Bit depth question

  • Thread starter Thread starter itemyar
  • Start date Start date
I

itemyar

I'm shopping for a new (maybe used) 35mm film scanner and I've been looking
at some Konika-Minolta DiMage Scan Dual Elite II's (why don't they drop that
silly name) on ebay. I read CNet's review of it and I think the author is
confused about bit-depth, or maybe I am? According to the spec's, it is a
16 bit scanner and the way I understand it, this means 16 bits per color,
hence, a total of 48 bits for an RGB image, but that's not the way this
particular author interprets it. You can read the review here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_II/4545-3136_7-9663518.html

Is he confused or am I?

Thanks,
Ray
 
itemyar said:
I'm shopping for a new (maybe used) 35mm film scanner and I've been looking
at some Konika-Minolta DiMage Scan Dual Elite II's (why don't they drop that
silly name) on ebay. I read CNet's review of it and I think the author is
confused about bit-depth, or maybe I am? According to the spec's, it is a
16 bit scanner and the way I understand it, this means 16 bits per color,
hence, a total of 48 bits for an RGB image, but that's not the way this
particular author interprets it. You can read the review here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_II/4545-3136_7-9663518.html

Is he confused or am I?
Click to expand...

Heh, yeah he's talking outta his ass there. Additionally, if I recall
correctly, Elite II line has IR cleaning, which adds additional
(infrared) channel to image, totalling at 64bit/pixel. (Can't really
tell the real bitdepth of IR channel, but it's easier to keep all
channels in same width. I'd also not trust that it's full noise-free
16bit/channel, least-significant bits are hard to get right).

Ungh, now read that piece of crap in full and writer is really out of
his mind. For example '2.800dpi x 2.800dpi'? And 'CCD adds to it's
bulkiness'? The bulk is there to fit full 6 frames -sled, I've opened the
thing and it's full of nothing, electronics occupy only small part of
the box.
 
I'm shopping for a new (maybe used) 35mm film scanner and I've been looking
at some Konika-Minolta DiMage Scan Dual Elite II's (why don't they drop that
silly name) on ebay. I read CNet's review of it and I think the author is
confused about bit-depth, or maybe I am? According to the spec's, it is a
16 bit scanner and the way I understand it, this means 16 bits per color,
hence, a total of 48 bits for an RGB image, but that's not the way this
particular author interprets it. You can read the review here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_II/4545-3136_7-9663518.html

Is he confused or am I?
Click to expand...


Cnet is really not the best technical source. :)

He says:

"Cons: Has a 16-bit (64K colors) depth", and mentions others have 48 bits, so
this 16 bit notion must be bad. Unbelievable really.

He is very confused (absolutely no clue) and seems to be thinking of 16 bit
video in the 90s, which was 5 bits each of red and blue, and 6 bits of green,
for a total of 16 bits, and was called 64K colors. Windows still supports this
video option.

But 16 bit scanners have 16 bits of each of the red, green, and blue channels,
for a total of 48 bits, and about 4+ billion possible colors. Any 16 bit
scanner is definitely in this latter category. Often the terminology is 16
bit mode for 48 bit color, but usage varies.
 
itemyar said:
I'm shopping for a new (maybe used) 35mm film scanner and I've been looking
at some Konika-Minolta DiMage Scan Dual Elite II's (why don't they drop that
silly name) on ebay. I read CNet's review of it and I think the author is
confused about bit-depth, or maybe I am? According to the spec's, it is a
16 bit scanner and the way I understand it, this means 16 bits per color,
hence, a total of 48 bits for an RGB image, but that's not the way this
particular author interprets it. You can read the review here:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_II/4545-3136_7-9663518.html
Click to expand...
That review says:
"Cons: Has a 16-bit (64K colors) depth, which is considerably less
favorable than some similarly priced scanners. For example, the Epson
Perfection 4870 , a scanner at around $440, has a 48-bit color depth."
Is he confused or am I?
Click to expand...
I don't know whether you are confused, but he is a complete tosser! Not
only has he slammed a perfectly good scanner, he has demonstrated that
he didn't bother to use it properly and has recommended an *inferior*
product in preference!

