View Full Version : Scanner questions
I am currently using an Epson flatbed 3170 scanner. It does an excellent job with med format film but so so with 35mm. I have been looking at 2 35mm scanners recently and need some opinions.
MINOLTA DiMAGE Scan Dual IV is 3200dpi and gets good reviews and runs around $200. The newer model the Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II is 5400 dpi and also get good reviews and runs around $500. Is it worth the extra cash to go from 3200 to 5400 dpi? It will cost 2.5 times the price to do so.
I want to make prints ranging from 8x12 up to 16x24 or so. Will I see any meaningful difference in these print sizes? Does anybody have experience with these scanners? From what I have read they are fast and easy to use. :confused:
The Scan Dual IV is an excellent scanner and a 'best buy', BUT ... if you want to go up to 16x20 or larger, the extra pixels of the 5400 will make a distinct difference at those sizes. The 5400 also has Digital ICE that helps enormously with spots and scratches when you scan C-41 films. Given how large you want to print, I'd say think seriously about the 5400.
I own a Minolta 5400 (1st generation) and previously owned a Minolta Scan Elite II (similar to the Scan Dual IV but with Digital ICE). The 5400 is a sweet scanner.
Gene
Hey Chuck - no experience with these specific scanners but some additional thoughts on scanner choice - I have a dedicated Nikon Coolscan IV for 35mm and an Epson 3200 for LF stuff - I think your dissatisfaction with the 3170 probably results more from the lower Dynamic Range than the resolution.
So, the long answer is yes, if you are planning on going as big as 16x24 from a 35mm negative, it will make a difference to have the higher resolution. I don't know about 2.5 times that though. Just bear in mind a couple of things - your dynamic range is equally important - how far does the scanner get into the shadows and such - I would bet the 5400 is 4.2 or so. The 3170 is probably 3.8 or 3.6. That will make a difference. Also, files that big are hard to move around without copius quantities of RAM.
In the end, my guess is that the dedicated 3200dpi would satisfy your needs. My Coolscan at 2400x2400 and 3.4 Density still gives a better file (about 56megs) from 35mm than the higher resolution Epson 3200.
Anyway - that's my two cents. I should also add the caveat that I am currently looking to upgrade to the new Coolscan V so maybe I am full of hot air....
I own the Dual IV, and wonder if the higher resolution of the 5400 is true resolution, or some kind of interpolation done w/ the scanner & software.
When I scan at 3200dpi & 16bit depth, my file sizes are 76mb-100mb per file.
How often do you plan to print at 16x24?
Dave
Nikon Bob
07-19-2005, 08:10
Another vote in favour of the Minolta 5400 if you plan on going 16X24 inch at 300 dpi sized prints. It will do so without the need to upscale the file in another program. You should be aware that these high rez scans at 5400 will take a long time if you do not have a lot of RAM in your PC. I say this having the older Minolta 5400 not the new 5400 II, which could be different. I have steadily brought my scan times down by increasing the RAM, having started with 512 and gone to 2 GIG. The scan times are quick without the digital ICE on, but when it is in use the times drag on. With 2 GIG RAM the times with ICE on are around 5 to 8 minutes depending on how the neg exposure was. Also consider that you will generate, at 5400, a file size of around 110 MB in 8 bit and about 220 MB in 16 bit colour with B@W being quite a bit smaller. The very size of the file demands lots of RAM to work in Photo Shop. Hope this helps a bit.
Bob
I own the Dual IV, and wonder if the higher resolution of the 5400 is true resolution, or some kind of interpolation done w/ the scanner & software.
When I scan at 3200dpi & 16bit depth, my file sizes are 76mb-100mb per file.
How often do you plan to print at 16x24?
Dave
At those file sizes I don't see why a 16x24 wouldn't be very nice indeed. Have you tried printing this large with your Dual IV?
I will print at 16x24 whenever the image calls for that size. I will be putting together photos for sale and want good quality. If the negs dont need any work then I will just print them on silver. If they need work I would like to scan them and use PS to do the adjustments.
