Scanner for silver-based B&W film negs [Archive]

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 12:21

Hi

I'm looking for a scanner that would do a decent job on 35mm silver-based B&W film negs. I don't care about medium format, slides, APS, color negs, C41,E6 - just good old traditional 35mm B&W. In fact I'm very much into the high-accutance, high-grain look these days (think Tri-X developed in Rodinal) and I would like the scanner to do justice to these negs, i.e. to retain the tonality and texture of the film as much as possible.

Because of the nature of the negs I'm obviously looking for a scanner with high native sharpness so as to minimize the amount of USM needed to be applied to the files. In terms of print size I target 11x17 at 300 dpi (or 13x19 at 220 dpi) which calls for a 3200+ dpi scanner. Batch capability and scanning speed are unimportant to me - I'm after quality, not throughput. I'll be scanning to 16-bit TIFF and processing the files in Photoshop CS.

After some research I've narrowed down the list of potential candidates to five:
- Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (I and II)
- Nikon CoolScan V ED / LS-50 ED
- Microtek ArtixScan 4000tf
- Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US (discontinued, but still available used).

I'd be very grateful for first-hand experience accounts from users of one of these machines. Are the Minoltas really so poorly built and unreliable? Are the LED-based light sources of the Nikon and the Elite 5400 II really incompatible with silver-based emulsions? Is the Canon really so painfully slow? Is the Microtek really low value for money as compared to the competition?

Thanks in advance for your help. :)

Cheers

Vincent

phototone

08-08-2005, 13:17

I have an ArtixScan 4000tf, and it does a reasonably good job, and is quite economical for a 4000dpi scanner, however I have problems with center to edge sharpness with the scans if the negative strip is not completely flat, and as you know 35mm film tends to curve, and the negative holder does not exert a lot of force on the film to keep it flat.

I have had much better results scanning 35mm with the ArtixScan 120tf, which is a larger scanner intended for 35mm and 120. It is also 4000dpi, and I find that the scans from 35mm are very good in center to edge sharpness. I also like the tonality of the scans from the 120tf better, but that may be just my technique has gotten better.

I have also a Nikon 5000ed, a very expensive 35mm and medium-format scanner, which uses the LED type of light source, and I find that the center to edge sharpness leaves something to be desired on this one with 35mm. However with 120, the Nikon has a negative strip carrier that allows you to put tension on the negative strip and actually stretch it flat, so the results from 120 are superb.

I would assume the less expensive Nikon scanners using the LED light source would perform similarly with 35mm.

There is no incompatibility with LED light sources and b/w film. None. Where did you hear this?

No scanner can perform "digital ice" type of spot removal on b/w images. You have to manually retouch your b/w scans in Photoshop. Doesn't matter what scanner you have, and doesn't matter what light source it has. The "digital ice"type of spotting only works on dye-based images. Not on silver-based images.

All the images in my online gallery here were scanned with ArtixScan scanners, and the Nikon 5000ed. I'll bet you cannot tell which is which.

phototone

08-08-2005, 13:26

Hi

Because of the nature of the negs I'm obviously looking for a scanner with high native sharpness so as to minimize the amount of USM needed to be applied to the files.
Thanks in advance for your help. :)

Cheers

Vincent

The nature of ALL scanning is such that "some" USM is required. If you allow the scanner to apply it, then you will require less in Photoshop, if you turn off sharpening in the scanner software, then more is required in Photoshop, but never-the-less, there isn't a scanner (due to the nature of how scanning is done), that doesn't require "some" USM. Even drum scans are sharpened.

My $10,000.00 Betterlight scaning back for my 4x5 view camera requires that the files be sharpened after the scan. It is unavoidable. It is always done, and all scanners (in their software) have a default level of sharpening. You can override this if you wish and do all your sharpening in Photoshop, or with a custom "action" in photoshop, your choice.

