Stepping from a Minolta Scan Dual to a Dual IV, how big?

[dano1]

Hey all. I own a Minolta Scan Dual (the original) wich I purchased

off Ebay last year. Now I think I've outgrown it and am looking into

the Minolta Scan Dual IV. It sells for $257 on Newegg which is right

in my price range.

 

What I want to know is how much of a difference I will see in my

prints. I know that my current scanner delivers supurb 4x6s, and even

some great 8x10s. I have done a 12x18 on this scanner and I think I

was pushing it a little. There is a lot of noise which may acutally

be grain aliasing, but can only be seen from close up.

 

I did do one 16x20, and that was really pushing it. It looks fine

from a distance, but when viewed up close you can see a lack of

detail. This was a B&W which had almost no grain, thus, no grain

aliasing.

 

Now I just got back 6 rolls of film from vacation that I had

developed. There were a few things that bothered me. First off,

almost all the photos showed either noise or grain aliasing even

though the film was Reala 100. This becomes apparent when veiwed at

60% or closer, which is not all that close.

 

The second thing was the difficulty the scanner had with the

over-exposed and under-exposed negatives. They all came out in the

end, but not as well as the properly exposed ones. For one thing,

there was one heck of a lot more noise.

 

Now, I realize that my biggest problem with my current scanner is the

8bit color. The Scan Dual IV has 16bit A/D conversion, which I

suppose would result in one heck of a lot more shades and colors.

 

In the end, what I want to know is how much of an improvent will I see

in my prints, from 5x7 on up? And finnaly, is that improvement worth

the money?

 

Thanks in advance,

Dan O.

[jbq]

I think that you nailed the issues.

 

Resolution will be about 30% higher - and the difference between (approx) 2400 dpi and 3200 dpi can actually pick some real details if you use some decent film (Reala definitely qualifies), decent glass and a decent technique.

 

The extra bits will definitely help for underexposed and overexposed negs (though for overexposed multi-pass scanning helps as well). I played around with my Dual IV, in the dark areas of Velvia slides, and multi-pass scanning definitely made a difference.

[steve_hovland]

If you want big prints, start with big film.

 

When I shoot interiors where there are books on shelves, I can see that the books have the titles when I shoot 35mm, and I can read the titles when I shoot medium format.

 

I recently had an Imacon scan made from a 6x9 slide. The scan resolution was only about 1,000 dpi, but I got a lot detail in the scan. I am very optimistic about future scanning of MF film with the Epson 4870.

[dano1]

Thanks all.

 

One of the reasons I ask this is because my bro-in-law has a lot of old negatives that he wants scanned. He's offering to buy me a new 35mm scanner in advance.

 

So, now I have to decide what to buy. The Dual IV definatley is a good budget scanner, but I'm wondering if I'm getting the most bang for my buck.

 

I suppose you could look at the added resolution as 33% higher by linear measurement (PPI), or 75% higher when you look at area (megapixels).

 

There are other scanners out there though. I need to look at all my options before making the plunge.

 

I'm going to do a little reaseach, let me know if you have any more ideas.

 

Thanks again,

Dan O.

[bubba_gum]

One thing you might consider, especially if you are scanning a bunch of older negatives, is that the Scan Dual IV does not have digital ICE. I have the IV and get good results when I take negatives straight from processing to the scanner. Older negatives always have a little dust or scratches and I spend a lot of time trying to clean them first and then doing a lot of touch up in Photoshop afterwards. From what I understand, the scanners with digital ICE soften the image slightly, but save you tons of time cleaning up the dust after scan. Aside from that, I really like my Scan Dual IV. It is my first film scanner and took a significant initial learning curve. But, I'm quite pleased with the results.

 

Bubba