Konica-Minolta leaving photo business - scanners?

[Djon]

I purchased two Minolta scanners in a row from Amazon.com, the first
failed after a few scans and its replacement never operated...I
switched to Nikon after they advised me that most of their Minoltas
came back and that they were at that point unwilling to sell more
5400II. They did stop selling them (I checked online) for a couple of
weeks. A bunch managed to be sold as "refurbs" according to one claim
on p.n. ..he was referring to B&H.

The 5400 II was absolute junk mechanically, all one needed to do was
look inside to understand. It weighed half the Nikon V for good
reason..it's built like a $0.99 toy. If you think I'm wrong, open it
and look inside. It only takes two screws.

I'm sure the 5400II was adequate in non-mechanical respects, but why
one would want such embarassing trash without a dedicated Ice/infared
light and without the latest Ice application, Nikon's Ice4, I don't
know: I don't believe Minolta's bigger files offer any scanning
advantage, certainly not wtr detail resolution.

The one test I've seen that compared that Minolta with Nikon V showed
that Minolta's optical resolution was identical to Nikon's, despite the
wasted MB. My own tests, using the same film that I scanned with my
Minolta before it failed, and using my Nikon V, show them to be
identical (didn't compare Ice, didn't compare B&W adequately...I
preferred Minolta's application to Nikons but I use Vuescan instead
anyway).


The good news is that Sony will take over on repairs...Minolta was
reprehensible.

 

[rafe b]

I purchased two Minolta scanners in a row from Amazon.com, the first
failed after a few scans and its replacement never operated...I
switched to Nikon after they advised me that most of their Minoltas
came back and that they were at that point unwilling to sell more
5400II. They did stop selling them (I checked online) for a couple of
weeks. A bunch managed to be sold as "refurbs" according to one claim
on p.n. ..he was referring to B&H.

I don't own a Minolta film scanner so I can't speak
to issues of reliability.

What I do know is that scans from the 5400 are
among the sharpest I have seen, and in at least
one objective test, shown the highest MTFs
among comparable machines, including Nikon.

On my scan-snippets site (URL below) the
5400 certainly holds its own, and then some.

I've owned and used film scanners from numerous
brands, including drum scanners (ScanMate 5000.)

Currently, I own and use a 4.5 year old Nikon
LS-8000 and a 2-week old Epson 4990.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
scan snippets:
www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

 

[Surfer!]

My classics collection is relatively limited (mostly baroque, lots of
Bach, renaissance) but I've noticed a few releases in other genres
where you can hear the hiss or, worse, the snap-crackle-pop of the
original vinyl! Apparently, they just digitized it and put in on CD!

<Snip>

There is a lot of work going into cleaning up old recordings. For
starters, historic recordings have a limited pitch range, especially at
the top. Then, removing too much of the surface noise can remove even
more of the necessary top of the recorded sound, leaving it flat &
lifeless. Finally, there is the problem of getting good quality source
material and equipment to play it on, and often the fragility of the
original material. More is at:

http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/default.asp?label=NaxosHistorical

I guess some transfers are just put onto CD - but by no means all. When
it comes to later recordings the master tapes are often still around,
and some 60s recordings sound fantastic. It's also the 'voice from the
past' thing. I can listen to Casals playing, and he was born in 8176 -
before my grandfather! It's got that 'living history' thing about it
for me. I also love to hear Dennis Brain *who should still be alive -
car crash driving back to London after a concert in Edinburgh) with his
wonderful creamy sound which seems so effortless, and Jack Brymer for
the same reason. Jackeline Du Pre is another artist who we should be
truly thankful has left many great recordings, despite her short career,
and the old Maria Callas recordings...

The Casals cello recordings are pretty good for 65 years old, but there
is only one instrument in the recording and it's a low timbre...

There are great new artists as well of course - Bryn Tervel is one. Not
only a fabulous voice that sounds effortless (again) but beautiful clear
diction. Being able to make the words audible in Wagner is a superhuman
feat IMHO.

 

[Don]

....
I guess some transfers are just put onto CD - but by no means all. When
it comes to later recordings the master tapes are often still around,
and some 60s recordings sound fantastic. It's also the 'voice from the
past' thing. I can listen to Casals playing, and he was born in 8176 -
before my grandfather! It's got that 'living history' thing about it
for me.

