Dimage Elite 5400 Scanner

[vincetylor]

Thanks Howard! That site had some nice information. The 5400 walked all over the smaller LS-30 in Mikes Nunan's review. However lets compare it against the comparably priced Nikon Supercool 4000. THAT would be apples to apples in my opinion. We are at least starting to get some real answers....and they appear to be quite good. But, lets wait and see more! Thanks Jack for the vote of confidence. I almsot cancelled my order, but will take my chances....wish me well.

[mike_nunan]

Hi all,

 

It's interesting to read the comments here, as up until now I hadn't encountered anyone else who had taken the plunge with the 5400.

 

The first thing I will point out is that if you enable Auto Exposure (note that this is DISABLED by default for scans of positives) then the scan times VARY according to the density of the film. This is because the exposure or integration time of the CCD will be increased for dark frames, in order to get more information back from the dense areas. That's why Daniel's overexposed HIE negs took so long to scan. Enabling the Grain Dissolver feature introduces a diffuser between the illuminant and the film, which will attenuate the light and therefore require a longer exposure time, leading to a slower scan. So, scanning a dense, silver-retaining neg (B&W or K-Chrome) with ICE enabled is a worst-case scenario.

 

All this will also apply with VueScan, btw. I have seen comments from Ed Hamrick drawing peoples' attention to the fact that scan time is related to the exposure value chosen by AE. The times may be faster or slower than with the Minolta software for the same frame, but I doubt the difference will be major and dense frames will take longer, just as they do in DiMAGE Scan.

 

Also on the subject of performance, there is quite a big win to be had by disabling auto-focus for proof scans. I have two separate workflows, one for low-res (1350ppi) scans that are used for indexing and sharing via e-mail, and another for full-res scans for printing purposes. When I'm printing, I don't mind if the scan takes a long time because I'm only dealing with one frame. I have the same expectations that I would have were I working in a wet darkroom. I don't use ICE unless the frame is _really_ messed up, and I take time over scan exposure, focus and using Grain Dissolver if beneficial. OTOH, the proof scans are done in batches, and I'm after anything that can speed up throughput. I've found that thanks to the solid design of the film holder, it's sufficient to focus once at the start of a scan batch then leave AF disabled for the rest of the run. This saves about 5 seconds per scan. For E6 work, it's acceptable to leave AE disabled, and at 1350ppi each frame takes around 30 sec. Not bad. Average B&W proofs at the same res take around a minute each, but that's with AE enabled.

 

Vincent, I agree that a comparison against the LS-4000 would have been more relevant than one against the LS-30. I'm interested in hearing from anyone based in London who has an LS-4000, as I'd be very willing to bring over the same test frames I used for the Photo-i review and run them through. What I will say is that the 5400 has produced at least one scan which is better in terms of shadow detail than the Multi Pro was able to attain, which is pretty impressive when you consider the price difference. I'm going to get a few of my test frames scanned on an Imacon 848, hopefully this week. This should provide the ultimate benchmark.

 

Zoltan, if you take a look at the last page of my review on Photo-i, you will see a fair number of 100% scaled images. Vincent, you should probably take a closer look at the image "Moonlit field" as that provides a test of deep shadow detail on B&W neg film. Most of the other test frames attempt to push the limits of what the scanner can do in terms of dynamic range and tonality.

 

Regarding the review, it will be extended in a week or so, but I am not the webmaster of that site -- that honour goes to the esteemed gentleman Vincent Oliver, and he is away for a week's vacation at present. If you want to keep in touch with developments regarding the review, head along to the following Photo-i forum thread:

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.pl?s=3f116e29337fffff;act=ST;f=7;t=6;st=50

 

(You may have to register on the site to see this, I'm not sure.)

[mike_nunan]

Sorry, spot the foolish error: "a dense, silver-retaining neg (B&W or K-Chrome) with ICE enabled" may be the worst case, but you'd never use ICE with a silver-retaining neg because it doesn't work with that kind of film. Duh.

