raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Hi,
I am having okay scans from my Epson V700,
but I have always wondered if I could ever
get the Salt-&-Pepper look from my scans
of my Tr-X/D-76 negatives.
Well, my 8 year old Minolta Dimage 5400 Mark I scanner
arrived yesterday, I was worried about tran-pacific
shipment.
Some observations:
- The base Minolta sw work in Windows 7 although it was
written for up to XP computers.
- Vuescan also works with this scanner
- Specific features of the 5400 show up in Vuescan such
as Auto-focus, Grain Dissolver etc.
- The scanner is finicky about USB ports, one USB port resulted
in scan lines all over the image in Minolta SW but not in Vuescan.
Once I switched to another USB port on my laptop, the problem
went away.
- Base scan at 2700 dpi with everthing set to default, (no AF,
no ICE, no Grain Dissolver), the time was around 30 seconds
for a scan. For 5400 dpi, the image was increased by around 10-15 seconds.
I will be doing more experimentation with this scanner soon. I finally
discovered discrete grain in my negatives unlike previously on my v700
where it was more contiguous. This was with Kentmere 400 pushed to
800.
raytoei
I am having okay scans from my Epson V700,
but I have always wondered if I could ever
get the Salt-&-Pepper look from my scans
of my Tr-X/D-76 negatives.
Well, my 8 year old Minolta Dimage 5400 Mark I scanner
arrived yesterday, I was worried about tran-pacific
shipment.
Some observations:
- The base Minolta sw work in Windows 7 although it was
written for up to XP computers.
- Vuescan also works with this scanner
- Specific features of the 5400 show up in Vuescan such
as Auto-focus, Grain Dissolver etc.
- The scanner is finicky about USB ports, one USB port resulted
in scan lines all over the image in Minolta SW but not in Vuescan.
Once I switched to another USB port on my laptop, the problem
went away.
- Base scan at 2700 dpi with everthing set to default, (no AF,
no ICE, no Grain Dissolver), the time was around 30 seconds
for a scan. For 5400 dpi, the image was increased by around 10-15 seconds.
I will be doing more experimentation with this scanner soon. I finally
discovered discrete grain in my negatives unlike previously on my v700
where it was more contiguous. This was with Kentmere 400 pushed to
800.
raytoei
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Congratulations on your purchase!
V-12
Well-known
I use a 35mm Plustek scanner for the same reasons, the V700 is great for MF and larger, but can't do 35mm very well. It is a bit like the difference between using a diffuser light source in an enlarger and using a condenser light source, the diffuser works better over a larger area and isn't so good for small negatives.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
hahaha.... becareful of what you (I) wish for....
i wished i had higher resolution from my scanners...
i wished i could see real grains from the negatives...
well, this 5400 is quite a scanner, i never had some much grains
before, in fact, i am now wishing i had lesser grains....
here is a okay picture resized at 800x600...
however at 100% crop, this is at 2700 dpi.
I think i have to undo and relearn some of what i thought i
knew about scanning, grains, developing etc.
With my Epson v700, the grains were sort of continuous/
contiguous. However in 5400, the grains are sharper and more
discrete.
Also, with the 700, i tweaked the histogram to get a dull, flat but
rich image, ripe for pp. But for the Minolta 5400, I find the
default sw a bit too high in contrast. I tried vuescan with
Chris Crawford's Vuescan settings from his excellent website,
"White Balance" and set White and Blackpoint to zero.
raytoei
i wished i had higher resolution from my scanners...
i wished i could see real grains from the negatives...
well, this 5400 is quite a scanner, i never had some much grains
before, in fact, i am now wishing i had lesser grains....
here is a okay picture resized at 800x600...
however at 100% crop, this is at 2700 dpi.
I think i have to undo and relearn some of what i thought i
knew about scanning, grains, developing etc.
With my Epson v700, the grains were sort of continuous/
contiguous. However in 5400, the grains are sharper and more
discrete.
