scanner time -- last-minute pre-purchase considerations

[false_dmitrii]

Hi, helpful people, after months and months of waiting I finally have
the computer to handle my film scanning project. So it's time to make
my final decision on which film scanner to purchase.

I've been set on either the SE5400 or the LS-5000 as "the" machines to
choose between. But all of these months have allowed one of the
group's predominant messages to sink in: "digital" technology cannot
magically overcome real-world limitations. This led to a
reconsideration of what exactly I could get from my source material.
Since my photography knowledge is still quite limited, I thought I'd
throw the group a few factors to see if I should reconsider.

Most of my existing negatives are *consumer* film. Lots of Fuji 400,
some Kodak 400 MAX, and a smaller number of 100- and 200-speed rolls.
These were all used exclusively with a compact, fully automatic
Olympus Mu-II 115. So it's probably fair to say that I'm looking at
heavier grain and lower image detail than the professionals. I've
been trying higher-quality film lately, particularly Kodak Royal Gold
Supra, which produced noticeably smoother scans from my Epson flatbed.
But the bulk of my material is the consumer stuff.

The most disheartening moment came when I compared a couple of 1200ppi
and 4800ppi Epson scans and couldn't see much, if any, detail
improvement. I need to try it again with some wide-open-outdoors
shots, when tiny details are everywhere and the auto-exposure is at
its best, but I suspect that even my best images might fall far short
of the LS-5000's 4000dpi, let alone the SE5400. (Any tips on measuring
an existing negative's approx. detail resolution, independent of the
somewhere-under-4800dpi, deep-focus, glass-covered Epson?)

So...if the grain is relatively noisy, and the image detail turns out
to be far below 4000dpi, would I still benefit from the features of
the SE5400 and LS-5000 over a lesser model? I'd think that the higher
resolutions would still help weed out some of the grain, with the
SE5400 grain dissolver available as an additional weapon. LS-5000's
color fidelity would always apply regardless of resolution. ICE may
be a bigger benefit than I'd thought, since a number of irreplaceable
trip negatives turned out to have been damaged by an unknown cause
(looks like either bad development chemicals, hostile plastic sleeves,
or too much heat). And speed never hurts. Wouldn't the high DMAX
of either machine be useful as well?

I have relatives with higher-quality slides and negatives, so I could
get further value from either scanner--as long as I can justify the
purchase for my own images.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

false_dmitrii

 

[bmoag]

Unless you have a passion to learn alot more about photography in general,
scanning, digital image manipulation and inkjet printing-the latter with
color management--you are considering buying way more machine than you need
and may not have the computer fire power to handle 4000dpi images (around
60mb files).
You might be satisfied with and save some money using the lower end Minolta
or Canon film scanner.
In order to get the most out of your images you will need to learn more than
how to operate the scanner.
I encourage you to learn as much as you can about digital image processing.
The reservations you have about your own negatives may not be relevant once
you learn to make a good quality scan and do basic manipulations in a mid or
high range photo program, e.g. Photoshop Elements. You may finally be able
to realize the image you thought you saw through the camera viewfinder when
you pressed the shutter button. There is likely a world of pictorial
information in your negatives that you had no idea was really there.
On the other hand if you do not have a grasp of and do not want to learn the
basics of scanning, image manipulation and color managed inkjet printing you
could well find the experience an expensive and time consuming frustration.
There is a learning curve that requires experience and perseverence to get
past.
I truly hope you will invest the time to learn these things because if you
are interested in photography the personal satisfaction from the images you
create can be enormous.

 

[false_dmitrii]

Thanks for the response, bmoag.

Unless you have a passion to learn alot more about photography in general,
scanning, digital image manipulation and inkjet printing-the latter with
color management--you are considering buying way more machine than you need
and may not have the computer fire power to handle 4000dpi images (around
60mb files).

Scanning and image manipulation are not a problem. I've been doing
both already (Epson flatbed). I'm currently oriented toward
preserving the images, not printing, so printing isn't a problem
either--I can always send out the rare print job. As of a week or two
ago I have computer firepower aplenty. 150MB+ images are no
trouble.

As for real photography knowledge...maybe, in time. Right now I have
lots of existing film that I want to transfer and play with.

You might be satisfied with and save some money using the lower end Minolta
or Canon film scanner.

