35mm scaners...which?

I have a minolta dimage elite device, which to be honest, i find is rubbish at doing scans of negatives, loads of noise and the detail is no where near photograph range. Maybe its me using it wrong but ive tried everything i know and its no better with old or new neg strips.

So now im looking for somethign better. Looking at flatbed as they can do copys of paper too which my prove nice in the future and 35mm negs.

Do you have one your self? is it one you would recomend getting?

Do you have a The DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, same as me, do you find it works well, are there any tests i can do to see if the machine is faulty or if its me doing it wrong.

TYIA

ColiN

ColinUK said:

Do you have a The DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, same as me, do you find it
works well, are there any tests i can do to see if the machine is
faulty or if its me doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

I have used one, and being honest..it is one of the best on the market! Seriously..

What software are you using with it? That could be a factor. Also what types of film are you scanning? You will find higher ISO film grainy. With high resolution scans, it is very revealing on images, more so than you would see in anything bar huge prints.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Used the software that came with the machine. normal fuji reala film at 100iso.

I just cant seem to get a good image off it as i thought i would always seems grainy to me, too grainy no matter what settings i use.

I think i need to send it somewhere to make sure its all ok before throwing it in the bin.

TY for the reply.

ColiN

ColinUK said:

Used the software that came with the machine. normal fuji reala film
at 100iso.

I just cant seem to get a good image off it as i thought i would
always seems grainy to me, too grainy no matter what settings i use.

Click to expand...

Well you have some grain control on that software, but it will soften the image. Sharpening is another area for scanners, too high..and it enhances the appearance of grain.

Many users are using vuescan..

http://www.hamrick.com/

It is inexpensive and good. But it is worth pointing out, that pp is important for film scans, and that some software is better suited for the scan with pp after..and some better just using the software.

ColinUK said:

I think i need to send it somewhere to make sure its all ok before
throwing it in the bin.

Click to expand...

Are the scans in focus?? Silly question, but if its slightly off it can make a difference.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

I find Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 to be very good. For MF I have the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.

The scans are in focus, as far as i can tell, i do tend to leave it on automatic. The pictures are, well, soft, noisy and not really useable for me from any negs at the mo. Will try that new software but at the mo, im getting a screwdriver ready to open it up and see if it just needs a good clean out inside.

Maybe it is the minolta software im using. But i did expect greater things from it than what i am currently getting.

Cheers.

Spoken to a few ther people and then a repair company and of course minolta supports. Seems i have a hardware fault on the device and the repair will cost £83 to start with, but if its anything big that needs replacing then it will cost more.

I think the bloke i bought it from 2 years a go knew this and got rid of it onto me.

Is it worth the effort and the 4 week wait, to get this repaired or shall i just go get another one and chalk this up to experince and throw the device away?

ColinUK said:

Is it worth the effort and the 4 week wait, to get this repaired or
shall i just go get another one and chalk this up to experince and
throw the device away?

Click to expand...

Well follow this auction (I have no connection with the seller) and see what the price ends up as.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Konica-Minolta-Scan-Elite-5400-film-scanner-MINT_W0QQitemZ280254649529QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item280254649529&_trkparms=72%3A984 |39%3A1|66%3A2|65%3A12& trksid=p3286.c0.m14.l1318

If you can get a cost of repair including parts..then you will have a better idea. I would think it will be cheaper for repair. I bet that gets a good bit more than the current bids

I was going to get a minolta myself, but decided to go with a newer maker, aka spare parts worries etc. But they are very good..and worth having for serious film work

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

There are also the Nikon Coolscan V and 5000ED which are also top notch... They came after the Minolta... I personally prefer working with the Nikon scanners. I have used several. Including the 2800 and 4000 scanner. That said, several people I have spoken to is that above 4000 dpi, you are scanning grain even on the best of films... So, if you are using the 5400 dpi setting on the Minolta, this could be introducing some grain. Regardless, the Nikon does render the scan bit differently, giving it an image quality I prefer over the Minolta, which I have used.

msolea said:

There are also the Nikon Coolscan V and 5000ED which are also top
notch... They came after the Minolta... I personally prefer working
with the Nikon scanners. I have used several. Including the 2800 and
4000 scanner. That said, several people I have spoken to is that
above 4000 dpi, you are scanning grain even on the best of films...
So, if you are using the 5400 dpi setting on the Minolta, this could
be introducing some grain. Regardless, the Nikon does render the scan
bit differently, giving it an image quality I prefer over the
Minolta, which I have used.

Click to expand...

