Which film scanner for advanced amateur?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a DiMAGE scan Elite 5400 (doesn'r say "II") and I like it. I am able
to recover a lot of very badly faded old slides from 40-50 years ago - for
some reason I shot a lot of Ecktachrome.

The results from a good slide, when digitally cropped and blown, compare
favorably with a print from the slide. In some cases I can enhance and get
better shadow detail that way than from the slide directly. In terms of
brute resolution, there is some small loss from the original slide.


"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:432462d0$0$8038$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Does anybody have a recommendation between these two scanners?
>
> Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II, 5400 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner
>
> and
>
> Nikon Coolscan V ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner
>
> I shoot Nikon with film and digital, and I am inclined to believe that
> the Nikon product might be better. However, the KM product has some
> impressive specifications and some obviously exceed those of the Nikon
> product. Any experience out there that I might draw upon?
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
> Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Does anybody have a recommendation between these two scanners?
>
> Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II, 5400 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner
>
> and
>
> Nikon Coolscan V ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner
>
> I shoot Nikon with film and digital, and I am inclined to believe that
> the Nikon product might be better. However, the KM product has some
> impressive specifications and some obviously exceed those of the Nikon
> product. Any experience out there that I might draw upon?
>

Either one works very well. I feel (from tests people have done with
these) anything you try to get past 4000DPI is past the point of being of
much use from most film. I have the "big brother" LS8000 nikon scanner and
it does a great job with everything I've thrown at it and the nikon
software does a great job with color negative film (reversing it) and
dealing with the various orange masks used.I have no idea how well the
minolta software works though.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Thomas and fellow rec.photo.digital-friends,

I have the KMDSE5400II Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II and I'm
thrilled.

I used the Nikon suite of scanners (4000, 5000 and 9000) as school and
found them also nice, but when it came time to purchase, the Konica
Minolta was
- less expensive,
- better specified (+35% resolution!),
- has better trays - easier to insert and place the film,
- Konica Minolta's own "Pixel Polish" I find gentler than Kodak/ASF
Applied Science Fiction's ROC return Of Color and SHO Shadow Hightlight
Optimization, which I found too severe and do not use in the scanner
anymore. Kodak/ASF ROC and SHO are available as software plug-ins for
Photoshop which can then be applied to ANY image at ANY time, so I
prefer to use them more selectively AFTER I collect a "raw" scan.

I'm whipping through my 40-year archive of negatives, and I'm impressed
at the Konica Minolta's
- immunuty to different film base colors - all come out "natural"
- shadow detail recovery - very detailed shadows
- SPEED!!!

You can't go wrong with Minolta, ooops, KONICA Minolta now, and these
people have the light metering technology every one else uses - amateur
and professionals in the still photography and movie industries - so
they must know something. I've yet to see a Nikon-brand exposure
meter! ;-)

Let us know what you do, please join one of the groups, and share some
pictures!

Try

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minoltadimagescanelite/

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

More, Thomas:

Oh, yes, and I'm seeing many magazine editors, columnists and
journalists just mention off hand that they scan on the Konica Minolta
DiMage Scan Elite 5400 or 5400II as if they knd of just know there's
nothign that beats it. True, the Nikon name has a well earned
reputation, but "more for less" has been Minolta's challenge in the
face of Nikon's markup for their name.

I'm hearing arguments AGAINST the 5,400ppi resolution of the Konica
Minotla DiMage Scan Elite 5400 and 5400II! Someone somewhere claims
that "they" have measured what's available on film, and 4,000ppi is all
that's needed. Yeah, right! Let's go backward in time! Funny, these
same people claimed that the Leica or Nikon or Zeiss or Canon or
whatever brand was the "better" because of superlative MTF ratings,
better resolution capabilities, or better contrast and accutance and so
on. Same for film - ISO 100 was "better" than 200, Fuji or Kodak was
"better", slides or negatives were "better", and so on.

Somehow when the little guy has a better specified product, suddenly
specifications do not matter!?! Geesh!

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and you can always
buy one and try it - many dealers have a 14-day return policy.

Let us know what you do, Thomas.

Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

peterblaise <peterblaise@gmail.com> wrote:
> More, Thomas:
>
> Oh, yes, and I'm seeing many magazine editors, columnists and
> journalists just mention off hand that they scan on the Konica Minolta
> DiMage Scan Elite 5400 or 5400II as if they knd of just know there's
> nothign that beats it. True, the Nikon name has a well earned
> reputation, but "more for less" has been Minolta's challenge in the
> face of Nikon's markup for their name.
>

I am leaning towards the KM Elite 5400 II (should I bother with the II
version?). I have an archive from my Grandfather that goes back to 1951
with more than 1500-2000 slides, plus, I would like to shoot slide film and
scan the images [everybody I know doesn't want to look at a projected
image or at a small viewer or light table, so I need to be able to make
prints at a reasonable cost]. All those old slides are almost 100%
kodachrome. Most are still crystal clear and bright, so I want to get
the images on DVD before that changes.

