Is it a big difference between Minolta Dimage Elite II and Elite 5400 scanners?

[andrii_radevych]

Not sure that I chose the correct topic, but can't find anything closer to the question I have.

I'm planing to buy a scanner for 35mm film. I know that coolscan V will be one of the best option for its price, but occasionally I found 2 great offers for Minolta top scanners: Elite 2 and Elite 5400. Both of them are selling for very reasonable price, bur Elite 2 is still about 40% cheaper then Elite 5400, so I have a very obvious question, regarding this matter - is it a big difference in quality of the scans, between this 2 models, except the resolution?

There is a lot of information and opinions about superb performance of Elite 5400, but only a few posts, which I found about Elite 2 scanner. So I will be super happy for your opinion, especially if someone had an experience of using both of this scanners.

Thank you in advance!

[phil_gunderson]

Do you mean the Scan Elite II or the Scan Elite 5400 II? I have the Scan Elite 5400 and, when it works, it is an outstanding scanner. Unfortunately, with all the years of use, it's become a flaky unit where it seems like it wants a longer and longer wake up period. Basically it will start to focus and hang about 80 - 90% through auto focus (using VueScan).

 

If you're talking about the Scan Elite II, the resolution is about 1/2 of the 5400 and less than a CoolScan V. That being said, I scan much of my work at 2700 ppi rather than the full 5400 because the shots simply don't warrant the full resolution of the 5400, so the lower resolution of the Scan Elite II may be just fine.

 

If you're talking about the 5400 II, that is a newer, and supposedly faster version of the 5400 with an LED light source instead of a CCFL light source. That makes scans appear potentially even sharper due to the very direct light source. Another difference is the dropping of IEEE 1394 on the 5400 II, if that makes a difference.

 

If my 5400 weren't on a slow path to it's grave, I wouldn't have bought the Nikon I use for much of my scanning. Another scanner to consider is the Canon FS4000US if you can get one with all the accessories since they're relatively inexpensive. I picked one up for around $150 shipped last fall specifically to scan APS film of my families since it can batch scan entire rolls. The scans, at least with my copy of the FS4000, are incredibly sharp. It excels with negative film but suffers more with slides since it has more noise than the Nikon or Minolta in the scans. Multiscanning (not available in Canon's software that I've found) does help in Vuescan, but the Nikon and Minolta beat it hands down for the old kodachrome slides I've been scanning.

[andrii_radevych]

Thank you so much, Phil, for sharing your opinion and experience!

I mean specifically Scan Elite II and first (not second) version of Dimage 5400.

During the last few days of researches I found dash of information with the similar issue with 5400 scaner, that you have. That makes me kind of sceptic, in terms of keep thinking about 5400 purchase, as it seems, that its common now days - to have this model in "half working" order...

I was thinking of getting FS4000 scanner as well, but then found a lot of claims, regarding it's noice and bad overall performance, so this option is no longer available for me (plus there is no ICE in fs400, afaik).

I'm kind of thinking about Plustek 8200i as an option, but heard that 5400 beet it a lot, in terms of dinamic range and overall sharpness/scan quality.

[phil_gunderson]

I can't say that I've seen really poor performance from my FS4000 when scanning negatives. It doesn't do as good a job with slides though due to requiring a higher dmax for dense slides (noisier). The FS4000 does have an IR channel so can be used with Vuescan's infrared cleaning option (a bit like ICE), but it doesn't have the branded ICE software bundled with it. Canon calls it FARE in their software, but it's a similar type of software that detects defects (within reason) and tries to blend them away. Probably the biggest complaint with the Canon I have is it's speed over USB. Supposedly if you use the SCSI interface it goes much faster, but supporting that is more difficult now with modern operating systems. As such, I just use Vuescan with all my scanners so I have a consistent UI with which to work.

