Minolta Scan Dual III & IV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grant
  • Start date Start date
G

Grant

Minolta has 2 inexpensive 35mm scanners the Dual Scan III and now the IV.
Version III has a dpi of 2820 and the IV has a dpi of 3200.

The brochure for IV can be found at:
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/ma...can&fname=scan_dual&Mname=dimage_scan_dual_IV

A review of Dual Scan III can be found at:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

These units do not use Digital Ice but have their own systems called "Pixel
Polish" and "Auto Dust Brush".

Any one have experience with either of these units? Any negative issues I
should be aware of?



Thanks in advance.

grant
 
Grant said:
Minolta has 2 inexpensive 35mm scanners the Dual Scan III and now the IV.
Version III has a dpi of 2820 and the IV has a dpi of 3200.

The brochure for IV can be found at:
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/ma...can&fname=scan_dual&Mname=dimage_scan_dual_IV

A review of Dual Scan III can be found at:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

These units do not use Digital Ice but have their own systems called "Pixel
Polish" and "Auto Dust Brush".
Click to expand...

These are software cleaning solutions and are not really effective,
comparing to hardware based infrared detection of defects, utilizing
ice or similar. Also, if you intend to use Vuescan to interface with
the scanner (a good approach, imo), it would not be using "Pixel
Polish" and "Auto Dust Brush", but it can utilize the infrared channel
(on scanners having infrared detection) with it's dust and scratch
cleaning.
Any one have experience with either of these units? Any negative issues I
should be aware of?
Click to expand...

I am an amateur and own a Scan Dual II. The 2820 dpi level is
sufficient for very satisfactory scans, and the Dual IV even better,
at 3200. The tone range that can be captured by both of these units is
said to superior to Dual II, and I've found (with the right software),
the Dual II was fine. If I was shopping, I would also consider the
Elite 5400 and the Nikon Coolscan V. Pricier, but even more resolution
AND ICE. The Nikon is my choice over the Elite right now, but I've not
researched in depth.

Note, scanning time is just a drop in the bucket compared to the
amount of time I have spent post-scan cleaning. ICE does not work on
silver based black and white, which is my subject up to now, so it's a
moot point. But, I am definitely considering an infrared enabled
scanner for my next purchase, for use with color films I want to scan.

Now what exactly do you mean by "negative issues"??? :)
 
Mendel:

Thanks for your note. By negative I meant downside, poor choice of terms.

I too have a lot of silver negatives that would not benefit from ice.

And I have the Vuescan software that I would have to compare agains the
manufacturer's software.

grant
 
"Grant" asked: "Minolta has 2 inexpensive 35mm scanners the Dual Scan
III and now the IV. [snip] These units do not use Digital Ice but have
their own systems called "Pixel Polish" and "Auto Dust Brush". Any one
have experience with either of these units? Any negative issues I
should be aware of?"
--------------------

I have a ScanDual III, which replaced a ScanDualII. (The SDII got to
misbehaving by not accepting (and starting to scan) the slide/negative
holders, so I replaced it.) I use Vuescan, primarily because I can scan
independent of Photoshop. The only downside to the ScanDual is the
amount of clean-up required for each scan--5min+ for average scans,
longer for ones with any improper handling. I use the Polaroid Dust &
Scratch Reducer for most images. It works well to get the smallest
specks, but at anything above its lowest settings, it introduces more
artifacts than it cleans. It works better on slides than negatives. If
the $300-$500 were no object, I'd go for a scanner with dICE.

I think the scan quality is noticeably better on the III model than the
II--better color and less banding. I don't know what improvements have
been made on the IV model compared to the III. I wouldn't pay extra for
3200ppi scanning over 2820ppi maximum resolution.

Unless you plan to make large prints or need to crop images severely,
2820ppi is fine for 35mm. The downside of higher res scanners is the
temptation to scan at the higher resolution, with corresponding larger
file sizes and longer clean-up times. 1410ppi would be OK for 99% of my
scans, but I still scan most things at 2820ppi, just because I can, I
think. I don't know if I could withstand the temptation if it were
3200ppi, 4000ppi, or 5400ppi.

Preston Earle
(e-mail address removed)
 
Back
Top