[nigel_craig]

Vincent

 

"similarly priced LS4000"? Not in the UK it isn't. Typical price for Nikon LS4000 is about £1100-1200, Canon FS4000 is about £600-650, Minolta Dimage 5400 is being advertised between £520 and £599 - in fact I've seen it advertsed for £499; i.e. about half the price of the Nikon.

[daniel_bliss]

Those UK prices on the Canon and Nikon are astonishing, I have to say. Yet your

price on the Minolta scanner is probably lower than ours.

 

Not including sales tax (add five to nine percent depending where you are except for

a few states that don't have sales tax), Minolta goes $830-900; Nikon ends up at

$950 after the rebate and I think the Canon's around $700 but I'm not sure.

[leif_goodwin8]

Presumably Canon and Nikon will either respond with price drops or new scanners since I can't see them selling otherwise. The exception is the Nikon 4000 which might still sell some due to batch scan capabilities. Same goes for Microtek 4000T(F) too I guess, not that anyone seems to buy it.

[ed_hopper]

With respect to Nikon and Canon responding, I have to wonder about how much longer this under-$1K film scanner market will be attractive to so many vendors. At the professional level, film use is already down dramatically. Most portrait/wedding pros are now using digital for a majority of their work. Most commercial photographers are now using digital. Even as of about 18 months ago, nearby Portland Color (formerly Portland Photographics) was telling me that their E-6 volume was down more than 50% due to pros switching to digital. That was 18 months ago! Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

[daniel_bliss]

I was even reading in Business North (business newspaper for northern Minnesota

and Wisconsin) that Custom Photo Lab in Duluth, who I would recommend to anyone

for E6 on the basis of processing I had done there for a gallery exhibit when I still

lived up north, has seen a 30 percent fall in their E6 volume in the last year or two

and has made up a large part of the difference by dramatically ramping up their large

format digital printing.

[vincetylor]

I think everybody can agree that the future is digital. However, film will probably never die anytime soon. In my opinion, the ability to capture on film and then scan at as large a file as you need IS the best of both worlds.

 

Velvia's new 100 is selling off the shelves. Anybody tried it?? How does it compare to the 50??

[mike_nunan]

While there's no denying that an exodus is occurring from E6 to digital, I don't think it's valid to conclude that manufacturers will turn away from making the higher-end "prosumer" CCD desktop scanners that we are discussing here. Although many pros do find a use for these devices, if quality is a concern then Imacon output is usually seen as the only acceptable alternative to a drum scan in commercial work.

 

I think the target market for Minolta/Nikon/Canon mainly comprises keen amateurs plus pros without the critical quality requirements of major agency clients. While the latter have mostly defected to digital already, there are good reasons why the quality-conscious amateur might wish to stick with film for a while longer. Minolta have shown the way with the 5400, and I will be very surprised if we don't see a new generation of Nikon scanners before the turn of the year.

[vincetylor]

A simple example for me to stick with film is regards my Webshots account. The only digital cameras that produce a file large enough for them are the big 11-13 megapixel monsters from Kodak and Cannon. Where with film, one can scan as large as needed. Basically I have seen 35mm print even larger than 24x36 and still look sharp. This is because todays scanners and printers are simply that good. Five years ago this was simply impossible. 35mm with film is of course faster as well. Slides can be scanned and then archived...for decades. Long exposures, night shots are still noisy far too often for what I do. The selection of wide angle lenses are far superior. I shoot landscapes. It just isn't time to switch yet in my opinion (for what I do anyway)....perhaps not for quite a while.

[chip l.]

I think that there will still be a need for us film photographers (even thos eof us with digital). Thatis why I am really looking hard and long at the 5400. I am torn becuase I have a chance at the CS8000ED for about double what the 5400 will cost me. I do shoot MF from time to time, but the specs on the 5400 are so sweet vs. the 8000. Need to decide if time is now to move from MF....

