Nikon 5000 Coolscan or Minolta 5400 film scanner

[len_gee]

I'm trying to decide on either the Nikon 5000 Coolscan or the

Minolta 5400.

 

Purpose is to take my slides and negatives of 30 years and get them

into the computer for eventual display up to large size prints 13x19

inches.

 

Can anyone tell me what "D MAX" means. Is there a significant

difference in a D MAX of 4.2 and 4.8? Where would I notice the

difference. In the shadows or?

 

Which one would your recommend I buy? and Why?

 

Using a Windows PC with P4, 512 RAM and 30 gig HD. Epson 2200

printer.

 

Thanks in advance.

[madwand]

The Nikon has an optional film loader which might be what you'd want for scanning 30 years of slides. Here's a link on the subject:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/3000slides.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/3000slides.htm</a><p>

[jemini_joseph]

Leonard

Coolscan should be much better. Even 4000 was better than 5400 in color and dynamic range. I've tried 5400 and many times it was impossible to get the color that matches the slides even with Photoshop. This is my experience. I could have tried the wrong sample. 5000 is a professional scanner. The coolscan that competes with 5400 should be Coolscan V<br><br>

<a href="http://www.color-pictures.com" target="w-2">www.color-pictures.com</a>

[john_shriver]

In the case of Nikon, Dmax means "how many bits the analog-to-digital convertor has". Or, to put it more bluntly, it is complete marketing bull.

 

What Dmax should mean is what is the highest film density that can be scanned and cleanly distinguished from completely opaque, without being total noise. For the latest Coolscans, those numbers are probably somewhere between 2.0 and 2.5.

 

The Coolscans are actually quite competitive in their actual Dmax capabilities, probably among the best in CCD film scanners. It's just that the pointy-haired guys in Nikon's marketing department have decided that meaningless hyperbolic numbers will be more profitable. They aren't alone, the whole scanner industry is awash with incredibly deceptive (if not fraudulent) specifications.

 

Is there a real Dmax difference between the Coolscan V and 5000? Good question. Between the Nikon and Minolta? Probably the real Dmax is higher in the Nikon, as others have noted.

 

Also, if you are scanning Kodachromes, the Analog Gain feature of the Nikon is a real plus.

 

Are the trade rags going to tell you what the real Dmax is? What, and annoy their advertisers? Forget it!

[marek_gorecki1]

Hello,

I have 2 scanners Minolta 5400 and Coolscan 5000.

Looks that Nikon scanner has better mechanical quality but 5400 has far better output. Nikon's real scan resolution is about 3600, Minolta's about 5000 even more. It makes a big difference for prints.

Nikon crops only part of the film frame - lose about 10% of the frame.

Minolta crops full frame of the film.

In the past I have tested my old Minolta Scan Speed 2700 v. Coolscan 4000. I was able to get the same tonality (in the shadows and light areas of my slides or negatives). 5400 v. 5000 is a deep difference. Minolta has much better D max and sharpness. I did scan about 10,000 slides (9000 for index pic. 1000 max res.) and 2000 negs. on my 5400 and 3000 using my Nikon. Finally I decided to keep my Nikon as a backup. For index pictures (small images) Nikon is good but not very. If I scan on Nikon 5000 very well exposed Velvia slide and use all available tools the output looks not very good. Minolta gives better output from well exposed slides or negatives. In both scanners I use vuescan for index pictures and original software for the max. resolution.

[steven3]

hello evry one

I hate the precise same question. and now i am much moore confused i love nikon but i think it is very exspensiv compaird to minolta. I want quality photos soo please some one give me the same answer.

 

best regards

steven (sorry for the spelling :-) )

[len_gee]

My original post:

 

Subject: Nikon 5000 Coolscan or Minolta 5400 film scanner

 

I'm trying to decide on either the Nikon 5000 Coolscan or the Minolta 5400.

 

Purpose is to take my slides and negatives of 30 years and get them into the computer for eventual display up to large size prints 13x19 inches.

 

 

Can anyone tell me what "D MAX" means. Is there a significant difference in a D MAX of 4.2 and 4.8? Where would I notice the difference. In the shadows or?

 

 

Which one would your recommend I buy? and Why?