I'm sure they're much more careful about classics. The albums I refer
to above were just pop albums from late 60s and early 70s. I find that
compilations are the worst, I guess they just didn't have the masters.

It also depends a lot on the label. Reputable labels do a much better
job and they not only use the original masters but apply useful
digital post-processing as well.

I actually had to do some of that myself when I digitized my
cassettes. Moreover, I had some Portastudio tapes (a 4-channel
cassette recorder/mixer running at twice the speed of a regular
cassette player) and that took a lot of - shall we say - creative work
to convert into the digital domain!

There are great new artists as well of course - Bryn Tervel is one. Not
only a fabulous voice that sounds effortless (again) but beautiful clear
diction. Being able to make the words audible in Wagner is a superhuman
feat IMHO.

I actually saw Bryn Tervel recently on TV but as I say I'm into early
Renaissance, Gregorian chants (although I'm a devout atheist! ;o),
lots of baroque, "anything with harpsichord on it", and similar.

From there my (classical) taste jumps forward to minimalists although
I don't like Phillip Glass at all. I consider him a charlatan. I
prefer some of Wim Mertens work, Steve Reich, Michael Nyman and the
like. BTW, I haven't even started digitizing my LP collection!

Don.

 

[Djon]

I agree that Minolta 5400 is "among the sharpest"... the 5400II may be
even sharper, due to its LED light source. My operable 5400II appears
to have equalled my Nikon V with the same film...a tribute to Minolta's
electronics, even though the rest of that machine was overt junk.

One should look at the 5400II in person, compared to Nikon, before
wasting the money, particularly looking inside. It devolved from a
superior ancestor in order to be cheaper to build. It weights half as
much as the Nikon V for obvious reasons, doesn't enjoy an
enlarger-average-quality negative carrier, doesn't enjoy Nikon's Ice4
(superior to Minolta's Ice because of Nikon's dedicated infared light
source).

The two 5400s are related only in their film holders, their software,
and their file size (the II at 5400ppi may be sharper than the original
and was said in one test to yeild line pairs equal to Nikon's 4000ppi,
despite bigger files). The historic comparison between Nikon and
Minolta products was spotlighted by the 5400II.

If I was replacing my Nikon V today it MIGHT be with a Minolta Multi
Pro, which handles MF well, accepts anti-newton glass modified carrier,
and is reportedly well built...available faround $500 less than Nikon
9000...might get one anyway, despite my Nikon: if the Minolta does
what Minolta does, I can still scan 35mm.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I don't own a Minolta film scanner so I can't speak
to issues of reliability.

What I do know is that scans from the 5400 are
among the sharpest I have seen, and in at least
one objective test, shown the highest MTFs
among comparable machines, including Nikon.

On my scan-snippets site (URL below) the
5400 certainly holds its own, and then some.

I've owned and used film scanners from numerous
brands, including drum scanners (ScanMate 5000.)

Currently, I own and use a 4.5 year old Nikon
LS-8000 and a 2-week old Epson 4990.

I agree entirely Rafe, but I hear that the Minolta Mk.II was
significantly inferior in build to the Mk.I, so Djion has a valid point
that anyone looking to buy a scanner now should bear in mind. For 35mm,
the NIkon LS-5000 is the best of what is available now.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I completely agree. There are some purists, however, who still insist
on vinyl but I find CDs not only more convenient but also better in
the sense they don't deteriorate with time.

Oh yes they do!

Now, I haven't found any of my own recorded CDs to have failed so far
(earliest recorded in 1997) but 9 years is barely a fraction of the time
that photography "as we know it, Jim" has been around, and there are
plenty of reports of CDs that have become unreadable in that time. Added
to which, scratch a CD and you lose the image recorded under that
scratch in its entirety. Scratch a negative and you lose a (very small)
part of the image. Take a look at some century old original negatives
and ask yourself this question: "Would my CD recorded images be
recoverable with the same level of damage?".

