Tom, Sorry if I'm too "anecdotal". vibration: When I first bought the scanner I had the same frustrations as you. Ie, the images didn't seem as sharp as expected. Mine too was resting on a sturdy table. Weighing it down with some heavy volumes improved sharpness in my scans. Don't have any great explanation why I thought of it. Just wanted to rule that factor out, and then suddenly it seemed to be significant.
Gas: I too have noticed some split-second "spitting" from the mouthpiece of compressed-gas devices, but I've never seen that film you are talking about. Maybe it would help if you pointed it away from sensitive surfaces just when starting the blow? Best, Jostein ----- Original Message ----- From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 7:31 PM Subject: Re: Scanner Cleanliness > Hi Jostein, > > Question. What exactly were you experiencing that made you think vibration > could be a factor? I have mine setting on a sturdy table. What did you > notice different after you dampened vibrations? > > I know the answers to these questions must be obvious, but I'm interested in > your anecdotal observations. > > I spray mine out regularly with compressed air, but that worries me a little > as well. For one, even with the plastic straw in the can, I'm really not > sure whether I'm blowing dust off or just creating a little cloud inside to > settle back down. Also, I haven't found any compressed air (in cans) that > doesn't have some kind of warning about using it on mirrors (even though it > LARGELY says for photographic uses). It seems that when I spray it, for the > first split second a spray of something visible (chemical or moisture) comes > out. It also seems dependent somewhat on whether the can is held completely > upright or not. When I see the visible component and have test sprayed on > something, I can see the film it leaves behind. > > Thank you very much. > > Tom C. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 1:51 AM > Subject: Re: Scanner Cleanliness > > > > Tom, Rob, > > I'm 99% sure that the Minolta Dimâge Dual have no focussing lens > > inside. > > > > Here's two things I have done to improve sharpness in mine: > > > > Placed it on an old mouse mat to dampen vibreation, and then weighed > > it down with a few encyclopedia volumes. > > > > A couple of times a year, I use a compressed-gas duster with a long > > mouthpiece to blow off dust inside. With the APS-door open. -Don't > > really know what surfaces that gets dusted, but it seems to help. > > > > So far I have been happy with the Minolta... -but maybe it's just > > because I don't know better... > > > > Jostein > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:15 AM > > Subject: Re: Scanner Cleanliness > > > > > > > On 21 Dec 2001 at 20:03, aimcompute wrote: > > > > > > > I'm wondering if there's a possibility that there is dust, dirt, > > film, etc. on > > > > the lens in the scanner (assuming one exists). The unit is about > > 3 years old. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on whether I should take the cover off and have a > > look? > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > If you are handy that way and if the gear is well out of warranty I > > would take > > > a look inside. I haven't looked inside a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual > > however I > > > have had experience wit a few other scanners. It should certainly > > have a lens > > > and it might be suffering from the effect of a deposited film (often > > emitted > > > from the flame retardant and other additives in the plastics that > > make up the > > > unit) on the lens and/or mirror surfaces. This problem can be seen > > on many flat > > > bed scanners, even an Agfa Duoscan that I had needed to be cleaned > > straight out > > > of the box. > > > > > > The lens might be quite hard to reach unfortunately but in any case > > if you can > > > actually reach it without causing too much grief then clean it as > > you would any > > > other lens. Just remember that the electronic components can be > > static > > > discharge sensitive, particularly so unplugged modules. > > > > > > > Or is this an optical illusion? Just thinking... I find when I > > scan a neg > > > > and compare it to the print, it doesn't look bad. But when I scan > > a slide > > > > and see it large, it doesn't look as good. Is it possible that > > with negs > > > > I'm comparing basically 1-to-1's whereas with slides I'm comparing > > a small > > > > image with an enlarged one, and noticing a difference? > > > > > > I don't know if this relates to the sharpness scanner performance > > issue that > > > you mentioned or if it is a just a general feeling that you have but > > generally > > > you must consider the following: > > > > > > Prints are obviously a reflective media therefore the best white and > > black in > > > the print is relative to the quality of the paper, the exposure and > > the light > > > under which it is viewed (considering a perfect source neg). > > > > > > The contrast of most monitors and absolute white light level emitted > > is pretty > > > low but comparable to viewing a print on paper in a well lit office > > (for a good > > > computer set-up). Of course any scan is second generation (as is a > > print) > > > whereas the slide viewed through a loupe is first generation. So to > > be fair to > > > compare the quality of an image on a light box you really have to > > control the > > > white light output of the light box to match the max white on your > > monitor and > > > consider that you don't have the benefit of being able to view your > > negs on a > > > light box with inverted colour corrected vision :-) > > > > > > It's hard to beat a good slide on a good light box under a good > > loupe. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > > - > > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
