A lot of scanner for your money
Written: Aug 17 '01 (Updated Nov 03 '02)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
|
Pros: Price, shadow detail, image quality
Cons: should probably use third party software
The Bottom Line: For screen use or small to medium sized hi-res prints this scanner delivers way beyond its cost.
|
|
|
| gbraun's Full Review: Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II Film Scanner (3... |
It took me a while to decide to pick up this scanner instead of spending the extra money on a more expensive one, but I haven't been disappointed with the decision (and I don't think I'm just trying to justify my own decision).
Prior to buying this I'd done a lot of Kodak PhotoCD scans (not to be confused with PictureCD) as well as paid scans on a Nikon LS-30 and rental of an LS-2000. If I'm careful, and use Ed Hamrick's Vuescan, then I can make scans that perform as well, or generally in the case of the PhotoCD, better, than these others.
This scanner performs at the thousand dollar level with a serious cost savings, and the corners Minolta cut to do this may or may not be important to you, but since in the end they weren't ones that reduced the quality of the image one could achieve, I was happy to live with them.
I didn't originally intend to write a rebuttal to negative comments I've read here, but realized that my viewpoint was somewhat contradictory, and thought I should address these points directly, so here goes:
"Very grainy negative scans"
I'm not sure how strongly this counts as a con for this scanner in comparison to others. Grainy scans are a property of good resolving power in the scanner and grainy negatives (or positives). You can turn on automatic 'grain reduction' algorithms, but that will cost you some sharpness. I do find that different films produce very different results, and depending on how you use them, you should do your own experimentation, but at the extremes I've found Kodak Portra 400 films to be consistently disappointing and Kodak Supra Films (in addition to every slide film I've tried) to be consistently easy to work with. Also bear in mind that most people noticing a difference between slide and negative grain may often be comparing slower speed transparency film with higher speed (inherently more grainy) negatives. Additionally, digital noise will crop up in shadows, especially in the compressed range of negatives' shadows, and this is often mistaken for grain; Vuescan multi-pass does a lot to alleviate this, but be aware that this scanner is recognized to have good shadow noise characteristics compared to most. With slide film, unless the image requires special attention to the shadows, a single pass scan will produce clean rich darks tones and blacks.
"I was never able to get the scanner installed"
I installed (with hesitation) to Windows ME, wondering if I'd need Win2k - and it virtually plugged and played. 10 minutes out of the box I had a scan using Minolta's default software, and 10 minutes after that I has a scan using Vuescan. Results can vary though.
"Slow speed"
I can't say much on this one. It isn't a terribly fast scanner. I routinely do 8-pass batch scanning in Vuescan and that's 8 times as slow, but did I mention the price? By the way, I've not had any problems with opening and using a large number of applications (even working with images larger that my installed RAM) while scanning - no digital problems (or misalignments) creep in.
"Bad color quality & consistency"
Consistency is a matter of choice for the user. How and when you do colour correction (and if you allow auto correction) will affect consistency, but within a roll, or across rolls of the same film in similar shooting conditions, I've had no colour consistency problems. The colour quality will be somewhat dependent on the film you choose, as the negative orange mask of some films is apparently easier to remove than for others (a problem common to scanners across the range - you need to learn your tools).
"Noisy"
Yep - the step motor(s?) is loud when loading or ejecting a carrier, or doing an autofocus. It's pretty quiet during the actual scan, though. Loading the carriers feels like it has room for error, but I've never experienced a problem. Did I mention the price?
"No Digital dust remover"
This is apparently an expensive feature to include, and one which gets turned off frequently anyway depending on the intended image use (ICE will generally add a hint of softening). I'm glad to get the rest of the features, without this one, given the cost tradeoff. Even with ICE'd scans from more expensive Nikons I've generally had to perform Photoshop touchups for some dust on some scans (stuff happens).
_______________________________
I'm using Ed Hamrick's Vuescan with some delight. It will employ the full bit depth of the scanner, and will allow multi-pass scanning (reducing noise in shadows, and rescuing pictures that I shot on Portra before knowing about the limitations I've described.) I recommend it heartily, and you can use a free trial version (which watermarks your images) to see if it will work for you: www.hamrick.com.
Your success with this scanner may depend on a few things, such as your willingness to convert to a workflow that avoids low contrast films - such as Portra, or your willingness to buy third party software, or your willingness to clean up some dust marks, but at the end of the day you can create excellent scans (and therby prints) on a very tight budget.
Films I've tried and liked:
- Kodak EBX, E100SW, E100VS, T400CN, Supra 100, 400, 800
- Fuji Reala, Provia 100 (haven't tried 400), Velvia, Sensia
Films with which I've had less success:
- Kodak Portra 160NC, 400NC, 400VC
- Fuji NPH
- Ilford XP2
You'll notice no black and white films in the list (beyond chromogenics), chiefly because I haven't tried enough to compare (this being because I prefer the control of filtering a colour image to monochrome in Photoshop better than filtering to the film in camera in an unforgiveable way). I'm extremely happy with the results from films such as Supra and Reala (in addition to Velvia, Provia, and EVS and SW transparencies) and so don't feel a need to range much further for now.
If you're a working pro converting images daily for future resale, then buy an Imacon Precision II or maybe a Polaroid SprintScan 4000. If you're a serious enthusiast (prosumer?) then you won't have gone wrong in taking the dimage scan dual II home.
Update Nov. 2002: Jim W. asked "How big of a print can you reasonably make?" in the comments section of this review, and I've responded there. If you were wondering this too, have a read there.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 450
Interface: USB
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
gbraun
|
|
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada
Reviews written: 25
Trusted by: 14 members
About Me:
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.