Minolta Dimage Multi Scan--Any Reviews?

Hi Folks,

 

<p>

 

I have searched the archive and been thru a lot of messages regarding the Minolta Dimage Multi Scan mf scanner, but I haven't seen any real comments on the quality, or found anyone who has actually used one. It will be used for Web, Multimedia, and proofing for film. If I like what I see for print, I would probably then have a drum scan done for a final Iris output.

 

<p>

 

Any suggestions? Reviews?

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

 

<p>

 

ned

I haven't seen Minolta but I have tried Nikon's 45 MF scan.

 

 

 

The spec said the Nikon produces more pixels than Minolta (also the cost is more expensive) but the scanning result did not impress me at all.

I have seen the Minolta at the recent PC Expo and had a very interesting chat with one of the Minolta engineers. The specs for MF scanning (up to 6 x 9cm) is 1128 dpi whereas the Nikon LS4500 is rated at only 1000 dpi (again for MF sizes.) The Minolta is almost 10% better but their scanning software does not seen to be capable of interpolating its scans. If you wish to increase the dpi density, you'll need to do this withing the image editing software, PhotoShop.

I have not had the opportunity of checking out Nikon's but I believe it's similar to the LS-1000. I have never needed anything higher than 2800, so I never even tried to set it higher than that.

 

<p>

 

In contrast to the Nikon, the Minolta is a single pass scanner; the Nikon is a three-pass. Nikon uses a halogen lamp; Minolta's is a fluorescent lamp (I believe it cold-cathode.) The Minolta's uses treated (coated, as their engineer told me) glass to 'sandwich' the MD negatives for scanning. The coating is said to eliminate Newton rings.

I don't know whether Nikon's LS-4500 uses glass.

 

<p>

 

There are differences between the Nikon and the Minolta and since their MF resolution is similar and the Minolta is 1/3 the price, I think it's a 'no-brainer' to buy the Minolta (only if scanning 4x5 is not a necessity.)

 

<p>

 

I have one on order and will report my findings as soon as I have a chance on testing it out.

I just saw a press release and picture of the Minolta Medium format film scanner. They claim 2850dpi "true optical resolution" formats to 6x9 and a price of under $2500. I have a Kodak 3570 which has a slightly lesser dpi rating, but that is only for 35mm, medium format tops out at slightly over 1000dpi. The Minolta may be similar. The price of the Minolta is about one third of what I paid for the Kodak, but there may be extra charges for software, cables, drivers, film holders etc. The kodak gives excellent scans, I have recieved only praise from my clients, if the minolta operates as a photoshop plug-in it will probably be an easy scanner to use.

I have the 35mm Minolta Dualscan, but I'd definitely be interested in a medium format version if it's reasonably priced. Is there any information on the web about the new scanner?

I recently purchased the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi, and it is very good. It produces a very nice scan, medium format at 1128 dpi. Translates to about an 8x10 at 300 dpi, plenty for most of my needs. The plug in works pretty well, it is easy to set up the system and get running, only drawback is it is a little slow, but that is understandable. Cost was $2275.

 

<p>

 

ned

Hi Ned

So you are saying that the Minolta is good enough to enable A4

prints from 6x6 or greater images?

 

Presumable Minolta reckon you don't need as high a dpi for MF

pictures as for 35mm to get the same size print (A4).

 

Is the resolution the same (1128) for ALL MF sizes, even 645?

As promised (but a bit tardy!). . .my highly personal and perhaps

biased report:

 

<p>

 

I just purchased a Dimage Scan Multi and spent a little time with it.

Since most readers at the MFD are MF users, I won't spend time on the

35mm aspects of the scanner.

 

<p>

 

The scanning interface is quite good in its ability to allow users to

customize their scans although I find the preview window/s to be too

small for some of the adjustment (refer to sections below.) It permits

the customary adjustments to your 'curves', histograms and focus. I

didn't use the software that was packaged with the scanner. I

downloaded the latest from Minolta's WEB site; but it still reports

itself as being Ver. 1.0!!!!