I am not the only person to have decried the fugitive nature of the
digital age, but if I were an employee of Kodak, Fuji or Agfa I would be
pressing my management right now for the professional tool of the future
- a "scanner" that records digital images back onto silver based black
and white film! Ideally, this would be a 4-field system - red, green
and blue channels and a luminance monochrome image. It might not be
the original, but it is directly recoverable when the technology fails
or becomes obsolete.

 

[Guy Jordan]

<Snip>

There is a lot of work going into cleaning up old recordings. For
starters, historic recordings have a limited pitch range, especially at
the top. Then, removing too much of the surface noise can remove even
more of the necessary top of the recorded sound, leaving it flat &
lifeless. Finally, there is the problem of getting good quality source
material and equipment to play it on, and often the fragility of the
original material. More is at:

http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/default.asp?label=NaxosHistorical

I guess some transfers are just put onto CD - but by no means all. When
it comes to later recordings the master tapes are often still around,
and some 60s recordings sound fantastic. It's also the 'voice from the
past' thing. I can listen to Casals playing, and he was born in 8176 -
before my grandfather! It's got that 'living history' thing about it
for me. I also love to hear Dennis Brain *who should still be alive -
car crash driving back to London after a concert in Edinburgh) with his
wonderful creamy sound which seems so effortless, and Jack Brymer for
the same reason. Jackeline Du Pre is another artist who we should be
truly thankful has left many great recordings, despite her short career,
and the old Maria Callas recordings...

The Casals cello recordings are pretty good for 65 years old, but there
is only one instrument in the recording and it's a low timbre...

There are great new artists as well of course - Bryn Tervel is one. Not
only a fabulous voice that sounds effortless (again) but beautiful clear
diction. Being able to make the words audible in Wagner is a superhuman
feat IMHO.

There is always the laser turtable at elpj.com if you want to recover
the most from the vinyl. The demo CD is impressive but at $15k too steep
for me.

-Guy

 

[Djon]

" "optics and display devices" sounds like it may well include
scanners."

I hope that if they do stay in scanners they'll outsource the design
and manufacture of a new generation of machines to a more credible
company. Maybe they'll hire Sony for that. Or Microtek. Or Epson.

 

[Don]

Oh yes they do!

Yes, the medium itself does but as the next sentence:

It's the same digital
domain advantage I find so attractive in digital photography.

showed I was really referring to the data which is digital and as such
does not deteriorate.

Scratch a negative and you lose a (very small)
part of the image. Take a look at some century old original negatives
and ask yourself this question: "Would my CD recorded images be
recoverable with the same level of damage?".

Exactly! Which is why I don't use any sort of compression. That way
even if the CD/DVD is scratched parts of the image can be recovered.
Of course, that also gets into the question of backups, etc.

I am not the only person to have decried the fugitive nature of the
digital age, but if I were an employee of Kodak, Fuji or Agfa I would be
pressing my management right now for the professional tool of the future
- a "scanner" that records digital images back onto silver based black
and white film! Ideally, this would be a 4-field system - red, green
and blue channels and a luminance monochrome image. It might not be
the original, but it is directly recoverable when the technology fails
or becomes obsolete.

Or use any other less volatile material. For example, a while back
there was a system of storing computer data on paper in a so-called 2D
bar code. Paper is much more durable than most of today's digital
media and can recover from thorn bits or coffee stains the same way as
scratched film in the above case.

The problem with all those approaches is data density. Even with
compression (which was inherent in that paper system) they were only
able to store a relatively "few" KB on each sheet of paper. The actual
numbers escape me but, at 120 MB per image, it would require reams of
paper to back everything up.

Welcome back, BTW!

Don.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Exactly! Which is why I don't use any sort of compression. That way
even if the CD/DVD is scratched parts of the image can be recovered.

Not necessarily. If you are lucky you will get some recoverable data,
if not then the entire image is gone - compression or not. If you are
really unlucky then the disc simply becomes unreadable.

Or use any other less volatile material. For example, a while back
there was a system of storing computer data on paper in a so-called 2D
bar code. Paper is much more durable than most of today's digital
media and can recover from thorn bits or coffee stains the same way as
scratched film in the above case.

However, you still need some additional system involving relatively high
technology to read that paper data - and what guarantee is there that a
reader will be available? Recording silver based images makes at least
the monochrome image directly view able, and the technology to get full
colour recovered from the RGB frames is relatively trivial. Recall all
of those Russian full colour images from over a century ago?

