Which Nikon film scanner?

[pioe[rmv]]

Hello!

I am planning a purchase of a Nikon film scanner for 35mm film only.
Nikon has two good models, the Coolscan 5/LS-50 and the Coolscan
5000/LS-5000.

Now, which is the one to choose?

I do not need the film roll scanning option or the slide feeder, and
the faster scanning times of the LS-5000 is also not an imperative
since I do not scan very high volumes and the LS-50 is also pretty fast.

So it all boils down to two factors:

* Possible differences in mechanical durability. Are the parts in the
LS-5000 scanner made for a longer life span?

* Possible differences in output quality. It is said that the LS-5000
has a genuine 16-bit A/D converter, whereas the LS-50 only has a
14-bit one. If so, how important is this in real use, can one see a
difference, and if so under what circumstances? Are there other
advantages that go with the LS-5000, does it yield marginally sharper
images, have anyone been able to demonstrate a difference here?

I do not say that "price is no object," but I am willing to wait a
little and save up for the best if it is actually better with respect
to one or both of the factors mentioned.

So I trust you experienced scanner owners to answer me and make clear
what if any advantages there are to the LS-5000 scanner if one is not
working in a production environment where high output is a priority.
At the same time, the highest possible quality is desirable as well as
solidity and a long service life.

It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but
since I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty
much cleared up.

Thank you,
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

So it all boils down to two factors:

* Possible differences in mechanical durability. Are the parts in the
LS-5000 scanner made for a longer life span?

No. The mechanics and optics of both are identical. You should not see
any durability difference between these models, but it is always
possible that you get the Friday afternoon batch of either type.

* Possible differences in output quality. It is said that the LS-5000
has a genuine 16-bit A/D converter, whereas the LS-50 only has a 14-bit
one. If so, how important is this in real use, can one see a
difference, and if so under what circumstances? Are there other
advantages that go with the LS-5000, does it yield marginally sharper
images, have anyone been able to demonstrate a difference here?

It is significant, and could be an issue if you have extremely dense
slides that you want every last shadow detail out of.

More significantly, as far as I am concerned, is the lack of single pass
multiscanning on the LS-50. Multiscanning is essential to getting the
lowest possible noise on your scans. You probably won't use it for most
scans, but for the best it really is worth having - and it will make a
tremendous difference to the scan quality, especially when coupled with
the extra bit-depth of the LS-5000.

Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.

I do not say that "price is no object," but I am willing to wait a
little and save up for the best if it is actually better with respect
to one or both of the factors mentioned.

Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that. Only downside
is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)

It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but since
I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty much
cleared up.

I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.

 

[pioe[rmv]]

Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.

This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.

Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that.

I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
scanners.

Only downside
is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)

If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
downside to high durability and a long life span. Also, the death of
film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche. I recently
bought a new 35mm 2.0 AI Nikkor, with the intention to use it on my
Nikon FM2 and my coming FM3.

I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.

Fortunately they both work well under Linux, according to other users.

So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan
program seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to
the LS-5000, that may be a good choice.

If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different.
However, I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50,
whilst acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.

This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.

It certainly makes a visible difference on both slides and negatives,
but really comes into its own with slightly underexposed negatives.

I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
to recommend the scanner.

So scan time *is* important - when it gets long enough. ;-)

If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
downside to high durability and a long life span.

I have disposed of several scanners in less than a decade because they
became incompatible with either the new computer hardware or operating
systems - sometimes this could be resolved by further expense, such as
an upgraded plug-in card that cost as much as a new scanner of improved
performance, and sometimes it was unresolvable. I have complete
confidence that the computer industry will continue to orphan legacy
interfaces in the same way as they have done in the past. ;-)

My point is that whilst the lamp has a relatively short life compared to
LEDs, don't let that disproportionately bias your purchase options. You
have, however, made your mind up on the options for other reasons, so it
is irrelevant now.

Also, the death of
film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche.

Niche products are expensive products. Expensive products mean smaller
niches and the cycle continues until the manufacturer declares it no
longer a profitable business.

So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan program
seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to the
LS-5000, that may be a good choice.

The mechanics of the Nikon scanners are not capable of achieving the
same alignment from multi-pass multiscanning, as offered in Vuescan, as
the single-pass multiscan provided in the LS-4000/5000. Vuescan does
the best it can, but there is a loss in resolution due to the unknown
misalignment between passes - and since this is a facility you want to
use on your best images, resolution is not generally a disposable
commodity.

If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.

It does and it is - if you are happy with the results without
multiscanning. Try a couple of difficult slides and negatives in both
scanners before committing your cash though.

