Dimage Scan Elite 5400

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Melvyn Kopstein, Jul 22, 2003.

  1. I had alot of responses to my recent post on rec.photo.equipment.35mm
    regarding film scanners. I was trying to decide between Nikon's Coolscan IV
    and 4000ED models. Many responses opined that Minolta's new Dimage Scan
    Elite 5400 scanner would be a superior choice. The Nikon scanners have been
    out a few years and have excellent reputations. At this point, I will
    select either the 5400 or 4000 ED. With the Nikon rebate the cost
    differential is essentially zero. The big question I have is how the
    Minolta scanner fares compared with the 4000ED.
     
    Melvyn Kopstein, Jul 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Melvyn Kopstein

    David Chien Guest

    5400 basically kills the Nikon. Completely replaces it and puts in
    higher resolution, better performance, etc. Figure it's the newest
    model out, so of course they'd have time to fix any problems competing
    with the competition.

    Of course, it only begs to ask "what does Nikon have up their sleves?"
     
    David Chien, Jul 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >But if you scan a 24x36 mm negative at 5400 dpi you get a 38 Megapixel
    >image, which at 16 bit colour yields a 219 MByte file. Now, at the very
    >best a negative has less than 9 Megapixel of resolution (and that only
    >without camera shake and excellent lenses), so scanning it a 5400 dpi


    And so begins the trolling.

    There's little question that the 4000dpi scanners are better than the
    2900dpi ones. (and the latter already pulled in 12mp). Whether or not
    the gain to 5400 is worth something is hard to say. The one review cited
    in this thread was done by a guy who owned an old nikon LS-30. Of
    course he saw improvement.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. Melvyn Kopstein

    Jim Holland Guest

    Good Morning!

    > HRosita wrote:


    > Hi,


    > I just got a Minolta 5400 and sold my Nikon IV.
    > Excellent move. The Minolta gives excellent slide scans
    > right out of the box, no need to "fiddle" with the
    > curves, etc.


    > Minolta also has real good slide and film holders.


    > The overall color rendition is much better than the
    > Nikon IV ED (2900 resolution).


    > The ICE options is absolutely amazing. Took out the
    > black spots (fungus) and did not harm the image.
    > Rosita


    What is the asking price of the 5400?

    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

    Jim

    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
     
    Jim Holland, Jul 25, 2003
    #4
  5. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > It is widely accepted that a
    > negative doesn't have so much resolution - so the question remains, what
    > is the point of scanning a negative with such a high resolution ?


    It is widely accepted that negatives tend to scan as more grainy than slides
    do. Part of which is caused by grain-aliasing, and that can only be reduced
    by a smaller sampling pitch.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 25, 2003
    #5
  6. "Jim Holland" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > What is the asking price of the 5400?


    Depends on your geographic region, but I've frequently seen it quoted for ?
    895,00 (incl. VAT).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 25, 2003
    #6
  7. Melvyn Kopstein

    HRosita Guest

    Hi Jim,

    You can get it at PCNation.com for $845 and free shipping. Also J&R will price
    match it.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Jul 25, 2003
    #7
  8. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > So should one scan a 5400 dpi, transfer the 38 MPixel image into
    > Photoshop and downsample to - let's say - 10 MPixel ? In other words,
    > use the high resolution to oversample the negative ?


    In general, that's the best approach.

    > I'm asking as I'm in the process of buying a scanner and it will be
    > either the Minolta Dimage Elite II (2820 dpi) or the Elite 5400.
    > Currently leaning towards the Elite 5400 because of the USB 2 interface
    > and partly because it just costs a little bit more, but has so much more
    > resolution, which might be useful one day.


    Given the choice, I'd go for the 5400. It also has a built-in diffuser that
    will help in graininess and scratch suppression (even on silver based B&W
    film). What's more, 5400 ppi is close to the limit of detail in most films,
    so there will not likely be a need to rescan your films.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 26, 2003
    #8
  9. Melvyn Kopstein

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:58:34 +0100, "badgerfish"
    <> wrote:

    >3 reasons for a 4500 scanner.
    >
    >1. Minolta is desperately seeking to keep its SLR customers on board. With
    >no DSLR & not one in sight, they are leaving in droves to other brands. I
    >have seen evidence this little 'sweetie' is keeping some of them.
    >
    >2. Much of the consumer technology out there is a solution looking for a
    >problem. The problem in this case is that unnecessary scanning up to 5400
    >DPI pulls out so much grain and detritus from a neg that Minolta have
    >invented a blurry thing in the scanner to make it look better.
    >
    >3. Minolta have done this because they can.........



    I think perhaps your item #3 has a grain of truth to it.

    Having the very-highest dpi rating of any current
    prosumer CCD film scanner will get them some press
    and win them some market share.

    The fact that the "gain" is mostly illusory isn't all that
    important in the big picture.

    Frankly, I'm surprised at *any* new developments
    in the film scanner market, as I expect that market
    will dwindle and fade away over the next several
    years.

    If my own experience is any indication, I think the
    switch to a quality dSLR is a one-way street.
    Folks are not going to be pleased with the drudgery
    & cost of film and film scanning once they've
    worked with a decent dSLR.