I'll just rub a little salt in your wounds by mentioning that he
probably earns more than you do for writing crap like that too. ;-)
 
I don't know whether you are confused, but he is a complete tosser! Not
only has he slammed a perfectly good scanner, he has demonstrated that
he didn't bother to use it properly and has recommended an *inferior*
product in preference!
Click to expand...


I cant decide if it is funny or pathetic. The writer's blunder might be
funny, but it is pathetic that the editor didnt catch it. And pathetic that
it is still online and viewable.
 
Wayne <[email protected]> said:
I cant decide if it is funny or pathetic. The writer's blunder might be
funny, but it is pathetic that the editor didnt catch it. And pathetic that
it is still online and viewable.
Click to expand...
I wonder how long it will stay up. :-)

If it had been Epson or Nikon that were getting that type of review, it
would be pulled soon after anyone pointed the mistake out in this forum.
I am fairly sure they monitor this and a subtle warning about libel
damages would be sufficient.

However, with Konica-Minolta now being defunct (which may have some
influence on the OP's decision as to what to get) it might never be
removed - and you can be sure that Epson won't be in a great hurry to
bring the mistake to their notice.
 
Kennedy McEwen said:
I wonder how long it will stay up. :-)

If it had been Epson or Nikon that were getting that type of review, it
would be pulled soon after anyone pointed the mistake out in this forum.
I am fairly sure they monitor this and a subtle warning about libel
damages would be sufficient.

However, with Konica-Minolta now being defunct (which may have some
influence on the OP's decision as to what to get) it might never be
removed - and you can be sure that Epson won't be in a great hurry to
bring the mistake to their notice.
--
Click to expand...

.... and funniest of all is that the picture shown is the Dimage Scan Dual IV
(or the like) and not at all the Elite 5400 II :)))
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Click to expand...

Greetings, Alex
 
I wonder how long it will stay up. :-)

If it had been Epson or Nikon that were getting that type of review, it
would be pulled soon after anyone pointed the mistake out in this forum.
I am fairly sure they monitor this and a subtle warning about libel
damages would be sufficient.

However, with Konica-Minolta now being defunct (which may have some
influence on the OP's decision as to what to get) it might never be
removed - and you can be sure that Epson won't be in a great hurry to
bring the mistake to their notice.
Click to expand...


Now is the first time I've ever seen it, but I'd guess it has already been
online for 3 or 4 years. It is an older Minolta Scan Elite II model, which
hasnt been in production for a while. Other reviews of it are dated 2002,
like http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSEII/DSEIIA.HTM
(who mentions "Very good dynamic range, thanks to 16-bit A/D")
 
I believe there was a similar error in a review of a newer scanner
(5400 II?). I pointed it out to CNET with their feedback form over a
year ago and when I checked a few months ago it was still there. Not
impressive...
 
I believe there was a similar error in a review of a newer scanner
(5400 II?). I pointed it out to CNET with their feedback form over a
year ago and when I checked a few months ago it was still there. Not
impressive...
Click to expand...
It would appear that CNET revue, rather than review, products. ;-)

OED review : a general survey or assessment of a subject
OED revue : theatrical entertainment
 
It would appear that CNET revue, rather than review, products. ;-)

OED review : a general survey or assessment of a subject
OED revue : theatrical entertainment
Click to expand...

As someone who has written for computer mags (the printed kind) and
fought tooth and nail will clueless "editors" I take everything in
these mags with a huge boulder of salt.

With online mags the situation is even worse. By and large, the days
when one could actually learn something from a mag seem to be long
gone. The vast majority are really *unintentional* entertainment.

Unfortunately, with accelerating paradigm shifts it's just not viable
anymore to put in the time and do things properly (the same goes for
software). That's why Byte went under and other similar mags either
followed suit or went over to the other side and turned into tabloids
inundated with fluff.

Don.
 
Back
Top