MBP dedicated to running the scanner.
Need a proper workstation but….
pobe
Well-known
I've got a Minolta Scan Dual III, works great with VueScan both on linux and mac. But I only scan to decide what I want to wet print (and for low res sharing online). And I just borrowed a Rolleiflex...
k__43
Registered Film User
it works with Vuescan on my computer (OS X 10.6.8) but vuescan crashes when the scanner is idle for a while. dunno why.
Gregoyle
Well-known
Most reviews using objective data would disagree on the resolution issue. The CanoScan 9000 gets approximately 1700 actual ppi, while the Minoltas get virtually 100% of their claimed ppi, 2820 for the Scan Dual III. Dedicated film scanners almost always give better results than flatbeds.
You would get approximately 1.6x the resolution from a Scan Dual III, and more than 1.8x the resolution from a Scan Dual IV compared to your Canon. That is the difference between being able to print a 5x7 with scans from the Canon versus an 8x10 with scans from the Minolta at 300 ppi. For the web it probably doesn't matter.
-Greg
CliveC
Well-known
I hope you are right. I found a Craiglist deal locally for a Scan Dual III. I will try to report back with some apples-to-apples testing.
Gregoyle
Well-known
Don't worry, you'll love it. The only downside is manual spotting in PS, which you'd have to do for B&W anyway.
klapka
Established
Used to have Minolta scan dual iii. No ice and too much grain in pictures but was ok for slides. I couldn't use it for b&w at first but then I learned to scan them as colours and the results came out better. Overall a nice scanner, sharp but slow. I still have it just don't use it any more.
Got myself a Nikon coolscan 4000 with sa-30. Well.., better then I could dream of. It's like getting medium format results from 35 mm film. Does the whole roll at once, very fast and has digital ice in it.
I use viewscan with Mavericks.
Got myself a Nikon coolscan 4000 with sa-30. Well.., better then I could dream of. It's like getting medium format results from 35 mm film. Does the whole roll at once, very fast and has digital ice in it.
I use viewscan with Mavericks.
mllanos1111
Well-known
I've been using my Coolscan V for years and it's been wonderful.
klapka
Established
Very, very excited with my new old Nikon Coolscan 4000 ed right now. Here are some scans from it from the very last roll:
CliveC
Well-known
Here are some initial results between Canon Canoscan 9000F vs. Konica Minolta Scan Dual III. These results are not scientific, plus I'm really still learning Vuescan. The colour settings are driving me bonkers, half the time my scans are deeply tinted green.
Image is shot on Portra 160NC on a Canon T90. I've forgotten which lens, though it's possible it's the 50mm f1.4
On the Canon, it's scanned at 4800dpi (half of maximum, but supposedly the scanner has an effective resolution of 1900dpi). On the Minolta, it's at the full 2820 dpi. I've tried to match colours a bit in RAW and clean some dust in Photoshop, but otherwise not much modified. Images are scaled down to the same size. The Canon has had ICE applied.
Canoscan 9000F:
Konica Minolta Scan Dual III:
Detail Canon:
Detail Konica Minolta:
So if I see things correctly, the Minolta is definitely sharper on inspection. It's also less contrasty, with more detail coming through, but again, it could be my inexperience with Vuescan. I'm not sure if it's grainier because it's getting more detail or grainier because my exposure isn't correct. I definitely need more time to play with the settings.
On a curious note, I paid $100 for each device: the Canon was pretty much new while the Minolta has been around the block a few times.
Image is shot on Portra 160NC on a Canon T90. I've forgotten which lens, though it's possible it's the 50mm f1.4
On the Canon, it's scanned at 4800dpi (half of maximum, but supposedly the scanner has an effective resolution of 1900dpi). On the Minolta, it's at the full 2820 dpi. I've tried to match colours a bit in RAW and clean some dust in Photoshop, but otherwise not much modified. Images are scaled down to the same size. The Canon has had ICE applied.
Canoscan 9000F:
Konica Minolta Scan Dual III:
Detail Canon:
Detail Konica Minolta:
So if I see things correctly, the Minolta is definitely sharper on inspection. It's also less contrasty, with more detail coming through, but again, it could be my inexperience with Vuescan. I'm not sure if it's grainier because it's getting more detail or grainier because my exposure isn't correct. I definitely need more time to play with the settings.
On a curious note, I paid $100 for each device: the Canon was pretty much new while the Minolta has been around the block a few times.
Gregoyle
Well-known
Clive,
Thanks for posting your images, the results are interesting. I am wondering if you used Vuescan for both scans or just for the Minolta. The Minolta scan certainly appears more grainy, and I'm wondering if there was maybe some grain reduction done on the Canon scan. It looks like there is a kind of smearing that I often associate with grain/noise reduction, but may just be a symptom of lower resolution.
Colors are always a trial. The ColorPerfect plugin makes them easier. One thing the Minolta scan might benefit from is the white/fog removal. The tutorial shows how to use it.
-Greg
Thanks for posting your images, the results are interesting. I am wondering if you used Vuescan for both scans or just for the Minolta. The Minolta scan certainly appears more grainy, and I'm wondering if there was maybe some grain reduction done on the Canon scan. It looks like there is a kind of smearing that I often associate with grain/noise reduction, but may just be a symptom of lower resolution.
Colors are always a trial. The ColorPerfect plugin makes them easier. One thing the Minolta scan might benefit from is the white/fog removal. The tutorial shows how to use it.
-Greg
CliveC
Well-known
Thanks Greg. I don't recall applying grain reduction on the Canon scan, but it's certainly possible. What I may have done is oversharpened the Minolta scan in RAW. I think it would look a lot better if I went in and applied noise removal, but I wanted to have a clear look.
It's definitely on the contrasty side and doesn't seem as smooth as the other scans in this thread. I was having trouble with the curves presented in Vuescan as well as white balance. By default the image was overexposed, with a lot of digital noise in the dark areas (the woman's pants in particular).
[Edit]Oh, and Vuescan was used in both instances.
It's definitely on the contrasty side and doesn't seem as smooth as the other scans in this thread. I was having trouble with the curves presented in Vuescan as well as white balance. By default the image was overexposed, with a lot of digital noise in the dark areas (the woman's pants in particular).
[Edit]Oh, and Vuescan was used in both instances.