Also, with the 700, i tweaked the histogram to get a dull, flat but
rich image, ripe for pp. But for the Minolta 5400, I find the
default sw a bit too high in contrast. I tried vuescan with
Chris Crawford's Vuescan settings from his excellent website,
"White Balance" and set White and Blackpoint to zero.
raytoei
j j
Well-known
As you only got the scanner last week may I suggest that you are yet to learn how to get the best out of it? It is capable of much better results than that.
starless
Well-known
I use the same scanner and it is exceptional for b/w negatives.
I find it better than the Nikon 9000, which I owned previously. However you need some practice with Vuescan in order to get the most out of it.
I find it better than the Nikon 9000, which I owned previously. However you need some practice with Vuescan in order to get the most out of it.
brbo
Well-known
This is a result of aggressive PP which didn't account for more clearly resolved grain in the scan of your new scanner. I like your PP, the feel/look, but not so much the posterization.
I have same scanner and I also process my scans (mostly color) with relatively high contrast so I need to:
- scan to raw
- get as noiseless scan as I can (multisampling)
- use appropriate downsizing algorithms (bicubic (for smooth gradients))
- sometimes use grain dissolver (slow!!!)
I have same scanner and I also process my scans (mostly color) with relatively high contrast so I need to:
- scan to raw
- get as noiseless scan as I can (multisampling)
- use appropriate downsizing algorithms (bicubic (for smooth gradients))
- sometimes use grain dissolver (slow!!!)
mob81
Well-known
I use to have it until it develops extreme noise on the color negatives mainly, while it was fine for B&W. It's certainly a good scanner and I hope you can run it for years.
Here is sample from that scanner.
FJACRS29 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
TMAX400015 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
TMAX400020 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/m_o_b81/tags/5400i/
Here is sample from that scanner.
FJACRS29 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
TMAX400015 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
TMAX400020 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/m_o_b81/tags/5400i/
Michalm
Well-known
Congratulations , i will by one myself once i can find a good source.
j j
Well-known
mob81
Well-known
I really don't know! I took the picture on august 2011 (IIRC)
mfogiel
Veteran
It looks, like you have applied sharpening to your scans. With Epson 750, if you do not edge sharpen twice, you can't even see what the scan is about, with a good scanner, you should avoid edge sharpening as much as possible. If you like some more punch, use contrast bump ( when you sharpen in PS, apply 20,40 values, rather than 2,200 typical of edge sharpening).
Another point, is not to overdevelop, or push film, try to pull film in a reasonable acutance developer, for example Tri X @200-250 in HC 110 works well, as APX 100 @50-64 in Rodinal.
Another point, is not to overdevelop, or push film, try to pull film in a reasonable acutance developer, for example Tri X @200-250 in HC 110 works well, as APX 100 @50-64 in Rodinal.
j j
Well-known
Thanks. I was there the year before you so, yes, that's the restored bridge (perhaps you didn't know but there was a serious fire on this centuries-old landmark caused by a New Years firework).
Sorry about the thread hijack. Back to the 5400 debate!
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
I just buy one, and can't be happier. I've rediscover the scanning again, coming from plustek 7400..
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
some additional test...
Some comparison scans.
1. Epson v700/2400dpi/ histogram adjusted for rich capture
2. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi /Default setting
3. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver
4. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver + Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium
5. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / Just Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium
raytoei
Some comparison scans.
1. Epson v700/2400dpi/ histogram adjusted for rich capture
2. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi /Default setting
3. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver
4. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver + Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium
5. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / Just Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium
raytoei
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
This time resized and PPed.
