Would you buy a Minolta 5400 film scanner now?

[Hecate]

Well, technically true, but you should add that you have to buy the FH-3, as
it does not come with the scanner. Kind of odd, considering the low price
of the holder. If you use the film strip reader, SA-21 I believe, it does
crop.

Actually, it's that particular film holder that crops.

I don't know why in hell, I as a Minolta user, am defending Nikon, but
there you go

 

[Scott]

Well, as I stated that the FH-3 does not crop, I figured we had covered that
ground. Seems odd that the film strip reader would crop, and the film
holder does not. Semantics aside, using the scanner with the film reader
provided does crop. Doesn't the Minolta Dual IV do that as well, with its
film holder?

Doesn't crop with the MA-21 slide holder either, which is included. So,
by definition, it isn't the scanner that is cropping!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when

replying)

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Well, as I stated that the FH-3 does not crop, I figured we had covered that
ground. Seems odd that the film strip reader would crop, and the film
holder does not. Semantics aside, using the scanner with the film reader
provided does crop.

Are you finding the MA-21 crops or don't you consider mounted slides to
be film?

 

[Bill Tuthill]

The LS-50, like other 35mm scanners in the Nikon range, has an active
capture area of 25.1x38.0mm, which is oversized for the nominal 24x36mm
frame. That means that the entire frame from virtually any 35mm camera
on the market can be captured without cropping.

Thanks the explaining this so succinctly, Kennedy.

However, like other 35mm scanners in the Nikon range, the LS-50 comes
with two film adapters. The MA-21 takes single slides and reduces the
available scan area to 25.1x36.8mm - still marginally greater than the
nominal 35mm frame. The MA-21 also takes an optional film strip adapter
for unmounted film strips of up to 6 frames, the FH-3, which holds the
film perfectly flat.

The FH-3 costs only $19 at the NYC retailers, but given the situtation,
would be a mandatory purchase for me. (Over the past many years I shot
exclusively negative film because my current scanner sux for slides.)
However the FH-3 is out of stock everywhere I looked.

This film strip holder reduces the available scan area to exactly
the nominal 24x36mm area of the 35mm frame. No cropping occurs with
the MA-21 adapter in any configuration.

I measured my negatives, and most of them had frames slightly larger
than 24x36mm. More like 24.5 x 36.5 mm. Perhaps it depends on camera
shutter design. Minolta 5400 claims 24.6 mm x 36.7 scan area.

However, the other adapter provided with the LS-50 is a motorised feed
unit for unmounted film strips, called the SA-21. With this adapter the
scan area does result in some cropping of the vertical height of the
35mm frame to allow for the three film sprocket detectors, which are
used for frame positioning. With the SA-21, the available scan area is
23.3x38mm, so ~ 0.7mm is cropped from the lower edge of the frame.

Yuck. There goes the big advantage of the LS-50 (speed of SA-21).
I wouldn't use it given the mere 23.3 (some people say 21mm) height.
Also some people report cropping from both bottom and top.

IN short, there is nothing to stop you from capturing a full 35mm frame
scan with any Nikon scanner and it is quite wrong to claim that the
scanner is incapable of doing so.

How do you scan unmounted slides? Do you have to use the FH-3?

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Are you finding the MA-21 crops or don't you consider mounted slides to
be film?

Most (all?) slide holders have smaller windows than the 35mm image area.
Measuring a random batch of slides (shot by my dad) that I had developed
after he died, the plastic frame size is 23.5 x 35mm.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Most (all?) slide holders have smaller windows than the 35mm image area.
Measuring a random batch of slides (shot by my dad) that I had developed
after he died, the plastic frame size is 23.5 x 35mm.

So you blame the scanner for the slide mounts your dad used?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Thanks the explaining this so succinctly, Kennedy.


The FH-3 costs only $19 at the NYC retailers, but given the situtation,
would be a mandatory purchase for me. (Over the past many years I shot
exclusively negative film because my current scanner sux for slides.)
However the FH-3 is out of stock everywhere I looked.

You can also use an FH-2 from earlier generations of Nikon scanner,
these are slightly thinner but well within the range of the focus
adjustment. These might be more readily available - or you could pick
up a used on Ebay.

I measured my negatives, and most of them had frames slightly larger
than 24x36mm. More like 24.5 x 36.5 mm. Perhaps it depends on camera
shutter design.

Perhaps, but I have used Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Leica cameras over
the years and none are more than 0.2mm larger than the nominal size. The
gap between frames is nominally 2mm wide (35mm perforations are
0.1870inch apart and 8 perforations per frame gives a frame pitch of
38mm), so a 36.5mm frame suggests that this is only 1.5mm in your case,
which would look a little unusual. I would check your measurement
again. Also, when the viewfinder of an SLR specifies a percentage
coverage it is against the nominal 24x36mm frame size, so you should
never find yourself framing into the oversized portions in any case.

