Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II Impressions

[matt_kennedy1]

I recently purchased one of the new Minolta DSE 5400 IIs and have had

quite a few requests for my impressions of the scanner. I had

intended to have some fairly extensive impressions up by this weekend

with some examples and comparisons to my SD IV, but I just was too

busy to get to it over the weekend. You know how that goes. :)

<p>

Anyhow, to get my experience limitations out of the way, I've never

used any of the Nikons so I can't make any direct comparisons to their

CoolScan line, or the CanoScan FS4000 for the same reasons. My only

scanner experience I can use to make comparisons is with the Minolta

Scan Dual IV and the Epson Perfection 2400 Photo (flatbed). Also, I

know that a lot of people are very interested in how the DSE 5400 II

handles B&W silver halide film. Unfortunately all I have is some old

Kodak B&W film that I shot back in high school 10 years ago, and have

admittedly not stored properly, so it may give the scanner a harder

time than some new, well cared for negs will.

<p>

So, with all that out of the way, my initial impression is that it's a

darn good scanner.

<p>

Software:<br>

I know that some people have expressed concern over the user interface

with previous versions of the Minolta scan software. I, however,

never really had a problem with it. It was not terribly pretty or

intuitive, but I always found it serviceable. The new version that

came bundled with the DSE 5400 II improved in some areas, however,

regressed on another.

<p>

The area in which the new version suffers is the index scan pane. In

previous versions of the software I've used, the index scan preview

was tabbed, so after you've done an index scan you can click on that

tab and then select the frame you want to operate on. In the new

version for the DSE 5400 II, the index scan preview is an undocked

floating window that cannot be docked (at least as far as I can find).

This is really annoying because it always seems to be in the way of

something while working. To make matters worse, it's not a window of

its own, but only exists in the software window, so it can't even be

minimized. This is something that I hope is changed in the next

version from KM.

<p>

Other than that however, the software is very similar to previous

versions that are out there with some minor updates to icons and the

like.

<p>

<p>

Chromes:<br>

Film scanners tend to be designed with handling chromes in mind, and I

don't think that the DSE 5400 II is any different. I was most pleased

with its ability to auto-expose on underexposed and difficult slides.

Slides that required me to do a fair amount of exposure compensation

in the Minolta Scan software when using the Scan Dual IV were properly

exposed on the pre-scan with the DSE 5400 II. The color of the DSE

5400 II is very strong and vivid; however, I think that I would

benefit well from a profile. Something I noticed while doing some

test scans is that while the scanner is quite fast while doing its

index scans, the DSE 5400 II needed two passes to scan if ICE was

turned on. Presumably one pass was for the IR channel and the other

pass for the white or RGB.

<p>

As far as sharpness goes, the AF is quite good. I did some tests

scanning at 5400 dpi, focusing manually and letting the scanner

determine focus, and I cannot tell the difference. I'm not going to

post those images because I don't think they are instructive as they

show no noticeable difference.

<p>

The DMax of the DSE 5400 II seems pretty standard. I was surprised to

discover that it may be ever so slightly lower than the DMax of the

Scan Dual IV. While doing a test against a very contrasty slide, I

was only able to pick a small amount more shadow detail with the SD IV

than with the DSE 5400 II, which was very surprising to me. It's

slight, but it is there. I don't know if I'd have better luck in

Vuescan once Ed gets the DSE 5400 II supported.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235329">DSE 5400

II</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235332">SD IV</a>

<p>

<p>

Kodachromes:<br>

It's my understanding that Kodachromes are notoriously hard to scan.

However, in my small bit of testing they seem to scan better on the

DSE 5400 II then on the SD IV. My scans of old Kodachrome from the

early 1970's that I got from my mother in-law scanned with a

noticeable green cast on the SD IV. The DSE 5400 II scans had a more

magenta cast. Also the DSE 5400 II scans seemed crisper, while the

scans from the Scan Dual IV seemed a little muddy. The scans of the

old Kodachrome on both scanners seemed a bit dense to me, but using

curves in Photoshop, I was able to extract a good amount of

information. It just required a bit more effort than E-6 chromes do.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235336">DSE 5400

II</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235339">SD IV</a>

<p>

<p>

Black and White:<br>

As I mentioned before, I don't shoot black and white film. I do,

however, still have some of the Kodak B&W I shot in high school 10

years ago. I don't even know what kind it is, other than on the film

edges it says: "KODAK TX 5063". I'm sure some of you out there know

what I was shooting, but I don't recall anymore.

