Scan Dual IV ?

[mike_r4]

I have searched, and read as many posts here as I could find on the

Scan Dual IV. From that, I THINK it will do what I need.

I'd like to get some supporting opinions before I buy one, though.

 

I tried an Epson 4180. I was satisfied with 6x6 scans, but 35mm scans

were not satisfactory. Will the Scan Dual IV make 35mm scans that

compare well with the 6x6 scans from the Epson (up to say, 8x10 print

size)?

 

I'm considering using the Scan Dual for 35mm, and an Epson 4870 for

M/F and L/F. I Would not expect to make prints larger than 8x10 from

35mm. I shoot B&W, and color film and slides. I don't mind using P.S.

to clean dust, etc. I am not too concerned with scanning

speed. 'Special' negs and slides could be sent out for drum scanning,

on occasion. I realize that a dual format film scanner would do

better, but it's more $, and would not handle L/F.

 

Thanks in advance for your advice, and opinions.

[leonard_evens]

I recently got a Scan Daul IV, and I have an Epson 3200 which I use for medium and 4 x 5 format. I haven't yet done a lot of scanning with the SD IV, but my impression is that it yields 35 mm scans which are definitely better than the Epson 3200 could produce. It is a bit hard to be sure without doing systematic tests, but I think it does produce results for 35 mm which are comparable to my scans of 6 x 6 film with the 3200, at least when you discount for the general superiority of 6 x 6 over 35 mm. The 4870 yields a bit higher resolution than the 3200, but I don't think it would be enough to change that evaluation.

 

I am generally happy with the SD IV. It certainly is adequate for what I want, which is to scan a bunch of old 35 mm negatives, none of which were taken with the view of producing prints larger than 8 x 10.

 

The SD IV doesn't have ICE, so there is quite a lot of spotting that has to be done, particularly with old negatives. Also the grain or more likely grain aliasing is more obvious. I have to do some experimentation, but I believe that for routine work a slight amount of blurring to eliminate the grain would be appropriate. It doesn't seem to have a significant effect on detail. I have no doubt that I can use this scanner to produce adequate 8 x 10 enlargements, but something like 16 x 20 would be questionable except in exceptional circumstances. 8 x 10s I've got from 35 mm negatives using the Epson scanner required a lot of massaging in a photoeditor and were pretty disappointing.

[jim_simmons]

I use a flatbed for 4x5 and the Dual Scan IV for 35mm negs and slides. I make very sharp 7x10 prints from the DS IV scans. Takes a good bit of USM treatment in photoshop, but then the images get very nice. Not easy to get good shadow details out of dense slides, but I've not yet tried Vuescan, which is my step for improvement.

[jimvanson]

Mike -- I have the SD III and the 4870, I'm sure the SD IV will be better then the SD III. 8x12 prints are no problem (and I'm picky about quality). I don't mind spotting in Photoshop either. If you are using the 4870 already then your computer shouldn't have any problems running the SD.<P>I'm not to hot on the Epson or Minolta software so my copy of Vuescan 8.x runs both.<P>Finally, I've seen used SD III's in KEH for around $175.

[mike_r4]

Thanks for the quick replies. It sounds like this scanner will suit my needs for now. I think I'll go ahead and order one.

 

Would I need more than one version of VUESCAN to use on multiple scanners? I don't have the 4870 yet, and I'm also considering the Microtek 1800f. Can I just purchase one copy of Vuescan, or does each scanner require a different version?

[mike_r4]

Well, I think I found my answer on the Hamrick site:

 

"Number of scanners - a single copy of VueScan can work with all supported scanners, but you need to purchase and install a separate copy of SilverFast for each scanner you use."

 

I guess I was thinking of SilverFast.

[jimvanson]

Mike same version of Vuescan for both scanners (and it's legal!). Just make sure you get the most recent version as Version 8.x is superior to the Version 7's.<P>Also I suggest upgrading your USB2 drivers before scanner installation.

[mike_r4]

"Also I suggest upgrading your USB2 drivers before scanner installation."

 

Hmmmm...

Is that something I can download from HP? I have an HP computer that's about 8 months old.

[david_bedell]

<IMG SRC="http://www.lbbfamily.com/albums/One-Month/Lucy_Shoulder_3.jpg">

<P>

It's fine. Better than my Epson 3200, I think. I had some initial problems with

banding (see the example above), but that's gone away with time. Probably because I

let the scanner warm before use.

<P>

Next time I'll spring for a scanner with ICE, though.

<P>

Photoshop time has become baby time...

[jimvanson]

Mike -- I'd contact HP to see if you have the most recent USB2 drivers or cross my fingers and hope that since your box is fairly new that you won't feel the PAIN I did with both the 4870 and the SD III.<P>And since we're talking boxes & scanners and 6x6's we'll paraphrase The Duchess Of Windsor-- "You can never be too rich nor have too much ram".

[bernard_korites]

I use the Minolta Scan Dual IV to scan slides which I print on my Epson 2200 up to 13x19 with no problems. I also print that size with my 5mp Sony 717. Theoretically you probably shouldn't be able to print that large with 5mp but I do all the time and the results are quite acceptable, to my eyes anyway.

[elliot_n]

The Minolta scanner will certainly produce a better print than the Epson scanner - but

definitely not as good as a conventional darkroom print.

[mike_r4]

Thanks everyone; I just ordered one.