Scanning LF Negative 4"x5"

<p>"...if some Minoltas at 5400 dpi tested higher than a 4000 dpi Nikon ask yourself why was it a marketing dud?"</p>

<p>I dunno, maybe for the same reason that essentially all vendors (except Plustek and arguably Nikon) have dropped out of the 35mm film scanner market.</p>

<p>The resolution difference between the Nikon and the Minolta had nothing to do with the Minolta being a dud. The Minolta easily outresolved the Nikon. In fine grained B&W work, I was always able to produce more fine detail in a large print from the Minolta.</p>

<p>It came down to marking. Why did Beta fail against VHS when it resolved more? Marketing. The real dud was the use of this as a comparison. Folks, we don't need to read a post of War and Peace every page to see the difference. Pull a high rez scan vs a lower rez scan and make a large print from it. Some films will benefit, some won't. Some optics will, some won't. I've compared the differences for many years....and have never resorted to test charts.</p>

<p>Must admit it's great to see Kelly get fired up over this topic.....many will get caught up with the idea that more is always better. I've found that high dpi's much resemble high megapixel sensors...more is not necessarily better. I have scanned 4x5's and 6x17's on both a drum scanner (with oil attach), and flatbeds but found little if any gain past 1200 dpi. The 4800 and 9600 levels are ludicrous, increasing file size no end, but offering very little (if any) increase in resolution. I think that hi res begins and ends with the camera and its lens and your ability to hit sharp focus. I now use an old Arcus 1200 (beastly thing) that at its maximum stretch of 1200dpi renders large images that would make your eyes pop.</p>

<p>Dave;</p>

<p>All of us have different results with these scanners. I drank the Koolaid too and I believed the Minolta 5400 units were better. I got excited and then got disappointed.</p>

<p>****My own experience is different than yours.</p>

<p>When the first 5400 unit was no better; I waited and later got another and it too was no better than my Nikon or Canon 4000 dpi units.</p>

<p>I gave up after two Minoltas; they got sold off on Ebay. I suppose I could have bought a dozen and found a gem; but then again one has no global data base to tell what the odd are of cherry picking a great 5400 unit.</p>

<p>Thus at least here I compared gem of gems sharp stuff shot with Kodak Ektar 25 with super high end drum scans versus my Canon and Nikon 4000 dpi film scans versus the two Minolta 5400 units. I purposely used the rare example cases that breached the 4000 dpi units; ie where the super high end drums can pickup up a tad more details. Then with the two 5400 Minolta units I had; plus a buddies I never saw where the 5400 units really helped.</p>

<p>I am not saying you that you do not have a hot 5400 unit that betters the 4000 ones; but here I just tested only a sample of three units; thus I declared my own tests as strike out.</p>

<p>The real question is how much raw cash does one spend buying "5400 dpi/ppi" class units and testing them to get one that betters what I already have?</p>

<p>My own experience is the 5400 units were not clearly better; it was a wash.</p>

<p>Ok so YOURS "easily outresolved the Nikon"</p>

<p>I have an Epson 2450 flatbed here that was one of the first units; it is excellent for a flatbed; I really have not found any newer units that better it; ie 3200; 4800; the V500; V755 etc.</p>

<p>With another 2450 model; it is not as good as the first one. One can mess around with z heights on both to get the best focus; and the earlier one is noticeably better.</p>

<p>Here based on 3 samples; I would call myself a liar if I said that the Minolta 5400 was much better; or even measureable any better than a common 4000 dpi unit. Your experience is different; based I guess on as sample one unit.</p>

<p>I am not saying that others too might get better results with a 5400 minolta; if they do that is cool.</p>

<p>In a way it is like chasing a better 50mm lens; these scanners DO VARY thus we all can be correct with what we have used; but differ since we have different serial number units.</p>

<p>With one data point one can prove any cause.</p>

<p>Here at least none of the Minolta 5400 units really scnned any more details than my 4000 dpi units; and no more details showed up in any big prints. And that was with using the ultra rare cases where an original breaches a 4000 dpi unit</p>

<p>******The whole reason as a service bureau I got the 5400 calls units is to reduce the few/little stuft that was farm out for high end drum scans.</p>

<p>Thus the 5400 units were tested on the select ultra rare stuff that was sent out to be drum scanned. The rare stuff that got drum scanned out also got a 5400 dpi scan on the two Minoltas; the results really were no better than the 4000 dpi stuff; thus no sane customer would go for the lack of value; but the drum scans pulled out a tad more.</p>

<p>Thus the 5400 dpi minolta project was failure. It is sort of like buying a new 7200 dpi flatbed and finding out gee it is the same as my old great Epson 2450.</p>

<p>When I dumped the 5400 Minoltas On ebay; I said that they were really about a 4000 dpi unit; for fear of getting negative feedback due to fibbing. I really did not want some poor soul to find out these two were no better than 4000 dpi ones; then blast me with negative feedback for claiming they were.</p>

<p>I am not saying you that you do not have a hot 5400 unit that betters the 4000 ones; but here I just tested only a sample of three units; thus I declared my own tests as strike out.</p>

<p>The real question is how many units does one have to go through; to get a good one. Mine two we brand new units; my buddies was a used Ebay one.<br>

<br /> maybe these vary all over the place like Russian Zorkis?</p>

<p>Go to this link and read the test results on Velvia scanned at 4000 and 8000 dpi:<br>

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Scan8000.html</p>

<p> </p>