unexpectd film scanner problem

I thank all those who responded to my previous
post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve
my purpose. Now I have been considering the
Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000
(4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was
previously advised on this group that the 5400
is probably the better choice, and that it the
additional resolution would make a difference.

However. I just learned that Minolta has gone
out of business. Did I hear that: "The best
laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"?
Would you still consider buying a Minolta?

Thanks for your advice.
Mike.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I thank all those who responded to my previous
post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve
my purpose. Now I have been considering the
Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000
(4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was
previously advised on this group that the 5400
is probably the better choice, and that it the
additional resolution would make a difference.

However. I just learned that Minolta has gone
out of business. Did I hear that: "The best
laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"?
Would you still consider buying a Minolta?

Very few photos have much detail that scanning at even 2000 ppi will
not pick up.
The loss from scanning at 4000 instead of 5400 will simply not be an
issue, IMO

If others feel that 5400 is needed I would sure like to see a scan to
support this

Scott

IMO the KM5400 does a great job but is not constructed to last forever.
When I called the MinoltaI service department end of last month to
inquire how the repair of my unit was going they told me that it just
made it before they were all fired as of April 1... So unless you can
get one at a huge discount I would look at something else like the new
Epson flatbeds.
-- Hans

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I thank all those who responded to my previous
post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve
my purpose. Now I have been considering the
Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000
(4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was
previously advised on this group that the 5400
is probably the better choice, and that it the
additional resolution would make a difference.

However. I just learned that Minolta has gone
out of business. Did I hear that: "The best
laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"?
Would you still consider buying a Minolta?

Very few photos have much detail that scanning at even 2000 ppi will
not pick up.
The loss from scanning at 4000 instead of 5400 will simply not be an
issue, IMO

If others feel that 5400 is needed I would sure like to see a scan to
support this

Scott

I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at
about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10
megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More
than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution
scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of
my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to
get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to
extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original
picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a
loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per
inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed
to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the
resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi.
Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard
bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this
area myself.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:19:28 -0700, William Graham wrote:

[...]

I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at
about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10
megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More
than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution
scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of
my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to
get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to
extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original
picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a
loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per
inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed
to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the
resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi.
Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard
bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this
area myself.

Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of
stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less.
I often crop, at least for rotational correction.

Mike.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I thank all those who responded to my previous
post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve
my purpose. Now I have been considering the
Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000
(4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was
previously advised on this group that the 5400
is probably the better choice, and that it the
additional resolution would make a difference.

However. I just learned that Minolta has gone
out of business. Did I hear that: "The best
laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"?
Would you still consider buying a Minolta?


Until last year I had cheap access to a drum scanner. But it failed
and we couldn't justify the cost of repair. So I rented a Minolta
5400 scanner. It worked OK, but the dynamic range of the scans was
poor.

Then the 5400 II was introduced. I rented one late last year. It had
much better Dmax and I was very happy with the scans - they were as
good as the old Howtek drum scanner I used, with very good Dmax. But
the scanner broke and had to be returned for repair. The transport
gears had fractured.

A second 5400 II scanner had the same problem. Brand new out of the
box, it worked fine. But the transport gears soon broke. I took it
to be serviced at Konica Minolta UK and they told me they had a
backlog of several dozen waiting to be repaired, all but a few with
the same transport problem. The few others had a variety of problems.

Apparently the metal transport gears of the 5400 were replaced with
plastic on the 5400 II, presumably to save cost. So you have a choice
between a well made 5400 with poor Dmax (a good flatbed scanner will
beat the Dmax, that's how poor it is) or a flimsy 5400 II which makes
excellent scans, but not many before it breaks. You choose.

I chose a Nikon Coolscan LS5000ED. Alas, the resolution is lower than
the Minolta 5400 but it is superbly made. I have one on order but the
dealer has loaned me a Coolscan LS4000ED until it arrives.

Nikon Europe are taking orders for the final production run of the
LS5000ED, after which no more will be made. Check on the situation in
your country. If you want the LS5000ED, now might be the last chance
you have to order one. I will be buying a second Coolscan, probably
used, as backup, because I don't want to risk being left to scan
slides on a flatbed when my LS5000ED dies and I can no longer source a
new one.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:19:28 -0700, William Graham wrote:

[...]

I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually
scan at about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of
the order of 10 megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high
JPG compression.....More than adequate for my purposes. The only
real use of the higher resolution scans to me is if I want to crop
something out of the background of one of my
slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in
order
to get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good
enough to extract much from an image unless the image is at least
25% of the original picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less
than that, it's going to be a loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch.
If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per inch scanner, I wouldn't have
any problem with that. If you are accustomed to taking tripod
photos
of stationary subjects, and really need the resolution, then
you
might want the 5400 dpi. Sony is taking over the maintenance of the
KM scanners, and I have heard bad things about their service from
others, but I have no experience in this area myself.

Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of
stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less.
I often crop, at least for rotational correction.

Mike.

If you drill down through the last photo on this page
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/rirpictsb.htm#bottom
you'll eventually arrive at an illustration of what a hand-held 35mm
scan at 2400 ppi can get you. HP PhotoSmart S20, cheap and useful, may
be good enough.

--
Frank ess

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:52:24 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

[...]

I chose a Nikon Coolscan LS5000ED. Alas, the resolution is lower than
the Minolta 5400 but it is superbly made. I have one on order but the
dealer has loaned me a Coolscan LS4000ED until it arrives.

[...]

Google does not find LS5000ED, or variations thereof.
It does find "5000 ED". Any idea why?

Mike.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:18:57 -0700, Scott W wrote:

[...]
Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of
stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less.
I often crop, at least for rotational correction.

So the question is would you get any more detail with a 5400 ppi scan
then a 4000 ppi scan?

Scott

Yes, that is the question. I have postings from the past
that say the answer is "yes". On the other hand, the
question may be moot in view of what I read about the
mechanical quality of the Minolta, and the quality of
service from Sony.

Mike.

On 7 Apr 2006 16:18:57 -0700, "Scott W" wrote:

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:19:28 -0700, William Graham wrote:

[...]

I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at
about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10
megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More
than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution
scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of
my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to
get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to
extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original
picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a
loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per
inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed
to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the
resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi.
Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard
bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this
area myself.

Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of
stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less.
I often crop, at least for rotational correction.

So the question is would you get any more detail with a 5400 ppi scan
then a 4000 ppi scan?


See Jim Hutchison's scanner bakeoff results, and some of the
sample scans on my scan snippets site. The Minolta 5400 is
(or was) capable of very impressive scans, and in some cases
it is visibly and measurably sharper than the best scans I can
do on my LS-8000, which is no slouch.

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/ // scanner bakeoff

The two sharpest scanners in the 2004 bakeoff are
both Minolta 5400s. The next two down the list are
4000 dpi Nikons.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ // scan snippets

See scans by Bart van der Wolf and Meino DeGraaf.

I also disagree with Scott that there's no resolution
on film beyond 2700 dpi. I worked for a couple of
years with a Polaroid SprintScan Plus, which was
a 2700 dpi scanner. Results from the LS-8000 are
visibly better.

There's no doubt that increased scanner resolution
is a matter of diminishing returns. But with the right
technique and film, that 5400 dpi from the
Minolta *can* be observed.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com