[vincetylor]

Tough call Chip. I personally looked longer and harder at medium format than digital. The bottom line for me was why would I even need medium if 35 is giving very sharp 20x30 and even many sharp 24x36. Rarely would I ever need larger than that. Also, the wide angle zoom selections are terrible when compared to the 35mm selections. If you have solid 35mm equipment, then the 5400 (IF it is as good as hoped for) would be all that any photographer would probably ever need in my opinion. However if you already shoot medium extensively then getting a scanner that does both would also make sense. Like I said initially...tough call!

[mike_nunan]

Tough call?? No way. Just sit on your hands, Chip. Don't buy a LS-8000 for that kind of money right now. Minolta will inevitably release a successor to the DiMAGE Scan Multi Pro this year. If the new unit improves on the Multi Pro as much as the 5400 improves on its predecessors, you'll be able to eclipse all the 1Ds users with nothing more than a $200 Mamiya C330. Nikon are coming up to the fourth lap of a stable product cycle that has seen new units launched approx every 24-30 months, and I don't see them giving up in defeat to Minolta. After all that, if you still want to buy a previous-generation unit, you'll be able to do so at a much reduced price.

 

HTH

[vincetylor]

Mike, you mentioned in your report a difficulty getting the scanner to initialize. Same here! Any other suggestions?? If you can, E-mail me at tylorsales@hawaiian.net . Thanks.

 

V

[struan_gray]

Our university reprographics department has gone digital. They

'scan' slides and negatives using a Sinarback and a Hasselblad

macro bellows and lens. The Sinarback allows automated

stitching if you need truly huge numbers of pixels. They see no

need to buy a dedicated film scanner.

 

Someone else I know 'scans' slides using an old slide copier

and his EOS1Ds.

 

Once this sort of solution comes down in price the only market

left for dedicated slide scanners will be the very low price

consumer end and high-throughput machines used in bulk labs.

 

All that said, the Minolta is a nice scanner at a good price, and

it's available now.

[chip l.]

Thanks for the comments guys. I rarely shoot MF any longer. The only reason that I do is that I get most of my MF film stock (as little as I shoot MF) for free. My main gear is Leica (lenses from 15 to 135) and the EOS 10d now. And from the test images I have seen so far on the 5400, it seems that this is the scanner to beat.

 

I would be surprised to see a replacement this year for the MultiPro, maybe next year.

[vincetylor]

I have a deffective scanner. I must ship back to New York from Hawaii. We called tech support and tried everything there was to try.

 

Bummer!

[eric_apollo]

I am very new to scanning so please do not take my response to judge the Minolta 5400 scanner. However, I have been scanning my slides and negatives using 5400 dpi and my slides look spectacular but my negatives do not look "as spectacular" I thought I was not putting in the negative correct as I was having trouble determining which side of the negative is the emulsion side. Do slides typically scan much better than negatives. Do I have to change any of the setting other than the obvious ones "color negative" to get the spectacular results I see with the slides.

 

Eric Apollo

[leif_goodwin8]

Eric: often scanners are much better on slides than colour reversal film. For that reason many people use a third party software called Vuescan when scanning negatives. Ed Hamrick, who wrote Vuescan, has created a range of colour profiles for most films, and hence it is easy to get good scans. However, it might be that the Minolta is capable of giving good scans of film, but that you are doing something wrong. I'll leave that issue to someone who owns the device.

 

By the way, you can get a trial version of Vuescan from www.hamrick.com, though I don't know if he supports the Minolta since it is so recent.

[jose r]

I've had the opposite problem from Eric. Scanning negatives have been a breeze, not too much manipulation needed, smooth results. The slides I have scanned have not looked how I want them to look. Its a color management issue, so the more I learn the software hopefully the better the results. I've only had the scanner for a week, so I'm still in the learning curve, but overall its a great performing device.

[eric_apollo]

I read the independent review from a guy in England which I found very helpful -- the link is listed earlier in this thread. My problem was corrected by applying auto focus (the default is auto focus off) and then also applying the grain disolver. The negative scan turned out substantially better after making those adjustment.

 

I recommend following the link to the independent review. The guy gives plenty of useful advice. My negative scan turned out almost as good as the slide.