 

<p>

 

I find that Minolta's interface is more usable than Nikon's with one

exception: there is no interpolation with Minolta's scanning

interface. Maximum resolution when scanning MF negatives is 1128.

Typically with some cropping, my image size is around 14-16MB. If you

need anything higher, use the 'resize' option within your image

editor. I hope Minolta will find it in their hearts to provide

interpolation with their next version of the software.

 

<p>

 

At this resolution I am able to print quite good 7.9 x 7.9 inch print

from my Kodak ColorEase dye-sub printer. I can't print any larger than

that as I have only the smaller size media.

 

<p>

 

I asked a Minolta engineer why offer only a maximum resolution of

1128. His response was that you can interpolate within PhotoShop and

that the scanner uses only one CCD element array for both 35mm and MF.

The format change is effected by changing lenses. This effective

'focuses' the approx. 55mm width of 120 films onto the same CCD array

as used with 35mm...hence, you get a maximum of 1128 pixels per inch

of optical resolution.

 

<p>

 

My plans are to ultimately print my scans on an ENCAD Chroma24 which

has a maximum printing resolution of 300DPI and an EPSON Stylus FX

(maximum resolution of 1440.) Don't have either printer yet, but I

should have them before very long and I will report my findings here.

If any readers have a Dimage Scan Multi and an EPSON Stylus FX, I

would be interested in hearing from her/him (privately or

publicly!!!!!!!)

 

<p>

 

The scanning interface also has ample horizontal and vertical flips as

well as 90 degree rotations. So of you are like me, I often load my

negatives with emulsion-side up only to discover this when I see the

preview scan. Now all I have to do is to 'electronically flip' the

image.

 

<p>

 

The quality of the scans:

Sharpness - This scanner gives VERY SHARP SCANS, but with each scan, I

always manually adjust the focus. Minolta shows a double bar in a

'focusing graph' to display the point of maximum focus and you can

select which point in your scan to obtain 'critical focus.' I don use

the 'auto focus' feature. You can clearly and definitely see the grain

patterns on your screen! Nikon provides a focus option. As I remember

it when I used it last (on a LS-1000 - 35mm only scanner), Nikon

does not permit an area to be selected for focusing.

 

<p>

 

Color balance - I have to make adjustments here. I don't do this from

the Minolta's scanning interface; I do it with PhotoShop 5.0

(Windows.) I find that Minolta's preview screens are TOO SMALL for me

to do anything like picking the shadow, middle and highligh points. If

the subject permits (i.e., gives large enough areas for me to pick the

shadow and highligh points), I will pick my shadow (a spot that is to

be the darkest and blackest in the image) and my highlight (the

lightest and pure white) points with Minolta's interface. This usually

will bring into the 'ballpark' of initial success. The rest I do

inside PhotoShop!

 

<p>

 

If I make NO ADJUSTMENTS to my adjustables, the color balance is not

as good as the scans I get from Nikon's LS-1000 scanner. Maybe its my

negatives, but I find I get cooler results from the Minolta and warmer

results from the Nikon. I know I am comparing apples with oranges in

terms of the size of the scanners as the Nikon is only a 35mm scanner.

I did you the SAME 35mm color negative when I was comparing the color

balance of the two scanners. I do like Nikon's use of tri color LEDs

as its light source (I've seen the half-lives of some LEDs of 100

years.) Minolta uses a fluorescent lamp (maybe a few thousand hours??)

 

<p>

 

Histograms - I do make this adjustment within Minolta's interface as I

don't have to use the preview screens. Minolta provides graphs that

are large enough.

 

<p>

 

Contrast and Brightness - I do this with PhotoShop.

 

<p>

 

PhotoShop:

Once I use Adobe's screen calibrator, I get very accurate prints from

my Kodak ColorEase and EPSON Stylus Color Pro. I highly suggest all

Ver. 5.0 users to spend a few minutes calibrating the screens. This

doesn't mean I don't do some of my corrections 'by-the-numbers,' I do.

With a calibrated screen you just get more of a verification that you

are aiming in the 'right direction.'