Yuck. There goes the big advantage of the LS-50 (speed of SA-21).
I wouldn't use it given the mere 23.3 (some people say 21mm) height.
Also some people report cropping from both bottom and top.


How do you scan unmounted slides? Do you have to use the FH-3?

Pretty much, if you need to capture the full frame. The SA-21 won't
support single frames either - each strip needs to be between 2 and 6
frames inclusive.

 

[Scott]

Yes, I find the film strip holder crops a wee bit.

As to the consideration of mounted slides, as I was discussing film strips,
not slides, I figured you could follow the gist of my conversation. My
mistake.

Are you finding the MA-21 crops or don't you consider mounted slides to
be film?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when

replying)

 

[notso]

Most (all?) slide holders have smaller windows than the 35mm image area.
Measuring a random batch of slides (shot by my dad) that I had developed
after he died, the plastic frame size is 23.5 x 35mm.

There are full frame slide mounts that will show 100% of a frame's image
area. Gepe makes them. The Minolta 5400, and many other makes, will scan
the full image area (all 24x36mm) in these mounts, using the standard
slide holders accompanying the scanners. In another thread, there seems
to be a justification for the Nikon scanners' inability to scan a full
frame because they assume that the slides are not mounted in full frame
mounts. The Nikon engineers need to re-think about this.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

There are full frame slide mounts that will show 100% of a frame's image
area. Gepe makes them. The Minolta 5400, and many other makes, will scan
the full image area (all 24x36mm) in these mounts, using the standard
slide holders accompanying the scanners.

In another thread, there seems
to be a justification for the Nikon scanners' inability to scan a full
frame because they assume that the slides are not mounted in full frame
mounts.

Which is false information - the MA-20 and MA-21 single slide adapters
and the SF-200 and SF-210 batch slide adapters both cope with frames up
to and including 25.1x36.8mm, which is far greater than the nominal
frame size - in fact it is greater than the aperture of the full frame
GEPE mounts.

The Nikon engineers need to re-think about this.

Not this aspect they don't - it exceeds normal requirements.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Perhaps, but I have used Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Leica cameras over
the years and none are more than 0.2mm larger than the nominal size. The
gap between frames is nominally 2mm wide (35mm perforations are
0.1870inch apart and 8 perforations per frame gives a frame pitch of
38mm), so a 36.5mm frame suggests that this is only 1.5mm in your case,
which would look a little unusual. I would check your measurement
again. Also, when the viewfinder of an SLR specifies a percentage
coverage it is against the nominal 24x36mm frame size, so you should
never find yourself framing into the oversized portions in any case.

Yes, interframe gap is 1.5mm with that camera, a Minolta Riva/FZE 28-75.
However with my SLR, interframe gap is wider and images are closer to the
nominal 24x36mm size-- just a bit more both ways but not .5mm more.

Slide mounts usually crop, except for Gepe full-frame mounts I have just
learned. That's one good argument for having slides developed unmounted.
Another good argument is film flatness.

 

[Jerry C.]

So you blame the scanner for the slide mounts your dad used?

==================================================
Kennedy,

It is readily apparent that Bill Tuthill is implying that most slide
mounts are slightly undersized and not just his father's slide mounts.
Rather than personalizing his pertinent observation, perhaps you can
comment on it's validity? I'm curious too, for I don't know the answer.

Jerry Cipriano

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

==================================================
Kennedy,

It is readily apparent that Bill Tuthill is implying that most slide
mounts are slightly undersized and not just his father's slide mounts.
Rather than personalizing his pertinent observation, perhaps you can
comment on it's validity? I'm curious too, for I don't know the answer.

This is a nonsensical issue! Quite simply (and very obviously!) no
scanner will reproduce areas of the slide that are cropped by the mount
and neither will any projector that you have ever used to view them, so
bemoaning the fact that you have mounted slides which are so cropped is
totally irrelevant to the scanner performance as long as it doesn't crop
them further.

The fact is that the Nikon scanner will scan any slide you throw at it
up to an active area of 25.1x36.8mm, which is larger than the nominal
35mm frame, and if the mounts that you happen to use present less than
that, even if its only 1x1mm of active area, then that is your problem,
not the scanner's.

Full frame mounts do exist and are available on the market. If the
entire frame is important to you then you should be using those mounts
(not only for scanning but for all applications you put the sides to)
and the Nikon scanner range will cope with them all without any
additional cropping.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

The fact is that the Nikon scanner will scan any slide you throw at it
up to an active area of 25.1x36.8mm, which is larger than the nominal
35mm frame, and if the mounts that you happen to use present less than
that, even if its only 1x1mm of active area, then that is your problem,
not the scanner's.

