L
Leonhard Pang
Yes.
-Leonhard
Yes.
-Leonhard
D
Don
Doesn't a different light source produce different results?
In this case they're both LEDs (albeit Nikon's "pure" LEDs as opposed
to Minolta's "composite" white LED) so - and I'm only guessing - but
in this particular case the differences may therefore be less obvious.
However - it is my understanding - that a conventional light source
doesn't have the same problems with Kodachromes as Nikons do. Is that
wrong?
In other words, does a conventional light source Kodachrome scan
suffer from the notorious "blue cast" as well?
Don.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Only in terms of the collimation of the light source, which will resultDon said:
in different optical MTF characteristics and scattering. However, in
the case of both the Nikons and the Minolta Mk-1, the light is fairly
collimated, with the Minolta incorporating a Scanhancer derivative to
create a diffuse source option at the expense of significantly longer
scan times. This option os not available in the Mk-II, and I do not
know if the light source is permanently diffused or still partially
collimated.
Yes, it is wrong. There is no intrinsic reason why a LED source should
be any more susceptible to Kodachrome problems than a white light
source.
That is a completely different issue.
A colour cast is simply a white balance error. You need a different
white balance for KC with a LED scanner because the dyes have a
different spectral characteristic from the typical E-6 dyes and you are
measuring the colour at three specific wavelengths rather than averaging
across 3 wide and overlapping ranges of wavelengths. This is just
metamerism - the same effect that makes certain coloured material look
different under light sources with different spectral characteristics.
How often has your wife bought a blouse and skirt that match pretty well
in the shop (under nominally white fluorescent light) yet they look
different when she gets them home? Its just the same thing with
scanners. Since Kodak determine the amount of dye in the film, designed
in accordance with the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion to achieve a
white visual response, that change of spectral characteristic results in
significant difference in colour balance necessary with a LED source
than with a wide band sensor. However, this is nothing more than a
specific profile matched to the film type - and that is required for
accurate colour response with all scanner types irrespective of the
light source.
If you want to see just how different the spectral dye density and
characteristic curves typically are between KC and E6 films, take a look
at the three graphs in these pdf files:
http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/e88.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/a9/0900688a80316ba9/e126e.pdf
In particular, note just how different the characteristic curves are in
the shadows - the densest dye on KC is red, on E6 it is blue - so colour
balance in shadows will be different between these films irrespective of
the light source. However, also look at how different those spectral
dye density curves are as well! Interestingly, Kodak have put a section
that specifically deals with these issues on the page before the curves
of the Elite Chrome link.
S
SuperPop
With a Minolta 5400 (now one year old) I have scanned about 1000, 35mm
Kodachrome slides using ICE with good results.
I am very satisfied with the results I get from the scanner using the
Minolta software. I tried Vuescan but ran into color rendition problems.
I have read as many messages and reviews as I can, and have come to the
conclusion that my purchase was the best for the money involved and my
experience to date.
This is my second Minolta scanner (my first film scanner, a DiMage Scan
Dual, was no longer supported when I went to Windows XP). There have been no
mechanical problems with the 5400.
Just my 2c.
Matt D
Kodachrome slides using ICE with good results.
I am very satisfied with the results I get from the scanner using the
Minolta software. I tried Vuescan but ran into color rendition problems.
I have read as many messages and reviews as I can, and have come to the
conclusion that my purchase was the best for the money involved and my
experience to date.
This is my second Minolta scanner (my first film scanner, a DiMage Scan
Dual, was no longer supported when I went to Windows XP). There have been no
mechanical problems with the 5400.
Just my 2c.
Matt D
H
Hans-Dieter Oberle
SuperPop said:
...........
Hi,
could you please let me know how long it takes to scan 1000 slides with ICE and
the 5400 resolution?
How long does it take to scan a batch of 4 slides?
I intend to scan some 1000 slides.
Thanks,
Dieter
R
Robert Gee
Any French owner of Nikon V or 5400 II on this forum that could realise
scans samples for me ?
scans samples for me ?
B
Bart van der Wolf
SNIP
You don't want to sit and wait for the scanner to finish, so let it
run unattended.
I've done some timings in the past, but actual times will differ
depending on the density of the film, the interface used and the
computer speed:
In my example it would have taken some 19 minutes pure scanning time
(excluding setup and color correction).
You may want to pre-sort to reduce setup time and prioritize the more
important images, and already think about a storage and retrieval
solution. Good luck.
Bart
You don't want to sit and wait for the scanner to finish, so let it
run unattended.
I've done some timings in the past, but actual times will differ
depending on the density of the film, the interface used and the
computer speed:
In my example it would have taken some 19 minutes pure scanning time
(excluding setup and color correction).
You may want to pre-sort to reduce setup time and prioritize the more
important images, and already think about a storage and retrieval
solution. Good luck.
Bart
R
Robert Gee
What is bulk media support ?
