Bulk Scanning + Scanner Questions (Coolscan V and Minolta 5400)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris Birkett
  • Start date Start date
C

Chris Birkett

I originally posted this question on photo.net, but I didn't really get many
replies to what I was asking. I'll post the original and clarify the
specifics at the end, hopefully that will help! I have tried to read
through posts here comparing the two scanners, but that's not *really* what
I'm looking for. Here's the original, anyway:


My question will probably end up being a bit complicated, so please bear
with me! I've read through a number of posts about the Coolscan V (including
"Coolscan V vs. Minolta 5400" and all that), but I have some specific
questions it would be great to have opinions on/answers to.
My grandparents recently asked me to scan approximately 3000 old slides for
them and put them on CDs/DVDs they can view on the TV. This is clearly a
rather daunting task, but they have offered to pay me quite generously for
doing it, so I want to do the best job I can.

However, I'm concerned my current setup may not be up to the job. I have a
Minolta Scan Dual III, which produces fairly good results in general. I
tried doing a couple of test batches of slides, and it took me approximately
43 minutes to do 40 slides in Vuescan at around the settings I would
probably use (~750ppi, 24 bit colour, etc.). Most of the slides they want
scanned are between 20 and 40 years old, and some (possibly many) have
faded, shifted colours, etc. Almost all are rather dusty. The Scan Dual III
doesn't have ICE or ROC, which means realistically, I wouldn't be able to
clean the dust (beyond what I can do with a blower brush), and colour
correction might become very time-consuming.

At the moment, the main option I'm considering is selling my current scanner
on eBay (looks like I'll get around $180 for it) and putting the proceeds
towards a new one. The models I've considered are the Nikon Coolscan V and
the Minolta Scan Elite 5400. Both of these can be had for less than $600,
which is probably the maximum I'd want to spend. Most of the work I do with
film is in black and white (which is why I didn't originally buy a model
with ICE), but ICE would certainly be a good feature to have, as I've
started using colour film more often. The Minolta model doesn't appear to
have ROC, which would be extremely useful if it actually works anywhere near
as well as ASF says it does.

I do have one concern with the Nikon model. The MA-21 slide adapter only
holds a single slide at a time, while the Minolta's adapter holds four (same
with my Scan Dual III). Changing slides isn't exactly difficult, but the
time spent doing it would add up after 3000! On the other hand, it seems the
Nikon scanner is faster than the Minolta, so these two factors might cancel
each other out. It would be great if owners of these two models could tell
me approximately how long it takes to do a 750-1000ppi scan with 24 bit
colour, ICE (and ROC for the Coolscan) enabled. My computer is fairly crappy
by today's standards, but I would add a USB2.0 PCI card as it would probably
make a difference.

If this project goes well, I might consider turning it into a business to
get some money for photography equipment (though probably not on the same
scale), so I do want to end up with the best equipment I can afford. A
scanner with an automatic slide feeder would be great, but I can't really
afford to spend that much money.

I hope I've been clear enough here. I'm sure I've missed something, but
we'll cover it later :). Any help would be greatly appreciated.


So, to clarify:

With either scanner, I'll get ICE, which would make a big difference. I'm
wondering how effective ROC actually is (is it worth choosing the Nikon for
this feature? - keep in mind I'll be scanning a lot of old slides). How
about scan times? I've read the Nikon is quite a bit faster, but it does
only hold a single slide at a time.

Responses on photo.net suggested all sorts of things from videotaping a
projector to buying a real bulk slide scanner. I do a lot of film
photography, which is why I have the Scan Dual III, so I want to end up with
a proper film scanner, and an upgrade would not be bad!

If anyone actually made it to the end of this post (phew!), thank you very
much for bearing with me, and I would really appreciate any thoughts on the
contents! Thanks!

- Chris

P.S if you would like to see the results of the test scans, please check out
http://www.pbase.com/bob_mcbob/tray1/ and
http://www.pbase.com/bob_mcbob/tray2/ They were scanned using Vuescan.
 
