Nikon coolscan V vs minolta 5400

  • Thread starter Thread starter dia59
  • Start date Start date
dia59 <[email protected]> said:
Hello


Which's best ?
Click to expand...
Depends what features are most important to you.

Minolta has more resolution and higher bit depth.

Nikon scans faster and has more consistent and better colour purity.

Without context, both and neither are "best".
 
Fuji Slides and Kodachromes. I'm gonna scan maybe 100 a month.

I want to get some of my slides digital to enlarge them for prints
I wonder if i really get an advantage to get a coolscan V or 5400 over a
dual scan IV. Same question excluding the ICE feature in account ?

Thank you to answer only if you really have an experience not just an
idea.

Regard
 
I've read many times than resolution was quite identical and not really an issue
at this level.
Nikon scans faster and has more consistent and better colour purity.
Click to expand...

Colour purity is more interesting like Dmax for me.
 
dia59 said:
I've read many times than resolution was quite identical and
not really an issue at this level.
Click to expand...

Not really, but it does depend on the detail captured on film. If the
camera lens or camera shake was allowed to reduce resolution, then
there will be no resolution difference. If both the lens and camera
handling were top-notch, you will see a difference (both in resolution
and grain aliasing). See e.g.:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm

Bart
 
dia59 said:
Fuji Slides and Kodachromes. I'm gonna scan maybe 100 a month.

I want to get some of my slides digital to enlarge them for prints
I wonder if i really get an advantage to get a coolscan V or 5400 over a
dual scan IV. Same question excluding the ICE feature in account ?

Thank you to answer only if you really have an experience not just an
idea.

Regard
Click to expand...

There have been several long and informative threads in this group
comparing the SE5400 and Coolscan 5000/LS-50 (slightly more fully
featured CS V). Look them up via Google Groups and you might find all
the info you need.

ICE is said to struggle with Kodachrome, so it might not be a
make-or-break feature for you. Any of the film scanners you're
considering could deliver 100 images per month, even if you only had
one hour per day for scanning.

Scan Dual IV has a decent listed resolution; unlike most flatbeds, it
should deliver it. You need to figure out whether your maximum desired
enlargements would benefit from more than 3200ppi and whether your
slides contain that level of detail in the first place.

Good luck,
false_dmitrii
 
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Minolta has more resolution and higher bit depth.
Click to expand...

Didn't you pick apart the benefits that the higher bit depth would
deliver in actual use?

false_dmitrii
 
Fuji Slides and Kodachromes. I'm gonna scan maybe 100 a month.

I want to get some of my slides digital to enlarge them for prints
I wonder if i really get an advantage to get a coolscan V or 5400 over a
dual scan IV. Same question excluding the ICE feature in account ?
Click to expand...

The german computer magazin c't tested just recently the ICE of 5400
scanning kodachrome. Even if Minolta stated, that you should turn off ICE
during scanning Kodachrome, it did very well with ICE turned on. Second
after Nikon Coolscan 9000.

-Leonhard
 
Kennedy McEwen wrote:



Didn't you pick apart the benefits that the higher bit depth would
deliver in actual use?
Click to expand...
Not the same thing - higher bit depth in display (ie. post gamma
compensation) is pointless, however you need more than 16-bit depth at
the source to be able to produce the full capabilities of 8-bit gamma
compensated images.
 
It Seems Minolta higher bit depth is more due to A/D than to the CCD
sensor, so..
Does anyone has done comparison on both using E6 and Kodachrome 25/64 ?

Regards
 
Back
Top