If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
I thank all those who responded to my previous
post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve my purpose. Now I have been considering the Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000 (4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was previously advised on this group that the 5400 is probably the better choice, and that it the additional resolution would make a difference. However. I just learned that Minolta has gone out of business. Did I hear that: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"? Would you still consider buying a Minolta? Thanks for your advice. Mike. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I thank all those who responded to my previous post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve my purpose. Now I have been considering the Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000 (4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was previously advised on this group that the 5400 is probably the better choice, and that it the additional resolution would make a difference. However. I just learned that Minolta has gone out of business. Did I hear that: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"? Would you still consider buying a Minolta? Very few photos have much detail that scanning at even 2000 ppi will not pick up. The loss from scanning at 4000 instead of 5400 will simply not be an issue, IMO If others feel that 5400 is needed I would sure like to see a scan to support this Scott |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
IMO the KM5400 does a great job but is not constructed to last forever.
When I called the MinoltaI service department end of last month to inquire how the repair of my unit was going they told me that it just made it before they were all fired as of April 1... So unless you can get one at a huge discount I would look at something else like the new Epson flatbeds. -- Hans |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
"Scott W" wrote in message ups.com... Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote: I thank all those who responded to my previous post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve my purpose. Now I have been considering the Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000 (4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was previously advised on this group that the 5400 is probably the better choice, and that it the additional resolution would make a difference. However. I just learned that Minolta has gone out of business. Did I hear that: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"? Would you still consider buying a Minolta? Very few photos have much detail that scanning at even 2000 ppi will not pick up. The loss from scanning at 4000 instead of 5400 will simply not be an issue, IMO If others feel that 5400 is needed I would sure like to see a scan to support this Scott I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10 megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi. Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this area myself. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:19:28 -0700, William Graham wrote:
[...] I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10 megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi. Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this area myself. Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less. I often crop, at least for rotational correction. Mike. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I thank all those who responded to my previous post advising me that a flat-bed will not serve my purpose. Now I have been considering the Minolta 5400 (5400dpi) and the Nikon 5000 (4000dpi). Since I want high resolution, I was previously advised on this group that the 5400 is probably the better choice, and that it the additional resolution would make a difference. However. I just learned that Minolta has gone out of business. Did I hear that: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley"? Would you still consider buying a Minolta? Until last year I had cheap access to a drum scanner. But it failed and we couldn't justify the cost of repair. So I rented a Minolta 5400 scanner. It worked OK, but the dynamic range of the scans was poor. Then the 5400 II was introduced. I rented one late last year. It had much better Dmax and I was very happy with the scans - they were as good as the old Howtek drum scanner I used, with very good Dmax. But the scanner broke and had to be returned for repair. The transport gears had fractured. A second 5400 II scanner had the same problem. Brand new out of the box, it worked fine. But the transport gears soon broke. I took it to be serviced at Konica Minolta UK and they told me they had a backlog of several dozen waiting to be repaired, all but a few with the same transport problem. The few others had a variety of problems. Apparently the metal transport gears of the 5400 were replaced with plastic on the 5400 II, presumably to save cost. So you have a choice between a well made 5400 with poor Dmax (a good flatbed scanner will beat the Dmax, that's how poor it is) or a flimsy 5400 II which makes excellent scans, but not many before it breaks. You choose. I chose a Nikon Coolscan LS5000ED. Alas, the resolution is lower than the Minolta 5400 but it is superbly made. I have one on order but the dealer has loaned me a Coolscan LS4000ED until it arrives. Nikon Europe are taking orders for the final production run of the LS5000ED, after which no more will be made. Check on the situation in your country. If you want the LS5000ED, now might be the last chance you have to order one. I will be buying a second Coolscan, probably used, as backup, because I don't want to risk being left to scan slides on a flatbed when my LS5000ED dies and I can no longer source a new one. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:19:28 -0700, William Graham wrote: [...] I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10 megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi. Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this area myself. Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less. I often crop, at least for rotational correction. Mike. If you drill down through the last photo on this page http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/rirpictsb.htm#bottom you'll eventually arrive at an illustration of what a hand-held 35mm scan at 2400 ppi can get you. HP PhotoSmart S20, cheap and useful, may be good enough. -- Frank ess |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:52:24 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
[...] I chose a Nikon Coolscan LS5000ED. Alas, the resolution is lower than the Minolta 5400 but it is superbly made. I have one on order but the dealer has loaned me a Coolscan LS4000ED until it arrives. [...] Google does not find LS5000ED, or variations thereof. It does find "5000 ED". Any idea why? Mike. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:18:57 -0700, Scott W wrote:
[...] Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less. I often crop, at least for rotational correction. So the question is would you get any more detail with a 5400 ppi scan then a 4000 ppi scan? Scott Yes, that is the question. I have postings from the past that say the answer is "yes". On the other hand, the question may be moot in view of what I read about the mechanical quality of the Minolta, and the quality of service from Sony. Mike. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
unexpectd film scanner problem
On 7 Apr 2006 16:18:57 -0700, "Scott W" wrote:
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:19:28 -0700, William Graham wrote: [...] I have the KM-5400, and I seldom use the full resolution. I usually scan at about 1400, and sometimes at 2700. This results in files of the order of 10 megabytes, and under 2 megabytes after fairly high JPG compression.....More than adequate for my purposes. The only real use of the higher resolution scans to me is if I want to crop something out of the background of one of my slides/negatives....Then I will use the greatest resolution in order to get the best image. But usually, the slide itself isn't good enough to extract much from an image unless the image is at least 25% of the original picture area.....IOW, if I have to crop less than that, it's going to be a loser, even at 5400 pixels per inch. If I had to do with a 4000 pixel per inch scanner, I wouldn't have any problem with that. If you are accustomed to taking tripod photos of stationary subjects, and really need the resolution, then you might want the 5400 dpi. Sony is taking over the maintenance of the KM scanners, and I have heard bad things about their service from others, but I have no experience in this area myself. Most of my pictures are taken with a tripod. Many are of stationary objects. Most with negative films 160 ISO or less. I often crop, at least for rotational correction. So the question is would you get any more detail with a 5400 ppi scan then a 4000 ppi scan? See Jim Hutchison's scanner bakeoff results, and some of the sample scans on my scan snippets site. The Minolta 5400 is (or was) capable of very impressive scans, and in some cases it is visibly and measurably sharper than the best scans I can do on my LS-8000, which is no slouch. http://www.jamesphotography.ca/ // scanner bakeoff The two sharpest scanners in the 2004 bakeoff are both Minolta 5400s. The next two down the list are 4000 dpi Nikons. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ // scan snippets See scans by Bart van der Wolf and Meino DeGraaf. I also disagree with Scott that there's no resolution on film beyond 2700 dpi. I worked for a couple of years with a Polaroid SprintScan Plus, which was a 2700 dpi scanner. Results from the LS-8000 are visibly better. There's no doubt that increased scanner resolution is a matter of diminishing returns. But with the right technique and film, that 5400 dpi from the Minolta *can* be observed. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prints from film v prints from digital images | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 58 | December 10th 05 02:18 PM |
Elementary questions on film handling. | Liopleurodon | In The Darkroom | 22 | December 8th 05 06:37 AM |
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant | Matt | Digital Photography | 1144 | December 17th 04 09:48 PM |
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant | Matt | 35mm Photo Equipment | 932 | December 17th 04 09:48 PM |
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | July 27th 04 03:31 AM |