 

As it happens, I also have a Plustek 8200i that I use for 110 negatives since I have a holder that was 3d printed for it. The biggest thing with the Plustek is making sure the film is exactly in the prime focus area since there is no auto focus. With negatives, my only real complaint is that the sharpness isn't up to that of the Nikon, though with the custom holder for 110 negatives and some tweaking, I've been getting grain sharp scans of the 110 media (old family pictures from the early 80s). It's not the best with slides (again, Nikon beats it hands down there) but it's the only one of the scanners that's currently being produced and supported (officially).

 

Regarding overall sharpness, unless you're planning to enlarge the pictures to their maximum based upon 300 divided in the total pixel dimensions, a bit of pre-sharpening in your photo editor and post sharpening before output goes a long way in producing acceptable results. The Nikon, Canon, and Minolta (all with auto focus) need less pre sharpening, but all need a little post sharpening when outputting due to lose of resolution when resizing an image down to your destination size.

 

There is (or was anyway) AB Studios that repaired/cleaned the Nikons at least. I had Alex Ketzer from there clean and recalibrate my Nikon when I bought it.

 

What type of film are you planning on scanning?

[andrii_radevych]

Wow, Phil! Thank you for do full reply!

And yeah, I also forgot to mention one very important for me downside of fs4000 scaner - his turtle speed...I've read about it few times, surfing through dome scanner tips threads and decide that I don't really want to try it, unless I will get "steal deal" for it. There is one fs4000 listed now on ebay for 79$ (+best offer), but it has no trays, which is almost impossible to find separate (for reasonable price) now days.

Mostly I'm planning to scan B&W negs (about 80% of all shots), then a little color negs (about 15%) and the tiny rest will go for color slide.

So what do you personally think: is 5400 will be a good option for 350$ or I rather consider 200$ Elite 2? Both of the scanners are going within my budget, but I still not sure - what to get...Or maybe I need to look for the clean Nikon V to skip all of the possible troubles with Minolta scanners?

[andrii_radevych]

Wow, Phil! Thank you for do full reply!

And yeah, I also forgot to mention one very important for me downside of fs4000 scaner - his turtle speed...I've read about it few times, surfing through dome scanner tips threads and decide that I don't really want to try it, unless I will get "steal deal" for it. There is one fs4000 listed now on ebay for 79$ (+best offer), but it has no trays, which is almost impossible to find separate (for reasonable price) now days.

Mostly I'm planning to scan B&W negs (about 80% of all shots), then a little color negs (about 15%) and the tiny rest will go for color slide.

So what do you personally think: is 5400 will be a good option for 350$ or I rather consider 200$ Elite 2? Both of the scanners are going within my budget, but I still not sure - what to get...Or maybe I need to look for the clean Nikon V to skip all of the possible troubles with Minolta scanners?

[phil_gunderson]

With B&W film, ICE doesn't work since the silver in the negatives remains. The nice thing about BW film is that the range should be well within that of all the scanners you've looked at. The 5400, provided you can get a good working model with the film trays, has a nice feature called Grain Dissolver. It's an opaque piece of glass that goes between the CCFL light source and the film to diffuse the light further. It can help reduce the appearance of grain in an image without using software to smear the results. The caveat is that it significantly increases scan times. Given my experience between this scanner and my Nikon, if my 5400 were perfectly working, I'd have never bought the Nikon. To me, it's just that good.

 

Unfortunately, I know very little about the Scan Elite II, though it does look to be a very nice scanner provided it's still in full working order.

 

Before writing off a current scanner, I've attached a scan I did from a roll of Kodak 126 BW film from 1967. I can't say the subject matter is outstanding, but hopefully it can give you an example of what's possible with the Plustek 8200i. The biggest downside besides what I've noted before is that you manually have to move the film carrier between frames which makes the process slower. I haven't applied any sharpening, except what Photoshop itself adds when downsizing the first image from the 3600ppi size to a web size here. These were scanned using the 8200i in Vuescan with no sharpening at 7200ppi and had Vuescan save the result at 3600ppi. I do that because the scanner achieves it's best sharpness by scanning at full resolution and downsampling the picture. The only other thing I did was a curves adjustment in Photoshop and exported for an example. Please note the visible grain in the 100% crop.

 

Full image from negative.

 

100% crop from scan.