1. Epson v700/2400dpi/ PP applied
2. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi /PP applied
3. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver / PP applied
4. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver + Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium / PP applied
5. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / Just Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium / PP Applied
raytoei
1. Epson v700/2400dpi/ PP applied
2. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi /PP applied
3. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver / PP applied
4. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / HW Grain Dissolver + Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium / PP applied
5. Minolta Dimage 5400/ 2400dpi / Just Vue Scan Grain Reduction set to Medium / PP Applied
raytoei
Classique
Well-known
Is there a reason for scanning at 2400 dpi? I would think scanning at 5400 dpi then downsizing may give better results. I use plustek 7600i and that is the case for that one. I would prefer to scan it at lower dpi than 7200 dpi for the sake of file size but I found that scanning at anything lower greatly degrades the image quality.
For grain, give Neat Image a try. I use it to reduce grain and it works wonders.
For grain, give Neat Image a try. I use it to reduce grain and it works wonders.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Observations.
* 2400 dpi was chosen over 2700 or 5400 to be similar to my epson scans.
* grain is exaggerated because the Neopan 400 film was push
processed and developed in room temp water.
At 100%, the epson picture isn't as detailed as the other 100% crops, however
the overall image resized and post-processed still looked good,
and in my opinion, the post-processed epson pic looks nicest.
raytoei
* 2400 dpi was chosen over 2700 or 5400 to be similar to my epson scans.
* grain is exaggerated because the Neopan 400 film was push
processed and developed in room temp water.
At 100%, the epson picture isn't as detailed as the other 100% crops, however
the overall image resized and post-processed still looked good,
and in my opinion, the post-processed epson pic looks nicest.
raytoei
V-12
Well-known
The default hard grain you are seeing is what led me to be disatisfied with scans from my Minolta Multi Pro. And it is because the scanner is scanning a wafer thin layer of grain rather than the depth of the grain in the emulsion. So you get very sharp 'one dimensional' scans that need to go in the opposite direction to a normal scan and need softening rather than sharpening. FWIW my Plustek 7400 does a better job with 35mm than my Multi Pro in like for like scans, the overall impression being of film grain rather than an artificial looking grain filter effect.
mfogiel
Veteran
Check, if in the scanner settings, there is sharpening applied at any stage, and if yes, switch it off - you want completely raw scans, and then edit them in PS.
I believe, the frame above comes from pushed film, this might be the main reason for the gritty grain. If you really want to apply grain reduction, your best bet would be to get a copy of Noise Ninja, and make custom templates for each film/developer combination you use, this way you will maximize the effect with minimal loss of detail.
Personally, I would keep the grain, but just would make sure I like the look of it...
If you develop Tri X in Diafine, you get pretty mushy grain and acceptable speed in the EI 1000-1200 range, if you combine it with this scanner, you will probably get a pretty good result. Another option would be Tri X in Acufine at EI 800 - grain is a bit ball like, so it will come out OK. For normal speed, I would go with a solvent developer like D76, straight or 1+1,, shoot Tri X at EI 200-250 and pull the development time a little.
Last thought - if you want to see the real difference in sharpness, compare a scan of an image shot on a tripod at f 5.6, and scan on both scanners at max dpi. Epson needs to be set to 6400 dpi to get you in the ballpark of a 2400dpi resolution.
I believe, the frame above comes from pushed film, this might be the main reason for the gritty grain. If you really want to apply grain reduction, your best bet would be to get a copy of Noise Ninja, and make custom templates for each film/developer combination you use, this way you will maximize the effect with minimal loss of detail.
Personally, I would keep the grain, but just would make sure I like the look of it...
If you develop Tri X in Diafine, you get pretty mushy grain and acceptable speed in the EI 1000-1200 range, if you combine it with this scanner, you will probably get a pretty good result. Another option would be Tri X in Acufine at EI 800 - grain is a bit ball like, so it will come out OK. For normal speed, I would go with a solvent developer like D76, straight or 1+1,, shoot Tri X at EI 200-250 and pull the development time a little.
Last thought - if you want to see the real difference in sharpness, compare a scan of an image shot on a tripod at f 5.6, and scan on both scanners at max dpi. Epson needs to be set to 6400 dpi to get you in the ballpark of a 2400dpi resolution.