 

[degrub]

To test the Nikon multisampling capability, find a slide that has a very
black/dark area (old steam locomotives are my favorite ;-) ). Scan it as
you normally would and then enlarge the black area up to 100% or
greater. Look for color speckles. If they appear random, the
multisampling will reduce or eliminate their presence. The key is that
they are random in nature and not part of the slide. This technique has
been used with CCD cameras on telescopes for a while now and it really
does work to reduce random noise produced in the CCD element. If you can
run the same slide on a CS4000 or 5000 you should see a difference at
100% enlargement. If you keep your prints at a low enlargement, the
printer driver may mask the effect some, but you should be able to see
it on the CRT.

Frank

 

[WD]

Regarding Minolta 5400 vs. Nikon. I have seen conflicting reports
regarding sharpness/resolution. Several people have seemed to measure
higher MTF/resolution on the Minolta. Yet I have seen more than one
person report that the Nikons are 'sharper'.

What gives?

 

[degrub]

i don't have access to an air force resolution target to determine the
resolving capability of my CS4000. As you mention, others here have
documented their results. i believe there is a thread or two here
(search for Kennedy for one) that discussed the physical difference
between the two scanners - LED light versus fluorescent, optics, CCD
element, etc. However, the only issue i have had with my Nikon is the
narrow DOF and the required flatness to get the scanned image "tack
sharp" - technical term ;-) corner to corner. i have used a modified
FH3 holder with anti newton glass with some success on curled film when
i thought it mattered.

Frank

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Regarding Minolta 5400 vs. Nikon. I have seen conflicting reports
regarding sharpness/resolution. Several people have seemed to measure
higher MTF/resolution on the Minolta. Yet I have seen more than one
person report that the Nikons are 'sharper'.

What gives?

All I know is that my DSE5400 outresolves a friend's LS4000:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-1.htm
but it obviously cannot resolve what is not captured in the film to
begin with.

Bart

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

i don't have access to an air force resolution target to determine the
resolving capability of my CS4000.

It wouldn't make any difference if you did. The USAF resolution target
was designed for assessing purely analogue systems including lenses and
film. It is totally unsuitable for assessing sampled or digital
systems, leading to at best ambiguous and at worst totally erroneous and
misleading results. In particular, accurate assessment of resolution in
a sampled system using only 2.5cycles in a test pattern, as in all the
elements of the USAF target, is impossible. The continued misuse of
this archaic reference target with technology it was never intended to
assess is one of the primary reasons for the conflicting resolution
reports that WD was asking about.

Unfortunately, precious few users of scanners actually understand what
resolution means in the first place, and fewer still have any concept of
what influences it or how it can and should be assessed. None of that
prevents them from reporting that their scanner has better resolution
than their Aunt Dorothy's. And the so called "professional" testers and
journalists that use this chart to discriminate marginal, and in some
cases significant, resolution benefits of one scanner over another
should have it rolled up and inserted where it hurts - followed by the
scanners they have tested. The pitch of their squeals would be as
meaningful a measure of the resolution of the scanners as any of the
tests they have conducted.

 

[RandyR482]

This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.

Do not confuse multiscanning with multisampling. The latter does not
degrade resolution due to misalignment, and is a feature on the 5400.

I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
scanners.

How did you conduct your tests to conclude that the 5400 "does not
deliver the
same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners"? We can all get
educated.

The Nikon scanners have a very shallow dof which results in uneven
sharpness across a scan. Many found this to be unacceptable, and some
attribute this to the LED light source.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

It wouldn't make any difference if you did. The USAF resolution target
was designed for assessing purely analogue systems including lenses and
film. It is totally unsuitable for assessing sampled or digital
systems, leading to at best ambiguous and at worst totally erroneous and
misleading results.

SNIP

Hear, hear (including the part snipped for brevity).

In the light of which it should be mentioned that the ISO has
formalized a testing method that *does* allow reliable resolution
testing of discrete sampling systems like digicams and scanners. Their
procedure doesn't lead to a single discriminating number (e.g.
limiting visual resolution), but it produces a much more informative
MTF graph, called a Spatial Frequency Response (SFR) graph.

Modeled after that, and adding additional tests, Norman Koren has
produced in addition to the wealth of information on his site, an
application to do this SFR testing in a consistent manner:
http://www.imatest.com .

I produced, just out of curiosity, a comparison graph of a small
sample* of DSLRs and a 5400 ppi scan of a slanted edge on Provia film:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_Graphs.png (I know
it's too crowded with lines ;-)). The resolution metric is scaled for
equal output size, expressed in Line Widths per Image Height (based on
Vertical resolution in Landscape orientation). Any significant
modulation (say 10%) above each system's Nyquist frequency, will lead
to aliasing artifacts.
*Disclaimer: Due to the small sample quantities, and the different
lenses and output methods used, it cannot be more than an indication
of possible performance.

