Minolta 5400 Tests

[jorge]

A couple of days ago I promised I promised Olivier Reichenbach some

tests of the Minolta 5400 scanner. Should also help Pierre Cantin on

his decision about this scanner.

<br><br>

For the tests I used a Kodak Elite 100 35mm transparency --wanted to

use a Velvia but didin't find one with suitable detail, I shoot

mainly B&W and color neg (C41), a Kodak Gold 400 negative and an

Ilford HP4+ negative, processed in Xtol 1:3. Few sharper films than

this one.

<br><br>

I shall upload 510 pixels of the whole image plus suitable sized

crops (510 pix) showing details. I timed many of the scans, both

using the standalone scan interface and saving to TIFF and from

within Photoshop CS.

<br><br>

My computer is a PC assembled for me by the systems manager at my

company with a motherboard supporting a P4 1.2 GHz Intel processor,

1.5 Gb RAM, a 128 Mb Video Card and one 120 Gb SATA disk plus two

700 RPS disks. It's fairly fast; YMMV.

<br><br>

Some of the times clocked are on this table. Choice of film and scan

features is fairly irrelevant so I quitted timing after the samples

listed here. Suffice to say that for single pass scans, ICE and

Grain Dissolver made little difference. Ditto for Positives or Color

and B&W negatives.

<br><br>

Single pass scans took somewhere between 2'12" and 3'36".

<br><br>

Deep shadows in trannies really don't show objectionable noise, and

multisample with 16 passes didn't improve anything. A fully laden

full res scan (ICE, GD, 16 passes) took a little over 22 minutes.

Multiple passes in three instances didn't improve detail or noise

(that wasn't present for starters).

<br><br>

The Gold 400 scan shows some color dots that may be confused with

digital noise. It's not. That is the natural pattern of color grains

and can be observed in the same manner in any large diameter optical

enlarging. I've seen it many times in large chemical prints.

<br><br>

The Grain Dissolver function doesn't seem to help in color scans and

in fact is detrimental to resolution. For B&W scans, where ICE

cannot be used, it helps to minimize some minor defects of the film

like light scratches and very small dust specks; however, it makes

the grain mushy so I tend to leave it off.

<br><br>

The table below shows some of the scan times.

<br><br>

Film ICE GD Sampl. Format Total Time <br>

1 Elite no no 1 TIFF 00:02:12 <br>

2 Elite yes yes 1 TIFF 00:03:05 <br>

3 Elite yes yes 8 TIFF 00:12:16 <br>

4 Elite no no 1 TIFF 00:02:09 <br>

5 Elite yes yes 1 TIFF 00:02:38 <br>

6 Elite yes yes 16 TIFF 00:22:13 <br>

7 Gold yes yes 1 Into PS 00:03:36 <br>

8 Gold yes yes 1 Into PS 00:03:26 <br>

9 Elite yes no 1 Into PS 00:03:26 <br>

10 HP4+ no no 1 Into PS 00:03:09 <br>

11 HP4+ no no 16 Into PS 00:21:56 <br>

<br><br>

Pics to follow...<div></div>

[jorge]

Crop of the full resolution image (5400 ppi). Single pass scan, with Digital ICE but without Grain Dissolver. Note detail (grain definition) and lack of noise in the black jacket area even on a single pass scan. This image was shot with an inexpensive Nikkor zoom of dubious quality.<div></div>

[jorge]

Oops, last image doesn't show the dark area. Here it goes.<div></div>

[jorge]

This is the color negative image.<div></div>

[jorge]

Detail of 1 pass scan.<div></div>

[jorge]

Ilford HP4+ processed in Xtol 1:3.<div></div>

[jorge]

Detail of 1 pass scan. See how the film grain is resolved. There's no more detail than that.<div></div>

[jorge]

See how multiple passes do not improve detail. This is a crop of the 16 pass scan.<div></div>

[jorge]

Summary:

 

All scans were made with little or no pre-scan adjustment. There was no USM applied at any time. All scans were made at 48 bits, even the B&W scans which were converted to 8 bit grayscale in PS. All scans were made with the latest version of SilverFast Ai because the Minolta software cannot write 48 bit images to TIFF.

