SECOND FAULTY Minolta 5400 II Scanner!

[eric_strom]

As I described before in this post:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D7i1

 

The Konica Minolta DIMAGE Scan Elite 5400II that I bought exibited a

faint green line across the entire frame of my scans, in the middle

third of the frame.

 

B&H sent me a mailing label, and I sent them back the old scanner on

monday of last week, the replacement scanner arrived today (one week

later), and I hooked it up, and low and behold the same exact problem.

 

I then reinstalled the software again, and that did not help.

 

I then tried installing the scanner on a brand new computer my brother

just bought, it installed fine, but again the pale greenish yellow

line across the center of the frame.

 

Needless to say I'm returning the scanner and I'm just going to get

the Nikon... the extra resolution of the minolta just isnt worth it if

the resulting scan is going to have color banding.

 

I don't know if this is a systematic flaw in this scanner, or if i was

just incredibly unlucky enough to get 2 bad copys, or if B&H happened

to recieve an entire shipment of bad scanners. Irregardless, I've

wasted too much time on this to give it another shot.

 

So that being said, if you are thinking of the 5400 II scanner, id

strongly consider getting something else, or at least very carefully

testing it (the types of images that it shows up on best are images

that are mostly sky on an overcast day)

[jose_colucci]

Eric,

 

You are not the only one. I bought my Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II from 17th Street Photo Supply and got a slightly different but probably related problem. See:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D9bv

 

The store I bought it from has a 7-day return policy. It took me longer than that to open the box and install the scanner. Now I am stuck with Minolta Service. They claim my scanner has been adjusted to "factory specifications". Talk about buyer's remorse. I sent it back for service today. Wish me luck.

 

Thanks,

Jose

[eric_strom]

Jose, yeah, it looks like minota isnt doing so hot with their quality control... the weird thing is that while your issue looks clearly digital, mine looks almost like an analog discoloration, which seems strange, perhaps something in the amplifier circuit before it digitizies the data from the sensor

[david_moore13]

Eric, this is just a totally random and probably bogus idea, but did you try turning off the lights in the room as you scan?

[eric_strom]

you know what they say about great minds :-p

 

yeah, i tried that a few hours ago, turned all the lights off... no change. moved the scanner, again no change. switched usb cables (not like that should matter), again no change.

 

One time when scanning unexposed (but processed) film leader, instead of getting colored bands like i did with the last scanner i got an entirely blue image, with darker sections between where the colors would have been in a normal scan. I cant even begin to explain how that might have happened... might have been a weird exposure thing + the color banding

[ky2]

Just curious.

Did you scan the same slide?

[eric_strom]

it wasnt the same peice of leader when it came out all blue with the dark bands. but the problem with the color banding exists across every frame I have scanned, and I have tried different types of film, exposed with different cameras (and different lenses), and developed at different labs. I've also scanned negatives that I have printed optically, which exibited no color banding in the print, yet have color banding in the scan.

 

The problem also exists when I scan slides (some velvia I shot last year that had a bunch of sky)

[david_moore13]

The only other experiment I can think of is to try scanning the empty film carrier, so there is just air being scanned. And also to do that with and without ICE turned on.

[eric_strom]

I would test that, except that in a fit of rage i've already packed the scanner back up, however my guess would be that just scanning air wouldnt show much (it might show a lil, but probably very minimal), as the problem seems to intensify a little as the density of the negative increases. (although i could just be making that up, that was my unscientific observation looking at the negatives that i had been scanning and the resulting scans)

[eric_strom]

as far as ice on and off, i have tried that both when scanning negatives, and when scanning the film leader... did not make a difference in the banding... although it did get rid of some of that stubborn dust :-p

[bobmichaels]

Have you tried using the free Vuescan demo instead of the Minolta software to see if the problem is software or hardware driven? While I agree that Minolta seems to have a problem they shouldn't, the solution may be using someone else's software.

 

I prefer Vuescan to the Minolta software anyway. Others have different opinions.

[bruce_rubenstein]

FWIW, I have read about problems with Minolta scanners and poor service for years. I also read enough reviews of the scanner to see that compared to the 4000 dpi Nikons, the Minolta porduced bigger files, but not more detail.

[ilkka_nissila]

This doesn't look good for competition. Why would Nikon keep producing good scanners while the competition is either producing quality control disasters (5400) or increasing prices beyond reason (check current prices for the minolta multi pro, they're in the $5000 range).

 

I guess I should get an LS-9000 while Nikon doesn't charge $8000 for it ... I much prefer $2000.