Don't confuse resolution with sharpness. a higher dpi scanner will give you more native resolution, even though you will need to have applied some USM to get tack-sharp grain.

phototone

08-08-2005, 13:32

I keep adding to my reply, but one other thing that I think I should say, is that:
Scanning is an art. You cannot expect to get the best possible results from your negative by just using the scanner software "default" values. You must learn to use the scanner and the software and make custom adjustments based on your negatives and making test scans and evaluating the results in Photoshop at high magnification. You may even want to try 3rd party scanner software as a step-up from the manufacturer supplied scanner driver software.

Like anything else, optimum scanning is not automatic, and a skilled operator can extract more from a given negative than a neophyte.

egpj

08-08-2005, 13:40

Vincent, Your plan is what I do everyday. For this type of work I have the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. This scanner does everything you described. Everything that I have posted on my website was scanned using that scanner. I have heard the complaints about the Nikon not being suitable for Black and White but my experience is different. That and my prints look better then darkroom jobs I have had done for me (could be unskilled persons in the darkroom). As for which scanner is the best I cannot offer you any guidance in that, only the experience I have had with mine. I can say that I have scanned every speed of film from Ilford 3200 to Pan F 50 and they all look great to my eye.

Obviously you might try renting some of the different scanners to give each a tryout. The software I use for my scanning is Vuescan located at:

http://www.hamrick.com

Glenn

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 13:49

I have an ArtixScan 4000tf, and it does a reasonably good job, and is quite economical for a 4000dpi scanner, however I have problems with center to edge sharpness with the scans if the negative strip is not completely flat, and as you know 35mm film tends to curve, and the negative holder does not exert a lot of force on the film to keep it flat.I'm familiar with this problem, and to be honest I find it utterly ridiculous that film holders can't even keep the film reasonably flat. (sigh). I seem to remember from another thread (about developers, I think) that you use a film hardener of some sort after development, does this help in making film strips less prone to curving?

There is no incompatibility with LED light sources and b/w film. None. Where did you hear this?In a number of dodgy reviews on the net...

No scanner can perform "digital ice" type of spot removal on b/w images. You have to manually retouch your b/w scans in Photoshop. Doesn't matter what scanner you have, and doesn't matter what light source it has. The "digital ice"type of spotting only works on dye-based images. Not on silver-based images.I'm aware of this. I handle my negs very carefully, dust and scratches are not a significant issue for me.

All the images in my online gallery here were scanned with ArtixScan scanners, and the Nikon 5000ed. I'll bet you cannot tell which is which.I can't, at this size and resolution.

phototone

08-08-2005, 14:02

I'm familiar with this problem, and to be honest I find it utterly ridiculous that film holders can't even keep the film reasonably flat. (sigh). I seem to remember from another thread (about developers, I think) that you use a film hardener of some sort after development, does this help in making film strips less prone to curving?

Well, normal procedure is to use a fixer with hardener incorporated. This doesn't effect the curling. The curling is due to different contraction rates of the emulsion and base of the film as it dries. Properly fixed and washed film that is not very old out-of-date film will have a minimum of curling, but will still have "some" curling.

The actual problem with scanners is that there is no way to "stop down" the scanners lens to get any depth of field to compensate for the slight curve of the negative. When we make prints in the darkroom with an enlarger, we normally do not print with the enlarger lens wide open, such as a scanner uses its lens. We normally stop down to about f8 or f11, at which point most enlarger lenses are at their optimum sharpness, and the depth of field compensates for minor negative curvature.

To get the maximum flatness from my 35mm negatives, I cut and sleeve in page sleeves my b/w 35mm negatives just as soon as they are dry, and I then put the whole page of negatives under several heavy books overnight. This tends to reduce the tendency to curl, and they always are flatter after this treatment.

Also, most scanners are "auto focus" and they will focus on the center of the negative, and if the edges are even slightly curved they will lie outside the plane of optimum focus in relation to the center. Some scanners allow you to manually place the point at which you want the auto focus to read, and in that case, sometimes you can pick a point out towards the edge of the image, but not at the very edge, thus splitting the difference, and this can result in a good average sharp scan (with USM APPLIED), over the whole neg.