Full frame mounts do exist and are available on the market. If the
entire frame is important to you then you should be using those mounts
(not only for scanning but for all applications you put the sides to)
and the Nikon scanner range will cope with them all without any
additional cropping.

Unless using the SA-21 film feeder because e.g. you ask for slides
to be unmounted and possibly cut into strips. Then the SA-21 will crop
significantly from top and/or bottom of each image.

Or unless you use negative film. In either case, you need to buy an
FH-3 (not provided with LS-30) or used FH-2. Hope I got it right.

Does using slide adapter MA-21 sometimes result in misfocusing due to
warping of slide film or holder mount?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Unless using the SA-21 film feeder because e.g. you ask for slides
to be unmounted and possibly cut into strips. Then the SA-21 will crop
significantly from top and/or bottom of each image.

Keep up at the back - we've covered that point numerous times on this
thread and focussed (no pun) on a specific issue - the use of the
MA-20/21. The SA-21 only crops 0.3mm from one edge (top or bottom
depending on which way you feed the film in).

Or unless you use negative film. In either case, you need to buy an
FH-3 (not provided with LS-30) or used FH-2. Hope I got it right.

I think you have it right, now.

Does using slide adapter MA-21 sometimes result in misfocusing due to
warping of slide film or holder mount?

Not that I have noticed, but I have only scanned a few thousand slides
with it, so what would I know? ;-)

 

[Jerry C.]

===========================================

This is a nonsensical issue! Quite simply (and very obviously!) no
scanner will reproduce areas of the slide that are cropped by the mount
and neither will any projector that you have ever used to view them, so
bemoaning the fact that you have mounted slides which are so cropped is
totally irrelevant to the scanner performance as long as it doesn't crop
them further.

The fact is that the Nikon scanner will scan any slide you throw at it
up to an active area of 25.1x36.8mm, which is larger than the nominal
35mm frame, and if the mounts that you happen to use present less than
that, even if its only 1x1mm of active area, then that is your problem,
not the scanner's.

Full frame mounts do exist and are available on the market. If the
entire frame is important to you then you should be using those mounts
(not only for scanning but for all applications you put the sides to)
and the Nikon scanner range will cope with them all without any
additional cropping.

====================================================
Kennedy,
Of course no scanner will reproduce areas cropped by the slide mount,
but I think you missed my simple question and Bill Tuthill's point. Are
many or most slide mounts smaller than 24x36? I'm not referring only to
Tuthill's father's slide mounts, but "many or most". If so, then this
might be the reason why so many people are complaining about their scans
being cropped. I'm assuming that you know the answer.

Jerry C.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Kennedy,
Of course no scanner will reproduce areas cropped by the slide mount,
but I think you missed my simple question and Bill Tuthill's point. Are
many or most slide mounts smaller than 24x36? I'm not referring only
to Tuthill's father's slide mounts, but "many or most". If so, then
this might be the reason why so many people are complaining about their
scans being cropped.

Again, I think you missed my point. Irrespective of whether "many or
most" slide mounts crop, that is independent of the scanner. The Nikon
scanner will not crop any 35mm mounted slides any more than the mount
will.

I'm assuming that you know the answer.

Probably, I'm assuming that people aren't stupid enough to blame the
scanner for cropping something they cannot see when they hold the
mounted slide up in front of their own eyes.

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Of course no scanner will reproduce areas cropped by the slide mount,
but I think you missed my simple question and Bill Tuthill's point. Are
many or most slide mounts smaller than 24x36? I'm not referring only to
Tuthill's father's slide mounts, but "many or most".

All or most commercial slide mounts (plastic and paper) crop the image.
You can purchase Gepe anti-Newton glass slide mounts (only $340 per 1000)
that hold slide film flat and do not crop. Or (more likely) give up the
idea of slide projection if you want to scan full-frame.

If so, then this might be the reason why so many people are complaining
about their scans being cropped.

No, people who have slides mounted probably don't care about full frame.
I already cited this URL, but because I have lots of patience with people
who don't read all the thread (myself being one of them) I will cite it
again. This guy Thierry Burlot complains that his SA-21 crops 3mm total
down to 21mm (1.5mm at top and bottom) from his film feeds:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008LJg

This is at odds with what Kennedy has been saying, and also at odds with
Nikon's manual, which says cropping is only 23.3 vertically. I don't know
the truth of this matter, not having any friends who both care about it
and own an SA-21. Nor has anyone followed up with precise measurements
in the above photo.net thread.

 

[Jerry C.]

All or most commercial slide mounts (plastic and paper) crop the image.
You can purchase Gepe anti-Newton glass slide mounts (only $340 per 1000)
that hold slide film flat and do not crop. Or (more likely) give up the
idea of slide projection if you want to scan full-frame.

