nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400

[mark]

I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
other similarities, but in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
What should be my other considerations when deciding between these two
scanners. At first I was sold on the Minolta 5400, but I have read
several less than inspiring reviews. While the Minolta model has an
edge over the nikon by offering a claimed 5400 ppi, I have recently
read a less than enthusiastic review in PC Magazine regarding the 5400
(rating it worst among dedicated and flat bed scanners) and I have
read several user reports complaining about mechanical malfunctions
from users. In CNET, the review rated the Minolta 5400 7 out of 10
with the following remarks: "While the Dimage 5400 produces very good
scans, with excellent dynamic range and shadow detail, it isn't
capable of the sharpness we saw from the Nikon Coolscan V. As you can
tell, I am a little confused in deciding which model to pick. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Mark

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
other similarities, but in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
What should be my other considerations when deciding between these two
scanners. At first I was sold on the Minolta 5400, but I have read
several less than inspiring reviews. While the Minolta model has an
edge over the nikon by offering a claimed 5400 ppi, I have recently
read a less than enthusiastic review in PC Magazine regarding the 5400
(rating it worst among dedicated and flat bed scanners) and I have
read several user reports complaining about mechanical malfunctions
from users. In CNET, the review rated the Minolta 5400 7 out of 10
with the following remarks: "While the Dimage 5400 produces very good
scans, with excellent dynamic range and shadow detail, it isn't
capable of the sharpness we saw from the Nikon Coolscan V. As you can
tell, I am a little confused in deciding which model to pick. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated.

Whilst there have been a few bad reviews of the Minolta, it would appear
that many of these are a consequence of superficial use, relying on the
default focus, which is less than perfect. The manual focus control
available on the scanner appears to make a significant improvement,
based on the images that I have seen. There have been some excellent
images produced by the Minolta which undeniably outperform those from
the Nikon.

As a long time Nikon scanner user, I have no hesitation in recommending
the Minolta.

Nikon's chief weapon is speed; speed and the optional roll film
adapter...
Nikon's two chief weapons are speed, the optional roll film adapter and
the equally optional bulk slide feeder...
No, no, Nikon's three weapons are speed, the optional roll film adapter,
the optional bulk slide feeder AND the ability to work reliably with
Vuescan...
Dammit, AMONGST Nikon's weapons are...
but if speed, bulk film and Vuescan aren't an issue, the Minolta is a
better scanner - perhaps they expected the Spanish Inquisition!
;-)

 

[Dierk Haasis]

but if speed, bulk film and Vuescan aren't an issue, the Minolta is a
better scanner - perhaps they expected the Spanish Inquisition!

This week I came around "testing" the Minolta rather extensively; I
had to scan over 170 transparencies from the family vaults. They
spanned the last 50 or so years, with redly tinted Agfas, badly faded
and tinted Perutz, and the odd Orwo and Kodak (both had been in much
better condition than the others). Many photos had been taken under
less than perfect conditions, containing harsh contrast, underexposure
and as a result obvious film grain.

I used the 5400 with Vuescan with calibration through Minolta's sw to
be sure I have a correctly calibrated scanner with the latest firmware
loaded.

The scanning took about ten minutes for a single picture - 4x
sampling, no GD, IR filter Medium, 16bit, Archival. This is with
saving the TIFF but without preview and manual cropping. GD lengthens
the process considerably, other IR filter settings don't change much.

Vuescan's IR algorithm, BTW, sometimes works very good and sometimes
almost not at all. Also the autofocus worked quite well with only
three pictures out of focus on preview; that could be remedied by
setting the focus point manually and let VS autofocus again on scan.

If I hadn't the necessity to crop manually scanning would have been an
automatic process except for loading the holder. Admittedly I wished
for a quicker way, scanning and loading. But the quality is
outstanding, in Photoshop I only corrected for the colour casts in the
original photo, contrast and inabilities of the photographers (like
oblique horizons). Otherwise the - colour managed - images could have
been printed directly (that is, those that were straight and didn't
deteriorate over time).

Sometime ago I saw comparisons for the Minolta and the Nikon with the
Minolta "winning" hands down. Actually the differences in image
quality are so small that we are splitting hairs here. Considering the
price the Minolta would still be my first choice, it is at least as
good, if not better, as the Nikon but at less cost.