Some scanners, such as the Nikon Super coolscan 5000 ED, offer, as a relatively expensive option, a glass negative carrier, and this should solve all the problems of center to edge sharpness, but of course introduce more surfaces for dirt, and on a scanner the dirt is more pronounced in the scan, than a print from a negative in the darkroom printed on a diffusion enlarger.

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 14:03

phototone

08-08-2005, 14:09

Well, I think I know the difference between resolution and sharpness, and the effect of USM on micro-contrast. My point was, some scanners need so much USM to compensate for their relative lack of sharpness that the files quickly acquire an unpleasant "digital" look. I much prefer doing the sharpening myself in Photoshop, so as to have some control over the way it is applied, for example through the use of edge masks.

I understand what you are saying, and of course Unsharp Mask is only one method of "sharpening" a digital image.

There are several "issues" pertaining to sharpness. One, is the quality of the optics of the scanner, and the calibration of them when they leave the factory.

Two, is the quality of the scanner driver softare used to run the scanner.

Three, is the skill with which you use the scanner software, in your choices of settings..

I too, always scan as a 16bit tiff at maximum resolution, make my corrections in Photoshop then resave as a 8 bit tiff. I never reduce the resolution of my master file, only the bit depth once all corrections are made.

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 14:10

This is very true. I guess the skills involved in the scanning of negs are similar to those involved in the processing of raw files from a digital camera.

phototone

08-08-2005, 14:13

This is very true. I guess the skills involved in the scanning of negs are similar to those involved in the processing of raw files from a digital camera.

Bingo. As we say here, "You have hit the nail on the head!"

In either case, (shooting raw files with a digital camera), or scans from a negative,
you have a digital file that needs further work to be optimum.

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 14:25

I have also a Nikon 5000ed, a very expensive 35mm and medium-format scanner,I thought the Nikon 5000ed was a 35mm-only scanner, with the 9000ed being multi-format?!

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 14:26

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 14:30

To get the maximum flatness from my 35mm negatives, I cut and sleeve in page sleeves my b/w 35mm negatives just as soon as they are dry, and I then put the whole page of negatives under several heavy books overnight. This tends to reduce the tendency to curl, and they always are flatter after this treatment.I'll try that next time. Sounds easy enough. ;)
Thanks a lot for your contribution to this thread.
Cheers
Vincent

Stephanie Brim

08-08-2005, 14:31

How much IS the ArtixScan? I want something that will work with both 35mm and medium format and I don't have that much to spend. :x

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 14:35

How much IS the ArtixScan? I want something that will work with both 35mm and medium format and I don't have that much to spend. :xThe 120tf is about $1500, with Silverfast Ai 6.0 included.

phototone

08-08-2005, 14:44

I thought the Nikon 5000ed was a 35mm-only scanner, with the 9000ed being multi-format?!

Right you are, I have the 9000ed

Stephanie Brim

08-08-2005, 14:46

Blah. It's beyond me now then. Sunovagun.

Mackinaw

08-08-2005, 14:59

There's a thread on the Leica forum, right now, comparing how the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon 4000 (older now-discontinued scanner) work with B&W films. Very interesting discussion and photos. See this URL for more info:

http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/2/153010.html?1123444472

Jim Bielecki

formal

08-08-2005, 15:34

I have the 5400 that I only use to scan silver-based B&W negatives. I use a DSLR for colour photography.

I do not have another scanner to compare it with, but I'm more than happy with the results. For what it is worth, all the images in my gallery were scanned using the 5400.

I agree with Phototone. The scanned images need some post-processing and in particular, sharpening. I do as little processing as possible during scanning - mainly exposure control. Then I find the post-processing is the same as for digitally captured RAW images and it is best to apply sharpening as the last step after resizing.

The amount of sharpening I need is less than I need with digitally captured images.

