Nikon LS-2000 -> Minolta 5400

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ralf R. Radermacher
  • Start date Start date
R

Ralf R. Radermacher

Is there anyone here who has used both scanners and could tell me
something about the performance, advantages, drawbacks of the Minolta?

Ralf
 
Hi Ralf,

As far as I have tested it, autofocus at a specific point will yield best
results. I have not found yet a situation where the autofocus gives me worse
results than manual focus, either using Minolta's SW or vuescan. Please note
though that I have the scanner for two weeks and cannot say I have such
great experience with the particular device.

Hope this helps,

Dimitris
 
Ralf R. Radermacher said:
Anyone to comment on the Minolta's autofocus problem?
Click to expand...

In my experience the Minolta software has more of a problem focussing
on dark areas, compared to VueScan which is *much* better in that
respect. On lighter areas, with some detail, I get better consistency.
There is also a possibility for manual focus, but I find that
positioning the autofocus point on lighter detail sometimes gives
better results.

The examples shown, indicate a less experienced operator on the
Minolta though, because things like focus (and contrast) can be seen
on the preview, especially evident if you would focus twice. Also, a
review like that, should compare the best performance possible, so
scanning twice and picking the better scan is a prudent approach (it
also shows consistency of results). The lesser performance due to
software may be a minus for the software, but has little to do with
the scanner.

Also, the comments about scan speed usually disregard the 82% more
data that a 5400 ppi scan produces over a 4000 ppi one, but the ICE is
indeed very processor intensive with the Minolta Scan Utility, so that
may slow down the workflow. I wish they would stop timing the scan,
but report the MB/sec throughput for a more meaningfull comparison. It
would also account for crop differences.

Another thing that struck me as odd was that they downsized the
Minolta scan instead of upsizing the Nikon scan. The latter would show
the differences much clearer.

Bart
 
Ralf R. Radermacher said:
Is there anyone here who has used both scanners and could tell me
something about the performance, advantages, drawbacks of the
Click to expand...
Minolta?

I (have) use(d) both. Overall I'm very pleased with the incredible
resolution of the DSE-5400 (and that is not only compared to the
LS2000, a 2700ppi scanner). It shows my, or my lens' shortcomings
without merci. The "Grain Dissolver", a lightsource diffuser, is very
effective in reducing (not eliminating) graininess, without real
resolution penalty (although less graininess makes focusing harder for
the Minolta software). It's very nice for scanning Black and White
negatives as well, because it tends to also suppress visibility of
schratches and dust which helps when ICE cannot be used on
silver-based B&W.

The software is adequate, but not more than that. Color Negative
scans, clip in either the shadows or the highlights or both. I scan
them as a linear gamma positive and process it as a Raw in VueScan, or
directly in Photoshop (which I use for post-processing anyway).

Bart
 
Bart van der Wolf said:
The software is adequate, but not more than that. Color Negative
scans, clip in either the shadows or the highlights or both. I scan
them as a linear gamma positive and process it as a Raw in VueScan, or
directly in Photoshop (which I use for post-processing anyway).
Click to expand...

Do I take it that you use the Minolta software to produce a RAW file
that you then process in Vuescan? Why don't you scan with Vuescan right
away?

Ralf
 
Ralf said:
Is there anyone here who has used both scanners and could tell me
something about the performance, advantages, drawbacks of the Minolta?

Ralf
Click to expand...

I've had the DSE 5400 for a year now. Can't count the scans but must be well
over 2,000 to date.

I use both Vuescan and the Minolta s/w. It is usually quicker overall with the
Minolta s/w but Vuewscan gives a better result when the slide hits the extremes
of highlights and shaddows.

Processing power is important when using ICE (which I avoid unless forced to use
it due to scratches. Here is a badly damaged negative scan:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Las V NI.jpg
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Las V PI.jpg )

So a >1 GHz Pentium/Celeron with USB 2.0 or Firewire is the way to go. USB "1"
is too slow for ICE ... scan times go over 12 minutes. With Firewire, 2.4 GHz
Celeron, you're looking at 4 - 6 minutes for a full res ICE scan. (Some people
report as low as 2 or 3 minutes for full ICE, maybe has to do with the processor
type.)

Memory ... after the scan you need to work the image. Photoshop is not a very
good memory manager so 512MB will work as well as 1 GB (assuming no other large
processes runnig). Best to have 2 HD, one for work and the other for the
photoshop buffer area.

Focus is occasionally a problem. It is easier to manually focus with Vuescan
than with the Minolta s/w.

Film is more important to the process ... E100S gives grainy results, Velvia
gives clean results. Portra 160NC is the easiest of all negatives to scan.

Do I recomend the scanner? Yes. The Nikon Coolscan 4000/5000 are better in
some ways, not as good in others. The Nikons are a bit faster and you can get a
widget for large batch scanning. The Minolta limits you to 4 slides or a strip
of 6 frames... (most labs cut strips to 4 frames).