Leaves the matter of the software. Neither Minolta's nor Nikon's is
the Holy Grail in scanning but both are better than their reputation.
from what I've seen Minolta now offers colour management, too, an
important step up.

For both scanners Lasersoft offers silverFast, a really good but
expensive piece of sw with only minor squabbles in usability - the
icons on the buttons are too small, and the UI is a bit on the cryptic
side (not to forget the completely inadequate documentation).

Both scanners also work with Vuescan, although some folks do have
problems when using VS with the Minolta. Problems I haven't seen, yet.
Bare in mind that the firmware update of the Minolta scanner seems to
be a software-based solution: The fw seems to be loaded every time you
calibrate with the Minolta sw. So you have to switch on the scanner,
then start Minolta's sw (which you can quit after calibration) and
after calibration start Vuescan. One time this week I had to quit and
switch off everything and restart. For reasons I can't even imagine
one batch of photos came out way off.

 

[Alan Browne]

I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
other similarities, but in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
What should be my other considerations when deciding between these two
scanners. At first I was sold on the Minolta 5400, but I have read
several less than inspiring reviews. While the Minolta model has an
edge over the nikon by offering a claimed 5400 ppi, I have recently
read a less than enthusiastic review in PC Magazine regarding the 5400
(rating it worst among dedicated and flat bed scanners) and I have
read several user reports complaining about mechanical malfunctions
from users. In CNET, the review rated the Minolta 5400 7 out of 10
with the following remarks: "While the Dimage 5400 produces very good
scans, with excellent dynamic range and shadow detail, it isn't
capable of the sharpness we saw from the Nikon Coolscan V. As you can
tell, I am a little confused in deciding which model to pick. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated.

Consider that the 5400 captures 82% more pixels from an image v. the 4000 dpi
scanners and one begins to understand that at that level they might appear soft
to the uninitiated.

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows several steps in a 5400 dpi scan.
Note in the 3rd -> 4th image the amount of detail that can be extracted. The
5th image will give you a feeling for what a 300 dpi printed image would look at
from a full 5400 dpi scan. Obviously, downsampled to a 4000 equivalent it would
be sharper looking.

Go not to PC Magazine / CNET for photographic advice. (Do you go to photography
magazines for computer advice?). They know not of what they speak (in spades).
Chasseur d'image gives the Nikon 5000 a slight edge over the 5400, but states
that the detail available from the 5400 is greater (duh). In any case, a recent
set of user tests were done, and the 5400 came out on top:

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

Another 'complaint' regarding the 5400 is the slow scan time with ICE ... and
again, if you realize that you're getting 82% more pixels it is normal that it
would take more processing time.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[mark]

This week I came around "testing" the Minolta rather extensively; I
had to scan over 170 transparencies from the family vaults. They
spanned the last 50 or so years, with redly tinted Agfas, badly faded
and tinted Perutz, and the odd Orwo and Kodak (both had been in much
better condition than the others). Many photos had been taken under
less than perfect conditions, containing harsh contrast, underexposure
and as a result obvious film grain.

I used the 5400 with Vuescan with calibration through Minolta's sw to

be sure I have a correctly calibrated scanner with the latest firmware
loaded.

The scanning took about ten minutes for a single picture - 4x
sampling, no GD, IR filter Medium, 16bit, Archival. This is with
saving the TIFF but without preview and manual cropping. GD lengthens
the process considerably, other IR filter settings don't change much.

Vuescan's IR algorithm, BTW, sometimes works very good and sometimes
almost not at all. Also the autofocus worked quite well with only
three pictures out of focus on preview; that could be remedied by
setting the focus point manually and let VS autofocus again on scan.

If I hadn't the necessity to crop manually scanning would have been an
automatic process except for loading the holder. Admittedly I wished
for a quicker way, scanning and loading. But the quality is
outstanding, in Photoshop I only corrected for the colour casts in the
original photo, contrast and inabilities of the photographers (like
oblique horizons). Otherwise the - colour managed - images could have
been printed directly (that is, those that were straight and didn't
deteriorate over time).