 

IMHO, the Minolta 5400 is a damn fine scanner. It's pretty fast if you have connected it properly and to a decent computer. Many folks will try to make do with a computer sporting 256 Mb of RAM. That's simply inadequate. If you're going to work with heavy scans get hardware that can handle them.

 

It's no drum scanner. Even at the 5400 ppi resolution, the weak point will be film flatness and optical components of the scanner. However, with a bit of sharpening at scan time (to help define grain), you can end with scans that have more detail than similarly sized darkroom prints made with a top notch enlarger and lens. I've done that comarision and the scanner wins hands down. I'll try to post those at a later time.

 

Multiple passes do not enhance detail in any way. They just add time.

 

Grain dissolver is detrimental to image sharpness. Unless the film is scratched, do not use it.

 

ICE helps a lot with dust and desn't reduce sharpness. It increases scan times about 30~50%. No big deal unless you are doing multiple scans.

 

I have the full images in my HD, let me know if you want some other details.

[terry_rory]

My decision about a new scanner will have to take into account that 90 percent of the time it will be used for B&W negs (mostly traditional B&W with some C41 B&W). 5400 ppi is too much for my needs and would result in over large files (I only need 6"x12" maximum print size and even then only rarely. 15x10, 10x8 & 12x8 are far more usual sizes for me.)

 

There have also been question marks about the 5400's reliabilty raised here and in other forums (and other sites) and it is around 80 - 100 GBP more expensive than the Nikon Coolscan V (LS-50 ED) wherever they are both sold. Both have ICE and you demonstrate the Grain dissolver is detrimental to resolution so another bit of the playing field evens out.

 

I am definitely leaning towards the 4000ppi Coolscan V ED (and saving 80 - 100 GB pounds) and will try it with Vuescan. Even 4000ppi gives a big enough file (in theory) to a provide a 20"x13" print at 300 dpi.

[christian hilmersen www.]

I am surprised by your findings. I have done a dark-room vs scan comparisons. For delta 400 film, the scan won. But with delta 100, the darkroom had better resolution and less grain/noise. My test was done with coolscan V, and the scan is virtually grain-free at 4000 dpi (except for some ugly white noise). The dark-room print was enlarged to

30x45cm and view with an 8x magnifier. The scan was viewed on screen at 100%. Obviously we are not using the same film/scanner, so it might be just that the minolta is sharper than the nikon....

[jean_.]

Thanks for sharing! I believe that the current crop of scanners indeed is "good enough" for all kind of purposes. I have an aged epson 2450, well.. good enough to make digital contact prints, give me an idea what's on the neg..

 

But this brings me to the following question:

 

Does it make sense - in b/w - to scan AND PRINT as opposed to a wet darkroom? I mean, looking at the monitor and having a print are two different things. Up to now, while color is fine, b/w inkjet prints are not really that good, and I am considering a wet darkroom since I have an old enlarger somewhere in my home.

 

Any opinions, anyone has tried both and made a conclusion?

[ronald_moravec1]

I would have to support Jorge`s conclusions based on my experience, at least as far as color neg and monochrome go. I have never scanned a transparency.

 

There is a curve function supported by the original software for those who lament it not being in Elements. Apply it to the prescan.

 

The procedure with black nad white is to not overdevelope the film or it will be hard to scan and/or print. T grain and reg grain seem to scan well.

 

If I only wanted 5x7 prints, I would use my Epson 4870 as it is sufficient for that size and I can use it for 4x5 and medium too.

 

I would recommend you learn to clean the negs before scanning using the usual darkroom procedures and skip the ICE etc. I have never used it and high res scans take 1 or 2 min tops. Never felt the need to time them.

 

Keep the holder clean and there will be little dust trouble unless you have dirt dried into the neg.

[ali_g1]

<<Even 4000ppi gives a big enough file (in theory) to a provide a 20"x13" print at 300 dpi.>>

 

Trevor,

 

bit of a dumb question but how do you work out max print size given a ppi specification.

[john_brewton]

Having used a 5400 for about ten months now, I actually expected Jorge's scans to be a bit better (just kidding, Jorge), not to knock his wonderful test, however! My experience with the grain dissolver is similar, although I seem to have more trouble with Ilford b/w film negs - they seem to show more grain than others. Where the 5400 really shines, IMO, is slides. Man oh man, Velvia scans are eye-openers.