David

jlw

08-08-2005, 15:50

I have the Canon FS4000US, and I use it mostly to scan silver-based films. It produces scans with high sharpness, and is capable of emitting enough light to punch through dense areas of a negative. (The "long exposure pass" option in VueScan can help with this.)

But yes, it is very slow -- partly because of the scanner mechanics and partly because of the USB 1.1 interface. When doing a full-resolution, 16-bit-grayscale scan, I usually plan on going away and doing something else for 10 minutes or so. If your workflow involves making one or two really good scans per evening, it might be just what you need (if you can bag one at a good price); if you're more volume-oriented, I suspect you'll find it frustrating.

One more bugaboo of scanning silver-based films that hasn't come up yet in this thread, but which is a very significant problem, is grain aliasing. (http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm) I've railed about this before on other threads -- because it's the bane of existance of anyone who scans high-speed silver films, and yet scanner manufacturers and equipment reviewers/publicists almost never acknowledge it.

Grain aliasing is the effect of an interaction between the random pattern of grain edges, and the regular pattern of the scanner's imager. Its result is that a print from a scanned negative looks grainier than a similar print made in a "wet" darkroom.

It affects silver-based films more severely than chromogenic ones, because the grain edges in silver films are more well-defined; it afflicts one brand of scanner just about as much as another; there's very little you can do to suppress it that doesn't reduce fine details in the image; and scanner manufacturers don't seem to give a crap about doing anything about it, because 99.9% of their customers are scanning color negatives and slides.

The only trick I've found that seems to help at least a little is to scan the negative twice, then composite the two scans in Photoshop or another image editor. No scanner is mechanically precise enough to position the film carriage exactly the same for successive scans, so scanning twice slightly alters the relationship between the grain edges and the imager. When you composite the images, they're "averaged" enough to reduce the effects of grain aliasing without reducing detail sharpness (at least not much.)

Having to scan everything twice (I also set one scan to favor the highlights and the other to favor the shadows, to get a fuller tonal range) makes the slowness of the FS4000 even more galling -- but since my goal usually is just to get one good scan per session, it's something I can live with for now. Your mileage may vary!

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 16:15

I have the 5400 that I only use to scan silver-based B&W negatives.Is that model II?

I use a DSLR for colour photography.Same here. I also use the dSLR for B&W, but overall 90% of my pictures are taken on B&W film.

Thanks.
Vincent

doubs43

08-08-2005, 16:25

"I'm familiar with this problem, and to be honest I find it utterly ridiculous that film holders can't even keep the film reasonably flat."

While I can't speak to their other films, EFKE 25 is table-top flat when developed and dried. So flat, in fact, that if I don't keep my negative holder slightly tilted forward when loading it, the negatives will begin to slid out because there's no curl to provide tension at the edges.

Walker

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 16:26

If your workflow involves making one or two really good scans per evening, it might be just what you need (if you can bag one at a good price); if you're more volume-oriented, I suspect you'll find it frustrating.I am NOT volume oriented. I only intend to scan my very best pictures that are worth printing.

One more bugaboo of scanning silver-based films that hasn't come up yet in this thread, but which is a very significant problem, is grain aliasing. (http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm)Yeah, I've heard about that: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF8.html

The only trick I've found that seems to help at least a little is to scan the negative twice, then composite the two scans in Photoshop or another image editor. No scanner is mechanically precise enough to position the film carriage exactly the same for successive scans, so scanning twice slightly alters the relationship between the grain edges and the imager. When you composite the images, they're "averaged" enough to reduce the effects of grain aliasing without reducing detail sharpness (at least not much.)Interesting. I'll try that.

Thanks a lot for your input. Much appreciated.

Vincent

phototone

08-08-2005, 16:26

The 120tf is about $1500, with Silverfast Ai 6.0 included.

The Microtek Artixscan 120tf has been around a while. It is possible to find one used. No reason why a used one would be inferior to a new one. Before there was the Artixscan 120tf, there was the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (I think that was the model), it is the same machine, except it is SCSI interface only, not firewire. Microtek made all of Polaroid's film scanners, and when Polaroid got out of the scanner business, Microtek started marketing them under the ArtixScan brand.

