Tom, Rob, I'm 99% sure that the Minolta Dim�ge 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 .