Cheers,
Alan
 
SNIP
Do I take it that you use the Minolta software to produce a RAW file
that you then process in Vuescan?
Correct.

Why don't you scan with Vuescan right away?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, to date VueScan is not capable of scanning the Raw data
with a linear gamma. The higher film densities are scanned with
reduced contrast. This results in relatively lifeless shadows in
slides, or dull highlights in negatives. Mind you, it's a matter of
the software not interpreting the scanner response as it should, the
Minolta software does it as can be expected.

As an illustration, this is what happens in the Raw data when the
density as seen by the 5400 is plotted against the density of the gray
steps of an IT8 calibration target (horizontal axis):
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/SE5GD-VS7681.gif
The Minolta Scan utility produces *much* better Raw (Linear gamma)
data, so postprocessing is a lot easier.

This is possibly somehow related to the streaking that can sometimes
be seen in the shadows of slide scans with 5400+VueScan. The streaking
is usually too small to show up in print, but still it doesn't belong
in a scan, and the Minolta software (+most recent firmware) scans
without streaks. Whatever the exact cause, Ed Hamrick hasn't been able
to find the solution yet, but he seems to look into it from time to
time. Maybe he finds some inspiration while visiting the Photokina.

Bart
 
ThomasH said:
Alan Browne wrote: SNIP
This is an impressive improvement. I wonder though what
caused the difference in color balance?
Click to expand...

As with any automatic color balancing, the removal of dust and
scratches will change the results because the image data has changed.
I assume the scan examples were done with automatic color balancing.

Bart
 
As with any automatic color balancing, the removal of dust and
scratches will change the results because the image data has changed.
I assume the scan examples were done with automatic color balancing.
Click to expand...

Could it also be the Grain Dissolver? I have seen some differences, when I
use this but I cannot say it's due to the Grain Dissolver or ICE.
 
Dps said:
Could it also be the Grain Dissolver? I have seen some
differences, when I use this but I cannot say it's due to the Grain
Dissolver or ICE.
Click to expand...

It is my impression, based on a sample of one unit (my own), that
there is a slight shift in overall color caused by the GD. That may be
caused by a slightly non-neutral color of the diffuser plate
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm),
but the Minolta Scan software may also have something/a lot to do with
it since the "ICE"ed image shows a more significant shift in color.

Technically, the scanner's firmware calibration routine should adjust
the color balance to a neutral white lightsource, and equal luminance
along the sensor arrays, so assuming that is done correctly there
should be hardly any color effect caused by the diffuser itself. The
rest is done by postprocessing.

I haven't tried the comparison with VueScan yet, because I wait for
other (more significant) issues to be resolved first. The result of
those issues are assumed to be much bigger than a small shift in color
that can be compensated in postprocessing. In fact, I routinely scan
with the GD activated without ICE (I don't like the artifacts the
Minolta software adds when removing others, but that may of course
change with new upgrades).

Bart
 
This is possibly somehow related to the streaking that can sometimes
be seen in the shadows of slide scans with 5400+VueScan. The streaking
is usually too small to show up in print, but still it doesn't belong
in a scan, and the Minolta software (+most recent firmware) scans
without streaks. Whatever the exact cause, Ed Hamrick hasn't been able
to find the solution yet
Click to expand...

So, his irate protestations that this has been "fixed" are, as usual,
totally untrue.

Just another fact for the record. Don't shoot the messenger.

Don.
 
Don said:
So, his irate protestations that this has been "fixed" are, as usual,
totally untrue.

Just another fact for the record. Don't shoot the messenger.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, again. I'm talking about the DSE-5400, I think Ed was
talking about the MultiPro, and I have no idea what you are talking
about.

Bart
 
You are wrong, again. I'm talking about the DSE-5400, I think Ed was
talking about the MultiPro, and I have no idea what you are talking
about.
Click to expand...

You know very well what I'm talking about: persistent VueScan bugs.

Indeed, your statement only proves there are so many VueScan bugs you
have to categorize them. Not to mention it's the same (recurring)
streaking bug within one scanner manufacturer alone!

Like I said, don't shoot the messenger.

Don.
 
Alan said:
So a >1 GHz Pentium/Celeron with USB 2.0 or Firewire is the way to go.
USB "1" is too slow for ICE ... scan times go over 12 minutes. With
Firewire, 2.4 GHz Celeron, you're looking at 4 - 6 minutes for a full
res ICE scan. (Some people report as low as 2 or 3 minutes for full
ICE, maybe has to do with the processor type.)
Click to expand...

Rather a lot seems to depend on what you're scanning - with auto
exposure on, a light negative can be MUCH faster to scan than a dark
one, for obvious reasons.
 
I use ICE routinely, I never saw actually impact of
this process on color balance to speak of. Also GEM
seems to be quite neutral.

Thomas
 
Back
Top