 

A separate question is how do I get the file size down to level that I can send -- do I have to drop in quality from the 5400 dpi which is a whopping 100 meg file. I am new to scanning but a few people told me that I can compress further in Photoshop. I tried winzip which was only able to compress 10% to a 90meg file. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciates on how to get the excellent quality down to a level that can posted or emailed.

 

Eric Apollo

 

Eric Apollo

[jose r]

Eric,

 

Here is my workflow so far (subject to change of course):

 

1) Scan in 16bit mode 5400ppi @360dpi (14x20). BW Neg=100-110MB file, Color Neg/Slide=200-220MB.

 

2) Make all size, exposure, color adjustments/corrections in the Scan Utility software. Save the color, tonal image corrections and name then according to type of film or transparency, i.e., NPH, XP2...so I can use them again later on. And if need be, a small amount of unsharpen mask.

 

3) Save file to my desktop. This file is now my digital negative. It is not to be altered or re-saved.

 

4) Open the file in Graphic Converter or PS Elements (don't have full PS yet). Graphic Converter opens the file in 16bit mode but saves in 8bit. PS Elements can only see 8bit, so it automatically converts to 8bit once you open the file. At this point I do a "File Save As" and save it as a Tiff file. This second file now becomes my working file.

 

5) Do any further adjustments (cloning, burning, dodging, color, etc). Save changes.

 

6) To post to the web I apply a small amount of USM, resize the image using bicubic algorithm, to 72dpi or 96dpi, 800x530pixels (or whatever size you want). This automatically reduces the file size. Do a "Save for Web." This action saves the file as a jpeg for web uploading to your desktop, or wherever. You will still be in your working Tiff file. Exit out, but DO NOT save the changes you made. Open the jpeg file to check quality. You now have a 100-200MB file. The closer to 100MB the better.

 

7) You wind up with three files: digital negative, working tiff, web ready jpeg.

 

8) Archive according to your taste.

[dan_friedman]

I've been using the 5400 for only about one month, so I'm no expert. Up until getting this scanner, I had been making prints the old-fashioned way - in a darkroom. I generated my first high-res scan about 20 minutes after opening the box, and before opening the manual. That's how good the software is.

 

I've been scanning Velvia slides and Supra 100 negatives and haven't found a big difference in quality. The color matching is better on the slides, but I tweek that in Photoshop anyway. I'm impressed with the software, however, the QuickScan utility has some limitations. For example, it only permits 8/24-bit scans and you can't use manual focus, so I've been using the manual scan utility, which is also very easy.

 

Scan times are quite long and file sizes are large. For example, a 5400dpi, 16/48-bit, 8X scan, with ICE on, took 65 minutes and created a 208MB TIFF file. The result, however, is fabulous. After using the iCorrect Edit Lab plug in for Photoshop to balance and color correct the print (all of 10 minutes work), I made an 8 x 12 print on an Epson 2200 that is at least as good as I could have done in a chemical darkroom. Note that I always use manual focus, which I found is very slightly more accurate than the automatic focus. Fortunately, the manual focus setup on the 5400 is very easy to use.

 

Shadow detail is excellent. For most images I think that multi-scans are unnecessary. I've used multi-scans for images that have a lot of shadow detail not because I've seen a problem with 1x scans, but just to make sure because I don't want to discover a problem after studying a print. So I set the scanner and then go do something else. Someone mentioned working on Photoshop while the scanner is operating. I've found that an exercise in frustration because the scanner hammers the processor, so Photoshop responds very slowly on my 2ghz, 768Mbyte, P4 system running XP Pro.

 

I can't offer a comparison to other scanners since I haven't used others, however, I'm impressed with this one and can't immagine that others would offer much that the Minolta doesn't.

[pili]

Dan, your scan times seem really slow. I'm interested in buying this scanner for stock photography use, so speed is important due to the volume of work to be scanned.

 

What kind of interface are you using? USB 1.0, USB 2.0 or Firewire?

 

Thank you.