K
Kennedy McEwen
These are optional adapters that fit to the Nikon LS-5000, 4000 & 2000Robert Gee <[email protected]> said:
scanners to enable unattended scanning of uncut rolls of 35mm film (up
to 40 exposures per roll), uncut APS rolls still in their cartridge (15,
25 and 40 frames) or 50 mounted slides at a time.
In the case of the bulk slide adapter, it can even be topped up with
slides without interrupting the scanner operation, enabling an infinite
(limited only by your computer's storage space) number of slides to be
scanned with only occasional user intervention.
For scanning large numbers of frames, bulk media support may not be
essential, but it certainly makes it a lot easier and faster.
For example, the LS-5000 will scan an individual slide in around 20
seconds, while implementing autofocus, ICE, GEM and any other processes
on a typical 3GHz P4 machine will take that up to about 3minutes. Adding
on some time for storage and moving the next slide in place, you are
looking at a few seconds over 3minutesfor each slide. So a set of 50
slides will be scanned in about 3hrs - meaning that you only need to
visit the scanner every 2 - 2.5hours to top the slide hopper up and it
will keep scanning indefinitely.
M
Markus Malmqvist
Bart van der Wolf said:
Hmmm... I bought a used Minolta 5400 Mark I unit about half a year ago.
It seems that with ICE (and GD) on, it takes at least 5 minutes. When
skanning a dark slide and trying to reach reasonable signal strength in the
result, scan time can easily exceed 20 minutes.
If used without ICE and GD, the actual scanning time for 5400dpi is about
70-85 seconds.
I am just thinking could my unit be defective? Underpowered cathode lamp or
IR?
My slides typically are dark (exposed to the left in modern terms
,because I think it is the correct way when you also want to project the
slides. Does the density also affect the needed IR exposure time?
I am satisfied with the results, but I have no experience with other
scanning units.
There is a slight calibration problem with long scans, there certain amount
(8-40 in the worst case) of CCD color sensors begin to accumulate erronous
base charge from left to right. Since this is quite easy to mask out when
needed, I have not (yet) sent the unit for service. Curiously, this
calibration error never seems to emerge when scanning negatives.
I also noticed, that even with "default" exposure (automatic slide
autoexposure OFF and general exposure HW control at zero) the light somewhat
penetrates the unexposed black part of a developed slide. At least with Fuji
Sensia 100. I was left wondering how much exposure in fact is useful when
trying to reach a result with enough quality information? Does the "partly
transparent" black actually have anything to do with this?
--markus
H
Hecate
Nope. The downside of the Minolta is that if you use any of the
filters and/or, multipass scanning, the time taken increases
enormously. Generally, it's better to find something else to do while
the scanner is working - I've become very good at Civilisation on
another computer for instance. ;-)
--
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...
M
Markus Malmqvist
Hecate said:
Yeah... But Bart's link:
<http://groups.google.nl/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/f2115a4d9251b6a0?dmode=source>
seemed to imply considerably shorter times?
Which are the "correct" ones?
--markus
R
Robert Gee
Ok, thank you. It can be interested for negatives but all my slides are mounted
for projection.
for projection.
R
Robert Gee
Kennedy said:
Good night,
Does the multiscanning is very interesting ?
Does it permit to artificially increase the Dmax of the scans ?
B
Bart van der Wolf
message SNIP
Assuming you are also using the Firewire interface, denser films
require longer exposure. So there is no "correct" scan time, just
correct exposure (meaning maximum exposure without saturating
sensors).
Bart
Which are the "correct" ones?
Assuming you are also using the Firewire interface, denser films
require longer exposure. So there is no "correct" scan time, just
correct exposure (meaning maximum exposure without saturating
sensors).
Bart
M
Markus Malmqvist
Bart van der Wolf said:
Yep, I use FW.
Yeah, I hope it is just about the density... But maybe it would be
interesting to know, if the scan time with ICE and GD, without autoexposure,
main HW exposure control at zero, would be same with different units? Or
does it even in this case depend on slide density?
But using my unit with dense slides I know one thing for sure: I can not use
"correct" exposure as defined by you above, because it would mean over 30
minute scanning times, and would cause big noise problems especially in the
right part of the scan. And the calibration error would also be amplified,
and could concern a significant amount of scan lines.
So a compromise is needed.
--markus
K
Kennedy McEwen
That is exactly what the bilk slide feeder is for. As explainedRobert Gee <[email protected]> said:
previously, it takes 50 mounted slides at a time and can be topped up
without interrupting the scan process - meaning uninterrupted bulk
scanning of mounted slides with minimum user intervention.
J
JJackson382
Good to hear from another Minolta user.
My 5400 scan time increases exponentially when each of these features
are turned on incrementally: ICE+GD, multi-sampling, and increasing
Exposure Control tab. Time for a coffee break. Fine for those who scan
leisurely, but definitely not for those who need to bulk scan or meet a
deadline.
