Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dust & Scratch removal for color negatives - Fuji Frontier

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 8:52:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Hello all,

I just want to express my excitement over the astounding way a
professional machine like the Fuji Frontier system is able to make
beautiful scans of badly scratched and dusted color negatives. I had
3 of my worst films processed by a friend of a friend running a prof
lab - I am truly amazed at the results!! As a test a 40x60 cm print
was made of an ordinary scratched negative with no visible damage to
be seen! Just great!

Now I was planning to start to scan my collection of color negatives
with my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual 4, having finished more or less my
B&W negatives. But after all I guess I won't. I'll sell my Minolta
and go and pay for the excellent results I get when Fuji scans my
negatives. It will be more expensive than buying a good film scanner
with ICE and getting rid of my SD4, but at least it is fast, and
perfection is guaranteed. After all, I don't use film any more...

--
Regards, Alex
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 4:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

In article <B6idnf4aZOtWut3cRVnygQ@giganews.com>, Alex Stols
<xel@invalid.org> writes
>Hello all,
>
>I just want to express my excitement over the astounding way a
>professional machine like the Fuji Frontier system is able to make
>beautiful scans of badly scratched and dusted color negatives. I had
>3 of my worst films processed by a friend of a friend running a prof
>lab - I am truly amazed at the results!! As a test a 40x60 cm print
>was made of an ordinary scratched negative with no visible damage to
>be seen! Just great!
>
Yes, they are good, but no better than a decent ICE equipped high
resolution scanner. IIRC the highest resolution Fuji Frontier system
uses the same 5000element 3-line CCD as in your Minolta IV scanner
complete with the same infrared cleaning facility, but a lot are much
lower. The problem is that unless you know the facilities, you are
taking a chance of not getting as good results as your Minolta scanner.

I expect that you will get similar quality sending your own scans of ICE
processed colour film to the Fuji printer for output too.
--
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)
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 9:44:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Yes, they are good, but no better than a decent ICE equipped high
>resolution scanner. IIRC the highest resolution Fuji Frontier
>system
>uses the same 5000element 3-line CCD as in your Minolta IV scanner
>complete with the same infrared cleaning facility, but a lot are
>much
>lower. The problem is that unless you know the facilities, you are
>taking a chance of not getting as good results as your Minolta
>scanner.
>
>I expect that you will get similar quality sending your own scans of
>ICE
>processed colour film to the Fuji printer for output too.
>--

Hello Kennedy,
In my case I first would have to buy a new scanner: the Minolta SD IV
has only 3200 elements and no ICE. That would have to be something
like the Nikon LS 5000, costing here about 1500 euro.
As my collection of color negatives is limited (about 1800), I don't
need the scanner any more after I finish these. Say it takes me a
year or so: selling the Nikon then would not bring in much any more...
Then there is also the matter of speed: with the Fuji thing - in the
hands of an experienced person - for one negative a few seconds to
set the parameters and to scan to (8-bit) BMP - it will take me at
least 200 times as long to do it myself, I am guessing (wildly of
course).

I really am hesitating :) 

--
Regards, Alex
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 4:27:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

In article <Y7WdnTj2pbTrGNzcRVnygw@giganews.com>, Alex Stols
<xel@invalid.org> writes
>Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Yes, they are good, but no better than a decent ICE equipped high
>>resolution scanner. IIRC the highest resolution Fuji Frontier
>>system
>>uses the same 5000element 3-line CCD as in your Minolta IV scanner
>>complete with the same infrared cleaning facility, but a lot are
>>much
>>lower. The problem is that unless you know the facilities, you are
>>taking a chance of not getting as good results as your Minolta
>>scanner.
>>
>>I expect that you will get similar quality sending your own scans of
>>ICE
>>processed colour film to the Fuji printer for output too.
>>--
>
>Hello Kennedy,
>In my case I first would have to buy a new scanner: the Minolta SD IV
>has only 3200 elements and no ICE. That would have to be something
>like the Nikon LS 5000, costing here about 1500 euro.