<p>

Anyhow, I made a test scan of a frame of my girlfriend at the time and

could see no difference in the scans other than the scan from the Scan

Dual IV had a slight cyan cast to it, which was surprising considering

there is no color information in the scan. I'm not sure what that is

all about. I noticed no readily apparent clipping in the highlights

or shadows.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235276">DSE 5400

II</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235286">SD IV</a>

<P>

<p>

Anyhow, that's my impression of the scanner. Very good for the price

I paid ($535).

<p>

If anyone would like too see other examples, let me know and I will do

my best to accommodate your wishes, provided I have a representitive

sample to scan. :)

[matt_kennedy1]

Forgot to mention that all the scans I linked to are unaltered in any way other then resizing. Just so everyone knows that there is no shenanigans going on. :)

[catcher]

Thanks for the post. I remember your previous thread and so I was looking forward to this. One question with respect to teh dmax/shadow detail. Were these scans compared both using autoexposure? I have a dual IV (thus waiting for your review about how it would compare with the 5400 II), and I know, as you've probably discovered, that I can get more detail by tweaking the exposure control. I wonder if by tweaking the exposure control on the 5400 II that would dig some more shadow detail out, comparable or better than dual IV? I think I've read/heard that the 5400 II has a measured dmax of 3.8, while the dual IV has a measured dmax of 3.6. I've also heard quite a bit about how fluid these numbers are. Still, I would be disappointed if it didn't show any improvement at all in shadow detail, or even worse!

 

Also, you mentioned sharpness with respect to auto scan, but what are your impressions of the effects of the extra resolution in terms of sharpness and or film detail? Assuming sharp, well exposed slides, about how much extra detail (if at all) have you been able to pull out from the 5400II compared to the duual IV?

 

Thanks again for your post. It's helpful.

[matt_kennedy1]

Hi Aaron, thanks for reading my post. All the examples I posted here are straight out of the scanner other then some resizing. They were all autoexposed and not altered after that. The disappointing thing is that for the DSE 5400 II, the highlights were already jsut as bright, perhaps a little brighter then the highlights on the SDIV scan, while the shadows were darker. In the SDIV scan, you can see a litte of the hill side sloping up from right to left whereas in the DSE 5400 II scan the same hill is not visable without a fair increase in over all picture brightness. I was disappointed by this finding too.

 

As far as the extra detail in the 5400 dpi scans goes, I can see a noticeable improvement in decernable detail over the SDIV. An example is the Kodachrome scans. In the scan made at 5400 dpi, I can count the bricks that form an arch over the windows of one of the quaint Dutch houses in the background. That is not possible with the SDIV. Don't listen to the fools who say that 35mm doesn't contain any more information then a 3200 dpi scanner can resolve. It's simply not true. Now, whether you need to resolve all those details is another issue. At 5400 dpi, the DSE 5400 II makes a 250MB tiff file that is large enough to make a 16"X24" print at 300 dpi. That's big. I didn't get the scanner for it's max resolution, I got it for the ICE features and it's decent speed.

[catcher]

The resolution info is interesting. I would like to make big prints. I know many will say that can be a fools errand with 35mm film and I should just learn to shoot medium or large format. And there's probably a point to be made there. But if the 35mm film, properly exposed and technically sound has more information to give, then I'd love to get it, big cumbersome files and all.

 

This might just be wishful thinking, or perhaps a naive and silly impulse to really want a $550 scanner to have more shadow detail than a $250 scanner, but I can't help but think the shadow issue is software related. I just can't image Konica-Minolta would relaease a higher end scanner (well, relatively higher end) that has a lower dmax in use than a cheaper model. If you get some time, you might play with the exposure adjustment and post any interesting results. But then again, if you're satisfied with the output don't worry about it. Just enjoy your scanner. I'll have to do some more thinking though before jumping in. Is $300-400 (after I sell my Dual IV) worth higher resolution and ICE (I keep my negs and slides clean anyway) but less shadow detail? Hmmm.

 

Thanks again.

[zee]

Thanks, Matt, for taking the time to post your impressions. I'm thinking of buying the 5400 II and really appreciate user reviews like yours.

[jtk]

If possible, compare the Nikon V and the 5400II physically, including build quality and the way they each handle film.

 

They're not at all similar...which seems avoided in reviews.