Of course, scanning grain does not mean that the there is no more resolution to be had even if the grain becomes more intrusive. Grain is the film equivalent of digital noise, but it is NOT the picture forming element of film! At some point the grain completely masks the real details though, which is why fast films have lower real resolution. However, if you ask experienced drum scanner operators they will tell you that going from 4000 spi to 8000 spi WILL give you extra details from high resolution and low grain films such as the Fuji Velvia, but in most cases it is not advisable to use very high scanning resolution, since it will make the grain more visible.

So in most cases 5400 spi is not much better than 4000 spi and with fast films it might actually be worse. It also makes no sense to scan ISO 400 films* at much higher than 2400-3200 spi (Fuji Provia 400X is a notable exception). ISO 800 and faster films might show pronounced grain even at 2400 spi.

• Negatives exposed at EI slower than box speed at are of course a different matter. An ISO 400 color negative exposed at EI 100 will have almost as small grain as a "real" ISO 100 color negative film, but less contrast. Pulled B&W film will also have smaller grain than their box speed would indicate, although it is not as readily apparent as with color negative films.

SLove said:

Grain is the film equivalent of digital noise, but it is NOT the picture forming element of film!

Click to expand...

If 'grain' isn't the picture forming element of film, then what is? Magic pixie dust?

The scanner resolution arguement has everything to do with true DPI and nothing to do with rated, or interpolated DPI. Many scanners, especially flatbeds, use interpolated numbers and not actual optical DPI.

Having drum scanned a lot of film in my career I'll be happy to admit that any color film other than 100speed slide film starts to look like a joke beyond 2000dpi actual optical DPI. The big reason you crank higher DPI for commercial scans is to yield a bigger file for reproduction purposes. A 6x7 Velvia scan at 2000dpi looks a lot better than 35mm Velvia scanned at 4000dpi.

However, assuming the scanner is capable of 4000 or > 5000dpi true optical resolution (Epson flatbeds need not apply here) is the resulting file may be grainy, but it will be easier for noise reducing software to work with and smooth out because there's more data to work it.

The other grain problems are often due to poorly matched white/black points and poorly written scanner profiles. Quite often a good film profile provided with a scanner (or 3rd party software) is more valuable than the scanner itself.

With the Minolta film scanner, try turning everything automatic off (except focus.) It's an excellent scanner and should provide great results.

Remember, all digital output needs to be sharpened. Try USM or Smart Sharpen in Photoshop, or an add-on such as Focalblade.

For flatbed scanners, I now use a Canon 8800F (LED light source) for film scans and it does better than I thought possible even with 35mm. But the results need post-processing (WB, curves, sharpening, etc.) Better than results I got from an Epson.

Regards,
Ed

I have printed kodachrome 25 slide film -- 16 by 20 that were scanned by a Nikon coolscan 5000. The prints were tack sharp viewed up close. I had to off the automatic functions and ice( for dust spots) to keep noise from twilight (dsrk)t sky shots.
Buzz

Having tried to go the 'cheap and versatile' route myself by buying a Canonscan 9950F flatbed scanner for $550+shipping, I can say that I wouldn't use it professionally for 35mm scanning. It was highly touted as being perhaps the best flatbed scanner for 35mm in its day, but I was not satisfied with 35mm slide scans from the Canonscan. They were just not that sharp. It works pretty well for 120 and 4x5, but the negative size is so much larger that the process is much less demanding on the hardware. I then borrowed a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED from a friend and was blown away by the results! The scans of my Fuji Velvia 50 slides were so good that I considered going back to film entirely! I don't know if there are better scanners out there now than the 9950F; it was top-of-the-line when I bought it. I don't see scanner manufactureres spending a lot of R&D dollars on slide scanners or slide capable flatbeds, however. Nikon just announced the discontinuation of its $600 Super Coolscan V. I think that market is shrinking, so I recommend the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. Alas, I had to return the 4000 ED I'd borrowed...sigh.

i went through the exact same thing. I bought the 9950F first .. its good to about 2000 dpi. Ended up being dissatisfied over all and plonked down for the 5000. It is night and day btwn the two. I'd also recommend just gettng the 5000.

Cheers all for the advice and comments.

I will send the scanner to get fixed, £84 to send it off to be look at and it has to be shipped to Germany for 4 weeks, may cost more if any hardware needs replacing....... GULP.

Ive put £200 to one side for it, and if i still think its not worth it, watch out for it on ebay lol..

May go have a look at the nikon ones, see what they cost and this time, buy it new and not 2nd hand of someone untested.

Cheers all.