    In fact, I am worried about my MF cameras and
    LS-8000, and wondering how much use they
    may get in the near future...


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 12, 2003
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >Frankly, I'm surprised at *any* new developments
    >in the film scanner market, as I expect that market
    >will dwindle and fade away over the next several
    >years.


    I expect that there are lots of serious amateurs who want to digitize
    film in a couple of years. Maybe labs are picking that up and start offering
    high quality scans to the general public. But in the mean time, it is
    better to get your own scanner.

    Especially when you are used to doing your own color corrections (and
    printing), you don't want to hand some slides or negatives to a consumer
    lab for a printing. (I don't want to hand my film to a consumer lab
    for scanning either).

    I guess that if I simply ask for 4000 ppi, 16-bit/channel in either tiff or
    png, then a relatively small number of frames will cost me as much as a
    new Minolta.



    Philip Homburg
     
    Philip Homburg, Aug 12, 2003
    #10
  11. Melvyn Kopstein

    badgerfish Guest

    I think 'grain' is a very important issue for scanner manufacturers, go to
    any high capacity scanner ng or discussion & you will see time after time,
    'my scanner shows too much grain I am sending it back.....'. People just do
    not realise that they are blowing up images many many times when they zoom
    in photochop etc.

    Hence consumer 'problem' & minoltas blurry thing to 'fix' it.

    I agree with you about MF & scanning, I have fridge full of fim & chemicals
    & a scanner that does not get used that often these days.....
     
    badgerfish, Aug 13, 2003
    #11
  12. badgerfish <> wrote:
    >I think 'grain' is a very important issue for scanner manufacturers, go to
    >any high capacity scanner ng or discussion & you will see time after time,
    >'my scanner shows too much grain I am sending it back.....'. People just do
    >not realise that they are blowing up images many many times when they zoom
    >in photochop etc.


    It's not a matter of blowing up to 200% or beyond. I see too much grain
    at the initial starting point of 33%. Consumer grade film just isn't that
    great. Sometimes I'm scanning off disposables.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 13, 2003
    #12
  13. Melvyn Kopstein

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Hi Jason,
    >>
    >> First, Alfred thinks he knows everything which is very anoying to those of us
    >> who do.

    >
    >What are you trying to say here ? Perhaps that you know everything ?
    >
    >A 5400 dpi scan of a negative will produce a 38 MP images, which at 16
    >bit colour generates an over 200 MB file. It is widely accepted that a
    >negative doesn't have so much resolution - so the question remains, what
    >is the point of scanning a negative with such a high resolution ?


    The higher the resolution, the more accurate a downsample will be.
    Noise reduction is also more effective at a higher resolution; you lose
    less image when the noise is removed.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 13, 2003
    #13
  14. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:csrfrnppkgv6hdo9qc6m7tgsd1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    > In article <>,
    > Rafe B. <> wrote:
    > I guess that if I simply ask for 4000 ppi, 16-bit/channel in either tiff

    or
    > png, then a relatively small number of frames will cost me as much as a
    > new Minolta.


    Before I bought my 4000 DPI scanner, I sent out for ProPhotoCD scans.
    12 bits/ch, ~4000 DPI, $10/frame.

    Russell Williams
    not speaking for Adobe Systems
     
    Russell Williams, Aug 14, 2003
    #14
  15. In article <3rz_a.152$>,
    Russell Williams <> wrote:
    >"Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    >news:csrfrnppkgv6hdo9qc6m7tgsd1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    >> In article <>,
    >> Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >> I guess that if I simply ask for 4000 ppi, 16-bit/channel in either tiff

    >or
    >> png, then a relatively small number of frames will cost me as much as a
    >> new Minolta.

    >
    >Before I bought my 4000 DPI scanner, I sent out for ProPhotoCD scans.
    >12 bits/ch, ~4000 DPI, $10/frame.


    So about 80 frames cost the same as the new Minolta.



    Philip Homburg
     
    Philip Homburg, Aug 14, 2003
    #15
  16. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote in message
    news:pamfcpta8m29k4vtm2r4m7osq7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
    > In article <3rz_a.152$>,
    > Russell Williams <> wrote:

    SNIP
    > >Before I bought my 4000 DPI scanner, I sent out for ProPhotoCD scans.
    > >12 bits/ch, ~4000 DPI, $10/frame.

    >
    > So about 80 frames cost the same as the new Minolta.


    Yep, although the more professional users (only meaning they try to make
    money with it) might want to factor operating time in as well. Nevertheless,
    I could never expect (only hope) for anyone to put more effort in extracting
    all information the film has to offer, than I do.

    By the way, the ProPhoto-CD scanner is pretty decent, but the operator still
    makes the difference.

    Well, I've got a selection from some 100 images to scan, so back to scanning
    (and thinking about the money I've already saved with a single investment).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 14, 2003
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. HRosita

    Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 Scanner and J&R

    HRosita, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    397
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Steffen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    473
    Steffen
    May 6, 2004
  3. Steffen

    DiMage Scan Elite 5400 - low compression as default

    Steffen, Jun 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    341
    HRosita
    Jun 9, 2004
  4. Fausto

    Nikon Coolscan V vs Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400

    Fausto, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,028
    HRosita
    Jul 15, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,071
Loading...

Share This Page