Dimage Scan Elite 5400 vs Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II

  • Thread starter Thread starter brose63
  • Start date Start date
Kennedy McEwen said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I find it irritating when people
make what are no more than basic product loyalty recommendations along
the lines of "Buy what I have, it is the best!" and then go on to
justify that recommendation by citing a feature or facility that is
present on *all* of the units under consideration!


WHY???? You haven't mentioned a single feature that would prevent you
from getting exactly the same level of satisfaction from the 5400
MkII,
yet you bought and recommend one but completely reject the other. Why
do YOU think they differ so dramatically?
Click to expand...
<SNIP>

You are correct: my over-enthousiastic text is completely unfounded! I
was carried away by the much better results I get as compared to the
Scan Dual IV I used before.

I was also thinking about the remark of someone here who, in the manual
of his model II, couldn't find the Custom Wizard that offers the
opportunity to select what frames to scan in batch mode. Lacking this
feature, in his experience the batch mode always scans all 6 frames.
He called the KM-software 'unfinished' IIRC.
Now I don't have the opportunity to check this for myself, so all this
could be wrong...

Greetings, Alex
 
Most LEDs are tiny, and are more like point light sources. You are saying
that you can just as well build big ones?
Click to expand...
Not just as easily, but certainly practical. For example, I have in
front of me at the moment a 2" high, 4 digit seven segment LED display
and each vertical segment must be almost 1" long.

You can also build arrays of LEDS.
But then it is the coating that provides the diffuse light and not the LED.
Click to expand...
Yes - and if you look at the LED indicator on your monitor, PC, scanner
or printer it will also have a uniform illumination across a significant
area, but in this case the surface of the package is providing the
diffusing effect. There are many ways of getting a diffuse LED light
source. It isn't forced to be collimated, that is just a method of
ensuring that the maximum amount of light available from the source
(whatever it happens to be) passes through the film and into the imaging
lens aperture, instead of being lost.
 
Pavel Dvorak said:
Just a naive question: Isn't this approximating the human vision closer
than using three almost monochromatic colour sources? After all,
the colour sensors in the human eye are sensitive to rather broad
spectral bands, widely overlapping each other, particulary the red and
green ones.
Click to expand...
Yes, the human eye averages across a wide range of wavelengths, but the
human eye wasn't designed for optimum viewing of film, isn't an
intermediate step which requires further physical image reproduction and
also, usually, has a massively powerful processing engine intimately
coupled to it to optimise the signals it produces.

It is a common fallacy that imitating nature is the optimum solution to
all problems.
 
The other major change is the loss of Firewire interface. Well, if you
have several scanners running at the same time and use XP then that
could force a change of workflow to overcome some Micro$oft limitation,
but that is hardly Minolta's fault. One interface on the scanner is
certainly cheaper than two, and two interfaces is one more than will be
used.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it has rather more to do with Minolta trying to sell
more scanners. With a USB and Firewire interface you can install the
scanner on two computers, one using firewire, one using USB and then
two people can use it - just not at the same time. However, if two
people need a film scanner and there's only one interface... :)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
So can anyone produce scans of the same source from the 5400 I and 5400
II so we can compare them?

: )
 
Kennedy said:
The complaints about the MkII mainly come from owners of the Mk1 and are
almost invariably about the removal of the Grain Dissolver - but nobody
seems to have ascertained if it is a loss of capability or if it is an
option that has become unnecessary as a consequence of the new light
source.
Click to expand...

They added Kodak/ASF's "Digital GEM" software (reduces grain)
apparently
to compensate (a program I've tried and not really liked).

I infer from that that there was a 'loss' in the optical design
with the grain dissolver's removal.

Mike
 
They added Kodak/ASF's "Digital GEM" software (reduces grain)
apparently
to compensate (a program I've tried and not really liked).
Click to expand...
Not necessarily to compensate. GEM can be used, to good effect, with
the Mk1 and the grain dissolver.
I infer from that that there was a 'loss' in the optical design
with the grain dissolver's removal.
Click to expand...
It is inference without evidence, though.
 
Roger said:
So can anyone produce scans of the same source from the 5400 I
and 5400 II so we can compare them?
Click to expand...

There seem to be very few owners of both models participating in this
newsgroup ...

Bart
 
Bart van der Wolf said:
There seem to be very few owners of both models participating in this
newsgroup ...
Click to expand...
Is there another *newsgroup* that they are participating in?
 
Not newsgroups, but there are plenty of forums and Yahoo groups.
Click to expand...

I learned the hard way that Yahoo are simply spam merchants - whether
you opt out of their spam listings or not, they repeatedly reset your
preferences without your consent and then claim that was how you set
them up in the first place, then they ignore you when you provide
evidence that proves they did it.

Having finally managed to block all the crap that signing up to just one
Yahoo forum created, I will NEVER use those shysters again!
 
I learned the hard way that Yahoo are simply spam merchants - whether
you opt out of their spam listings or not, they repeatedly reset your
preferences without your consent and then claim that was how you set
them up in the first place, then they ignore you when you provide
evidence that proves they did it.

Having finally managed to block all the crap that signing up to just one
Yahoo forum created, I will NEVER use those shysters again!
Click to expand...