Hi Chris,

I have the minolta and I am very happy with it. But I do not have to scan
3000 slides!!!! ICE will only make things slower. MUCH slower. ROC I do not
know, I have it but don't use it. It doesn't make any difference to me, as
I'll work each image I am interested in with photoshop. BUT as far as I have
used it, I can tell you that it will not automatically produce good results
for every single case. On the contrary, you might need to work a lot with it
to get anything as good as some manual histogram manipulation. I do not know
about the nikon, as I do not have it, but the minolta has the polishing (or
so) function, which is automatic and delivers acceptable results for bulk
jobs of the kind you're interested in. Many people might say it's crappy, I
do not use it either, but as far as I have used it, it is quite acceptable
IMHO. Why don't you consider those new epson flatbeds such as the 4870? It's
cheaper than dedicated ones, it has ICE and bulk slide and negative loaders.
You can have two of them and load one while scanning the other. Just an
idea...

regards

dimitris
 
Dps said:
Hi Chris,

I have the minolta and I am very happy with it. But I do not have to scan
3000 slides!!!! ICE will only make things slower. MUCH slower. ROC I do not
know, I have it but don't use it. It doesn't make any difference to me, as
I'll work each image I am interested in with photoshop. BUT as far as I have
used it, I can tell you that it will not automatically produce good results
for every single case. On the contrary, you might need to work a lot with it
to get anything as good as some manual histogram manipulation. I do not know
about the nikon, as I do not have it, but the minolta has the polishing (or
so) function, which is automatic and delivers acceptable results for bulk
jobs of the kind you're interested in. Many people might say it's crappy, I
do not use it either, but as far as I have used it, it is quite acceptable
IMHO. Why don't you consider those new epson flatbeds such as the 4870? It's
cheaper than dedicated ones, it has ICE and bulk slide and negative loaders.
You can have two of them and load one while scanning the other. Just an
idea...
Click to expand...

The Epson flatbed isn't a bad idea for bulk scanning, but if I was going to
replace my Scan Dual III at all, it would be with another film scanner,
because it's also for personal use. I realize 3000 slides will take rather
a long time no matter what, but it shouldn't be so bad over a couple of
months, especially at low resolutions. Besides, it means a lot to my
grandparents, it's definitely worth the time.

If it's not too much trouble, it would be extremely valuable to me if you
could tell me how long a low-res scan (1000ppi) with ICE enabled takes for a
slide. Thanks!

- Chris
 
The Epson flatbed isn't a bad idea for bulk scanning, but if I was going
to
replace my Scan Dual III at all, it would be with another film scanner,
Click to expand...

.... right ....
If it's not too much trouble, it would be extremely valuable to me if you
could tell me how long a low-res scan (1000ppi) with ICE enabled takes for a
slide. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'll o that, but tomorrow, because today I will not have time. As far as I
can recall, it takes about a minute or so, but don't take that for granted,
I am not positive. I can tell you for sure that full 5400 dpi with ICE and
GD takes about 6 minutes....

Anyway, I'll try that and let you know
 
Chris Birkett said:
I originally posted this question on photo.net, but I didn't really get many
replies to what I was asking. I'll post the original and clarify the
specifics at the end, hopefully that will help! I have tried to read
through posts here comparing the two scanners, but that's not *really* what
I'm looking for. Here's the original, anyway:
Click to expand...

I do have one concern with the Nikon model. The MA-21 slide adapter only
holds a single slide at a time, while the Minolta's adapter holds four (same
with my Scan Dual III). Changing slides isn't exactly difficult, but the
time spent doing it would add up after 3000! On the other hand, it seems the
Nikon scanner is faster than the Minolta, so these two factors might cancel
each other out. It would be great if owners of these two models could tell
me approximately how long it takes to do a 750-1000ppi scan with 24 bit
colour, ICE (and ROC for the Coolscan) enabled. My computer is fairly crappy
by today's standards, but I would add a USB2.0 PCI card as it would probably
make a difference.
Click to expand...

Since scanning would probably take at least a minute even on the
Nikon, why not get a second adapter? You could reload the second
while the first is passing through the machine.