[eric_strom]

I have tried it with vuescan as well, the scans still show the banding, although it seems like it is slightly less pronounced with vuescan (althought that might just be because of slightly different color ballancing algorithms)

 

Being that the Nikon 4000 is around the same price, I'm thinking im just going to get that... although the salesman at B&H was really saying that the minolta was a better scanner... and that the 4000 was kinda the crippled version of the 5000.

 

Can anyone confirm or deny that... id rather not spend 1000 dollars on a scanner as thats getting into price territory of a 20D

[roger_kallet]

Holy cow! I hadn't been reading this forum for a while and was going to ask about third-party inks clogging heads in ink-jet printers when I saw this discussion on the Konica/Minolta 5400 II scanner. I just got one from B&H a week or so ago and have scanned both slides and negatives with great success. Now I've got that feeling in my stomach one may get on the first day of school after summer vacation. For me that was a long time ago...but I remember!

 

My question is: is there anybody out there who has this scanner and finds every thing about it is OK? If so, please post!

 

By the way, I don't know if this would make a difference or not. I am using a new iMAC, with the 20" monitor and PS CS2. Could the operating systems ie.,OS X Tiger vs Microsoft XP maybe have anything to due with it?

[constance_cook]

Try it on firewire instead of USB2. For some, it makes a difference.

 

Conni

[ilkka_nissila]

I have both the Nikon LS-4000 and 5000. Do not buy the 4000, it is IMHO not too good. It suffers from depth of field problems and basically you need clear glass mounts to get edge to edge sharpness. The 5000 is much better (and twice as fast).

[seandepuydt]

I second the 5000 over the 4000. I've also owned both and the 5000 is much better than 4000 inmho. If your budget calls for the 4000 you should be able to pick one up for less than $500.00. The only thing that I would watch with getting a used scanner is that you may get one that hasn't been cleaned in a while and any dirt on the mirror will cause you problems. I tried cleaning the mirror on the 4000, and ended up damaging the scanner and had to return it for repairs.

[jpursley]

<i>My question is: is there anybody out there who has this scanner and finds every thing about it is OK?</i><br><br>

Yes, there are plenty of us out there with no problems with this scanner. We're just a lot less motivated to come post about how our scanner works - much like the way you don't hear about the 20,000 airline flights that transpired today without incident.

<br><br>

I use the inlcluded Minolta software on an older Windows box, mostly scanning slides. I've probably done about 1000 scans without incident.

[jim_foley4]

Roger, I too have the 5400 II since about April. I have scanned several hundred old Kodachrome slides and several various rolls of color negatives, also a few frames of B+W. I have had very good results so far but I too am getting nervous. I had one problem so far. The software & scanner seemed to crash and it would not eject the holder. I did not power it down for 2 days while the LED was blinking while I contacted Minolta service. After no response I powered it down & up again and out came the carrier. No problems since. As it's too late to return I'm hoping a got a good one.

 

Jim

[manuel_garcia5]

I remember reading that the Scan Dual IV needed about 30 minutes to "warm up" in order to get good scans? Maybe it's the same issue?

[eric_strom]

I've tried letting the scanner warm up for about 30 minutes, did not change anything (being that this scanner uses an LED light source i dont think warm up is a factor for it anyhow)

 

 

Regarding the Nikon 4000 vs 5000 issue, I know that the 5000 is better, but is it 450 dollars better. I mean its the same resolution, and scan time is not that much of a factor for me. I am mainly concerned with the image quality and sharpness (I will be printing up to around 16x20).

[john_brewton]

I have the original 5400 and after a computer crash damaged the scanner and it was repaired (over a year ago), things have been fine. Now I just have to figure out how to clean the interior as my cat seems to have deposited several hairs, or they have been injested into the scanner and are showing up on scans.

[constance_cook]

John:

 

I,too, have the original 5400 and got a cat hair inside. I took a bulb blower brush, ejected the air, inserted the tip through the door and let it suck the hair out. It worked.

 

Conni

[ilkka_nissila]

Eric, the scans from the 5000 are sharp at every point of the frame, while the grain is quite frequently out of focus at some parts of the frame on the 4000, unless you use special glass mounts which cause some degradation due to additional dust and reflections. The image quality is not the same. Also, on color and black and white scans, the 5000 produces a visibly finer rendition of grain if Nikon's software is used.

 

There is so much work to get edge-to-edge sharp scans on the 4000 that it can really be annoying. If you value your time, get the 5000, if you don't care about quality or your time, you can pay $300 for a 4000 (not more).