Does Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro deliver 4800 ppi over entire Xpan frame?

[michael_hintlian1]

Looking seriously at this scanner. And I have questions.

 

First, is the 4800dpi "strip" the width of 35mm film and does it run the length of the

scan area? In other words, would an Xpan negative 24mmX72mm be fully in the

4800dpi area?

 

Second, when using the glass carrier, does this automatically shut off the 4800dpi

strip? I would like to use the glass carrier for 35mm and Xpan negatives and slides

(out of their binders).

 

Finally, and its probably been beaten to death somewhere on Photo.net and I have

been unable to find it...how does this scanner compare to the Microtek 120tf?

 

All input welcome.

 

With thanks,

 

MH

[jerry_freeman1]

I have no experience with either scanner you mention so I will address only how a

scanner works. DPI is actually incorrect as dpi refers to dots per inch and that is for

inkjet printing. SPI�scans per inch�is what a scanner does. As the scan progresses

up the bed it samples�alledgedly�4800 scans per inch. In the scanning software you

select the area of the scan�in your case 24x72�and the scanner scans within that

area �only�at 4800 spi, Were you to place a document to completely cover the

scanning bed and select the entire document, then the scanner would scan the entire

bed width at 4800 spi resulting in a huge file and probably an error message. The

neg holder would place your neg towards the center of the scanner, and towards the

center is the sweet spot of the scanner. Quality declines progressively from the center

outwards. This can be verified by completely covering the scanning bed with white

card and scan it. Open the scan in an image editor with levels and move the dark

slider until noise becomes apparent. You can readily see your scanners sweet spot,

which is never in the lower right corner. Hope this clarifies one question until

someone post with specific experience on these scanners...jf

[hugh_sakols]

I'm also looking at buying a new Multiformat Scanner. I'm curious why you aren't considering the Nikon 8000? Right now the price looks good.

[erik scanhancer]

Michael,

 

With regards to your first question: yes, the middle strip of the MF

glassholder area is the width of a 35mm frame (even a little more to scan

black borders) and the full length (82mm scan length actually). So the Xpan

negative will be fully in this area. I always use this area to scan my 35mm

negatives anyway, because due to the AN glass it gives superb film

flatness.

 

About your second question: in order to use this area you'll have to cut a

mask from black plastic or paper. The backing paper of 120 spool film (Agfa

and Fuji, not Kodak) is very suitable for this purpose. If you buy the

multi-format glassholder (my advice: don't) it comes with uncut masks that

you can make fit for your 35mm filmstrip. The glass surface of that holder is

exactly the same as the standard glass holder and the scanner won't know

which one you use because you'll have to specify that manually. BTW, keep

in mind that this scanner scans 4800dpi (or lpi/spi) in both directions with

35mm and 4800x3200dpi with MF, upsampled to 4800dpi in both directions

in order to avoid image distortion. This upsampling in one direction is very

good.

 

Now the question about the Microtek: I have been making a custom

Scanhancer for that model recently, so that gave me the opportunity to

learn some more about it. It seems to be a good scanner as long as you

use Silverfast with it. The Polaroid software gave big problems. What I didn't

like about this scanner is that it hasn't got manual focusing, which I find a

very good thing about the Minolta. Scanning the same piece of film several

times resulted in different focus with each scan. It also had trouble making

good scans of contrasty slides. It does not have 16 bit A/D conversion and

this became quite apparent when big corrections had to be made. The lack

of ICE with the Polaroid/Microtek would be a reason for me not to buy it.

IMHO this is especially a great scanner for scanning B&W only.

[shogo_shogo]

I second Eric in what he says. And despite what some Imacon users might say (he-he), his Scanhancer is excellent! I think that the only possible rival to Minolta Multi-Pro under $3k is Nikon 9000. We yet have to see how it performs.

[michael_hintlian1]

Many thanks for the kind input here. Looks like this scanner is a winner.

 

The reason I am not looking at the Nikon? First, I have been using an LS-2000 since

it was released, not a bad scanner and it helped me earn a living but it had way too

many disappointing features, no full frame scan capability for one. Then there was

the LS-4000, could never make a decent scan with it...also no full frame capability.

And now looking at the 8000/9000 I confess to being somewhat jaded and without

loyalty so I am looking elsewhere...and I'm tired of fighting with technology.

 

Again thanks to all.

 

MH

 

to see work: http;//www.hintlian.com