[matt_kennedy1]

Unfortunatly I don't have a Nikon CoolScan V to compare the DSE 5400 II to. Unless you have one that you'd like to hook me up with, I'd just be reading the online reviews, same as you.

[robert goldstein]

Aaron,

 

How big are the big prints that you want to make? I have 12x18" prints from 35mm Astia

100f that are *very* close to medium format quality. I realize that such a statement may

seem heretical, but it is true nonetheless. The film was scanned at maximum resolution on

my Minolta 5400 and printed on a Noritsu 2901 by my local minilab. Theoretically, one

can print a 5400dpi scan at 300dpi and 18x24" without interpolation. Astia has

exceptionally fine

grain that is hard to see even at 100%. It also has very high resolution and tolerates major

sharpening. I would even say that it requires major sharpening, as its accutance is rather

low. I have shot quite a bit of Reala in the past, but I do not think that it is close to Astia

in its capacity for enlargement.

[catcher]

Glad to hear of your experience with big files Robert. 12x18 would be the normal largest I would go, with occassional attempts at larger files. I regularly shoot Velvia, Provia 100F, and Sensia. The Sensia would probably be too grainy with prints, although with any file I've found Neat Image to work very well at reducing grain/noise.

 

You probably don't have an SD IV to compare like MAtt does, but on your 5400 (I rather than II?), how have you found the shadow detail to be? The 5400II has a different light source, so that might account for some difference.

[jim_foley4]

Hi Matt,

If this thread is still going, can I ask where you got the MDS 5400 II for $535? Also, what can you say about the film holder and handling; quality and ease of use? Thanks very much.

Jim

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Thanks for the mini review. I'm very interested in this scanner and I, like many others, am waiting for a comparison to the Nikon Coolscan V.

 

Robert

[robert goldstein]

Aaron,

 

Yes, I have the original 5400, which I think does an excellent job all around, including shadow detail. I remember reading somewhere that Minolta claimed a measured Dmax of 3.2 or 3.8. (Sorry, but I can't remember the exact number.) This is in contrast to a theoretical Dmax of 4.8, which is irrlevant, since no desktop scanner can even approach that level. Having seen a several web comparisons with various Nikon scanners, I am convinced that the 5400 is superior in terms of pure scan quality, although the difference is not huge. Its only drawback is slow speed when scanning negatives with ICE engaged.

 

What I would really like to see is a comparison of the 5400 to a drum scanner. I have no doubt that the latter would come out on top, but I wonder by how much.

 

Rob

[matt_kennedy1]

Hi Jim, I got my scanner from an online store called www.digitalfotoclub.com. I found them by using www.pricegrabber.com. Digital Foto Club did not have the lowest price at the time I bought it but they had the best rating of the low price stores.

 

As far as the film holders go, they seem of acceptable quality to me. I'm not going to be throwing them about the room so the fact that they are plastic doesn't bother me like it seems to bother some. The filmstrip holder does a good job of keep the film flat, but I don't have any terribly curly film to test an extreme case though. I think over all it's of good build quality.

 

***HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION ALERT*** - The whole unit feels much more solid and reliable then my Scan Dual IV from the unit itself to the film holders.

 

The only part about the mechanics of the scanner that makes me go "huh" is that it seems like I have to push harder then I think I should when inserting the film holders into the scanner. It doesn't seem to me that it should take as much pressure as it does to get the scanner to start loading the film holder. However, that doesn't mean much other then I was surprised at how much force it took. It could very well be designed that way, or maybe it's just a little stiff. It doesn't concern me too much.

 

Hope this helps. :)

[mendel_leisk]

Matt Kennedy wrote, in part:

 

"I have to push harder then I think I should when inserting the film holders"

 

I've noticed the same. At first I thought I might be doing damage. It feels like some spring is being deflected/depressed. I've found if you tilt the front end of the holder slightly upward, and sort of steady it with your other hand, it engages smoother, and with no "grief".

 

I know, starting to sound kinky.

[jim_foley4]

So, kinky is a bad thnig ?? Thanks for the info. I just ordered one. So I might be back here asking for help. Now I just have to use it's arrival as an incentive to finish my taxes... ouch!

[jtk]

Matt...I've owned 5400II and Nikon V, kept Nikon.

 

One may scan better than the other in some respect when operating properly. I didn't make deep-enough scan comparisons.

 

Both are remarkably good with flat film.