ColiN

. . . best try the recommendation of using Vuescan form http://www.hamrick.com/

I had a little experience with the KM5400 and with the Velvia slide that I scanned, it proved it could outresolve my Coolscan 5000. However, I tried to scan a frame of C41 - a Kodak 100UC, and could not believe how badly a result could possibly look after having just rendered a great slide scan. The owner told me the same issues he gets while scanning his own negatives - a hit or miss, but apparently slides were not a problem. We never did try Vuescan - didn't know about it then, but downloading the free trial should give you a better indication perhaps of just how good this scanner can be.

ColinUK said:

I have a minolta dimage elite device, which to be honest, i find is
rubbish at doing scans of negatives, loads of noise and the detail is
no where near photograph range. Maybe its me using it wrong but ive
tried everything i know and its no better with old or new neg strips.

So now im looking for somethign better. Looking at flatbed as they
can do copys of paper too which my prove nice in the future and 35mm
negs.

Do you have one your self? is it one you would recomend getting?

Do you have a The DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, same as me, do you find it
works well, are there any tests i can do to see if the machine is
faulty or if its me doing it wrong.

TYIA

ColiN

Click to expand...

ColinUK said:

I have a minolta dimage elite device, which to be honest, i find is
rubbish at doing scans of negatives, loads of noise and the detail is
no where near photograph range. Maybe its me using it wrong but ive
tried everything i know and its no better with old or new neg strips.

So now im looking for somethign better. Looking at flatbed as they
can do copys of paper too which my prove nice in the future and 35mm
negs.

Do you have one your self? is it one you would recomend getting?

Do you have a The DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, same as me, do you find it
works well, are there any tests i can do to see if the machine is
faulty or if its me doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

I use a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro for doing film scans; and [similar to LesDMess] have found a significant "quality" difference between scans of slides and scans of negatives. The film scanner is excellent for slides, but not quite so good for negatives.

I've found that most negatives tend to show more "grain" when scanned with the film scanner. Also, I've noticed that the negatives I've received from clients for scanning tend to have more dirt/dust and scratches than the slides they provide. That's probably just a factor of "handling & storage" differences; but, it seems [in my experience] that the negatives have a greater tendency to get scratches than slides.

Scratches aside, "grain" seems to be the biggest issue when scanning negatives. The "obvious" solution [in my experience] is to scan at a lower resolution to minimize/eliminate the grain appearance in the film scan; that makes it easier to remove any remaining grain artifacts via software.

But, I've found the "best" way to digitize negatives is to scan/copy the prints rather than the negatives. And, I've found that using a DSLR with a good flat-field Macro/Copy lens [I use the Nikon 60mm/f2.8D] gives better results than a flatbed scanner; particularly if the prints are on matte or textured photo paper.

Flatbed scanners at high resolution will tend to pick up the texture of the photo paper; probably a result of the "zero-DOF" characteristics of flatbed scanners. And, that resulting "noise" is more difficult to remove via software than the grain from scanning negatives directly.

When using the DSLR/copystand to digitize prints, however, the texture of the photo paper isn't a problem [providing you have good uniform lighting]. As a result, I've been using the copystand/DSLR for nearly all of my hard-copy scanning needs, and have essentially "retired" my flatbed scanners.

Of course I still use the dedicated film scanner for digitizing slides at high resolution; no flatbed scanner will give you as good a result.

Hope this helps.

Has anyone tried negatives on the Coolscan 5000, I was wondering how they compared

to scanning slides. on it. Like I stated- it took me a while to get good scans using slides. Scanning on automatic with ice on produced s totally unacceptable Scans.. Scans were dark

and skies were all noise ad looked horrible,!! After playing around (turning auto-contrast and ice off) -- the results were remarkable. I used the scanner at a local college.
Buzz

Buzzzman said:

Has anyone tried negatives on the Coolscan 5000, I was wondering how
they compared
to scanning slides. on it. Like I stated- it took me a while to get
good scans using slides. Scanning on automatic with ice on produced
s totally unacceptable Scans.. Scans were dark
and skies were all noise ad looked horrible,!! After playing around
(turning auto-contrast and ice off) -- the results were
remarkable. I used the scanner at a local college.

Click to expand...

About your slide-scan problems.

If you were scanning Kodachrome slides [mentioned in your previous post], the problem was exactly what you eventually determined. For Kodachrome, you need to turn off the DigitalICE [and GEM and ROC]. The manual even indicates this limitation for all chrome slides [and also for silver B&W negatives].

As far as scanning color negatives, see my post below...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28941099

I've found the "noise" [grain, actually] problematic when scanning negatives; and it's particularly noticeable in "blue sky" areas. And it's not limited to a specific film scanner brand/model; I've seen it on both Minolta and Nikon film scanners.

Hope this helps.