My mistake, I confused the Minolta SD-IV with Minolta SE-5400 - that is
the scanner that uses the same 5000 element 3-line CCD as the highest
resolution Fuji systems. You should be able to find that for around
600euro or less. Yes, it is slower than the Fuji because it is a
smaller unit with a lower power light source, but it has ICE, 16-bits
per channel and an optical grain dissolver (which none of the Fuji units
have). By the time you have costed your 1800 negatives on the Fuji you
are likely to have exceeded the price of the scanner, which will still
have a significant used value afterwards. You also get to scan to a
full bit depth so that you can adjust the output to suit your taste
rather than be limited to the 8-bit range that some operator thinks is
what you want.
--
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)
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 4:27:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>My mistake, I confused the Minolta SD-IV with Minolta SE-5400 - that
>is
>the scanner that uses the same 5000 element 3-line CCD as the
>highest
>resolution Fuji systems. You should be able to find that for around
>600euro or less. Yes, it is slower than the Fuji because it is a
>smaller unit with a lower power light source, but it has ICE,
>16-bits
>per channel and an optical grain dissolver (which none of the Fuji
>units
>have). By the time you have costed your 1800 negatives on the Fuji
>you
>are likely to have exceeded the price of the scanner, which will
>still
>have a significant used value afterwards. You also get to scan to a
>full bit depth so that you can adjust the output to suit your taste
>rather than be limited to the 8-bit range that some operator thinks
>is
>what you want.
>--

That all is true if I can use the SE-5400 to do all this - I was
under the impression that this model exhibited quite a few problems
(the holder; slow with ICE; streaks (with Vuescan?); locking with
some systems), and that the Nikon models would do much better.
True also that I would like to have control over the results. - On
the other hand I was so impressed by the 40-odd scans I got (even as
JPG they look very good) when compared to my Minolta SD IV scans,
that it makes me unsure.
Anyway: thank you very much for your input. I'll follow the
discussions for a little while more. I have still some time left to
decide :) 

--
Regards, Alex
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:03:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

In article <TeOdnRPp_OMhXNzcRVnysA@giganews.com>, Alex Stols
<xel@invalid.org> writes
>
>That all is true if I can use the SE-5400 to do all this - I was
>under the impression that this model exhibited quite a few problems
>(the holder; slow with ICE; streaks (with Vuescan?); locking with
>some systems), and that the Nikon models would do much better.

If anything, the film strip holder of the Minolta is vastly superior to
that of the Nikon which, fortunately, doesn't need to be used very much.

The streaks appear to have two reported causes. One is only apparent in
Vuescan and Ed is working on a solution to that. The other is apparent
in both Vuescan and the Minolta software and is actually pickup on the
interface cable. Minolta supply chokes (similar to what you have on
your monitor cable) to fit to either end of the cable specifically to
avoid this, but some users "know better" or just think they are part of
the packing and throw them away - to whinge forever more because they
are too stupid to use a scanner.

It would not surprise me if these issues were related since it is
impossible to check the reports, but I have no evidence that this is the
case.

Nikon models are certainly faster and will give results with almost as
high resolution as the best Fuji systems and a lot better than most of
them, but you have to pay for that.
--
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)
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:02:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

"Alex Stols" <xel@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:TeOdnRPp_OMhXNzcRVnysA@giganews.com...
> Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
> >My mistake, I confused the Minolta SD-IV with Minolta SE-5400 - that
> >is
> >the scanner that uses the same 5000 element 3-line CCD as the
> >highest
> >resolution Fuji systems. You should be able to find that for around
> >600euro or less. Yes, it is slower than the Fuji because it is a
> >smaller unit with a lower power light source, but it has ICE,
> >16-bits
> >per channel and an optical grain dissolver (which none of the Fuji
> >units
> >have). By the time you have costed your 1800 negatives on the Fuji
> >you
> >are likely to have exceeded the price of the scanner, which will
> >still
> >have a significant used value afterwards. You also get to scan to a
> >full bit depth so that you can adjust the output to suit your taste
> >rather than be limited to the 8-bit range that some operator thinks
> >is
> >what you want.
> >--
>
> That all is true if I can use the SE-5400 to do all this - I was
> under the impression that this model exhibited quite a few problems
> (the holder; slow with ICE; streaks (with Vuescan?); locking with
> some systems), and that the Nikon models would do much better.
> True also that I would like to have control over the results. - On
> the other hand I was so impressed by the 40-odd scans I got (even as
> JPG they look very good) when compared to my Minolta SD IV scans,
> that it makes me unsure.
> Anyway: thank you very much for your input. I'll follow the
> discussions for a little while more. I have still some time left to
> decide :) 
>
> --
> Regards, Alex
>

I have a Minolta SE 5400. Have over 2000 slides to scan. The earliest are
from 1947.

