The OLD, the NEW and the CLASSIC
The Old, alias Leafscan 45 The mother of all modern CCD scanners. A reference since the early '90s. It can scan up to 5080dpi (2540dpi for medium format) and up to 4"x5" (10x12cm). Declared DMax: 3.7. Is it still a
viable choice? According to your needs and budget, yes. The quality of scans is quite acceptable even compared to its younger brethren. Speed in color scans is slow because this scanner has a linear CCD (compared to today's 3-linear CCDs), so
3 passes are needed to get a complete RGB image. The quality of the sw plug-in for Mac is still good even compared to today's standards, and does a very good job especially with color negatives. In short:
The Classic, alias Imacon Flextight Precision II This has recently been replaced by version III. It
is considered one of the current references among CCD scanners. It scans up to 5760dpi and up to 5"x7" (13x18cm), with a declared DMAX of 4.1. A full description can be found It uses the so-called flextight technology to improve film flatness. This has a
drawback, however, because you cannot use framed slides (although I heard an adapter for framed 35mm slides can be provided by Imacon on request). It is a very, very good scanner in general, except for some weakness in the deep
shadows, which are a little noisy. The real point is: is it still better than the new wave of medium format scanners from Nikon, Minolta, Polaroid, which are far cheaper? Of course if you need to scan something larger than medium format, the
competitors become much fewer (and expensive!). The software is also very good and flexible. The support from Imacon is outstanding. In short:
The New, alias Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro This is the latest of the last wave of medium format
scanners. It scans up to 4800dpi (3200dpi with medium format, 4800 dpi is interpolated). The declared Dmax is 4.8, which sounds more like fiction rather than facts. However, it is currently the only scanner which exploits internally the full
16 bits of image data (the Imacon itself uses 14 bits). The overall quality of the scanner is very good. The film holders are very well designed. The software is, in my view, somewhat disappointing. I believe Minolta addressed the
needs of the amateur users. You can get scans of reasonable quality quickly, but you may easily end up with clipped highlights and shadows. Here is a list of what could (and should) be improved in the sw:
Autoexposure. This function is supposed to tailor the exposure and the tonal range for a specific image. It is possible to change the area of the image where it is calculated. It is also possible to "lock" a specific exposure setting. It is possible to disable it with slides. However, it is NOT possible to adjust the amount of clipping applied to an image: it is sometimes too high and cannot be reduced manually, often resulting in slightly clipped histograms.
What is worse, the histograms of the images are often clipped also when Autoexposure is OFF. Just by comparison, Vuescan provides plenty of control over such settings, so you can decide yourself whether or not clipping is applied, and to what extent.Autoexposure and
negatives. While the limitations mentioned above can be considered marginal with slides, the situation is worse with negatives. First, according to my tests, the amount of clipping applied is higher (i.e.
the tonal range is narrower). Second, the Autoexposure function cannot be disabled with negatives (design choice). Obviously, if you miss highlights or shadows in the first step, it will be impossible to recover them later on. Scans of the
same images made with the Vuescan sw confirmed that it is possible to achieve better results in this area ( = wider tonal range). Image correction. All image correction functions (e.g. levels, curves) yeld "spiky" histograms, even
in 48bit output files. Such types of diagrams are typically obtained when you modify images at 24bits, and derive from mathematical "roundings". This should NOT happen within the scanning sw, which should produce smooth histograms by
always working internally at 48 bits. In my view, this is a good reason to avoid using these image correction functions. Autosetting. These controls belong to the "Image correction" area, and are supposed to help you fine-tune the image.
Again, the clipping applied is high and cannot be adjusted easily (however it is possible to do some manual adjustments, here). Gain. It is not possible to adjust the gain (exposure) of a scan manually. ICE. Although I like this
feature very much, it would be nice in some cases to be able to "fine-tune" its application (something similar is available in the Nikon sw): under specific situations (e.g. sharp snow/sky borders) ICE tends to produce artifacts.
It is not possible to output a raw scan.
Overall, the quality of the sw is not as good as the scanner itself. Even compared with the Leaf plug-in (at least 8/9 years old...), this software is a little disappointing. Minolta should reflect on who are the target users for this scanner.
An alternative to the Minolta software is available : the Vuescan
software from Ed Hamrick (providing better control over the tonal range), while unfortunately, Silverfast from Lasersoft does not support any of the Minolta scanners. Software limitations aside, the tonal range of the scanner is
very good, and will allow you to extract nearly every bit of information even from the most difficult slides. The shadows are very good and improve dramatically when multisampling is used. At 4x the deep shadows are cleaner than with the
Imacon. At 16x they look nearly perfect. There is some faint flare in contrasted areas, however, that I did not notice in the Imacon. 3/4 elements of my unit's CCD are not working perfectly. Maybe this is due to some dust (I have
to check with Minolta). Unfortunately, it looks like you cannot clean the scanner yourself. The speed is very good, at least unless all the features are used together (especially GEM makes scanning very slow). In short:
Comparison Images Some comparison scans of the above scanners are available
The Bottom line If you need to scan up to medium format, the Minolta may be a good choice. Compared with the Imacon, although weaker in some areas (flare, blooming, control software), it wins in others (deep shadow noise with multi-sampling).
Concerning sharpness, I do not have a final verdict. Some Minolta scans look sharper, but in other cases the opposite is true (see the test scans). I would give a slight edge to the Imacon, depending on the specific type of original. The ICE
function available in the Scan Multi Pro can be a bless in some cases. However, the Minolta software is far from being perfect, especially with Regarding the Leaf, I must say that it will not be easy to find another high-tech equipment from ten years ago which still can keep up with the newcomers. The Leafscan can. Of course it has its
drawbacks. Heavyweight. Slow with color slides and negatives. Some blooming. Little support available (except from some very good user groups around). However, if you find a used unit in good conditions, it could still be a bargain...
Related Links