Bart

 

[pioe[rmv]]

How did you conduct your tests to conclude that the 5400 "does not
deliver the
same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners"? We can all get
educated.

By simply scanning the same negatives and slides several times, which
yielded the result that there was a subtle difference in favor of the
Nikons.

The Nikon scanners have a very shallow dof which results in uneven
sharpness across a scan. Many found this to be unacceptable, and some
attribute this to the LED light source.

I have not been plagued by this, but if the film is very curly it may be
wise to use the film holder.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[pioe[rmv]]

It certainly makes a visible difference on both slides and negatives,
but really comes into its own with slightly underexposed negatives.

If so, I should perhaps incline towards the LS-5000, but I have to
determine how important is multiscanning. Needless to point out,
underexposed negatives is by no means an uncommon occurrence.

I have disposed of several scanners in less than a decade because they
became incompatible with either the new computer hardware or operating
systems - sometimes this could be resolved by further expense, such as
an upgraded plug-in card that cost as much as a new scanner of improved
performance, and sometimes it was unresolvable. I have complete
confidence that the computer industry will continue to orphan legacy
interfaces in the same way as they have done in the past. ;-)

It is salutary to bear in mind that it is not strictly necessary to
"upgrade" computers and/or peripherals every time a new development
comes along. If we are talking about equipment whose capability is on a
level which enables us to do high-quality work, "upgrade" may as often
as not be unnecessary. Today, if one is using Windows, as I do on my one
hard drive (Linux is the sole inhabitant of the second HDD) it may be
wise to stay with Windows 2000 in order to avoid Product Activation. I
am completely at a loss to understand how people even consider having
software on their computers which needs activation or registration with
the manufacturer's service in order to be used. Certainly there are
sound reasons why we might choose not to entrust our data to programs
that cannot be controlled by the user.

Niche products are expensive products. Expensive products mean smaller
niches and the cycle continues until the manufacturer declares it no
longer a profitable business.

Whether or not film is going to become a small niche is uncertain.
Chances are that the history of new media will repeat itself here: When
a new media is introduced, it does not mean the death of the previous
one. Rather, they will both co-exist, and I can see nothing that tells
us that film will become rare or too expensive in the future. Of course,
one may argue that film is too expensive today, and I tend to at least
partially agree with that view.

The mechanics of the Nikon scanners are not capable of achieving the
same alignment from multi-pass multiscanning, as offered in Vuescan, as
the single-pass multiscan provided in the LS-4000/5000. Vuescan does
the best it can, but there is a loss in resolution due to the unknown
misalignment between passes - and since this is a facility you want to
use on your best images, resolution is not generally a disposable
commodity.

I was unaware that VueScan uses multi-pass in order to accomplish that.
Certainly that is almost similar to the infamous auto-reverse cassette
decks; not a particularly desirable construction.

It does and it is - if you are happy with the results without
multiscanning. Try a couple of difficult slides and negatives in both
scanners before committing your cash though.

Thank you for this input, I have to enter the virtues of multiscanning
into the equation.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Wayne Fulton]

I was unaware that VueScan uses multi-pass in order to accomplish that.
Certainly that is almost similar to the infamous auto-reverse cassette
decks; not a particularly desirable construction.

Except I suspect it is not correct for those Nikon/Minolta models which
support multiscanning. If you check the VueScan User Guide (Help file), on
the page about the Input tab options, towards the page bottom, the option
named Number of Samples describes how VueScan supports one pass
multiscanning on scanners that can support it.

It says "Number of samples is similar to Number of passes. Multi-sampling
is preferable as the scanner head is positioned once, which ensures that
the same area will be exposed for each sample. Multi-sampling is available
only on a limited number of scanners."

The next option described there is Number of Passes, which is for scanner
hardware that does not support Multiscanning. I think we will only see one
of these two options offered, as appropriate to the scanners hardware
capability.

 

[Wilfred]

If so, I should perhaps incline towards the LS-5000, but I have to
determine how important is multiscanning. Needless to point out,
underexposed negatives is by no means an uncommon occurrence.

Multiscanning is useful for dark areas on the original transparency.
They occur in overexposed negatives and underexposed slides.

In my experience, the noise that occurs in the highlight areas of
overexposed negatives is not as obvious as the noise in the shadows of
underxposed slides. I guess it's a matter of perception.

 

[Wilfred]

By simply scanning the same negatives and slides several times, which
yielded the result that there was a subtle difference in favor of the
Nikons.