Microteck has free software updates for these scanners and with the latest Microteck scanner software (free download) these can work very nicely. You do not need Silverfast.

phototone

08-08-2005, 16:29

Probably the most economical way to have both 35mm and 120 scanning ability is to split this ability between two scanners. The modestly priced, or entry level Nikon, and Minolta 35mm scanners are quite nice. For 120 size film, an Epson flatbed scanner designed for film and print scanning is very modest in cost and does a good job for 120 film formats. You could probably get both of these for under $600.

jlw

08-08-2005, 16:36

Thanks for the pointer to the Norman Koren article. It's interesting -- although I notice that when investigating grain aliasing (and concluding that his FS4000 didn't exhibit any) he wasn't scanning what I would consider a high-speed film. If he had tried it with Tri-X -- or my pre-digital favorite, T-Max 3200 -- he definitely would have seen the effects!

Also, I've tried several of the plug-ins he mentioned (and eventually settled on one he didn't, Noise Ninja, specifically because it seemed to do a better job of reducing grain in scans from silver-based films.) However, I don't feel that any of the plug-ins really recapture the "wet print" appearance -- they either don't really reduce the grainy look, or substitute a look that's too "overprocessed."

The great thing, though, is that many of them offer downloadable demo versions -- so you can try them out on your own scans from your own negs, and see if any of them do the job for you.

Good luck in your scanner search!

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 16:53

EFKE 25 is table-top flat when developed and dried.Yeah, but who uses Efke 25 anyway, apart from you and this guy: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml
Do you rate yours at iso 6 as well?

Just kidding.

Cheers

Vincent

GeneW

08-08-2005, 16:59

I wonder if the market for dedicated scanners is diminishing? There doesn't seem to be much development happening with scanning technology, other than improvement of flatbed scanners.

I suspect if someone could engineer a really good dedicated scanner for traditional B&W film, they could garner a niche market. A Bessa Scanner anyone? :cool:

Gene

jlw

08-08-2005, 17:12

Gee, that would be a niche market OF a niche market! Pleasant thought, though.

(Meanwhile, something for which I have all the equipment, but haven't yet been crazy or bored enough to try: Put a DSLR onto a slide duplicator -- I have a Sickles Chromapro -- and use it to "dupe" your b&w negatives into digital files. The high-pass filter in the DSLR should eliminate any grain-aliasing problems... and if not, you can always defocus the lens a tad.)

vincentbenoit

08-08-2005, 23:20

(Meanwhile, something for which I have all the equipment, but haven't yet been crazy or bored enough to try: Put a DSLR onto a slide duplicator -- I have a Sickles Chromapro -- and use it to "dupe" your b&w negatives into digital files. )Hehe... I've thought about that too, but haven't yet been crazy or bored enough to try either. 6 Mpix might be a bit limiting, for one thing.

Roger Hicks

08-09-2005, 00:35

Well, I have tried it, and 6 megapixels IS limiting.

But surely if you want a real wet-print look, there's an easy way to achieve it.

Cheers,

Roger

jlw

08-09-2005, 04:55

Well, I have tried it, and 6 megapixels IS limiting.

But surely if you want a real wet-print look, there's an easy way to achieve it.

Cheers,

Roger

I know what you're getting at, and yes, there is. But no easy way to put the results on a CD!

XAos

08-09-2005, 06:01

I dont currently wet print, I'm curious but I suspect that even if I did, It would be as a new step on the end of my current cycle of light box, scan, view on the computer, scan at higher resolution, take to minilab to print, stare at the 4x6 for a couple weeks and THEN if I still like it blow it up.

6x7 is better for viewing on the light box (obviously, it's about the size of a lot of the old prints in grandma's shoe box) but 35mm about the only thing I can gather looking at the negative on a light box is that it was properly focused and exposed. I still have to scan nearly everything to tell much about it.