Sometime ago I saw comparisons for the Minolta and the Nikon with the
Minolta "winning" hands down. Actually the differences in image
quality are so small that we are splitting hairs here. Considering the
price the Minolta would still be my first choice, it is at least as
good, if not better, as the Nikon but at less cost.

Leaves the matter of the software. Neither Minolta's nor Nikon's is
the Holy Grail in scanning but both are better than their reputation.
from what I've seen Minolta now offers colour management, too, an
important step up.

For both scanners Lasersoft offers silverFast, a really good but
expensive piece of sw with only minor squabbles in usability - the
icons on the buttons are too small, and the UI is a bit on the cryptic
side (not to forget the completely inadequate documentation).

Both scanners also work with Vuescan, although some folks do have
problems when using VS with the Minolta. Problems I haven't seen, yet.
Bare in mind that the firmware update of the Minolta scanner seems to
be a software-based solution: The fw seems to be loaded every time you
calibrate with the Minolta sw. So you have to switch on the scanner,
then start Minolta's sw (which you can quit after calibration) and
after calibration start Vuescan. One time this week I had to quit and
switch off everything and restart. For reasons I can't even imagine
one batch of photos came out way off.

Thanks Gents-

Not to beat a horse to death or parrot in your case, but if you have
not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
comments?

Thanks again.

Mark

 

[Wilfred]

Dierk Haasis wrote:

Bare in mind that the firmware update of the Minolta scanner seems to
be a software-based solution: The fw seems to be loaded every time you
calibrate with the Minolta sw. So you have to switch on the scanner,
then start Minolta's sw (which you can quit after calibration) and
after calibration start Vuescan.

Hmm, interesting theory - I never realized that it could be the complete
firmware that is downloaded to the scanner every time. I thought it was
just a calibration result that was stored in the scanner and I suspect
that is what Ed Hamrick thinks, too. If your theory is true, it would be
a useful clue for Ed Hamrick for improving VueScan.
BTW I apply the same procedure as you do and I have no problems with
VueScan on the 5400 either. Perhaps the ones reporting problems are
using an older version of the Dimage Scan Utility.

 

[Fernando]

not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
comments?

Yes: they don't know how to properly test a scanner.
Not that I expect more from those magazines...

The Minolta 5400 is an excellent performer, and speed apart, it easily
rivals the SuperCoolscan 5000 as for final image quality. I'd say it's
better from a resolution standpoint, while not as good in the color
accuracy department, but this is only my personal opinion. Both
machines are capable of excellent scans, appropriate for your 16x20"
needs if originals are good enough.

The problem with the DSE 5400 is the AF. I've got an excessive
percentage of non-sharp scans by leaving the AF on, so now I
manually-focus all my scans, and as a result, I get excellent
sharpness from both slide and negative scans. I guess that's the
problem those "testers" from PCWorld and CNet encountered.

Some examples from a DSE 5400 guru:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400.htm

Fernando

 

[Alan Browne]

Thanks Gents-

Not to beat a horse to death or parrot in your case, but if you have
not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
comments?

1) I don't look for advice on computers in photography magazines, you shouldn't
look for advice on photo gear in computer magazines. Chasseur D'Image (a
photography magazine) rated the 5400 slightly below the Nikon 5000 (based on
speed and sharpness) while noting that the 5400 delivered more detail...

2) http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
speaks for itself

3) Print at 16 x 20? Cool. Check: http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm

4) Speed? At 5400 dpi, you are getting 82% more pixels than at 4000 dpi. This
has a minimal effect on non-ICE scans, but a direct effect on ICE scans... they
take longer to process.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp

"We examined printouts of uncorrected scans..." should tell a lot
about how serious you should take the words from a PC oriented
magazine on the specialism of scanning and printing film originals.

and

<http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-31
36_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top> for more information.

Who claim (amongst other mistakes) that multisampling "averages out
some of the dirt and noise". Complete bollocks. But then Cnet isn't
exacly known for their Photographic expertise either.

Bart

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Thanks Gents-

Not to beat a horse to death or parrot in your case, but if you have
not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_
7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
comments?