It is like this. I can buy the Dual IV now and get going with my scans or wait some months to save up the extra and but the 5400 II. If the Dual IV will give me excellent results then I will go for it now. I can't see waiting if the results of the 5400 II are not that much better. That is my dilema.
At those file sizes I don't see why a 16x24 wouldn't be very nice indeed. Have you tried printing this large with your Dual IV?
I will print at 16x24 whenever the image calls for that size. I will be putting together photos for sale and want good quality. If the negs dont need any work then I will just print them on silver. If they need work I would like to scan them and use PS to do the adjustments.
It is like this. I can buy the Dual IV now and get going with my scans or wait some months to save up the extra and but the 5400 II. If the Dual IV will give me excellent results then I will go for it now. I can't see waiting if the results of the 5400 II are not that much better. That is my dilema.
I've never printed over 8x12 with my scanner, so it was a good fit for me. I would test one out, but don't have a printer that will do that size, just 13x19 from my Epson 2200.
If you are selling your art and want to create the highest quality prints for your customers, a 5400 may not be a bad idea. Knowing this, I would almost go for the 5400. Visible quality increases if you have to downsize for a print, and quality will decrease if you have to upsize for a print.
Dave
I've never printed over 8x12 with my scanner, so it was a good fit for me. I would test one out, but don't have a printer that will do that size, just 13x19 from my Epson 2200.
If you are selling your art and want to create the highest quality prints for your customers, a 5400 may not be a bad idea. Knowing this, I would almost go for the 5400. Visible quality increases if you have to downsize for a print, and quality will decrease if you have to upsize for a print.
Dave
Dave, actually if you are willing to test you don't have to print the entire photo, just size the scan to 16x24 and pick a portion of the 16x24 size and print it at 4x6 or 8x10 and see how it looks. Just compare it to an 8x12 or 11x17 size and see if the quality really goes downhill.
I understand what you are saying about buying the 5400 but if I am getting maybe 5 or 10 % better prints and paying 2.5 times the cost for the scanner, I am not sure that it is worth it. Now if the 5400 was that much better that the difference is very noticeable, that is a different story.
I have little to no experience with film scanners. All I know is that my 3170 does not give me very good quality in a 35mm scan. The medium format scans are very nice and detailed though.
Do you do your own printing at home? If so, shoot me a PM & we may be able to work something out.
Dave
back alley
07-19-2005, 11:42
i still don't get it.
i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).
why do i need a 'better' scanner?
joe
i still don't get it.
i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).
why do i need a 'better' scanner?
joe
I am afraid that I can't answer that. I have very little experience with scanners. That is why I am posting questions.
back alley
07-19-2005, 11:57
sorry chuck, the question is out there for anyone who can answer it.
didn't mean to put ya on the spot or anything...
joe
I regularly make inkjet prints to the size 10x15.5. And they look stunning! The scanner I use is a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED. If the Minolta 5400 is anywhere near as good as the Nikon then you should have no problem printing.
sorry chuck, the question is out there for anyone who can answer it.
didn't mean to put ya on the spot or anything...
joe
No problem, I am frustrated by this myself. Trying to decide how much cash to spend on a scanner.
i still don't get it.
i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).
why do i need a 'better' scanner?
joe
Because the scan is not the end product.
In this digital processing age, people have yet to come to terms with the workflow requirements.
To get the maximum quality from any scan, be it film or even scanning prints, the file MUST be processed through at least a minimum few steps in an image editor.
Most scanners have, of course, some built in controls to adjust things like contrast and color. However, NONE of them can touch PhotoShop's power in this regard nor even the other image editors power like GIMP, Paint Shop Pro, etc.
The reason is that the purpose of a scan is not to produce a finished image, it is to extract the most information from the scanned original.
Machine parameters such as dMax and resolution are there to get out all the picture info they can so that follow on processing can take that info and manipulate it into the best image possible. This manipulation process is usually destructive in nature. by destructive, I mean picture elements start to be eliminated, not that the picture "looks' worse. As you work down to a final image, you want the absolute most starting data that you can get. That is why working from 16 bit scans and a large color gamut is worthwhile. Although you may end up printing to a 8 bit sRGB machine, you will always end up with a better (at least technically) photo if you start with more data.