 

The Nikon's tractor feed seems to make curved film flat, is therefore sharp across the field...Minoltas moving plastic carrier is defeated by curved film.

 

If I'd kept the Minolta I would have rebuilt the carrier properly with machined aluminum components and, probably, optional anti-newton glass inserts. Wouldn't be difficult for small machine shops in most communities. Minolta needs to redesign.

 

Nikon's film gets handled less than Minolta's because it doesn't have to be positioned and repositioned in a carrier.

 

Minolta's carrier forces film repositioning when frame lines are erratic width or differ from Minolta's random standard. Perhaps Minolta camera users have no problem, but I did with Leica and Canon film.

 

Minolta's SLIDE carrier is much faster than Nikon's because it auto-feeds four slides. Nikon's standard carrier only handles one slide.

 

Both are very fast with Ice.

 

Nikon is built like a brick #%%# house, Minolta is fragile, weighs half as much.

 

Minolta claims 5400ppi, Nikon claims 4000ppi.

 

________________

 

" Matt Kennedy Photo.net, mar 29, 2005; 06:44 p.m.

Unfortunatly I don't have a Nikon CoolScan V to compare the DSE 5400 II to. Unless you have one that you'd like to hook me up with, I'd just be reading the online reviews, same as you." ________________

 

I've actually used both. Online reviews carefully avoid build quality and negative handling judgements. I've not seen a rigorous review of the Minolta.

[matt_dula]

I owned a Nikon Coolscan V and returned it in favor of the 5400 II, which I like better. I believe the Nikon lens is probably better than the Minolta's and I do prefer Nikon's software to Minolta's (barely)...but one cannot forget the huge difference between the two: the 5400 II supports up to 16x true mulitsampling. The Nikon is only a single pass scanner. For perfectly exposed film, this may not be a big issue; but try to scan something with a few shadows, and multisampling can be important. True, with Vuescan, you can do up to 16 passes on the Nikon...but it's not the same as true multisampling. When you combine this factor with the resolution of the 5400, the manual focus dial, the lower price, and the ability to handle four slides versus one at a time, it's not a real contest to me. (I shoot only slide film, so I can't comment on scanning 35mm color negatives.) In terms of build quality...well, the Nikon does feel a little heftier (it is a nice scanner), but that does not mean Minolta's build quality is crap. It's just fine...plus it has a smaller footprint, which I like on my crowded desk.

[jason_cheng2]

Thanks Matt and everyone else who have responded for sharing your experiences.

 

I have been using a Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000 film scanner (a 4000 dpi scanner) with Silverfast 6 software for many years. The one major issue I have with the scanner is that areas of high contrast (eg white flowers on a dark background) lead to flare in the scanned images. Sometimes this is quite artistic looking and people have asked me how I achieve that effect but othertimes it is annoying. Have you guys noticed a flare problem with either the Nikon or Minolta scanners? Again this only occurs in the specific case of a very light object against a dark, especially black background.

 

The other question is how much of an advantage is 5400 dpi vs 4000 dpi. With my current scanner and software, I find I can make very detailed 11x17 inch enlargements that approach medium format detail from slow, fine grained slide film. I have friends who shoot medium format and think the prints are from a medium format camera. With negatives, I find what appears to be grain can become prominent and I have to use something like Neat Image to reduce the grain. Does a pretty good job and I've gotten nice 11x17 prints from even ISO 400 film (Superia 400). However, I wonder if a higher resolution would make the grain problem more pronounced. Someone else told me though that the apparent grain in scans of negative film is often largely an artifact of the scanning process (perhaps the so called "grain aliasing" effect) and that with the higher resolution newer scanner I am actually likely to end up with less perceived grain. Any comments?

 

BTW I recently purchased one of the highly rated Canon 20D digital SLRs. I find that 35mm slide film scanned at 4000 dpi is sharper and more pleasing to my eye than the files from the 20D. The 20D files do have the advantage of being almost grain free. Apparently the dSLRs deliberately blur images a bit to avoid some sort of artifact in the processing. You can then sharpen the output files but the net result is not as good as what I get from scanning slide film. I know many people claim the exact opposite so take this with a grain of salt. Maybe I just need to learn how to post process the files from my digital SLR better.

 

Jason

[bret_carroll]

From the reviews it looks like the 5400 is a pretty good scanner, but that there isn't a

consensus on how the 5400 II compares. Since I was shopping I bought both to do

the comparison myself. I'll provide more "depth" later, if there is interest. Realize

that these are very much a layman's comparison without the thoroughness of Bob

Atkins's lens analysis, lpi, chromatic abberation and optical theory.

