Seeking for Scanning advice with Minolta Scan Dual IV

[anandi]

Hello All,
Um, ignore the 'for' in the title, I think I started off with Looking originally
I just recently got a Minolta Scan Dual IV and while I'm getting okay results with it, they're just okay using the supplied Minolta Software. At a full resolution (4328 x 2900 pixel) scan the details are a little soft and grainy. I can't tell quite if its the focus of the scanner, the grain of the film or even my picture.

Here's an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aanandi/471923970/
(400 Fuji Superia)

The colour is a little off from the print and my memory. I'm using the autofocus function of the scanner, and none of the 'pixel polishing' or auto-adjustment features.

Anybody have any general recommendations on getting good scans? Settings? Is the VueScanner or other 3rd party software better?

Cheers,
-Amit

 

[peter_n]

I use the same scanner but in a decidedly amateurish fashion with the supplied software. I bought Vuescan and found it impossible to use - I just don't have the time to crawl up that learning curve.

 

[anselwannab]

I use the standard software too, but for B&W scan as a color pos and then invert in PSE3. It seems to tame the shadows and highlights better.

You can manually focus it, I've never tried. From my CL and F1N negatives, I can print some nice 11x14s. I'd have to say that it seems to like thin negatives, to much density seems to drive it nuts.

I do multi-sampling and have the dust features turned down. The anti-dust does a lot to soften images. I would agree that pixel peeping makes things look soft, softer than similar resolutions pics from my 20D.

All the pics in my gallery are from the SDIV.

Mark

 

[pmu]

It is all about the software... I used to struggle with my scan dual 4 a lot -- B&W tones were horrible. With Vuescan not only the image quality was way better, but also the scanner became faster. Same with Canon faltbed scanners, Nikon Coolscan V...it's all about the software. Try Vuescan or Silverfast.

 

[JeremyR]

I also have an SDIV. I'm happy with the results most of the time (using autofocus and auto exposure but no other functions such as pixel polish). So far I've only used it to scan B&W film, and I often shoot wide open on Tri-X pushed two stops, so I'm used to some degree of "soft and grainy." When I do have problems, it usually is related to trying to extract subtle gradation differences--but I've assumed this has been more a function of the quality of the negatives than of the scanner. I import photos using the Minolta-bundled software (I don't actually remember the name).

The example photo you provide looks nice--the colors appear rich and realistic (I can't say "accurate" because I wasn't there ). However, as far as sharpness and grain are concerned, it's impossible to comment on a photo viewed at "Web" resolution.

If you like, check out the B&W images in this gallery: http://ubergeek.smugmug.com/gallery/1004296 (ignore the color images as they are digital). All of the images can be viewed at "Original" size; I may have adjusted levels, curves etc. in Photoshop but other than that, they are pretty much as they came out of the scanner. This one (warning: large image) is probably the best example I have of the detail that is possible (look to the printing on the back of the woman's shirt on the far left of the frame).

Cheers,
Jeremy

 

[anandi]

Thanks for the replies, there seems to be an even split between the default software and VueScan / Silverfast. I guess pixel peeping doesn't really do pictures justice. Sorry for the lack of the original size on the sample pick, If you're still with me try this link: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=471923970&size=o


Jeremy I like your shots and basically get similar results when I zoom in:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=463462396&size=o

Cheers,
-Amit

 

[dmr]

At a full resolution (4328 x 2900 pixel) scan the details are a little soft and grainy. I can't tell quite if its the focus of the scanner, the grain of the film or even my picture.

I looked at your example. This is a web photo, so it's really difficult to evaluate, but I do see what I think is what you're referring to as "soft", in that the details of the face, such as the eyelashes and the highlights in the eyes are not razor sharp. The film grain, however, is apparent in the solids, and it appears to me like you're getting a good image of the negative/slide including the grain, and it's not grain aliasing. My guess is { ducking } that the negative itself is slightly off from the critical focus plane for the optimal facial details.

Since the grain is apparent, I think the scanner focus is good. The only time I've found that this scanner did not focus properly is on slides that are significantly bowed. Negatives seem to focus fine first time, every time using the default auto focus setting. I've found that for slides you sometimes have to help the auto focus along a bit.

As for colo(u)r fidelity, I do almost all adjustments in post-processing with Photoshop, and I've found that in almost all cases, the scanner gives a faithful representation of the negative or slide. The only problems I had was with the Walgreens/Agfa in available light, which the film does not like at all!

Anybody have any general recommendations on getting good scans? Settings? Is the VueScanner or other 3rd party software better?

Vuescan has its fans, and if it works for you, that's great, but even the Vuescan fans will (under duress) admit that Vuescan will not extract any more information or detail from the film than the stock software will, nor will it scan faster. My hints are to scan at maximum res, 16 bit depth (yes, humongous file) and use auto exposure unless it's a strange negative or slide that needs some tweaking. Automatic auto focus unless there's a reason to help it.

Then post-process in Photoshop or Gimp or whatever.

I have done some scans on that machine that have made some stunning 13x19 prints, so I know it's a good machine.

 

[JeremyR]

I looked at your example. This is a web photo, so it's really difficult to evaluate, but I do see what I think is what you're referring to as "soft", in that the details of the face, such as the eyelashes and the highlights in the eyes are not razor sharp. The film grain, however, is apparent in the solids, and it appears to me like you're getting a good image of the negative/slide including the grain, and it's not grain aliasing. My guess is { ducking } that the negative itself is slightly off from the critical focus plane for the optimal facial details.

Since the grain is apparent, I think the scanner focus is good.

I agree with this assessment, especially after looking at the full-size image. I'd also add that there's no better way to ruin a perfectly good photo than by peeping at its pixels. As long as it prints well, what more could you ask for?

Cheers,
Jeremy

 

[anandi]

Thanks, now which version of Silverfast or Vuescan?

Thanks, now which version of Silverfast or Vuescan?

Thanks again for the critique. Glad to hear my focus is off, it's interesting that it doesn't really show up in the print, admittedly 4x6. Definitely will do more B&W and slide scanning next. So now last question, if you use Silverfast is the base or SE version good enough? Vuescan seems powerful as well, I'm assuming that once you figure out a set of parameters, it's just a matter of applying them over and over?

Cheers,
-Amit

 

[pmu]

Vuescan has its fans, and if it works for you, that's great, but even the Vuescan fans will (under duress) admit that Vuescan will not extract any more information or detail from the film than the stock software will,

Actually it definitely does extract more information. With KM software the problem was this; make a prescan -- if the prescan is awful and you tweak the settings, scan it, the scan looks like that tweaked prescan, only bigger sized file. So for example if your adjusted prescan in B&W lacks any middle tones after some heavy tweaking the actual scan will also lack those middle tones.

With Vuescan: make prescan, adjust, the software records those high and low settings but ALSO gives you those middle tones missing in that adjusted prescan and that actual scan have a lot more tones than in that adjusted prescan.

I would say that the difference between KM software and Vuescan is that KM images look like they were adjusted from a 8-bit jpg and Vuescan images has that 16-bit tiff look. I would gladly show example images, but I have deleted all those KM scans -- to me, they were useless. With color slides KM software performs much better.

In both cases photoshopping is a must and in in all situations Vuescan's user interface is horrible.

 

[anandi]

Vuescan / Minolta scan dual IV results

Vuescan / Minolta scan dual IV results

PMU,
Does your (very cool) website Strap photos have examples of VueScan scans? I

Cheers,
-Amit