Tom
back alley
07-19-2005, 12:35
hhhmmm...need to ruminate.
Although you may end up printing to a 8 bit sRGB machine, you will always end up with a better (at least technically) photo if you start with more data.
Tom
But at some point don't you start scanning more film grain than photo detail? Where is that point as far as dpi scanning goes?
Chuck,
something else to consider: do you intend to only scan color negs or tranparencies, or do you want to scan conventional B&W negs, too? Depending on the kind of light source the scanner uses, some might be better than others - IIRC, I heard on some other forum that the original 5400 was better for B&W negs than the new 5400 II.
Roman
Chuck,
something else to consider: do you intend to only scan color negs or tranparencies, or do you want to scan conventional B&W negs, too? Depending on the kind of light source the scanner uses, some might be better than others - IIRC, I heard on some other forum that the original 5400 was better for B&W negs than the new 5400 II.
Roman
I will be doing lots of B&W. Probably more than color. Your comments are appreciated. I didn't realize that a scanner good for color might not be as good for B&W. But, now that I think about it it makes sense. I lower contrast light source would benefit B&W I think. Kinda like a cold head on an enlarger.
I think the ones that are good for B&W negs use a 'cold cathode light source' (whatever that may be), not an LED light source...
But I'm not really an expert on this, that's just what I overheard on various forums, like the Digital Darkroom one on photo.net.
Roman
T_om was steering you down the right path (IMHO). Bit depth is key to doing adjustments in say, Photoshop. I only scan my B&W at 16 bit. I can do adjustment without losing hardly anything. Then when things are bang on I can send it to the printer which dumbs it back down to 8 bit.
i still don't get it.
i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).
why do i need a 'better' scanner?
joe
OK - at the risk of getting totally slagged here - printer DPI Dots Per Inch is actually a different measure than what should correctly be referrred to on scanners as PPI or Pixels Per Inch. That is where your difference lies BackAlley. Please see below for more details. The link is provided from http://www.oculartravel.com/Resolution.htm
Digital camera resolution
A pixel is not created with fixed size. Instead, its three RGB ingredients can recreate the same - coloured pixel be it an inch square or a metre square - you set the pixel size to match the intended output. Using photoshop's Image Size dialogue box, pixel size can be set to any size, usually 72 per inch for screen viewing or 300 per inch for printing. The number of pixels in the image remain the same, but those pixels can be made physically bigger or smaller. At an inch square, pixels will look like tiles from a giant mosaic and would be a poor photographic illusion. The smaller your pixels are, the more invisible they become and the more realistic a printout willbe. All digital cameras create images with pixels set at 72 per inch, but if you made them smaller, for example 300 dpi, the printout will be physically smaller, but of a much higher quality
Example of high / low resolution>>
Scanner resolution
The term resolution is just another way of describing potential image quality. Like the variously sized sensors found in digital cameras, flatbeds are also sold on their basis of their resolution. Scanner quality isn't described in megapixels or in pixel dimension, but by the ability to capture pixels across one linear inch. Thus a 600 pixel per inch ( or ppi ) scanner will create a 3600x2400 digital image from a 6x4 in print. Even budget 1200ppi scanners create more data than is really needed and anything over 2400ppi is overkill for desktop photo printing.
Printer resolution
Most printers can be operated in lower-quality mode for making rough prints to keep your cost down. A printer resolution of 360 dot per inch (dpi) will drop less dots of ink on the receiving paper no matter if your image is a high resolution file. Best photo quality is made using 1440 or 2880 dpi, but expect each print to take a lot longer to print and more ink to be used. Never select the High speed setting for photographic quality results- some printer resolutions may become unavailable, as they are deemed inappropriate for the paper.
back alley
07-19-2005, 13:40
thanks, that helps, and i'll check out the link tonite from home.
another question, can i expect a 'better' print from the same file from a pro lab than i could get if i had a printer of my own?