Yep. I found it was quicker and easier to dump the email addy which
I'd set up specially for Yahoo (Be Prepared - I knew the Girl Guides
would come in useful <g>).

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Kennedy said:
It is inference without evidence, though.
Click to expand...

True. Their elimination of "grain dissolver" hardware and
the adding of software that is typically used for removing
grain after-the-fact may be purely coincidental. I don't
really know there is a connection. I'm just a wild risk
taking guy, I guess.

Mike
 
True. Their elimination of "grain dissolver" hardware and
the adding of software that is typically used for removing
grain after-the-fact may be purely coincidental. I don't
really know there is a connection.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the illusion that GEM would be of no benefit with
GD, which is certainly not the case.

It also appears that you don't believe, having successfully licensed and
applied one Kodak product (ICE), that Minolta would have extended that
license to the full ICE3 package at the earliest opportunity (just as
Nikon did!) whether the grain dissolver was included or not.
I'm just a wild risk
taking guy, I guess.
Click to expand...

No, just someone else that jumps to conclusions from prejudices rather
than facts.
 
It also appears that you don't believe, having successfully licensed and
applied one Kodak product (ICE), that Minolta would have extended that
license to the full ICE3 package at the earliest opportunity (just as
Nikon did!) whether the grain dissolver was included or not.
Click to expand...

I played with GEM and ROC a couple of times, but I found it a complete
waste of time. I don't know if Minolta's implementation is any better,
but getting a new preview for each change in GEM settings, and the fact
that it didn't do all that much compared to NeatImage, made it a quickly
forgotten feature. (I don't have enough badly faded slides to compare
ROC with increasing the saturation in PhotoShop).
 
Hecate said:
Yep. I found it was quicker and easier to dump the email addy which
I'd set up specially for Yahoo (Be Prepared - I knew the Girl Guides
would come in useful <g>).
Click to expand...

With a dozen yahoo e-mail accounts and membership in a few yahoo groups,
I don't have the same spam experience as you do. Some groups do get
spammed, and I do receive yahoo ads. But there are no more than one per
month per group or account. I would not consider that too much. Perhaps
I'm either extra careful when registering for an account, or the groups
are well moderated.
 
I played with GEM and ROC a couple of times, but I found it a complete
waste of time. I don't know if Minolta's implementation is any better,
but getting a new preview for each change in GEM settings, and the fact
that it didn't do all that much compared to NeatImage, made it a quickly
forgotten feature. (I don't have enough badly faded slides to compare
ROC with increasing the saturation in PhotoShop).
Click to expand...

I agree with that. They don't do anything that can't be done
afterwards. It's yet another set of "auto" functions which promise to
turn coal into diamonds, to coin a phrase. As well as contribute to
scanner software bloat.

However, even though it may pretend to work sometimes, generally it
doesn't. But it looks good to the "the great unwashed" and for them it
is, indeed, a good tool. But for those who know which side of
Photoshop is up all that stuff is better done afterwards.

Then again, I may be considered biased because I'm a devout follower
of the "raw scan sect". ;o)

Don.
 
I learned the hard way that Yahoo are simply spam merchants - whether
you opt out of their spam listings or not, they repeatedly reset your
preferences without your consent and then claim that was how you set
them up in the first place, then they ignore you when you provide
evidence that proves they did it.

Having finally managed to block all the crap that signing up to just one
Yahoo forum created, I will NEVER use those shysters again!
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that Yahoo (and most other free email providers)
actually *want* you to receive a *small* amount of spam - even if you
don't use their forums. That way they can show you more of their spam
(ads).

For example, after logging in, you're not taken to the Inbox directly,
but are shown "You have x new messages". Well, if they just opened
directly in the Inbox view (like Gmail!), I'd see how many new
messages I have, thank you very much!!

But by presenting this pointless and useless intermediate screen (and
I haven't found a way to turn it off) they also get to show you an
extra ad. And then for each spam one opens (assuming one is silly
enough to do that) they show you another ad.

I mean, when the same message is sent to gazillion users there's
something fishy and they certainly have a way to block that. When the
same spam message then appears, day in day out, it shows quite clearly
they intentionally let some spam in (e.g. when the mailbox is empty)
to make one stick around longer.

But, I guess, that's the price of a "free" account...

Don.
 
Philip Homburg said:
the fact
that it didn't do all that much compared to NeatImage,
Click to expand...

It does pretty much the same as Neatimage whilst used at a useful level.
Both fall over with different ways of distorting the image when used in
excess, but when GEM is integrated in the scan process, and preset for
the scanner characteristics, it is NeatImage that isn't worth the
bother, not GEM.
 
It does pretty much the same as Neatimage whilst used at a useful level.
Both fall over with different ways of distorting the image when used in
excess, but when GEM is integrated in the scan process, and preset for
the scanner characteristics, it is NeatImage that isn't worth the
bother, not GEM.
Click to expand...

Fortunately (for me) I did this test already. See
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/gem/details.txt

Between
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/gem/ngem4.png
and
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/gem/ngem0-NI.png
I know which one I prefer.

And there is not that much difference between level 4 GEM and the blur in
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/gem/ngem0-g15.png
 
Back
Top