Bertram2

08-09-2005, 07:14

Hi

After some research I've narrowed down the list of potential candidates to five:
- Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (I and II)
- Nikon CoolScan V ED / LS-50 ED
- Microtek ArtixScan 4000tf
- Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US (discontinued, but still available used).

. Are the Minoltas really so poorly built and unreliable? Are the LED-based light sources of the Nikon and the Elite 5400 II really incompatible with silver-based emulsions?

Vincent

Hi Vincent,

where did you hear the bad reports of the 5400 Minoltas, concerning build quality and reliability ? What parts are concerned ?

It is the Minolta 5400II I am thinking about at the time, I like the reliable reproduction of colours it does., different from you colour would paly a role for me.

If this is a troublemaker I'd sort it out at once, I hate such stuff !!
I've seen nice results for B&W done with the Canon 4000 (Suuper slow indeed) and Nikon. Leaving aside the pure data the results seem to bee better than expected with the Nikons.
I general silver B&W is the most difficult thing to scan, the more dense the negs the more you see if you bought a good one or not.
I hesitated to buy a scanner for a long time, because the more I learned the more I understand that there is a looong learning curve, it 's a craft of it's own.

Regards and thanks for some input about the 5400 I and II ! :)

Bertram

Nikon Bob

08-09-2005, 12:04

vincentbenoit

08-09-2005, 13:46

Where did you hear the bad reports of the 5400 Minoltas, concerning build quality and reliability ? What parts are concerned ?
It is the Minolta 5400II I am thinking about at the time, I like the reliable reproduction of colours it does., different from you colour would paly a role for me.
Hi Bertram,

I've come across many reports of the cheap build of the Minolta scanners (especially the 5400 II). Didn't keep track of all of them, but I find this website (in German) very informative: http://www.filmscanner.info/MinoltaDimageScanElite5400II.html
The reviewer seems to be very objective in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of various scanners. Unfortunately for me, he tends to focus on colour negs and slides rather than B&W film.

I've seen nice results for B&W done with the Canon 4000 (Suuper slow indeed) and Nikon. Leaving aside the pure data the results seem to bee better than expected with the Nikons.I might just get a Canon 4000 if I can get a second-hand one for a low price. Failing that, either the Nikon LS-50ED or the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 I. The built-in light source diffuser of the latter looks like it could be useful in alleviating grain aliasing with certain film/developer combinations.

Cheers
Vincent

vincentbenoit

08-09-2005, 14:04

I use the Minolta 5400 I and have used it to scan some traditional B&W. I will let the attached photo tell you what it can. I do like the scanner. I have heard that the I maybe preferable to the II for B&W due to the change in light source. That info is on the web and I have NO first hand experience using the II so take it for what it is worth.
Thanks Bob for the picture. Looks good on screen, but I'd like to see a 13x19 print. What film/developer was that?
I'm leaning towards the Scan Elite 5400 I at this stage. What about the build quality of the scanner? Did you have any problems with yours? Also, do you find the "Grain Dissolver" option to be useful with fast film?
Cheers
Vincent

Bertram2

08-09-2005, 16:19

I use the Minolta 5400 I and have used it to scan some traditional B&W. I will let the attached photo tell you what it can. I do like the scanner. I have heard that the I maybe preferable to the II for B&W due to the change in light source. That info is on the web and I have NO first hand experience using the II so take it for what it is worth.

Bob

Looks great, Bob !! I also heard the story of beeing I better than II, tho it is slow with ICE as it is said. What time does it need to scan a s lide at full res with ICE and what at 2700 dpi?

Thanks ! :)
Bertram

Gabriel M.A.

08-09-2005, 16:29

Sometimes the problem isn't the scanner, it's the lousy software bundled with it. I have the Minolta Scan IV, and for a while my color scans and a few of my B&W scans were acceptable at best. Slide scanning was very good.