Either of these scanners is capable of producing a 16x20" print from a
slightly cropped 35mm frame. I wouldn't produce a print that size from
a substantial crop, because the camera physical optics and the film
itself isn't up to it. The difference between the scanners isn't enough
to make the difference between an acceptable print and an unacceptable
one in any situation, but the Minolta will generally give slightly
better resolution if the detail is there on the film. Most of the time
it isn't - hence the flexibility of review conclusions. If your raw
material has the detail, and speed isn't a problem, go with the Minolta.
If speed, volume or colour purity (the value of Nikon LED illumination)
is a major driver for your choice then choose the Nikon - but it needs
to be worth it to justify twice the price.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

At 5400 dpi, you are getting 82% more pixels than at 4000 dpi. This
has a minimal effect on non-ICE scans, but a direct effect on ICE
scans... they take longer to process.

This common assessment never ceases to amuse me.

With ICE off, the Nikon LS-5000 scans at 20s.
Witha 3GHz P4 and ICE on, it scans at about 46s.
So ICE is responsible for about 26s of scan time.

Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.

I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here with
similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer than this -
so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta down, it just
hasn't been designed for speed.

 

[WD]

I am a user of the Nikon 5000. I have not used the 5400. Do not
underestimate the usefulness of the 'grain dissolver' in the 5400. I
have tried a 'scanhancer' (diffuser similar in concept to the grain
dissolver) with the Nikon 5000. I have scanned BW as well as color
negs and positives with the 'scanhancer' diffusion plate. I have found
phenomenal improvement in some images (due to the diffused light
source). To be fair, in some images there is virtally no difference
between diffuser and no diffuser. I wish the Nikon had this built in
as does the Minolta.

 

[Wilfred]

This common assessment never ceases to amuse me.

With ICE off, the Nikon LS-5000 scans at 20s.
Witha 3GHz P4 and ICE on, it scans at about 46s.
So ICE is responsible for about 26s of scan time.

Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.

I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here with
similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer than this -
so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta down, it just
hasn't been designed for speed.

That's right - the Minolta has only one sensor array (like the LS-50);
the LS-5000 has two ('designed for speed'). Also, when scanning with ICE
using the Minolta software, the grain dissolver is always enabled. This
increases exposure time.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Hmm, interesting theory - I never realized that it could be the complete
firmware that is downloaded to the scanner every time.

Oh, I thought we agreed on that a long time ago, or was it another
forum ...

If you look through your Minolta DSE 5400 directories you'll find the
new firmware. And I remember that I wondered why it is there without
any instruction. When it came out a lot of testing between the users
went on and we came up with this theory, but I haven't actually tested
it myself (by simply moving the firmware file to another place).

Currently scanning for me is much more important than testing - I've
been a "follower" of the Minolta since it came out, never had such
trouble as others reported.

I'd be interested in the results of the firmware test, if anybody can
do it, which means he has to have a piece of equipment known to
perform wrongly with the old firmware.

 

[Alan Browne]

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Alan Browne wrote

Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to

Yes, that's what "82% more" means ... no need for 5 sig. digs. of precsion.

correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.

I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here with
similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer than this -
so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta down, it just
hasn't been designed for speed.

Regarding your numbers above, the rate of processing would have to be determined
for both scanners on the same computer. In my case, an ICE'd 5400 dpi slide
takes 4.5 minutes, where a non ICE takes about 45 seconds.

For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is also active
during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.

Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working 1 image in
photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go through 1 to 2 more scans... so there
is more work waiting for me in the rawscan directory than what I'm able to
complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is in the main a non-issue for
my workflow and I suspect that the same would be for most people if they made
that adjustment.

The only thing I wish Minolta had provided was a device to allow batch scanning
(a la Nikon) of about 50 slides. This would make the logistics simpler... I
hate stopping my photoshop work to empty and reload the filmholder, and my
computer might as well do something useful while I'm sleeping.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Kennedy McEwen wrote:



Regarding your numbers above, the rate of processing would have to be
determined for both scanners on the same computer.

No - just known and comparable computers, that is why I specified a 3GHz
P4 in both cases, something you decided to omit from your quote even
though both manufacturers conveniently rate themselves with.

In my case, an ICE'd 5400 dpi slide takes 4.5 minutes, where a non ICE
takes about 45 seconds.

When I started using the Nikon LS-4000ED, my computer was an 266MHz
Pentium-II, overclocked to about 333MHz, with 384Mb of RAM. Even that
managed to produce an ICE enabled full frame scan in less than four and
a half minutes!