After an initial reliability problem, my 5400 is a real workhorse.

Trevor, you don't HAVE to scan at 5400, there are other, lessor sized scans available on the menu.

[russell_brooks]

I wouldnt buy it. I own one. I also have the Silverfast software for it. It's great except that the film flatness issue is just too much of a problem to overlook. I dont use mine anymore. It's almost a waste. Now, if they came out with a glass carrier it would help. Check my thread where I post some pictures to illustrate the point: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AZS8

[gerry_szarek]

For those looking to print B&W the current best value is the 8 ink HP printers (currently 2 7960 and 8 something or other), does a great job, only issue is limited to 8X10's or 8X14's. The low end 7xyz that's an 8 ink should be avoided for B&W since it only prints in 256 shades. The key is REIT pro or is it RET Pro imaging.

 

I am hoping at PMA that HP will release a 17X22 printer with this capability, or Coneinks developes a cheap set of ink cartridges for the Epson 2200.

 

Gerry

[furcafe]

Per Russell's post, I think film flatness is an issue for all of these consumer 35mm scanners, as I don't believe the Nikons have glass negative carriers, either.

[robert_clark]

Russel, I'll happily buy your scanner from you if you really don't use it or want it any more. I'm in London next week so could come and pick it up if the price is reasonable. My mail address is robertclark at web.de.

[christian hilmersen www.]

Jean: I scan and print. Using Nikon Coolscan V and Epson 2100 using B/W inks on archival matt paper. The results are differnt than what I get from the darkroom. I would say worse, nor better - just different. When I print in the darkroom I usually print with grade 4, and burn using grad 0.5. With Ilford Delta 100. The darkroom is still superior - and I get quite stunning results when making 30x45cm enlargments. For larger enlargements I think the dark room would pull even furter ahead: the prints are (virutally) grainless and super sharp. These prints are done from Hexar RF/hexanon 50/tripod negatives printed with focotar 50.

 

That said: I use mostly digital. For prints up to 30x45 you would have to use a loop in order to see any difference in resolution, and it would only be apperent with the best of films. The dark-room versions seem a little smoother - I do not know what the difference is, but I think it looks better. (....but only with serious split-grade printing and a lot of dodging and burning.) Some negatives just does not look good in the darkroom, but are printed easily when using digital. Conclusion: digital prints look good.

[christian hilmersen www.]

Ohh BTW: Great test. I was looking for one like this before I bought mys scanner. Film flatness, and focusing, seems to be more of a problem with the Minolta than with Nikon. The nikon has some other issues. I think I would have bought the minolta today.

[lutz]

Jorge,

<p>

Thanks for taking the pains to do and post your test! I was watching while you were uploading...<p>

What I would be most interested in is seeing a comparison between a 5400 and a 2900 dpi scan, possibly from a very sharp and detailed portion of a transparency or neg. Do you think you could do that?

<p>

My point is, since grain starts to show quite distinctly on whichever stock I have been scanning so far on the Coolscan I wonder what advantage there is in quadrupling file size to see that grain even better... Get my doubt?

<p>Re: film flatness - I've successfully blended layers in PS, each of which contained a distinct scan of the same neg focussed on different areas. Works wonders.

[jim_a]

Jorge, doesn't this scanner allow you to manually focus it? I thought I remembered reading this and wondered if you had played around with some scans, allowing the scanner to pick the focus and then you manually focusing the scanner. I would be curious to see if it makes a difference.

[scott_mcloughlin]

I've read that the Minolta scanners' light source is more suitable to scanning traditional B&W vs. Nikon's LED. Is this true or is this urban myth? I have a Coolscan V and for me it's rather hit or miss with B&W.

[jpursley]

I'd strongly recommend using manual focus; see here for a comparison of auto- vs manual-focus on a Velvia 100F slide:

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=469651>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=469651

</a>.

<p>

If you're scannign slides and brightening up the dark areas, using 2 or 4x multisample will make a big difference in the noise in those dark areas. Apparently multisampling is not necessary for negs.

<p>

Dunno if slide-based experience is of any value in this particular forum, though... 8-)