 

For the sake of comparison, here is a scan from Kodak Ektar 100 from a shot I took in 2015 using the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 at full resolution. At 5400 ppi, the limiting factor is the resolution of the film and the lens. In this case, the scanner out resolved what my lens and film combination were able to do; however, at 300ppi output, the full size print would be just over 16"x24" or about 40cm x 60cm.

 

Scan from Ektar 100 using the Minolta 5400 at full resolution (reduced for web)

 

100% Crop from Minolta 5400 at full resolution. No sharpening applied here. This is what the scanner can resolve. Clearly, the grain is clearer than my lens was able to achieve (and probably my hand held technique).

[a._t._burke]

Mr. Radevych...

 

On my Flicker space I often describe the scanner that scanned the photo. I've copied a few notes from the posts concerning scanners below. I own quite a few, but not a Noritsu.

 

The Scanner, Minolta 5400 II:

The Minolta 5400 was advertised at 5400 PPI and actually gave out not only a scan of that size but also of that resolution. Testing was done using a 1951USAF glass microscope resolution bought from Edmond Scientific. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment.

 

The Scanner, a Nikon 5000:

The Nikon 5000 was rated by the manufacture to scan at 4000 PPI. Unlike most other scanners testing with a glass plate USAF 1951 with the resolution chart metal deposited on it, showed both vertical and horizontal resolution to be very close to that figure. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. I’d rate the 5000 at or very near 4000 PPI on film. Most scanners are over rated by 50-100%

 

The Scanner: PrimeFilm XE, 2014

This is a small, under $500.00 scanner that actually works pretty well for 35mm slides and film. It advertises 10,000 PPI, but that grossly exaggerates its capability. When scanning at 10,000 PPI, there is no more information than when scanning at 5000 PPI. The file is just four times the size on disk. However, when scanning at 5000 PPI, you get an actual 4000+ PPI. However, you have to scan at 5000 PPI to get the 4000. As far as actual scanning information gained from a scan, it delivers far more PPI at the 5000 PPI setting than the Epson flatbeds do at the 6400 PPI setting.

The apparent Dmax seems much lower than the Nikon 5000. You’d better tweak the color a little bit for each slide. It does seem to focus well and has as much actual resolution as the Nikon 5000. It also does not have a Kodachrome setting. As an old guy, I miss that. However, anybody taking pictures today can no longer use Kodachrome so it does not matter.

 

The Scanner, a Nikon IV ED:

The Nikon IV ED was rated by the manufacture to scan at 2900 PPI. Unlike most other scanners testing with a glass plate USAF 1951 with the resolution chart metal deposited on it, showed both vertical and horizontal resolution to be very close to that figure. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. I’d rate the IV ED at or very near 2900 PPI on film. Most scanners are over rated by 50-100%

 

The Scanner, a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer:

This scanner is rated at 4600 PPI and in fact has that many sensors in the array. However, due to software or the lens (I suspect the lens) there is only about 3000 PPI worth of information in the scan in .jpg form. Some of the flatbed scanners have the same problem with lenses and are infamous for not resolving the potential of the sensor count. Most under $2000.00 flatbed scanners only give 40% to 60% of their rating. I would have thought Noritsu would do a better job. I’ve found that in order to scan over 4000 true PPI which the Nikons would approach (except for the out-of-production Minolta 5400 II), one has to get a true drum scan and with a talented operator to boot.

Addendum: Amending the above standard boilerplate paragraph, this particular scan appears to have 4000 PPI or better of actual information. Perhaps the machine had been serviced or adjusted. In any event, at least this roll of film was scanned closer to its stated output than scans I’ve received from the same photofinisher and machine in the past.

 

 

The Scanner: Epson V500:

The scanner is an Epson V500. It was bought in about 2012 and was a current offering at that time. It is supposed to scan at 6400 PPI and probably has the sensors to equal that. However, the optics are pretty poor. Furthermore, the scan point is not at the glass, but usually somewhere above, different on each like item produced. Maximizing the focus scan point, I guess at about 2500+ not-so-clear PPI. I do not have my Edmunds Scientific USAF1951 microscope test slide to test it with. I do however have a number of scans on my hard drive here from some of the ten other scanners I have, so comparing the results my guess is probably somewhat accurate. Should I ever make it back to Montana, I will redo this paragraph with numbers off the actual test slide.