Make sure your computer can handle the large files these scanners can
generate. I was getting along okay with 100MB+ files on a Pentium
M/512MB, but switching to a newer system made a big difference. Also,
a number of people have commented that ICE processing via supplied
scanner drivers can be a huge drain on processor resources--even with
enough memory, a slow CPU might add minutes to your scan time. If it
helps any, Vuescan has a reputation for avoiding this particular
cleaning-related bottleneck.

false_dmitrii
 
Since scanning would probably take at least a minute even on the
Nikon, why not get a second adapter?
Click to expand...

Loading a slide into the MA-21 is simply a matter of sliding it into
place - no holder to load as such, the MA-21 simply plugs into the
scanner and is ready to accept your slide. When the scan is complete,
simply push the button and the slide is ejected and a new one can be
slid in place.

I bet that loading and ejecting a single slide on the Nikon series takes
a lot less than a quarter of the time to load and remove four slides
from the Minolta!
 
Kennedy McEwen said:
Loading a slide into the MA-21 is simply a matter of sliding it into
place - no holder to load as such, the MA-21 simply plugs into the
scanner and is ready to accept your slide. When the scan is complete,
simply push the button and the slide is ejected and a new one can be
slid in place.
Click to expand...

Whoops. :(
 
If it's not too much trouble, it would be extremely valuable to me if you
could tell me how long a low-res scan (1000ppi) with ICE enabled takes for a
slide. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I did the scan at 1024x768 and the time was 7 mins! That's how much it takes
me to scan at 5400 dpi! It never occured to me that ICE time could be
independent to the scanning resolution. It makes sense but is it so?
 
Chris Birkett said:
If it's not too much trouble, it would be extremely valuable to me if you
could tell me how long a low-res scan (1000ppi) with ICE enabled takes for a
slide. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Nikon LS-4000
8-bits per channel, RGB colour
Full 35mm frame crop
ICE = Normal

1000ppi : 29.4s
2000ppi : 34.0s
4000ppi : 38.6s

Autofocus and exposure implemented at the preview stage, so have not
been included in these times.

These times should be similar to the Nikon LS-V with the same settings,
while the LS-5000 should be roughly half the time.
 
Dps said:
I did the scan at 1024x768 and the time was 7 mins! That's how much it takes
me to scan at 5400 dpi! It never occured to me that ICE time could be
independent to the scanning resolution. It makes sense but is it so?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that it took so long, but at what resolution did you scan
in terms of dpi? If it's not set to 2700 or 1350, which can be simply be
scanned by only using 1/2 or 1/4 of the CCD elements, it is very well
possible that the scanner actually scans at 5400dpi, then resamples the
image to the specified solution. If the OP asks for 1000 ppp, I guess in
case of the Minolta, you'd better scan at 1350dpi. If exactly 1000ppi
are needed you can downsample afterwards.
With a 4000dpi Nikon, 1000 dpi shouldn't be a problem.
 
Chris said:
I've read through a number of posts
about the Coolscan V (including
"Coolscan V vs. Minolta 5400" and
all that) ...
My grandparents recently asked me
to scan approximately 3000 old slides
for them and put them on CDs/DVDs ...
Click to expand...

The Minolta Elite 5400 is a fine scanner; I have one and I
like it. But it is slow. I scan one or two images when I need
them. To scan a few dozen images at once still is okay.

But it is virtually impossible to scan 3,000 slides at once
in any reasonable time --- it would take many months! The
same holds for the Nikon Coolscan V. For that job, you
definitely need a scanner that feeds from a slide magazine
--- e. g. the Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED or 5000 ED with
slide feeder (expensive) or the Reflecta DigitDia 3600 (no
Digital ICE).

Olaf
 
I'm surprised that it took so long, but at what resolution did you scan
in terms of dpi? If it's not set to 2700 or 1350, which can be simply be
scanned by only using 1/2 or 1/4 of the CCD elements, it is very well
possible that the scanner actually scans at 5400dpi, then resamples the
image to the specified solution. If the OP asks for 1000 ppp, I guess in
case of the Minolta, you'd better scan at 1350dpi. If exactly 1000ppi
are needed you can downsample afterwards.
With a 4000dpi Nikon, 1000 dpi shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

I used the photocd preset, which resulted to sth like 1048 dpi. I did not
touch it, as it is close to 1000 as the OP requests and also by assuming
that this would not b interpolated.
 
Back
Top