So, has anybody had any mechanical difficulties with the 5400(II)? I
have read of several reviews where owners were unhappy with software and
hardware lockups, jams, etc. Then again, I think the Nikon box has a
lower dynamic range (4.2 versus 4.8 of the KM boxes) and resulution and
reported issues with Kodachrome.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

peterblaise <peterblaise@gmail.com> wrote:
> More, Thomas:
>
> Oh, yes, and I'm seeing many magazine editors, columnists and
> journalists just mention off hand that they scan on the Konica Minolta
> DiMage Scan Elite 5400 or 5400II as if they knd of just know there's
> nothign that beats it. True, the Nikon name has a well earned
> reputation, but "more for less" has been Minolta's challenge in the
> face of Nikon's markup for their name.
>
> I'm hearing arguments AGAINST the 5,400ppi resolution of the Konica
> Minotla DiMage Scan Elite 5400 and 5400II! Someone somewhere claims
> that "they" have measured what's available on film, and 4,000ppi is all
> that's needed. Yeah, right! Let's go backward in time! Funny, these
> same people claimed that the Leica or Nikon or Zeiss or Canon or
> whatever brand was the "better" because of superlative MTF ratings,
> better resolution capabilities, or better contrast and accutance and so
> on. Same for film - ISO 100 was "better" than 200, Fuji or Kodak was
> "better", slides or negatives were "better", and so on.
>
> Somehow when the little guy has a better specified product, suddenly
> specifications do not matter!?! Geesh!
>
> Anyway, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and you can always
> buy one and try it - many dealers have a 14-day return policy.
>
> Let us know what you do, Thomas.
>

I finally made a decision. I originally setup to get the KM ..II model,
but more and more research has indicated the shoddy support from KM, the
mixed bag of software and troublesome mechanical issues. Reviews here
seem to indicate otherwise. However, my experience with Nikon has
always been good and I think the box will do what I need. So, I have
the Coolscan V with a 30-day return policy (as long as I keep ALL doco).

I will followup as I am going to put it to the test with the old
kodachrome.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 11 Sep 2005 17:01:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Does anybody have a recommendation between these two scanners?
>
>Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II, 5400 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner
>
>and
>
>Nikon Coolscan V ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm, Film Scanner
>
>I shoot Nikon with film and digital, and I am inclined to believe that
>the Nikon product might be better. However, the KM product has some
>impressive specifications and some obviously exceed those of the Nikon
>product. Any experience out there that I might draw upon?

Thomas,

not a direct answer to your question, but I'm just now scanning
a large number of slides with the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED
and its SF-200(S) slide feeder.

Works pretty well, particularly the Digital ICE4 scratch and
dust removal is awesome, even though it adds 50% to the
processing time.

I'd like a higher resolution though. Slides can be quite sharp
and would require far more than 4,000 dpi to be fully
represented, particularly since all scanners I know exaggerate
their resolution. They do put out the pixels, but they are not
sharp at their highest resolution.

Another little problem is the lack of any sophistication when
dealing with film that is not exactly in a plane. They should do
multiple scans at different focal points and combine the results
intelligently. That would take much more time but produce better
results. I know of no scanner in this price range that does this
though, even though it is only a software problem.

Anyway, the 4000 ED is no longer made and sold, but you can get
it used. Get the slide feeder as well, unless you want to scan
only a handful of slides.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>
> Another little problem is the lack of any sophistication when
> dealing with film that is not exactly in a plane. They should do
> multiple scans at different focal points and combine the results
> intelligently. That would take much more time but produce better
> results. I know of no scanner in this price range that does this
> though, even though it is only a software problem.
I would not even increase total scanning time that much, considering the fact
that you easily spend more time on post processing. On top of that, combining
slices from a through-focus series can also reduce noise and so would
alleviate the need for averaging, or multi-pass scanning as it is called.

-- Hans

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:26:27 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

>Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

>> Another little problem is the lack of any sophistication when
>> dealing with film that is not exactly in a plane. They should do
>> multiple scans at different focal points and combine the results
>> intelligently. That would take much more time but produce better
>> results. I know of no scanner in this price range that does this
>> though, even though it is only a software problem.

>I would not even increase total scanning time that much, considering the fact
>that you easily spend more time on post processing. On top of that, combining
>slices from a through-focus series can also reduce noise and so would
>alleviate the need for averaging, or multi-pass scanning as it is called.

Hans,

so we have an idea here. Who writes up the patent application?
(:-)

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Hans-Georg,
>
>
>>I would not even increase total scanning time that much, considering the fact
>>that you easily spend more time on post processing. On top of that, combining
>>slices from a through-focus series can also reduce noise and so would
>>alleviate the need for averaging, or multi-pass scanning as it is called.
>
> so we have an idea here. Who writes up the patent application?
> (:-)
This is sort of standard practice in microscopy. But it seems that you can
get patents on rather obvious applications to other fields, though in fact a
scanner can be seen as a microscope. Still, with this public post, there is
now 'prior art' as I think it is called :-))

-- Hans