 

 

Using a Windows PC with P4, 512 RAM and 30 gig HD. Epson 2200 printer.

 

 

Thanks in advance.

 

-- Leonard Gee

 

 

Thanks for all your input to my original post.

 

As a novice to scanning- I still don't know the difference between 4000 resolution and 5400 resolution regarding Densitiy Range (D Max?) Nikon's Coolscan 5000ED (4.2) and Minolta 5400 (4.8). In simple terms, where does the higher "D Max" in a photo noticable- if I scan the same slide/negative printed on an Epson 2200 and compare the photos side by side. Does it mean the Minolta with 5400 makes a sharper/more detailed scan? How large of the files? Do I have enough computing power with 512 RAM?

 

I plan on scanning old slides (many Kodachrome)and negatives with the "winners" final output to prints 11x14 to 13x19. Finally, what about a scanner with less resolution and D Max for my purposes?

 

Thanks again.

[jos_roost]

<i>"I still don't know the difference between 4000 resolution and 5400 resolution</i><br>

Resolution is given in PPI or Pixels Per Inch (for printers DPI or DotsPerInch).

Your 35mm slide is 24x36mm large, or appr. 0.945" x 1.417"<br>

Scanning with the Nikon with 4000ppi will give you an image of 4000 x (0.945" x 1.417") or 3779 x 5669 pixels.<br>

Scanning with the Minolta with 5400ppi will give you an image of 5102 x 7653 pixels.<br>

It is often thought that scanning with 4000ppi is sufficient to extract most

of the image information from a 35mm slide or negative, but some people say

that 5400ppi gives you more details. However, I don't think that the difference

between 4000ppi and 5400ppi is very significant.

<br><br>

<i>regarding Densitiy Range (D Max?) Nikon's Coolscan 5000ED (4.2) and Minolta 5400 (4.8).

In simple terms, where does the higher "D Max" in a photo noticable-

if I scan the same slide/negative printed on an Epson 2200 and compare

the photos side by side. Does it mean the Minolta with 5400 makes a sharper/more detailed scan?

</i><br>

Density Range is the range between the most dense (Dmax) and the least dense (Dmin)

parts of a slide or negative. The scanner should be able to capture all available image

information in this range.<br>

Manufacturers usually only provide a Dmax value for their scanners, and almost

always it is the "theoretical" maximum, not the more relevant "measured" or "tested" Dmax.

Both the Nikon 5000 and the Minolta 5400 have a theoretical Dmax of 4.8.

(I don't know where you found 4.2; that is the theoretical Dmax of the Coolscan V)

Minolta also gives a "tested" value of 3.8 for the Elite 5400 (MinoltaEurope website,

comparison table of scanners) and the "tested" value for the Nikon 5000 is probably

close to that (but I don't believe that it is 4.2).<br>

Conclusion: These two scanners are about the best consumer/prosumer filmscanners

you can buy today, and I think that with either one you will be able to scan at

least 99% of all your slides and negatives properly.<br>

But note: there will be a learning process to get the best results out of these

scanners. Once you get there, you will probably not notice in the final print,

any difference in scanner specifications.

<br><br>

<i>How large of the files?</i><br>

That is easy to calculate: for each pixel, the measured (scanned) colour needs

to be stored in the image file, which normally requires 3 bytes: one each for

Red, Green and Blue (RGB).<br>

So for a 4000ppi Nikon scan: 3779 x 5669 x 3 bytes = 64269453 bytes = 61.3 MB<br>

For a 5400ppi Minolta scan: 5102 x 7653 x 3 bytes = 117136818 bytes = 111.7 MB<br>

If you scan in 16 bits, file sizes will double.<br>

("16 bits" means 16 bits or 2 bytes per colour)<br>

<br>

<i>Do I have enough computing power with 512 RAM? </i><br>

512 MB RAM is o.k., 1024 MB would be better.<br>

With the filesizes just explained, you probably need a new/extra Harddisk.<br>

<br>

<i>I plan on scanning old slides (many Kodachrome)and negatives with the "winners"

final output to prints 11x14 to 13x19.</i><br>

With old slides, you may want to use ICE, the infrared-based dust and scratch

removal. However, for both scanners, ICE may not work properly with Kodachrome.