when printing wet i was pretty good and generally made better prints than i could expect from a lab.
all b&w btw.
joe
thanks, that helps, and i'll check out the link tonite from home.
another question, can i expect a 'better' print from the same file from a pro lab than i could get if i had a printer of my own?
when printing wet i was pretty good and generally made better prints than i could expect from a lab.
all b&w btw.
joe
That, I would have to leave for someone else I am afraid... I am very happy with the print quality I get at home from my 2200, but the B&W is a problem because of the color casts. Using all B&W will help that because you can load custom all black/grey ink sets they make just for B&W inkjetting.
On the other hand, I have never printed in my own wet darkroom (but I really WANT to), and haven't really ever paid for a nice professional print so I feel like I am not the best guy to answer that!
Ed
i am looking to buy a negative scanner for my computer but i dont know much about them. I was wondering had any suggestions or comments on brands and types to help me out. I want it so i can scan my 35mm B&W negatives if that helps at all. Thanks!!!
thanks, that helps, and i'll check out the link tonite from home.
another question, can i expect a 'better' print from the same file from a pro lab than i could get if i had a printer of my own?
when printing wet i was pretty good and generally made better prints than i could expect from a lab.
all b&w btw.
joe
Totally depends upon your lab or your printer.
I do not do any in-house printing any longer. My lab outputs JUST what I want and it is cheaper to boot.
Most people have the (erroneous) idea that it is 'cheaper' to print with an inkjet. I disagree. Let me add the qualifier "archival" prints. Regular old dye based inkjets can turn out cheap results with cheap paper and cheap dye based inks... but they fade. I have a Canon S9000 that turns out beautiful prints... but they are not something I can sell because they are not archival. The Epson printers claim long life for their prints but a) I am skeptical and b) they are not cheap to operate and c) an expensive RIP is needed to produce quality B&W output.
In my case at least, it doesn't make sense to print in-house.
Tom
Nikon Bob
07-19-2005, 19:32
I have to agree with Tom that it is cheaper to have a lab print your file than doing it at home and you have the added benefit of knowing it should be archival quality. A home printer that can do archival 16 X 24 is expensive to buy and operate especially if you are not doing a lot of printing that size. If you do your file up right at home sized for the print output you want even 4X6 prints are likely cheaper at a lab.
Bob
back alley
07-19-2005, 19:44
If you do your file up right at home sized for the print output you want even 4X6 prints are likely cheaper at a lab.
this is what i need to learn now.
I recently purchased the Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner (version I) along with th Epson R2400 printer.
Check out these two threads on photo.net:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BIiO
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AKZC
They address the issue of using a flourescent light source as opposed to LED light source and how that affects scanning of black and white films. I purchased the older version of the scanner based on this information and I am pleased with the results. The older version also comes with firewire.
If you want to do enlargements of 16 x 24, there is an obvious advantage to the higher resolution scanner. I can only do 13 x 19 inch prints with my printer. Scanning Reala 100 I find the prints are beautiful. I am not sure however how they would hold up going much larger then that.
I agree that you need a fast computer with lots of RAM to handle the 16 bit 5400 dpi scans. The file sizes get huge. I am running a 3 gig Dell with 1 gig of RAM and a 250 gig hard drive and I am considering bumping it up to 2 gig of RAM
So I bought this $850 printer that creates beautiful black and white prints (no color cast) but I have to admit that in a few weeks time I have printed under a dozen prints. I am particular about my photos and don't think that many frames are worth scanning especially when you consider the time it takes to scan. So don't think your going to scan your film library. More then likely you end up scanning just a couple of frames every other roll or so.
If your going to sell prints then a printer makes more sense. If I just use up the 50 sheet pack of 13 x 19 matte paper I bought, I will run out of wall space to dispay the images. Yes, paper and ink costs can add up quickly (not even considering costs of matting and framing) but I feel it was well worth it.