 

<p>

 

Gripe/s:

1. Lack of an interpolation feature

2. Small preview windows

3. I plan on getting a Hasselblad XPan which has a 24x65mm format and

I use a Ukanian Horizon 202 panoramic camera. The only way I can get

these negatives to be scanned wouldbe to use the MF scanning adapter.

This automatically reduces the resolution to 1128. Since the width of

the image is still 24mm, when doesn't Minolta offer an adapter for

people like me who uses.

 

<p>

 

IMO 1128 resolution IS JUST NOT ADEQUATE FOR 35mm. MINOLTA JAPAN, ARE

YOU LISTENING!!!!!!! In light of your recent ad in professional

photographic magazines which quotes Skip Cohen (president of

Hasselblad USA AND A MARKETTER OF THE NEW XPan) as saying how good

your Diamage Scan Multi is, I think you should accommodate us

wide-format 35mm users the ability to scan our negatives in one piece

instead of in pieces and then 'stitching' them together later!!!

 

<p>

 

Final words:

Pros -

All-in-all, I am more pleased with the scanner than I am displeased

with it. The price is attractive (at least 3+ times less expensive

than Nikon LS-4500 - unless to need its 4x5 capabilities.) If you need

35mm and MF scans, I think Minolta is the answer and just remember

that Nikon's MF optical resolution is only 1000 - but I think you can

interpolate directly. The only other option (in the USA) is by

spending even more money and go to Polaroid's large format scanner. I

believe its max res is 2000. Microtek does have a large format scanner

with even better specs but I don't see it in the States!

 

<p>

 

The size is perfect!

 

<p>

 

I like the MF scanning adapter; it 'sandwiches' your negative between

two sheets of glass. Yes, I am concerned with Newton ring! Before I

purchased the scanner, I chatted with the Minolta engineer and I was

assured that the glass is treated to prevent these rings. I examined

the glass in a cursory manner and didn't find the traditional glass

treatment used (i.e., roughened surfaces) which would definitely

affect image details. Whatever it is that Minolta does here, keeps the

negative flat and adds not additional artifacts other than dust. Be

careful with dust! I alway brush my negatives with a special

electrostatic film cleaner and brush the glass with an antistatic

brush, followed with a blast of compress air.

 

<p>

 

The 35mm adapter doesn't use glass.

 

<p>

 

Cons -

The scanning adapter is plastic (no problems with the material) but

the adapter or carrier is transported in-and-out of the scanner using

a 'rack-and-pinion' arrangement. There is only a rack on one side of

the scanner. Since the rack is also molded into the adapter, it is

plastic! Will this endure the test of time???? I guess only time will

tell. Will a single rack (with heavy use) cause the scans to be

'skewed.' I don't know!

 

<p>

 

No interpolation feature is provided within the scanning TWAIN

software.

 

<p>

 

The MF Adapter uses masks for the various size negatives (e.g., 6x645,

6x6, 6x7 and 6x9) and uses to locating pins to afix them to the

carrier. I find that when I use compressed air to rid the carrier of

dust, the mask is usually (more often than not) dislocated!

 

<p>

 

 

Am I a Happy User?

I'm not greedy! I need only be 98% happy? To reach this level, give me

a new 35mm panoramic adapter and modifications to the software that

will permit me to scan in a complete image at 2820PPI. I think this is

really easy for MINOLTA to do!!!! Permit interpolation from MINOLTA's

scanning interface and a better way to afix the MF masks to the

adapter or carrier.

 

<p>

 

More reporting will follow once I get the EPSON Stylus EX and the

ENCAD Chroma24.

 

<p>

 

Signing off . . .

Hey Ned!

 

<p>

 

I just bought my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi and have scanned am so far

impressed but with reservations. I suspect my CCD is flawed (it's not

subtle) so the scanner is going back real soon, but I have scanned in

some images. If you would like to see some output check out:

 

<p>

 

http://a3a19459.sympatico.bconnected.net/scanner/

(this page is temporary and running on my home computer)

 

<p>

 

I'll post a more thorough review in a few days.

 

<p>

 

Take care!

 

<p>

 

John

Hey!

 

<p>

 

I'm following up my earlier post with a more thorough review.