The problem with all those approaches is data density. Even with
compression (which was inherent in that paper system) they were only
able to store a relatively "few" KB on each sheet of paper. The actual
numbers escape me but, at 120 MB per image, it would require reams of
paper to back everything up.

Higher storage density does tend to go hand in hand with reduced
archival reliability - it really just comes down to the activation
energy required to produce a defect, which is clearly less for smaller
defects. That is why the loss of a single piece of information should
not risk the entire image and, whilst CD/DVD/HDD drives all incorporate
error detection and correction processes, they are limited in what they
can achieve.

Silver archived analogue images score highly in this regard - they are
intrinsically robust at the image level for the reasons already given,
and they are pretty high density. 4 35mm frames would have the
capability of a full frame digital camera output - recorded in proven
robust analogue form. Currently, the 16Mb raw output of such a camera
would permit you to store about 50 such images on a CD - about 5 rolls
of standard 35mm film in the format I suggested.

Welcome back, BTW!

Yes, I have been exploring alternative media for a few weeks. ;-)

 

[Don]

Not necessarily. If you are lucky you will get some recoverable data,
if not then the entire image is gone - compression or not. If you are
really unlucky then the disc simply becomes unreadable.

Yes, it's quite possible to lose the whole image, but the problem with
compression is that even if one bit is off the whole file refuses to
decompress. There is "PKFix" for example but all it does is eliminate
(i.e. delete) corrupt files in case of a multi-volume ZIP file. In
case of a single file, it creates an "empty" ZIP file. I suppose there
are ways to still try and recover at least some data but it would be
very time consuming.

On the other hand there can be quite a few corrupt bits in an
uncompressed image and lots of it can be recovered. In other words,
treat those lost pixels like dust and scratches.

Indeed, I call such corrupt bits lost due to media trouble "digital
dust" or "digital scratches". ;o)

However, you still need some additional system involving relatively high
technology to read that paper data - and what guarantee is there that a
reader will be available?

I'm talking about a very low tech approach with a garden variety
flatbed scanner in mind. For example, I'm now going through some very
old Byte magazines cutting out interesting articles and throwing out
the rest. And, for a while, Byte used to print those 2D bar codes as a
way to disseminate programs. Back then flatbeds were a rarity and
people scanned them using those handheld scanners which are
notoriously unreliable because of the "wiggle" as the scanner is drawn
down the page. So, using a flatbed would improve accuracy considerably
but even with that improvement data density is still very limited.

Recording silver based images makes at least
the monochrome image directly view able, and the technology to get full
colour recovered from the RGB frames is relatively trivial. Recall all
of those Russian full colour images from over a century ago?

Sure do! I just saw a thing on TV about that very recently.

But I think the problem with density remains. Film will no doubt yield
higher density than paper but it will take several "shots" to encode a
single frame.

BTW, out of curiosity, let do some "back of the envelope"
calculations. What's the highest data density which can still be
recovered reliably using a commercial 4000 dpi film scanner?

Also, how does using multiple levels (rather than just on/off i.e.
black/white) factor into this? Obviously "multiplexing" several levels
of gray would increase density but will, presumably, need higher
accuracy so these levels of gray can be reliably decoded.

I'm assuming that using binary levels the dots can be smaller and
still reliably decoded, but if "multiplexed" with several levels of
gray, I'm assuming, the dot needs to be bigger to be able to reliably
encode these layers of gray. Assuming that is correct (is it?) at
which point does one hit "diminishing returns" problem?

Can we come up with some approximate rule-of-thumb for how many frames
of digital data would be needed to fully encode one image (assuming
16-bit per channel, of course)?

Higher storage density does tend to go hand in hand with reduced
archival reliability - it really just comes down to the activation
energy required to produce a defect, which is clearly less for smaller
defects. That is why the loss of a single piece of information should
not risk the entire image and, whilst CD/DVD/HDD drives all incorporate
error detection and correction processes, they are limited in what they
can achieve.