After spending about about 6 weeks using the 5400, here are my comments:

1. I am avoiding the use of Vuescan Ver 1.1.5 because I get artifacts on
some slides that don't show up when I use the DiMage software that Minolta
furnished. Since the Dimage software does a good job, I will stick with it.

2. Using the DiMage software, the speed of a scanner is relatively slow.
With ICE and grain dissolver on, it takes a good 6 minutes (stop watch
timer; hand operated with visual observation of scan start on screen)to
complete one slide scan. I did notice a longer scan time if I ran more than
2 sets of 4 slides, one set after the other, through the scanner. By closing
the program and reopening it, the time for a scan reverted to the initial
scan times.

3. Using the Easy Scan Utility selection of the program my computer did
lockup when I got to the screen where it asked for the file save folder. If
I tried to select my folder, lockup occurred, so I avoided this by selecting
one of the folders that it defaulted to. After save took place, I moved the
file to the location where I wanted it. (This may not be the scanner
programs fault. It could be my computer at fault. I did not pursue this to
any great extent). At least I have a work around.
This trouble did not occur if I started in the Dimage Scan Utility or if I
started it through the twain interface.

4. I have not experienced any vertical lines on any of the slide scans
(about 150 to date plus umpteen test scans) that others have reported.

5. I am scanning Kodachrome slides. ICE has been doing a good to excellent
job when I scan. I find that there is a softening of the images when doing
so. I accept this since this visible only a greatly zoomed in view of the
image. An 8"x10" print looks extremely good for my archival purposes.

6. When in the Dimage Scan Utility, I found that I could make most of the
adjustments to the photo that I desired. This kept the amount of post
adjustments in a graphics program (Photoshop, PaintShopPro etc.) to a
minimum.
In the Easy Scan Utility, a limited amount of adjustment is allowed.

Having had a Minolta Dual Scan (the first SCSI model that Minolta came out
with), I really appreciate the ability to use ICE on my Kodachrome slides.

For your further information:
Dell Pentium 4, 1.5 Ghz, 764 Mb RAM
40 Gb and 80 Gb drives
Windows XP Pro
SE 5400 connected via Firewire port.

I hope that the above information is of use to those of you who already have
a Minolta SE 5400 or those who are thinking of investing in one.

Would I buy one again? YES!
Matt D
September 14, 2004 2:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

> Nikon models are certainly faster and will give results with almost as
> high resolution as the best Fuji systems and a lot better than most of
> them, but you have to pay for that.

How about the Nikon Coolscan LS-V or the Nikon Coolscan LS-40ED? The price
of the first is quite close to that of the Minolta 5400.

Waldo
Anonymous
September 14, 2004 2:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

"Waldo" <graaf@vno-ncw.nl> wrote:
>> Nikon models are certainly faster and will give results with
>>almost as
>> high resolution as the best Fuji systems and a lot better than
>>most of
>> them, but you have to pay for that.
>
>How about the Nikon Coolscan LS-V or the Nikon Coolscan LS-40ED?
>The price
>of the first is quite close to that of the Minolta 5400.
>
>Waldo
>
>
Thank you all for your suggestions. It is difficult to judge from
what I find on the web and from the messages here in the group what
really are the pros and cons of the several affordable film scanners.
Then there is also the problem that one person cannot even get his
Minolta 5400 to work at all, or has streaks that refuse to go away,
while others have just not one single problem with the 5400. Who can
tell to which group of users would I be going to belong if I got one?
To me it seems too great a risk to get yet another failry expensive
machine and not know whether it really will be any good in my hands.

I have decided to scan the color negatives of relatively undamaged
films myself on my Minolta SD4, editing where necessary, and give the
- mostly older - films to the expert lab and try to get uncompressed
files (BMP) from them. I supposte they do not produce 16 bit images...

--
Regards, Alex
Anonymous
September 15, 2004 1:39:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,alt.comp.periphs.scanners,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

In article <1095149492.729745@news-ext.oce.nl>, Waldo <graaf@vno-ncw.nl>
writes
>> Nikon models are certainly faster and will give results with almost as
>> high resolution as the best Fuji systems and a lot better than most of
>> them, but you have to pay for that.
>
>How about the Nikon Coolscan LS-V or the Nikon Coolscan LS-40ED? The price
>of the first is quite close to that of the Minolta 5400.
>
Yes, they are fine scanners, but significantly inferior to the Minolta
5400 - not just in resolution (although the LS-V is 4000ppi, the LS-40
is only 2900ppi), but in terms of bit depth and other features such as
bit depth, multiscanning and optical grain dissolver.
--
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)
!