But then I tried SilverFast (which I've used with my ancient Epson 2400), and boy oh boy, what a difference. I started rescanning the "keeper" pictures that looked blotchy in the shadows, or just simply grainy (and they weren't). Those Germans really know about imaging.

jlw

08-09-2005, 16:30

Note that unless things have changed since the last time I shopped (and I don't believe they have) NONE of the "image repair" capabilities (Digital ICE, Grain Dissolver, etc.) of ANY film scanner work with silver-based b&w film!

The reason is that they rely on infrared transmission to identify defects and distinguish them from actual details of the image. (A dark spot that transmits the same amount of IR as its surroundings is most likely a small detail in the image itself; a dark spot that doesn't transmit IR is probably a speck of dirt on the film.) Silver-based films, having a metallic emulsion rather than one made up of semi-transparent dyes, transmit so little infrared that the IR detection can't work properly.

There may be some scanners that offer grain-reduction algorithms that don't depend on IR detection, but these would have to work the same way as after-the-fact filters (e.g. Neat Image or Noise Ninja.)

Moral of this story: Before you buy a scanner for b&w based on its image-repair features, read all the documentation VERY CAREFULLY to make sure those features will work with silver-based films!

GeneW

08-09-2005, 16:35

I own a Minolta 5400 first-gen scanner as well and like Nikon Bob am very happy with it. One of its features is a diffuser that can swing over the light source in effect making the scanner more like a diffusion enlarger. With Minolta software this only happens when you use ICE, but with VueScan it can be invoked independently, reducing grain and grain aliasing. Actually I haven't noticed grain aliasing to be too bad with the 5400.

Gene

Bertram2

08-09-2005, 16:38

Hi Bertram,

I've come across many reports of the cheap build of the Minolta scanners (especially the 5400 II). Didn't keep track of all of them, but I find this website (in German) very informative: http://www.filmscanner.info/MinoltaDimageScanElite5400II.html
The reviewer seems to be very objective in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of various scanners.

Cheers
Vincent

Hi Vincent,

I know this site tho I had not read the new test of the 5400 II. Made me thoughtful that after some hours of work the max res went down to 2900, and first after it was turned off and had cooled down the full res was back ?
BTW did not know you speak German ! Not bad, I could not read such an article in French without a dictionary.

Best,
Bertram

Bertram2

08-09-2005, 17:01

I have the 5400 that I only use to scan silver-based B&W negatives. I use a DSLR for colour photography.
David

David,
can film flatness get a real prob with the 5400II or do you get them always flat enuff for edge to edge sharpness ?

Thanks,
Bertram

vincentbenoit

08-09-2005, 23:20

Note that unless things have changed since the last time I shopped (and I don't believe they have) NONE of the "image repair" capabilities (Digital ICE, Grain Dissolver, etc.) of ANY film scanner work with silver-based b&w film!I know that, and I don't expect to use any of the image enhancement features such as digital ICE. However the "Grain Dissolver" option I was refering to is basically a light source diffuser. It can be used with silver-based emulsions. (See GeneW's post below).
Cheers
Vincent

vincentbenoit

08-09-2005, 23:29

I know this site tho I had not read the new test of the 5400 II. Made me thoughtful that after some hours of work the max res went down to 2900, and first after it was turned off and had cooled down the full res was back ?Yep, I will definitely stay away from this scanner. If I decide to go for a Minolta it'll be the 5400 I.

BTW did not know you speak German ! Not bad, I could not read such an article in French without a dictionary.Hehe... I spent almost four years in the German-speaking part of Switzerland before moving to the UK, so yes, my German is not too bad.

Regards
Vincent

vincentbenoit

08-09-2005, 23:43

BTW jlw, I think you can get such a light source diffuser for your Canon 4000: http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=22&men=3
This might help with your grain aliasing issues.

gelmir

08-10-2005, 03:49

I've got an idea : why don't we set up a scan database with the same negative that we could pass to the people with different scanners ? Of course, the process must be rigorously specified (software version, dpi, usm, no retouching, traditionnal film or new one, etc.) and the results should be post somewhere at 100%.