Indeed. That's why I instinctively distrust (but nevertheless crave)
higher density data storage media. From what I understand, for
example, DVDs have a higher error correction (about 10 times that of
CD, if memory serves). That sounds very good on paper but how much
more unreliable are DVDs? It is my understanding, again, that DVD
error correction compensates for this increase in unreliability over
CDs and then some. So, not only are DVDs more reliable in absolute
terms but also in relative terms, which is key.

Besides, DVDs also have a physical advantage in that they are more
durable than CDs. Namely, the back (label) side of a CD is very thin
and most damage to CDs occurs from this side. DVDs apparently have a
much thicker layer on the label side and are therefore much sturdier.

Silver archived analogue images score highly in this regard - they are
intrinsically robust at the image level for the reasons already given,
and they are pretty high density. 4 35mm frames would have the
capability of a full frame digital camera output - recorded in proven
robust analogue form. Currently, the 16Mb raw output of such a camera
would permit you to store about 50 such images on a CD - about 5 rolls
of standard 35mm film in the format I suggested.

Oh, well, that answers my question above! ;-) Still, out of curiosity,
what density and how many levels per pixel would you use in such a
system?

Yes, I have been exploring alternative media for a few weeks. ;-)

Ah, yes! I like to watch TV as well! ;o)

Don.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:03:39 +0000, Kennedy McEwen

I think the problem with density remains. Film will no doubt yield
higher density than paper but it will take several "shots" to encode a
single frame.

Why should it take several shots to achieve the density? It doesn't
take more than one shot to get densities higher than most scanners can
cope with on film now!

BTW, out of curiosity, let do some "back of the envelope"
calculations. What's the highest data density which can still be
recovered reliably using a commercial 4000 dpi film scanner?

From Nyquist, the highest data rate is half the sampling rate, so
2000bits/inch - assuming binary coding.

Also, how does using multiple levels (rather than just on/off i.e.
black/white) factor into this?

Through the signal to noise ratio at the data rate. With fine grain
slow film, eg. Pan F, you might get the equivalent of 5-6 bits at that
data rate, so about 10 pixels at 2000ppi required to reliably store one
4000ppi 16-bit encoded rgb image.

Can we come up with some approximate rule-of-thumb for how many frames
of digital data would be needed to fully encode one image (assuming
16-bit per channel, of course)?

One 35mm frame of 4000ppi colour image data at 16-bits is around 1Gb.
Stored as above in digital format you get around 28Mb per 35mm
monochrome frame - excluding error detection and correction. So you
would need approximately a 36 exposure roll to record a single colour
frame in rgb at 16-bit depth.

This is an indication of just how poor the digital encoding scheme is,
both in as much as the original data does not justify the full 16-bit
depth in each colour and need for adequate discrimination of the bits as
recorded.

Oh, well, that answers my question above! ;-) Still, out of curiosity,
what density and how many levels per pixel would you use in such a
system?

Well, I was talking about recording direct analogue images, rgb
separates, with a monochrome direct view reference. Because this does
not use excessive levels in the highlights (just as many as the normal
original image) nor require any guards between bit levels (since the
analogue signal is incremental, minor errors are have negligible effect
on the final image) you can achieve much better utilisation of the film.

Ah, yes! I like to watch TV as well! ;o)

Yes, the Canon 5D will replay all of the images on its memory card
directly to a TV as a slide show. ;-)

 

[David Blanchard]

...For 35mm, the Nikon LS-5000 is the best of what is available now...

Why the LS-5000 and not the 8000 or 9000?

I just upgraded a computer with a SCSI port to one that has USB and
Firewire. As a result, my Nikon LS-2000 is not directly compatible
with the new machine (but could be with adaptor cards). Even so,
NikonScan will not support the LS-2000 on the newest Mac computers, so
I plan to upgrade...

....but was thinking about the LS-8000. Now you give me something new
to think about. I'm definitely interested in your comments regarding
the LS-5000 and would like to hear more.

David

 

[Tony Polson]

Why the LS-5000 and not the 8000 or 9000?

Why do you need a medium format scanner *for 35mm*?

For me, the biggest advantage of the LS-5000 over the medium format
models is the ability to use the SF-210 slide feeder. This will
accept up to 250 mounted slides, depending on the mount thickness.

 

[David Blanchard]

Why do you need a medium format scanner *for 35mm*?