For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is
also active during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.

As I pointed out, the Minolta is not designed for speed or bulk
scanning. That is Nikon's realm - at the moment.

Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working 1 image in
photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go through 1 to 2 more scans...

Which slows down *both* processes to *more* than the summation of their
individual times - try it. Unless you are spending a lot of time
looking at the output of individual steps with the computer idling the
Photoshop process that is a far less productive use of the processing
power available. Of course, as a slow Minolta user, you'll be used to
that. ;-)

so there is more work waiting for me in the rawscan directory than what
I'm able to complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is in the
main a non-issue for my workflow and I suspect that the same would be
for most people if they made that adjustment.

It is fortunate that speed is not important to you because your workflow
is exacerbating the speed problem. I usually read email or usenet while
the film is scanning - that doesn't consume significant cycles once the
page of text is displayed.

The only thing I wish Minolta had provided was a device to allow batch
scanning (a la Nikon) of about 50 slides. This would make the
logistics simpler... I hate stopping my photoshop work to empty and
reload the filmholder, and my computer might as well do something
useful while I'm sleeping.

Until it jams. :-(
At least the SA-30 runs a full film through without such problems.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain
disolver is also active during ICE, and this slows it down
too, I expect.

Indeed, it roughly doubles exposure time. The main slowdown can be
caused by the CPU usage, which can go to 100% depending on interface,
film density, and multisampling settings. The data is ICE processed
when it arrives through the interface with the Minolta software, where
VueScan processes the data after all data has been accumulated.

Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working
1 image in photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go
through 1 to 2 more scans... so there is more work
waiting for me in the rawscan directory than what I'm able
to complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is in
the main a non-issue for my workflow and I suspect that
the same would be for most people if they made that
adjustment.

Yes, you have ample tweaking time between scans.

Bart

 

[Dierk Haasis]

For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is alsoactive
during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.

I guess because with IR you get more prominent grain due to more
pronounced edges.

 

[Maciej Zwierzycki]

I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share

Mark, I am not an expert on theory of these things but I understand that
4.8Dmax is _theoretical_ value, determined by the number of bits in the
A/D converter. The real world values are probably closer to 3.2-3.2.
My guess would be that they are similar for both scanners.

Anyone out there who can verify/correct this statement?

Regards
MZ

 

[Alan Browne]

No - just known and comparable computers, that is why I specified a 3GHz
P4 in both cases, something you decided to omit from your quote even
though both manufacturers conveniently rate themselves with.

I didn't even notice it.

When I started using the Nikon LS-4000ED, my computer was an 266MHz
Pentium-II, overclocked to about 333MHz, with 384Mb of RAM. Even that
managed to produce an ICE enabled full frame scan in less than four and
a half minutes!

For a smaller image, IAC and w/o GD.

As I pointed out, the Minolta is not designed for speed or bulk
scanning. That is Nikon's realm - at the moment.



Which slows down *both* processes to *more* than the summation of their
individual times - try it. Unless you are spending a lot of time
looking at the output of individual steps with the computer idling the
Photoshop process that is a far less productive use of the processing
power available. Of course, as a slow Minolta user, you'll be used to
that. ;-)

The slowdown in photoshop is hardly noticeable, and the consequence to the
scanner is irrelevant (since its providing work faster than I can work on it).
If you watch the CPU load during a scan and while doing a function such as
custom rotate on a very large file, then the unused cache and non-cache CPU
cycles saturate (during the operation) instead of being underutilized. This
means, at a minimum, that the scanner is not giving the PC as much work as the
PC is able to do. This may mean in turn that the scanner is too slow for the PC
or that the communications is not optimized to give the CPU all it could do.

All that to say, that the relative slowness of the 5400 is a non issue if ones
workflow is the way mine is. I've considered buying a second PC for scanning
alone with an Ethernet connection to pick up the scan, but I doubt there would
be any real improvement.

It is fortunate that speed is not important to you because your workflow
is exacerbating the speed problem. I usually read email or usenet while
the film is scanning - that doesn't consume significant cycles once the
page of text is displayed.

See above. The imapct of using PS on scanning (and vice versa) is slightly more
than negligeable in measurable terms, and totally negligeable in terms of real life.