Nikon Bob

08-10-2005, 03:58

Thanks Bob for the picture. Looks good on screen, but I'd like to see a 13x19 print. What film/developer was that?
I'm leaning towards the Scan Elite 5400 I at this stage. What about the build quality of the scanner? Did you have any problems with yours? Also, do you find the "Grain Dissolver" option to be useful with fast film?
Cheers
Vincent

Sorry I have nothing to compare the build quality to but it is OK for me then again I am not a heavy user. I have had no problems with it so far. I leave "Grain Dissolver" on all the time on the basis that it can't hurt. If you scan at 5400 for a 300 dpi output you can print a 16X24 with no trouble.

Bob

Bertram2

08-10-2005, 03:59

Yep, I will definitely stay away from this scanner. If I decide to go for a Minolta it'll be the 5400 I.

Regards
Vincent

How about splitting the budget for a cheap Minolta Dualscan IV and a good Epson flatbed ?
I have a friend who is quite contented with the B&W results of the small Minolta scanner and the additional flatbed opens the door to MF neg and print scans, a very interesting issue too ?

Alles Gute !

Bertram

Nikon Bob

08-10-2005, 04:06

Looks great, Bob !! I also heard the story of beeing I better than II, tho it is slow with ICE as it is said. What time does it need to scan a s lide at full res with ICE and what at 2700 dpi?

Thanks ! :)
Bertram

Thanks. At full rez and all the bells and whistles on the scan takes about 8 minutes and I have not done any at 2700 but I will try later and see. I think the biggest thing with this scanner is to have lots of RAM. I started with 512 and went to 1 gig for a big improvement in scan times. I now have 2 gig and the scan times are again faster.

Bob

vincentbenoit

08-10-2005, 13:42

Sorry I have nothing to compare the build quality to but it is OK for me then again I am not a heavy user. I have had no problems with it so far. I leave "Grain Dissolver" on all the time on the basis that it can't hurt.
BobThanks Bob, good to hear that. One more question: does the film holder let you scan the entire frame without cropping a bit of the picture at the edges, as many scanners do?
Cheers
Vincent

Roger Hicks

08-10-2005, 13:48

I know what you're getting at, and yes, there is. But no easy way to put the results on a CD!

Scan the wet print (once it's dried) on a cheap flatbed. Still wipes the floor with anything else.

Cheers,

Roger

Nikon Bob

08-10-2005, 14:21

Thanks Bob, good to hear that. One more question: does the film holder let you scan the entire frame without cropping a bit of the picture at the edges, as many scanners do?
Cheers
Vincent

Fairly close to the entire frame I would say. The grain disolve was only for colour.

Bob

formal

08-11-2005, 01:10

David,
can film flatness get a real prob with the 5400II or do you get them always flat enuff for edge to edge sharpness ?

I'm not experienced with scanning and I've only used the 5400 II, but I have had no problems with negatives being held flat and edge to edge sharpness looks okay.

I'm on holidays for the next few weeks, but if you want I can post some examples.

David

formal

08-11-2005, 01:14

vincentbenoit

08-16-2005, 14:55

So, I got a second-hand but near-mint Canon CanoScan FS4000US at a price that suits my amateur budget ;). The scanner seems to work alright with VueScan. Scanning at 4000 dpi in 16-bit mode is actually much less slower than I expected. Scans are very sharp and nice tonalities can be obtained by applying tone curves in Photoshop. Some degree of grain aliasing seems to be occuring with pushed Tri-X negs, but the effect is not consistent from frame to frame; in any case, I need to gain more experience with the scanning process and to make prints of various sizes in order to assess to what extent this might be an issue, but I'm not too worried about it.
Anyway, thanks to all who contributed to this thread. Watch my RFF gallery (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=769), it sure will be growing now that I have a decent scanner. ;)
Cheers
Vincent