For me, the biggest advantage of the LS-5000 over the medium format
models is the ability to use the SF-210 slide feeder. This will
accept up to 250 mounted slides, depending on the mount thickness.

My mistake. I had the 8000 and 5000 confused thinking the 8000
was the replacement for the 5000...which it isn't. Sorry.


-db-

 

[Tony Polson]

My mistake. I had the 8000 and 5000 confused thinking the 8000
was the replacement for the 5000...which it isn't. Sorry.

Not a problem.

 

[Don]

Why should it take several shots to achieve the density? It doesn't
take more than one shot to get densities higher than most scanners can
cope with on film now!

No, I meant to encode the data from one analog frame you would need
multiple frames of digital data.

One 35mm frame of 4000ppi colour image data at 16-bits is around 1Gb.
Stored as above in digital format you get around 28Mb per 35mm
monochrome frame - excluding error detection and correction. So you
would need approximately a 36 exposure roll to record a single colour
frame in rgb at 16-bit depth.

That's what I meant! So, assuming that particular approach, it would
take a considerable amount of film to encode scanned images in digital
format. Even though that's a lot of overhead there are also
considerable advantages e.g. we know the longevity of film, while we
are only guessing the longevity of new digital media such as DVDs.

This is an indication of just how poor the digital encoding scheme is,
both in as much as the original data does not justify the full 16-bit
depth in each colour and need for adequate discrimination of the bits as
recorded.

That's true, but the above method could also be used as a generic
storage medium for other type of data as well.

Speaking of weird storage media, I saw a program once about using
sticky tape as a storage medium! The tape remains rolled up and a
laser focuses on the substrate as the roll of tape rotates. I forget
the details (capacity, etc) but it was demonstrated to be working.

Yes, the Canon 5D will replay all of the images on its memory card
directly to a TV as a slide show. ;-)

LOL! Very good!

Don.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Why the LS-5000 and not the 8000 or 9000?

I just upgraded a computer with a SCSI port to one that has USB and
Firewire. As a result, my Nikon LS-2000 is not directly compatible
with the new machine (but could be with adaptor cards). Even so,
NikonScan will not support the LS-2000 on the newest Mac computers, so
I plan to upgrade...

...but was thinking about the LS-8000. Now you give me something new
to think about. I'm definitely interested in your comments regarding
the LS-5000 and would like to hear more.

Well, actually you have a point, probably not the one you meant based on
your answer to Tony, but you have reminded me of something that maybe
important to a new scanner buyer.

The LS-8000 and LS-9000 are medium format scanners which are larger and
more expensive than the LS-5000. In addition, they do not support the
bulk feed adapters that the LS-5000 does, so they can be much slower
when scanning lots of frames.

We can easily discount the LS-8000 because it is an earlier generation
of scanner, the MF equivalent of the LS-4000, and also has a known bug
which prevents it from operating in high speed mode without producing
banding.

The newer LS-9000 might, however, be worth considering especially if you
intend to scan a lot of Kodachrome. This is the only scanner in Nikon's
entire range to be fitted with ICE-Pro, a more robust version of ICE
that reputedly works much more reliably with Kodachrome. The LS-5000
uses the same level of ICE as previous scanners for dirt and dust
removal, and this is a bit hit and miss with Kodachrome, working with
some images and films and not working with others - dependant on the
particular generation of emulsion and/or processing of your film.

So, if you are not too worried about speed or price and have a lot of
Kodachrome to scan then perhaps you should consider an LS-9000 - and
definitely if you plan to scan larger than 35mm. However, at almost 5x
the price of the LS-5000 I would want to be sure that the ICE-Pro worked
with a significant sample of my Kodachrome before shelling out for it.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Kennedy McEwen

The LS-8000 and LS-9000 are medium format scanners which are larger and
more expensive than the LS-5000. In addition, they do not support the
bulk feed adapters that the LS-5000 does, so they can be much slower
when scanning lots of frames.

<Snip>

The bulk feeders for the LS5000 are for slides, and for uncut rolls of
film. The slide feeder is very useful if somewhat temperamental at
times. I don't have the roll feeder but since all my films have been
cut into strips of 4 when they were processed it wouldn't be any help to
me.