I do think that having the scanner and printer is going to improve my overall skills. It is the part of the craft I had not taken part in until now. I would just hand over my film and hope I liked what I got back. Some times good...some times not so good. Now that I can see all that can be done in Photoshop with the control you have over the final print it has opened up a whole new world to me. It makes you more aware of what your laying down on film...at least I feel that way.
I have not done alot with color so far and I am a bit concerned about the learning curve for color management. I would make sure the scanner has Digital Ice, it can save you many frustrating hours of cleaning up dusty and scratched film. It is tough enough to have to spot black and white film after scanning, why put yourself through that for color as well. That's all folks!
Wish I lived where you guys live! The labs here are very expensive. When I was using the local lab they set me back 5 bucks for an 8x10. I can not imagine printing the tabloid size prints I make now at a lab! As for the archival quallity of the inkjet prints. Wilhelm gives the ink paper combination I use 98 years. That is being displayed under UV glass. Here is a link to the R2400 test document on Wilhelm.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html
i still don't get it.
i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).
why do i need a 'better' scanner?
joe
Hi Joe
Try this. Someone explained it to me this way and it seems to fit. For a high quality print you need 300 dpi - that's 300 x 300 = 90,000 dots in a square inch. So for an 8 x 10 it's 8 x 10 x 300 x 300 = 7,200,000 dots. Now, can I get 7.2m dots worth of information into my file, if I'm starting with a 35mm negative, and a 2700dpi scanner? The negative is pretty close to 1.5 inches x 1 inch = 1.5 square inches, so 1.5 x 2700 x 2700 = 10,935,000 dots = more than we need!
I'd welcome other people's comments on whether this explanation holds up. Also can someone explain about the "dynamic range"? As with digi cameras and megapixels, I guess you have to start with some idea of what you want to do with the output - view only on PC, web pages, or print to small or large prints?
Totally depends upon your lab or your printer.
Most people have the (erroneous) idea that it is 'cheaper' to print with an inkjet. I disagree. Let me add the qualifier "archival" prints.
In my case at least, it doesn't make sense to print in-house.
Tom
I think that there are options for archival prints from home inkjets that meet your criteria though Tom, my Epson 2200 is only marginally more expensive than your Canon and uses pigment based inks, which when used in conjunction with archival paper have a lightfastness of around 100 years supposedly. Certainly Platinum and Palladium prints crush that but it meets the archival standard easily and I print (not counting printer cost) on Super B for $3.50 per print. Roll paper would bring that cost down even more. In fact, John Shaw prints on an Epson with pigment based inks, and he sells quite a few images! Just my additional two cents! :angel:
UK professional photographer Eddie Ephraums has been making a complete transition from chemical darkroom to digital darkroom -- but still mainly shooting B&W film. He is so serious about image quality he invested in an Imacon scanner, and he uses an Epson for his B&W printing, primarily 16x20" prints, for customers and galleries. He discusses his approach and workflow in his new book Darkroom to Digital
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7517
An Imacon would be the ultimate GAS attack :D
One quote from the book I especially like: "seeing is no different with digital"
Gene
[QUOTE=
An Imacon would be the ultimate GAS attack :D
One quote from the book I especially like: "seeing is no different with digital"
Gene[/QUOTE]
Mmmmmm.... Imacon. Yummmy GAS! (Who am I kidding though - I don't have the RAM to handle those scans!) :rolleyes:
I've been using an imacon 343 for a little less than two years and it is top notch. There's avery good article on all levels of scanners from the consumer to drum scanners in the current view camera magazine. I really exposes the lies that manufacturers tell about the D max of their equipment.
By the way, I am selling my Imacon that's like new with all the goodies plus two custom film frames for 26x38 / 26x60 and one for 6x18 (6x17). One thing to know about the iamacon is the suoer sharpness and 4.3 D max. It makes fantastic scans and the software is excellent. The scanner is $3,900 (B&H is $4,999) and the two custom holders @ $175 ea. I also have an Epson 1680 pro with silverfast that I want to sell for $595.
If you are interested contact me through my website @ www.x-rayarts.com
I just purchased a new fuji finescan 2750 to scan 11x14 film and don't need two super scanners.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.