Possibly. I want to get the most I can from my originals and wonder
whether the factors in my original post might still justify one of the
<$1000 big boys.

In order to get the most out of your images you will need to learn more than
how to operate the scanner.

I started a year ago. I don't have photography training or even book
knowledge, but I can now get just about anything I want out of digital
editing with enough time and attention. (Digital *painting*, on the
other hand..... )

I encourage you to learn as much as you can about digital image processing.

Done. Well, it's never done, but started.

The reservations you have about your own negatives may not be relevant once
you learn to make a good quality scan and do basic manipulations in a mid or
high range photo program, e.g. Photoshop Elements. You may finally be able
to realize the image you thought you saw through the camera viewfinder when
you pressed the shutter button. There is likely a world of pictorial
information in your negatives that you had no idea was really there.

Agreed completely (Paint Shop Pro here, though I'm looking at PSE3 as
a possible cheapish 16-bit/CM-capable scan handler. At least until
Corel figures out what to do with PSP). And along with my consumer
film came consumer prints...it's a huge revelation to see just how
much a borderline image can be improved from the photolab computer's
take on it, or how much detail gets thrown out at the print stage.

On the other hand if you do not have a grasp of and do not want to learn the
basics of scanning, image manipulation and color managed inkjet printing you
could well find the experience an expensive and time consuming frustration.
There is a learning curve that requires experience and perseverence to get
past.

More like a short curve with lots of invisible hills waiting down the
road and a few hidden junctions.

I truly hope you will invest the time to learn these things because if you
are interested in photography the personal satisfaction from the images you
create can be enormous.

I appreciate your comments. With that said, do you have any
specific thoughts on whether my somewhere-below-4000dpi detail
consumer negatives might yet benefit from the top "prosumer" scanners?

Regards,
false_dmitrii

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

With that said, do you have any specific thoughts on whether
my somewhere-below-4000dpi detail consumer negatives might
yet benefit from the top "prosumer" scanners?

The higher resolution scan will not provide you with more detail if it
isn't there in the film to begin with. The higher sampling density
however will help in reducing grain-aliasing, and the built-in
diffuser of the DSE-5400 will reduce apparent graininess even further.

Both scanners you are considering are fine for the intended purpose,
but the Minolta has the edge on resolution and graininess control,
where as the Nikon has a consistent lightsource which is easy to
calibrate. If your source material is negatives, I'd let the color
consistency weigh lower in the choice. The additional sampling density
of the Minolta can be used to produce superior down-sampled images
with even more subtle graininess, even with modest enlargements in
print.

Bart

 

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

[snip]

I've
been trying higher-quality film lately, particularly Kodak Royal Gold
Supra, which produced noticeably smoother scans from my Epson flatbed.
But the bulk of my material is the consumer stuff.

The most disheartening moment came when I compared a couple of 1200ppi
and 4800ppi Epson scans and couldn't see much, if any, detail
improvement.

Wait a moment, your Epson *flatbed* does 4800dpi *optical*?
I don't know every model that's around, obviously, but I thought
1600dpi was just about the best you could get from flatbeds that don't
use two overlapping CCDs.

So, please check again and make sure your scanner can actually do
4800dpi without interpolation and without using 6 (instead of 3) CCD
rows.
There's actually some disagreement about the effectiveness of this
kind of "double CCD" compared to a linear CCD, some say it's just as
good... I don't have the knowledge to discuss this, but you should be
aware it does/can/might make a difference.

In any case, if your flatbed can't do 4800dpi optical, you shouldn't
be too surprised that you can't spot additional detail compared to a
1200dpi scan.

Besides this, I'd guess film scanners generally give you more precise
control over exposure and focus (flatbeds are usually fixed focus, and
that fixed focus may be wrong!), and less noise.

[snip]

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Alan Browne]

Hi, helpful people, after months and months of waiting I finally have
the computer to handle my film scanning project. So it's time to make
my final decision on which film scanner to purchase.

I've been set on either the SE5400 or the LS-5000 as "the" machines to
choose between. But all of these months have allowed one of the
group's predominant messages to sink in: "digital" technology cannot
magically overcome real-world limitations. This led to a
reconsideration of what exactly I could get from my source material.
Since my photography knowledge is still quite limited, I thought I'd
throw the group a few factors to see if I should reconsider.