 

See the images at: http://tinyurl.com/8u8e4

 

- Bret

[catcher]

Thanks Brett. I'd be interested in anything else you have to say about the 5400II. You might consider starting a new thread so people don't miss it.

[catcher]

PS Especially how it does with shadow detail (see my post above).

[robert_k1]

"I have been using a Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000 film scanner (a 4000 dpi scanner) with Silverfast 6 software for many years. The one major issue I have with the scanner is that areas of high contrast (eg white flowers on a dark background) lead to flare in the scanned images. Sometimes this is quite artistic looking and people have asked me how I achieve that effect but othertimes it is annoying. Have you guys noticed a flare problem with either the Nikon or Minolta scanners? Again this only occurs in the specific case of a very light object against a dark, especially black background."

 

The flares you described drove me crazy on my Polaroid SS4000. Attempting to fix them in PS without any side effects is difficult, and is nearly impossible in many situations. Many attribute the problem to dirty scanner mirrors, but I think there may be other causes. After observing the same problem on a brand new Nikon Coolscan, I decided to purchase the Minolta DSE 5400 (original) instead. After a year of use, I have yet to encounter a single case of flare. That by itself is worth the price. Flare is common on film scanners, but I have yet to find a review or bake off that addresses this problem.

 

"The other question is how much of an advantage is 5400 dpi vs 4000 dpi. With my current scanner and software, I find I can make very detailed 11x17 inch enlargements that approach medium format detail from slow, fine grained slide film. I have friends who shoot medium format and think the prints are from a medium format camera. With negatives, I find what appears to be grain can become prominent and I have to use something like Neat Image to reduce the grain. Does a pretty good job and I've gotten nice 11x17 prints from even ISO 400 film (Superia 400). However, I wonder if a higher resolution would make the grain problem more pronounced. Someone else told me though that the apparent grain in scans of negative film is often largely an artifact of the scanning process (perhaps the so called "grain aliasing" effect) and that with the higher resolution newer scanner I am actually likely to end up with less perceived grain. Any comments?"

 

The 5400dpi 35mm scans let me make significant crops and still be able to print at ~300ppi without upsampling. However, the scan time and scan file size do suffer at 5400dpi.

 

I find my Fujichrome scans to be far superior from the DSE 5400 than from the Polaroid SS4000 in sharpness, shadow and highlight details, color accuracy, and of course in lack of flares. The 5400's hw exposure control, focus control, scanner profile and claimed higher dmax probably all contribute to the better scans.

 

The 5400 scans do show more grain structure and noise than the SS4000 scans. The 5400's Grain Dissolver and ICE do a good job in cleaning these up. Follow that with a small amount of Neat Image application, and the scans are squeaky clean with a slight hint of grain left.

 

I use the native sw and profiles that came with the scanners, and scan raw.

 

"BTW I recently purchased one of the highly rated Canon 20D digital SLRs. I find that 35mm slide film scanned at 4000 dpi is sharper and more pleasing to my eye than the files from the 20D. The 20D files do have the advantage of being almost grain free. Apparently the dSLRs deliberately blur images a bit to avoid some sort of artifact in the processing. You can then sharpen the output files but the net result is not as good as what I get from scanning slide film. I know many people claim the exact opposite so take this with a grain of salt. Maybe I just need to learn how to post process the files from my digital SLR better."

 

It should not come as a surprise to find your 11x17 prints from the 4000dpi scans to be sharper than the prints from the 20D. The prints from the scans need no upsampling to print at ~300ppi, but prints from the 20D do.

[jason_cheng2]

Robert,

 

Thanks for your comments, particularly the direct comparison of the Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000 vs the Minolta Elite 5400. Eliminating the flare problem alone would make the upgrade worthwhile for me. It seems to me that the flare has gotten worse with age so perhaps it does in fact have something to do with dirty mirrors. Now my only question is whether to get the original 5400 or the newer version II. I look forward to any direct comparisons.

 

Jason

[robert_k1]

You will notice a dramatic improvement in the scans when moving from the SS4000 to either of the two 5400s. So far no one has made such a claim moving from the 5400 to the 5400 II, except for the speed improvement. At a recent trade show, the Minolta rep told me that the 5400 II's primary purpose is to speed up the scans.