No, people who have slides mounted probably don't care about full frame.
I already cited this URL, but because I have lots of patience with people
who don't read all the thread (myself being one of them) I will cite it
again. This guy Thierry Burlot complains that his SA-21 crops 3mm total
down to 21mm (1.5mm at top and bottom) from his film feeds:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008LJg

This is at odds with what Kennedy has been saying, and also at odds with
Nikon's manual, which says cropping is only 23.3 vertically. I don't know
the truth of this matter, not having any friends who both care about it
and own an SA-21. Nor has anyone followed up with precise measurements
in the above photo.net thread.

===============================================
Thanks Bill. A concise and responsive answer. I do try to read far
enough back in most threads so as to not appear ignorant when posting.
Sometimes, however, it is difficult if the thread is very long.

Jerry C.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I already cited this URL, but because I have lots of patience with people
who don't read all the thread (myself being one of them) I will cite it
again. This guy Thierry Burlot complains that his SA-21 crops 3mm total
down to 21mm (1.5mm at top and bottom) from his film feeds:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008LJg

This is at odds with what Kennedy has been saying, and also at odds with
Nikon's manual, which says cropping is only 23.3 vertically. I don't know
the truth of this matter, not having any friends who both care about it
and own an SA-21. Nor has anyone followed up with precise measurements
in the above photo.net thread.

OK Here are some figures I just measured for a Nikon LS-4000ED using
4000ppi scans together with the Nikon specifications:

Using SA-21 motorised adapter with unmounted film strip of 6 frames:
Full area: 3946 x 5959pixels (25.1 x 37.8mm)
Nikon specification: 3946 x 5959pixels (25.1 x 38.0mm)

Active area: 3703 x 5643pixels (23.5 x 35.8mm)
Nikon Specification: 3654 x 5646pixels (23.3 x 36.0mm)

The active area is after cropping in Photoshop to remove all of the
border, whether that it due to the edge or the frame on the film itself
or a crop due to the SA-21 scan aperture.

When using the MA-20 slide adapter:
Full area: 3946 x 5782pixels (25.1 x 36.7mm)
Nikon Specification: 3946 x 5782pixels (25.1 x 36.8mm)

Crop using Gepe mounted slide (just normal type, not a full frame):
Active area: 3605 x5498pixels (22.9 x 34.9mm)

The active area was again cropped in Photoshop. Note however, that the
slide mount had slightly rounded corners and this crop was internal (no
black corners). Consequently, depending on where exactly on the rounded
corner the crop was made, there could be some trade-off between the
width and the height in an acceptable crop. Also, when scanning
oversized 38mm square slides in standard 2" mounts, the full area (25.1
x 37.8mm) of the MA-21 was available for the active image. In other
words, the crop was definitely the slide mount not the scanner.

Several points from these measurements are clear.

1. In specifying the active area of the SA-21, Nikon are conservative.
In my result the width of 35.8mm above is the actual edge of the frame
recorded by the camera on the film. With an oversized camera frame the
SA-21 would actually capture an active area of 23.5 x 37.8mm. In terms
of height, 50 pixels (0.3175mm at 4000ppi) more than the Nikon
specification are available within the cropped area of the active image.

2. With the MA-20 the number of pixels is *exactly* as the Nikon
specification (differences in physical dimensions are probably rounding
as I just read these numbers off the Photoshop Image size dialog box,
which is only accurate to +/-0.1mm).

3. The nominal height crop that occurs with the SA-21 automatic feeder
is actually LESS than the crop produced by a standard Gepe mount (both
glass and glassless mounts were checked, since I wanted to see if I had
any full frame mounts to hand - I didn't, and both types I had were the
same dimensions).

I don't know what Thierry Burlot was doing to lose a total of 3mm from
the height of his frames in the SA-21, either physically with the film
or in terms of calculating the lost dimensions. However his results are
not in agreement with my data above nor with the Nikon specification.
Perhaps his scanner is faulty or he is feeding the film into it in a
very strange manner to offset the frame relative to the adapter gate, or
his camera is out of specification and recording the image
asymmetrically on the film - although that much would overlap the
perforations - or his arithmetic is askew, or his measurements just
aren't up to par. Who knows?

Irrespective of Thierry's problem with his scanner, film, camera or
arithmetic, the data above are the precise measurements of a Nikon
scanner. Unfortunately I don't have any of my older Nikon scanners
around anymore, to check if the older SA-20 motorised feed cropped
tighter, but I don't recall there being a significant difference. Also,
I have some oversized scans taken from some of those 38x38mm slides with
an ancient LS-20 scanner, and an old FH-2 film strip holder I have from
that scanner has frame dimensions of exactly 24x36mm. So I have no
doubt that all Nikon scanners have scan areas which are at least as
large as the nominal 35mm frame. ie. the scanners do *NOT* crop a
nominal 35mm frame!