Most of my existing negatives are *consumer* film. Lots of Fuji 400,
some Kodak 400 MAX, and a smaller number of 100- and 200-speed rolls.
These were all used exclusively with a compact, fully automatic
Olympus Mu-II 115. So it's probably fair to say that I'm looking at
heavier grain and lower image detail than the professionals. I've
been trying higher-quality film lately, particularly Kodak Royal Gold
Supra, which produced noticeably smoother scans from my Epson flatbed.
But the bulk of my material is the consumer stuff.

That's fine. There is a lot of detail even in films like K-max 400. The real
limitation is the taking lens... it will reduce "what's there" more than the
difference between various mid speed films.

The most disheartening moment came when I compared a couple of 1200ppi
and 4800ppi Epson scans and couldn't see much, if any, detail
improvement. I need to try it again with some wide-open-outdoors

Flatbeds do not make very good film scanners.

shots, when tiny details are everywhere and the auto-exposure is at
its best, but I suspect that even my best images might fall far short
of the LS-5000's 4000dpi, let alone the SE5400. (Any tips on measuring
an existing negative's approx. detail resolution, independent of the
somewhere-under-4800dpi, deep-focus, glass-covered Epson?)

Google away.

So...if the grain is relatively noisy, and the image detail turns out
to be far below 4000dpi, would I still benefit from the features of
the SE5400 and LS-5000 over a lesser model? I'd think that the higher

On the old Dual Scan (original v.) I got very good results printing up to 8x12
on a minilab from my scans. That's a 2400 dpi scanner (IIRC). So resolution is
not the end all and be all if your printing requirement is modest. OTOH, if you
want to print from a cropped section, then resolution is everything.

resolutions would still help weed out some of the grain, with the

Higher resolution actually means revealing the grain, not weeding it out.

SE5400 grain dissolver available as an additional weapon. LS-5000's
color fidelity would always apply regardless of resolution. ICE may
be a bigger benefit than I'd thought, since a number of irreplaceable
trip negatives turned out to have been damaged by an unknown cause
(looks like either bad development chemicals, hostile plastic sleeves,
or too much heat). And speed never hurts. Wouldn't the high DMAX
of either machine be useful as well?

ICE is always useful as scratches do happen, some dust is just incredibly stickey.

High dmax is useful for the shaddow areas, and with 16 bit/channel scanners is
well beyond the film d-max, even if A/D noise is considered.

I have relatives with higher-quality slides and negatives, so I could
get further value from either scanner--as long as I can justify the
purchase for my own images.

If you keep shooting film, then it will automatically be justified. Switch to
comparative bargains like Kodak Elite Chrome 100 and you will get very nice
scans (albeit with a specific grain signature at high res). A negative film
that is very easy to scan is Portra 160NC. Expose it at ISO 100, develop
normally and you have a beautiful film for scanning.

If you haven't been there www.scantips.com is a resource you shouldn't miss.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

[WD]

I would imagine that there would be a benefit of a film scanner with
your images(vs. an Epson flatbed).
Have you also considered the coolscan V as a lower priced alternate?
It is not 16 bit but (I believe 14 bit) and doesn't do multi-sample scanning.
But my understanding is that it is still quite good and quite a bit less
money than the 5000ED.

Another thing you can do is look for a scanning service that can scan
one of your images at 4000 PPI with a film scanner and see for yourself
if there is improvement.

I would highly recommend a scanner with ICE. If not, you will be spending
many hours eliminating dust etc. by hand.

 

[Fernando]

of the LS-5000's 4000dpi, let alone the SE5400. (Any tips on measuring
an existing negative's approx. detail resolution, independent of the
somewhere-under-4800dpi, deep-focus, glass-covered Epson?)

Not on an existing shot; but you can shoot some test targets with the
same kind of film, and the same camera, and do extract useful
resolution figures.
I did some tests, and found that, even on a consumer zoom lens (Sigma
70-300 Apo, in my case), the Fuji Sensia 400 (a consumer slide film)
could record up to 70 lp/mm from an high-contrast test target. I
looked at the slide with a microscope.
This is an amazing amount of details, and would probably require a
good filmscanner in the 3200dpi to 4000dpi range to get all the
details properly digitalized.
From a compact camera and consumer 400iso negative film you'll
probably have to lower those figures, so I think a lower-class
filmscanner as the Minolta Scan Dual IV would be OK.
Just my opinion, of course!