This flatbed also does film up to about 58mm wide. Using templates, you can do Minox, 16mm, 135, 828, 127, 120, and a pretty long strip of 58mm of anything bigger than that. With my 4180, I have scanned 8X10s a section at a time and stitched them together semi-successfully. You’d have to use the same process with this scanner.

I bought it refurbished and calibrated for about $100 shipped, just to do a single project and have long since got my money out of it.

As a flatbed, its resolution exceeds even the best 1950s black and white contact print that I own.

The color restore works better than the older Epson generations that would include the 4990, but still is not as good as Applied Science Fiction’s Return of Color Pro.

 

The Scanner, Epson 4990:

The Epson 4990 was the first consumer grade flatbed scanner to be able to scan film up to 8”x10”. It has 4990 PPI worth of CCD elements but the actual resolution through its glass appears to be about 2500 PPI. I usually test my scanners with an Edmonds Scientific glass plate with the USAF 1951 resolution chart metal deposited on it. I do not have the glass plate here in Florida so I estimate with the experience of having tested many other scanners.

Some of the Specs from the Epson Website:

Flatbed color image scanner with Digital ICE™ technology for Film and Photo Prints

It uses a Color Epson MatrixCCD™ line sensor

Optical Resolution is 4800 dpi

Hardware Resolution is 4800 x 9600 dpi with Micro Step Drive™ technology

Maximum Resolution is 12,800 x 12,800 dpi with software interpolation

Effective Pixels are 40,800 x 56,160 (4800 dpi)

Color Hardware Bit Depth is 48-bits per pixel internal, 48-bits per pixel external (External bit depth is selectable to 48 bits depending on the image editing software.)

Grayscale Hardware Bit Depth is 16-bits per pixel internal, 16-bits per pixel external (External bit depth is selectable to 16 bits depending on the image editing software.)

Optical Density is 4.0 Dmax

 

The Scanner: Epson 2450, Circa 2002

Scanning was done with an Epson 2450 flatbed scanner at the 2400PPI setting but probably only 1600PPI of information went into the scan.

Even at 1600 REAL PPI, the Duoflex image was probably the weakest link.

The Scanner, an Epson 4180:

Oops! This was scanned with an Epson 4180 flatbed scanner@ 4800 PPI. However it was measured with a 1951USAF glass microscope test piece and found to have about 2200-2400 PPI of information. So, there is detail such as the year sticker on the Toyota license plate that can be read with a 60x microscope.

 

 

Information is free and worth every penny...

 

A. T. Burke

[PaulCoen]

I've got a pair of Scan Elite II units - bought one new, and happened to be in the right place at the right time when someone was getting rid of the other. They're solid scanners - I've been using them with Vuescan since getting rid of Windows XP. They've held up well. I do get significantly better results on the Elite II than I do on my Epson V600 flatbed with the transparency adapter.

 

One note: the Scan Elite II supports IEEE 1394 (Firewire) and USB 1.1, not 2.0. So if you don't have the option of using FIrewire, you're going to get fairly slow scan performance on the Elite II compared to the later models. I've got a Firewire card in both my desktop and for my laptop. If you do go that route, I'd recommend getting a card with a TI chipset.

 

I'll probably switch to Plustek when these eventually fail, instead of going the used route, though.

[rodeo_joe1]

I've used both a Plustek and Primefilm scanners. The Plustek is awful and has no automatic film advance, and it certainly doesn't have a resolution anywhere close to 7200 ppi - definitely not recommended. For the price I don't think you can beat the Pacific Image Primefilm range of scanners as long as you don't need to scan anything larger than 35mm.

 

FWIW, I believe Pacific Image made the well-respected but short-lived Kodak 3600 film scanner. Their XA model has a very similar design.

Edited March 17, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1