Film Scanner: Nikon vs Minolta

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with a
little crop margin.

Do I gain from the 5400?

Yes. I scan Portra 160NC (exposed at 100) and it is fabulously detailed. The
5400 GETS that detail. Allows printing to 25.5 x 17 (which I have not tried to
date, largest prints have been 8x10.5 to 8x12 (Epson 785EX or lab printer).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows in a few steps where the 5400 is
getting to the limit of what is available out of the film (E100GX in this case)
using this kind of scanner.

A drum scan (with oil) would probably get more and cleaner detail yet.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with a
little crop margin.

Do I gain from the 5400?

Yes. I scan Portra 160NC (exposed at 100) and it is fabulously detailed. The
5400 GETS that detail. Allows printing to 25.5 x 17 (which I have not tried to
date, largest prints have been 8x10.5 to 8x12 (Epson 785EX or lab printer).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows in a few steps where the 5400 is
getting to the limit of what is available out of the film (E100GX in this case)
using this kind of scanner.

A drum scan (with oil) would probably get more and cleaner detail yet.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with a
little crop margin.

Do I gain from the 5400?

Yes. I scan Portra 160NC (exposed at 100) and it is fabulously detailed. The
5400 GETS that detail. Allows printing to 25.5 x 17 (which I have not tried to
date, largest prints have been 8x10.5 to 8x12 (Epson 785EX or lab printer).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows in a few steps where the 5400 is
getting to the limit of what is available out of the film (E100GX in this case)
using this kind of scanner.

A drum scan (with oil) would probably get more and cleaner detail yet.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?

I should probably add Nikon Coolscan V to the list. -- Mike.


Mike, do you want to scan Kodachrome or traditional B&W film?
If so the Minolta 5400 is a clear choice due to more-diffuse light
or something. Most owners of Nikon scanners complain about this.

Alan's summary is good: speed = Nikon, high resolution = Minolta.
He forgot to add that Vuescan supports Nikon better, and that the
Nikon scanners (except with extra cost FH-3 film holder) crop more.

The recent 8.1.12 Vuescan is purported to fix the streaking issue with the 5400
(and other Minoltas?) according to Robert Feinman on the comp.periphs.scanners
NG. I've DL'd .12 but I haven't tried it yet. The s/w has since gone to .13 .

The Vuescan site states (.12):
# Improved scan quality on Minolta Scan Elite 5400
# Improved infrared cleaning on Minolta scanners

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?

I should probably add Nikon Coolscan V to the list. -- Mike.


Mike, do you want to scan Kodachrome or traditional B&W film?
If so the Minolta 5400 is a clear choice due to more-diffuse light
or something. Most owners of Nikon scanners complain about this.

Alan's summary is good: speed = Nikon, high resolution = Minolta.
He forgot to add that Vuescan supports Nikon better, and that the
Nikon scanners (except with extra cost FH-3 film holder) crop more.

The recent 8.1.12 Vuescan is purported to fix the streaking issue with the 5400
(and other Minoltas?) according to Robert Feinman on the comp.periphs.scanners
NG. I've DL'd .12 but I haven't tried it yet. The s/w has since gone to .13 .

The Vuescan site states (.12):
# Improved scan quality on Minolta Scan Elite 5400
# Improved infrared cleaning on Minolta scanners

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with a
little crop margin.

Do I gain from the 5400?

Yes. I scan Portra 160NC (exposed at 100) and it is fabulously detailed. The
5400 GETS that detail. Allows printing to 25.5 x 17 (which I have not tried to
date, largest prints have been 8x10.5 to 8x12 (Epson 785EX or lab printer).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows in a few steps where the 5400 is
getting to the limit of what is available out of the film (E100GX in this case)
using this kind of scanner.

A drum scan (with oil) would probably get more and cleaner detail yet.

Cheers,
Alan.
[...]

This information is excellent for my purposes. Now my wife has some
Kodachrome slides from her father that she wasts to scan. Today, she
told me that there are about 1000 such slides, a bit more than I
imagined. Is there any automation available for this?

Thanks again for your help.

Mike.

Alan Browne wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with a
little crop margin.

Do I gain from the 5400?

Yes. I scan Portra 160NC (exposed at 100) and it is fabulously detailed. The
5400 GETS that detail. Allows printing to 25.5 x 17 (which I have not tried to
date, largest prints have been 8x10.5 to 8x12 (Epson 785EX or lab printer).

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows in a few steps where the 5400 is
getting to the limit of what is available out of the film (E100GX in this case)
using this kind of scanner.

A drum scan (with oil) would probably get more and cleaner detail yet.

Cheers,
Alan.
[...]

This information is excellent for my purposes. Now my wife has some
Kodachrome slides from her father that she wasts to scan. Today, she
told me that there are about 1000 such slides, a bit more than I
imagined. Is there any automation available for this?

Thanks again for your help.

Mike.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

This information is excellent for my purposes. Now my wife has some
Kodachrome slides from her father that she wasts to scan. Today, she
told me that there are about 1000 such slides, a bit more than I
imagined. Is there any automation available for this?

As mentioned elsewhere, you can purchase a feeder for the Nikon that will hold
50 slides and it will go through them while you sleep.

I'd also suggest that many peoples collections of Kodachrome can stand a good
editing before scanning. That is, there may only be 50 images worth scanning in
the whole pile.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

This information is excellent for my purposes. Now my wife has some
Kodachrome slides from her father that she wasts to scan. Today, she
told me that there are about 1000 such slides, a bit more than I
imagined. Is there any automation available for this?

As mentioned elsewhere, you can purchase a feeder for the Nikon that will hold
50 slides and it will go through them while you sleep.

I'd also suggest that many peoples collections of Kodachrome can stand a good
editing before scanning. That is, there may only be 50 images worth scanning in
the whole pile.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for

these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

If you print 18x12 at 300dpi, then the Nikon just squeezes in there with
a little crop margin.

But if you print at 360 dpi on an Epson, or at 400 dpi on an Agfa d-Lab.2
or newer Durst Lambda, you need the extra 5400 resolution.