Don't understand what you said, or how you determine that "CCD color
sensors begin to accumulate erronous base charge from left to right".
Care to clarify?
The manual is rather confusing regarding the "auto expose for slides"
preference setting. On p.32, it says, "When using autoexposure,
adjustments [of the Exposure Control tab] are made in reference to the
exposure determined by the AE system." I take this to mean that with the
"auto expose for slides" preference setting ON, the scanner will use its
autoexposure system, which is also its default. From there on, an user
can tweak the Exposure Control tab for more adjustments if necessary.
Since my understanding is that a scanner's autoexposure will attempt not
to clip either highlights or shadows, I leave the "auto expose for
slides" preference setting ON. Scans of both Kodachrome and Fujichrome
without blown out highlights or shadows come out very well with this
setting.
Markus said:
My 5400 scan time increases exponentially when each of these features
are turned on incrementally: ICE+GD, multi-sampling, and increasing
Exposure Control tab. Time for a coffee break. Fine for those who scan
leisurely, but definitely not for those who need to bulk scan or meet a
deadline.
My slides typically are dark (exposed to the left in modern terms
because I think it is the correct way when you also want to project the
slides. Does the density also affect the needed IR exposure time?
I am satisfied with the results, but I have no experience with other
scanning units.
There is a slight calibration problem with long scans, there certain amount
(8-40 in the worst case) of CCD color sensors begin to accumulate erronous
base charge from left to right. Since this is quite easy to mask out when
needed, I have not (yet) sent the unit for service. Curiously, this
calibration error never seems to emerge when scanning negatives.
Don't understand what you said, or how you determine that "CCD color
sensors begin to accumulate erronous base charge from left to right".
Care to clarify?
The manual is rather confusing regarding the "auto expose for slides"
preference setting. On p.32, it says, "When using autoexposure,
adjustments [of the Exposure Control tab] are made in reference to the
exposure determined by the AE system." I take this to mean that with the
"auto expose for slides" preference setting ON, the scanner will use its
autoexposure system, which is also its default. From there on, an user
can tweak the Exposure Control tab for more adjustments if necessary.
Since my understanding is that a scanner's autoexposure will attempt not
to clip either highlights or shadows, I leave the "auto expose for
slides" preference setting ON. Scans of both Kodachrome and Fujichrome
without blown out highlights or shadows come out very well with this
setting.
D
Don
Actually, I find the confirmation it was only a misunderstanding quite
reassuring! This clarification removes the last nagging feeling (and
it was only a feeling) about LEDs that I (for one) had.
If the conventional light source doesn't intrinsically (!) make any
difference to Kodachromes that makes the LED choice the perfect one!
Especially after you debunked the other, equally wrong, urban legend
about LEDs somehow causing the narrow DOF of Nikon scanners.
That was one of the first things I picked up in this group way back!
Indeed, it was your reference to a partially painted car which during
the day looked perfect in the shop, but parked outside under street
lighting clearly showed every spot touched up in the shop.
On reflection, it makes perfect sense. What we see is what bounces off
the object. If, however, the light we throw at the object is limited
in some way, then what bounces off will also be limited the same way.
By a coincidence (and after the other thread about characteristic
curves) I just downloaded a bunch of them from Kodak the other day!
Thanks once again, Kennedy, for throwing... erm... light (sic) on the
subject by... erm... reflecting (sic) on this! ;o)
Don.
C
Crames
Kodachrome has an inherent blue cast by design as it is intended for
tungsten projection in the dark. The eye does not completely adapt to
the projector light, so appears yellow. The blue cast is a color-
appearance tweak built in to Kodachrome in order to balance out
residual yellow appearance of the projector light. This is described in
"The Reproduction of Colour" by R.W.G. Hunt (chapter on Visual
Appearance).
So the blue cast of Kodachrome is not necessarily a scanner error
or device metamerism, although perhaps it is being exaggerated by
those things.
As shown in the characteristic curves, there is a difference in the
slopes of the three color channels. A correction to remove the cast
would be to make the curves more parallel and coincident. A white
balance correction of the scanner RGB exposures would only move the
curves up and down relative to one another (in the log-log domain)
without achieving coincidence at more than one point.
Rgds,
Cliff
tungsten projection in the dark. The eye does not completely adapt to
the projector light, so appears yellow. The blue cast is a color-
appearance tweak built in to Kodachrome in order to balance out
residual yellow appearance of the projector light. This is described in
"The Reproduction of Colour" by R.W.G. Hunt (chapter on Visual
Appearance).
So the blue cast of Kodachrome is not necessarily a scanner error
or device metamerism, although perhaps it is being exaggerated by
those things.
As shown in the characteristic curves, there is a difference in the
slopes of the three color channels. A correction to remove the cast
would be to make the curves more parallel and coincident. A white
balance correction of the scanner RGB exposures would only move the
curves up and down relative to one another (in the log-log domain)
without achieving coincidence at more than one point.
Rgds,
Cliff