You will just have to try it.<br>

For good print quality, you will need around 300 dpi.<br>

A 4000ppi Nikon scan will give you a maximum 300dpi print of 3779/300 x 5669/300 = 12.6" x 18.9"<br>

A 5400ppi Minolta scan will give you a maximum 300dpi print of 5102/300 x 7653/300 = 17.0" x 25.5"<br>

<br>

<i>Finally, what about a scanner with less resolution and D Max for my purposes? </i><br>

As you can see, you will need at least a 4000ppi scanner to make these large prints.<br>

For slides you need a good / high Dmax.<br>

So the answer is NO and NO.<br><br>

Personally, I bought the Minolta 5400, because I think it provides better value

for money than the Nikon 5000. Also, I didn't need the high speed of the Nikon.

If you have very many slides to scan, the Nikon's speed may be an advantage,

but you will then also need to buy the expensive SF-210 slidefeeder.<br>

I hope all this helps you with your choice.<br>

 

 

 

[len_gee]

Jos-

 

Thanks for you very complete and easy to understand answers to all my newbie questions about the film scanners.

 

I have a few more questions I hope you can answer for me:

 

I've read two magazine reviews both giving high marks for the Nikon and the Minolta.

 

I personally am leaning toward the Minolta 5400- reason: More resolution (?) and cheaper than the Nikon. One thing however, one review was not too keen on the scanning software that comes with the Minolta. Suggest something called SilverFast. I think it is an additional $200 thus bringing the cost to about that of the Nikon. I know Nikon has quite a reputation among professionals.

Don't know that much about Minolta and their scanners i.e reliablility and service. Is the standard scanning software that comes with the Minolta ok for a beginner like myself? Just to get the slides/negatives into the computer and print a few good ones up to 13x19.

 

What about the slide/negative holders for the Minolta? Is the design good for keeping the film flat?

 

I have both PC P4 with Windows XP, and a Mac ibook laptop 384 RAM with OSX that I use when in the field. The Minolta would be compatible with both OS, I presume..

 

Again, many thanks for your suggestions.

[grant_.]

well, i just got a 5400, and im pretty much blown away by the quality. i scan in 16 bit linear, dont know if the nikon does that, but its a raw scan with no manips by the software....

<br>

<br>

heres a pic shot with prob a 35mm lens, 400asa...

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/dr/2strays.jpg">

<br>

<br>

<br>

heres a 100% crop at 5400dpi of that neg....i didnt have the diffuser on, so it picked up the grain nicely.... :)

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/dr/2strayscrop.jpg">

[grant_.]

heres one at 100asa

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/dr/bballnet.jpg">

[grant_.]

100% crop

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/dr/bballnetcrop.jpg">

[jos_roost]

Leonard,<br>

<i>I personally am leaning toward the Minolta 5400- reason: More resolution (?)

and cheaper than the Nikon.

One thing however, one review was not too keen on the scanning software that

comes with the Minolta.

Suggest something called SilverFast. I think it is an additional $200 thus

bringing the cost to about that of the Nikon.

I know Nikon has quite a reputation among professionals. Don't know that much

about Minolta and their scanners i.e reliablility and service.

Is the standard scanning software that comes with the Minolta ok for a beginner

like myself? Just to get the slides/negatives into the computer and print a few

good ones up to 13x19. </i><br>

At the moment I'm still using the Minolta software, and I have no experience

with either of the two alternative scanning softwares for the Minolta 5400:

Vuescan and SilverFast. I think the Minolta software is certainly not bad at all, but you have to

invest some time into learning how best to use it - and that also holds for

Vuescan and Silverfast.<br>

I have also read / heard that one can get better scanning reults out of the

Minolta 5400 by using SilverFast. I also saw that Minolta is selling SiverFast

for the Minolta 5400 via their own website (<a href="http://www.minoltaeurope.com/silverfast/countries/english/">http://www.minoltaeurope.com/silverfast/countries/english/</a>).

So someday I will probably try this out.<br>

<br>

<i>What about the slide/negative holders for the Minolta? Is the design good

for keeping the film flat? </i><br>

I think the design is pretty good, although when your film is heavily curved

the holder will not be able to keep the film completely flat. However, you can

select the focussing point, e.g. somewhere between center and edge, to better use

the available depth of field.<br>

<br>

<i>I have both PC P4 with Windows XP, and a Mac ibook laptop 384 RAM with OSX that

I use when in the field. The Minolta would be compatible with both OS, I presume.. </i><br>

Yes, see the specifications, but I have no experience with Mac.