I don't know why - but by default, autofocus is off in the Minolta
software. In tests that can be found on the internet and in magazines,
his has frequently led to the wrong conclusion that scans produced by
the Minolta 5400 are unsharp.
To judge the sharpness of the 5400 one should either switch AF on, or
set focus manually.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I have disposed of several scanners in less than a decade because
they became incompatible with either the new computer hardware or
operating systems - sometimes this could be resolved by further
expense, such as an upgraded plug-in card that cost as much as a new
scanner of improved performance, and sometimes it was unresolvable. I
have complete confidence that the computer industry will continue to
orphan legacy interfaces in the same way as they have done in the past. ;-)

It is salutary to bear in mind that it is not strictly necessary to
"upgrade" computers and/or peripherals every time a new development
comes along. If we are talking about equipment whose capability is on a
level which enables us to do high-quality work, "upgrade" may as often
as not be unnecessary. Today, if one is using Windows, as I do on my
one hard drive (Linux is the sole inhabitant of the second HDD) it may
be wise to stay with Windows 2000 in order to avoid Product Activation.

"Upgrade every time a new development comes along"? I am still using
Windows 98SE here, and the only reason I upgraded to that was because
Windows95 was incompatible with the driver for my photo quality printer
when I bought that. Fortunately I upgraded two levels in one step
because W98SE supports firewire (which W98 doesn't) otherwise I would
have been faced with another OS upgrade when I bought my LS-4000
scanner. Upgrades are often forced on you when you try to do new things
whether you like it or not, and it is very likely that you will need to
upgrade more than once in the coming decade - unless you intend to do
*exactly* the same things in 10 years time as you are doing today.

Whether or not film is going to become a small niche is uncertain.
Chances are that the history of new media will repeat itself here: When
a new media is introduced, it does not mean the death of the previous
one. Rather, they will both co-exist, and I can see nothing that tells
us that film will become rare or too expensive in the future.

The largest supplier of black and white photographic material worldwide
was until a few years ago, Ilford. I am fairly confident that the
recent demise of the Ilford film company will see the already high
relative cost of black and white materials rise as the remaining few
suppliers exploit their improved near monopoly position. This has
already happened with instant film stock following the demise of the
original Polaroid company a few years ago. It is only a matter of time
until one of the remaining big three go the same way. As to who goes
first, place your bets now...

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Multiscanning is useful for dark areas on the original
transparency. They occur in overexposed negatives
and underexposed slides.

In fact it is useful for all luminance levels, but *most noticable* in
the dense film areas (shadows in slides, highlights in negatives).

In my experience, the noise that occurs in the highlight
areas of overexposed negatives is not as obvious as the
noise in the shadows of underxposed slides. I guess it's
a matter of perception.

Yes perception is important, but film characteristics also play a
role. Each film (except specialized emulsions) has silver-halide
crystals of different size/sensitivity. The smaller grains have a
higher probability of becoming used as the exposure level increases.
Overexposing film can thus (amongst other less desirable effects)
result in finer average graininess (but depending on the composition
of the film emulsion). Overexposing will also reduce Photon shot noise
somewhat during exposure, which results in a general guideline to
avoid underexposing negative film. When in doubt, err on the
overexposure side. Slide film has much smaller exposure tolerance for
an average scene contrast, so correct exposure (usually meaning not
overexposing hightlights) is considered best practice.

Bart

 

[Wilfred]

SNIP


In fact it is useful for all luminance levels, but *most noticable* in
the dense film areas (shadows in slides, highlights in negatives).

You're right - I should have said 'most useful' ;-)

Yes perception is important, but film characteristics also play a
role. Each film (except specialized emulsions) has silver-halide
crystals of different size/sensitivity. The smaller grains have a
higher probability of becoming used as the exposure level increases.
Overexposing film can thus (amongst other less desirable effects)
result in finer average graininess (but depending on the composition
of the film emulsion). Overexposing will also reduce Photon shot noise
somewhat during exposure, which results in a general guideline to
avoid underexposing negative film. When in doubt, err on the
overexposure side. Slide film has much smaller exposure tolerance for
an average scene contrast, so correct exposure (usually meaning not
overexposing hightlights) is considered best practice.

In fact, often, noise is also obviously noticeable in the highlights of
correctly exposed negs and in the shadows of correctly exposed slides.
In those cases, the effects on negs don't seem to be as conspicious as
they are on slides. I think that's where the perception comes in.
Otherwise, indeed, the characteristics of the emulsion are more important.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I was unaware that VueScan uses multi-pass in order to accomplish that.
Certainly that is almost similar to the infamous auto-reverse cassette
decks; not a particularly desirable construction.

Except I suspect it is not correct for those Nikon/Minolta models which
support multiscanning.

That is correct, but in this context (choosing between a scanner which
supports multiscanning or not) it is irrelevant. In the case of the
Nikon LS-5000 the scanner integrally supports single pass multisampling
whether in NikonScan or Vuescan. In the case of the Nikon LS-50 it does
not integrally support multisampling, so the multipass option available
in Vuescan is the only available solution.