 

<p>

 

First, to see pictures see:

 

<p>

 

http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/daHouse/

(much more stable link)

 

<p>

 

Some of the questions asked and not answered:

 

<p>

 

The software cannot interpolate. This is good and bad - Photoshop will

always have smarter interpolating software than some custom driver and

I'd prefer Minolta spend time fixing the exposure controls than

rewriting existing tools. The bad part is that Minolta has confused

the interface with hundreds of scanner to destination paths (ie 35mm->

quarter a4, 6x7->5x7, etc.) which add no value unless you don't use

Photoshop.

 

<p>

 

The scanner cannot scan medium format negatives at 2850 dpi unless you

chop up your negative and put it in the 35mm holder. The two film

types (35mm, medium format) are on the same plane (or so it looks), the

software just won't let you scan at the higher resolutions (with the

obvious center cropping). The APS sleeved adapter fits on the medium

format holder so APS SLEEVED scans are also limited to 1280 dpi. (The

APS adapter allows full 2850 dpi) 6x4.5 is scanned at 1280.

 

<p>

 

My primary web sources for information:

 

<p>

 

http://www.minoltaeurope.com/minolta/products/digital/dimagesm.html

(Minolta Europe, pretty good site)

 

<p>

 

The grain is painfully obvious in APS (at 2850) and can been seen in

35mm color neg. With 120 Velvia you only rarely see grain (dark

areas). I have yet to see grain in Agfa 400asa B&W. Comparing a scene

shot in 35mm and medium format, the medium format still looks better.

Even though the scanner has a huge color range, slide exposure is still

critical - an overexposed slide cannot be repaired to look as good as a

proper exposure. I haven't tried scanning C-41 that is painfully

overexposed or underexposed.

 

<p>

 

I used my scanner with the Epson Stylus Photo 700. A full 8x10 print

(on 8.5x11) looks fantastic. You can still tell it's a computer

printer but that's a limitation of the ink jet printer.

 

<p>

 

I agree with Tsun, The color editing window is just too small. On a

300x300 image (roughly) your supposed to find the darkest part, the

lightest part, and judge the effects of tweaking the curves. Not going

to happen.

 

<p>

 

I don't like the trays. They are cheap (which should make them easy to

replace) but they are not going to last. The medium format tray has

two large pieces of Newton glass they are always the first thing to

touch when you slip. The hinge holding the top sheet on is flimsy and

would not survive a good knock. The 35mm trays have flimsy hinges and

cheap latches. I hate spending $2,190 (B&H) and worrying that it will

wear out less than a year.

 

<p>

 

Loading the trays into the scanner is another sore point. There

doesn't seem to be a mechanical latch to guide the tray in - you insert

until you push the gear that drives the track on the left side. This

means every time you insert the tray you are pushing (however lightly)

on the motor. If you don't use enough force it will try to grab and

slip making a unpleasant sound. DUMB design.

 

<p>

 

Minolta has a few open doors with this scanner. The CCD is a line CCD

(a single row of pixels) instead of a matrix like you would find on a

digital camera. The horizontal pixels are formed by the tray being

dragged across the scanning line and I don't see why it is limited to

just a frame. Minolta should be able to build adapters to scan true

panoramic 35mm (like from the Xpan) and 6x17 medium format.

 

<p>

 

Having never used a dark room, I never realized how much dust is a

pain. I bought a can of air the second day I got the scanner and I now

blow the film and the holder every time. Most of my photos were taken

on APS (I just got my medium format camera) so I'm hoping the dust

proof case in APS will reduce dust contamination. Finger prints on the

negatives are clearly visible in scans. Finger prints on the Newton

glass in the medium format scanner are also visible in the scans.

 

<p>

 

Would I buy the scanner a second time? Absolutely. The scanner I

received had a flaw in the CCD so I have shipped it back to B&H for an

exchange. In the mean time I'm going through scanner withdrawal -

there�s no point trying the scan prints or use the printer - the

scanner is just that good. Photography is just a hobby for me

(partially to remember my life, partially because I love great images)

and this extends my abilities dramatically.

 

<p>

 

Happy Shooting!

 

<p>

 

John