[rokkor fan]

Just as an aside, for scanning the 512 RAM may be fine, but to manipulate the Minolta's 233MB file at 5400dpi 16 bit you need at least 1 gig. I have 1 gig and am about to upgrade to 2 gig to improve my workflow.

 

I find the 5400 to be outstanding, a really great scanner. The software has occasional glitches for me, and I am considering upgrading to Vuescan ($79.95) or Silverfast, but all in all I have been very impressed. The capacity of the scanner to generate details in shadows is amazing. This is the best you can get for a desktop.

[andy_f1]

For what its worth...I own the Minolta 5400 scanner. Its been known to develop "tram" lines in the deep shadows which even with multi pass scanning is still there to a certain degree. This problem is there with most of these desktop scanners to varying degrees. Anyway...recently my AC adaptor blew, since I live in New Zealand and our voltage os different from the 110v unit that I bought, I decided to buy a descent voltage convertor this time. I bought a regulated unit which costs more but gives a permanent level of current....well.....no more lines! Ive gotten the best scans ever...no marks and much better scans!

 

In my example it would appear that the alternating current may be effecting performance...try it....

[robert_k1]

Since there is no industry standard for defining a scanner's Dmax, the manufacturers tend to be creative and liberal in their ratings. Lacking a standard, it is also difficult for reviewers to objectively measure and compare scanners' Dmaz ratings. Buyers should not read too much into whatever published by the manufacturers or the reviewers on Dmax.

 

OTOH, there are more subtle factors to consider when choosing a scanner, such as the following:

 

If a scanner cannot scan 100% of a full frame as reported by Marek, I will not own it. Some of my compositions are very tight and close to the frames' borders.

 

I also encountered a similar "tram" line problem in the deep shadow areas on a film scanner, as reported by Andy. This problem miraculously disappeared when I installed the scanner on a different computer using a different SCSI interface card (same model). May be dumb luck, but I'll settle for it.

 

Another annoyance is optical flares in scans: halos around light subjects against dark backgrounds. Many attribute flares to dirty scanner mirrors. How subceptible a scanner's mirror is to dust or dirt is a choice criteria. One poster reported that the Cannons and Minoltas are better than the Nikons in this regard.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS

 

http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/

[len_gee]

I've been reading that Nikon scanners have a problem with dust settling on the scanner lens, that the Minolta does not. i.e. horizontal vs vertial lens alignment. Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

Also, this weekend I attended an Epson Print Academy workshop, and the presenter said the new Epson 4870 scanner (4800x9600 dpi) is every bit as good as a dedicated film scanner ie. Nikon Coolscan 5000ED/Super Coolscan 9000/Minolta Elite 5400/Minolta Multi Pro/(not including drum scanners) and has the added benefit of being able to scan up to 4x5, and flat art. Truth or fiction? Intent is to make photo quality 11x14's for display.

 

BTW-I haven't had much luck with my Epson 3200 scanner getting anything decent beyond a few 8x10's from chromes, so I am really leaning toward getting a film scanner.

 

Thanks in advance

[madwand]

<i>Also, this weekend I attended an Epson Print Academy workshop, and the presenter said the new Epson 4870 scanner (4800x9600 dpi) is every bit as good as a dedicated film scanner ie. Nikon Coolscan 5000ED/Super Coolscan 9000/Minolta Elite 5400/Minolta Multi Pro/(not including drum scanners) and has the added benefit of being able to scan up to 4x5, and flat art. Truth or fiction?</i><p>

 

Fiction. See here under "reviews" for an illustration. Note however that the focus blur of the 4870 can be an effective "grain dissolver".<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/">http://www.photo-i.co.uk/</a></p>

 

<i>The dedicated film scanner clearly shows it superiority here, the edges are very clean and there is greater image sharpness. The Epson has put in a fair performance and don't forget it will also scan larger format films and prints too, it is also 1/3 of the price. The bottom line has to be, for high quality 35mm film scans a dedicated film scanner is going to give you the best quality.</i>