Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Ignatiev at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>here goes my hope of scanning MF on a budget. >>i sold nikon 4000 this summer and got this instead, >>and it's been an excercise in frustration ever since. >> >>the resolution (1180dpi) is ok for my purposes. but >>pretty much everything else is horrible. the minolta >>software is lousy, it does horrible job with colors >>(and realy screws up the green channel if you have >>saturated reds), vuescan is a tad better, but still, >>it is as true to the film as 4x6 prints from an 1hr >>.lab are. and the scans have banding no matter how you >>try, so i believe this is a hardware problem. it's ok >>as long as you don't adjust the levels. but since >>there's no analog gain control in hardware, levels is >>the only way to adjust the final scan. >> >> anyway, it's off to ebay, and i would recommend anyone >> considering getting one to think again. >> >> i guess i'll be waiting for the next gen of nikon >> multiformat offering... > >Sad story. Personally I use Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO in my job - no >problems - it works fantastic! Many users reported that it is even better >than Coolscan 8000. Software is very good too - works smooth on Mac G4 under >OS 9.2 and OS X. I've been using the original Scan Multi II for years with none of the problems described above. Software isn't that great but it certainly isn't bad - scanning at 48-bit gives me wonderful images. Sounds like you got a bad unit. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