Fernando

 

[false_dmitrii]

[snip]

I've
been trying higher-quality film lately, particularly Kodak Royal Gold
Supra, which produced noticeably smoother scans from my Epson flatbed.
But the bulk of my material is the consumer stuff.

The most disheartening moment came when I compared a couple of 1200ppi
and 4800ppi Epson scans and couldn't see much, if any, detail
improvement.

Wait a moment, your Epson *flatbed* does 4800dpi *optical*?
I don't know every model that's around, obviously, but I thought
1600dpi was just about the best you could get from flatbeds that don't
use two overlapping CCDs.

I don't know how the CCDs are set up, but my Perfection 4870 does do
native 4800dpi scans of some sort. The problem is that all those
sensors don't make up for the lack of optical clarity relative to a
film scanner--it's certainly not *resolving* the 4800dpi. Which is
one possible reason why my 4800*ppi* scanned image didn't look any
more detailed than the 1200ppi. I've seen different people report
different max. detail levels for the 4870, anywhere from 14-1800 to
24-2600dpi or better. I don't know if there's been a conclusive
answer yet (I wouldn't recognize it if I saw it ). Even so, I
would have expected *some* small increase in perceived detail with the
high-res scan if any existed...I still need to try some better source
material.

<snip>

Regards,
false_dmitrii

 

[false_dmitrii]

(e-mail address removed) (WD) wrote in message

Another thing you can do is look for a scanning service that can scan
one of your images at 4000 PPI with a film scanner and see for yourself
if there is improvement.

Not a bad suggestion. Of course, enough of those and I'd have made up
the difference between the cheaper and more expensive scanners I'm
considering, so it's important to pick the right shot. I might also
look into testing the scanners in action at one of the local film
stores...I could inspect one of my negatives at the same time.

false_dmitrii

 

[false_dmitrii]

Many thanks for all the advice. Whatever I get, I won't be going in
blind. Still leaning toward the SE5400, but I'll take another look
at cheaper specs and try to determine my working resolution.

Couple of other questions....Has anyone had good experiences buying
their film scanner online? Most of the legitimate US retailers that
carry the high-end scanners at lower prices seem a bit too much of a
gamble for such a large & fragile & sometimes DOA piece of equipment.
Adorama and Digitalfotoclub, for example, have some serious complaints
against them despite their overall popularity; DFC doesn't even take
scanner returns. B&H looks like the only lower-cost online place to
consider...and even they have a mere 7-day return policy for scanners.
This seems like a case where good local service might outweigh
considerably higher prices.

Any thoughts on how to make sure the scanner isn't a dud? Scanning
blank material (or no material) seems like a must. Timing the scans
wouldn't hurt. And of course, scanning a wide variety of source
material for obvious defects would be useful. Without another film
scanner (or experience) for comparison, I'm not sure what else to do
in the first few days. Find and buy a slide resolution target,
perhaps, not for benchmarking but just to be sure the scanner is in
the right focal neighborhood.

Regards,
false_dmitrii

 

[Jean]

| Many thanks for all the advice. Whatever I get, I won't be going in
| blind. Still leaning toward the SE5400, but I'll take another look
| at cheaper specs and try to determine my working resolution.
|
| Couple of other questions....Has anyone had good experiences buying
| their film scanner online? Most of the legitimate US retailers that
| carry the high-end scanners at lower prices seem a bit too much of a
| gamble for such a large & fragile & sometimes DOA piece of equipment.
| Adorama and Digitalfotoclub, for example, have some serious complaints
| against them despite their overall popularity; DFC doesn't even take
| scanner returns. B&H looks like the only lower-cost online place to
| consider...and even they have a mere 7-day return policy for scanners.
| This seems like a case where good local service might outweigh
| considerably higher prices.
|

....snip
|
| Regards,
| false_dmitrii

Based on my experience, I'd recommend B&H. I bought a scanner from them a
while back. The scanner had a hardware problem, but was still able to do
scans. I confirmed the problem with Nikon, relayed the info to B&H, and B&H
took the scanner back and sent me a new one. No hassles, no extra charges.
They may charge a bit more than some online stores, but you should consider
the premium as insurance against the possibility of defective merchandise.

Jean