dexdog
Veteran
So, I guess all of this means that I can postpone ordering a Coolscan V for the time being?
R2-D2
Established
The following page might be helpful: This is the great scanner comparison.infrequent said:
R
rich815
Guest
While this perhaps is true it is once again one of those times when someone tells us they heard from someone else that.........
The quote from the person on the Nikon 9000 list is:
"I talked with a Nikon rep again today to try and get to the bottom of
the Scanner software/Intel Mac issue... he said Nikon is weeks away
from releaseing a universal update which will also work with Leopard..
He alo said that the CoolScans were getting very hard to find as Nikon
is no longer making them... "
This to me is far from definitive and certainly does not represent some kind of official announcement from Nikon.
The quote from the person on the Nikon 9000 list is:
"I talked with a Nikon rep again today to try and get to the bottom of
the Scanner software/Intel Mac issue... he said Nikon is weeks away
from releaseing a universal update which will also work with Leopard..
He alo said that the CoolScans were getting very hard to find as Nikon
is no longer making them... "
This to me is far from definitive and certainly does not represent some kind of official announcement from Nikon.
Last edited by a moderator:
amateriat
We're all light!
Oh, dear. Let me see if I can help things out here...
Firstly, while the Minolta 5400 (I) isn't the swiftest boat in the fleet, I've gotten scan times of about 7 minutes average, at maximum resolution, with ICE engaged (Power Mac G4, dual 1.25GHz, 2GB RAM, several big, fast internal HDs, FireWire connection to scanner). Sometimes the scans are actually faster, sometimes slower. And, while I wouldn't regard a 10-minute scan as fast, what would this be compared to, a 4000dpi scanner? I'll trade a few minutes scan time per frame for that extra 1400dpi without question. Your priorities may vary.
And: I have scanned Kodachrome with ICE, and, in my opinion, It Depends. Depending on age (and Dog knows what else), some K'chromes manage "okay" via ICE, while some do badly. Verdict: when in doubt, scan it without ICE, and do the retouching grunt-work yourself.
- Barrett
Firstly, while the Minolta 5400 (I) isn't the swiftest boat in the fleet, I've gotten scan times of about 7 minutes average, at maximum resolution, with ICE engaged (Power Mac G4, dual 1.25GHz, 2GB RAM, several big, fast internal HDs, FireWire connection to scanner). Sometimes the scans are actually faster, sometimes slower. And, while I wouldn't regard a 10-minute scan as fast, what would this be compared to, a 4000dpi scanner? I'll trade a few minutes scan time per frame for that extra 1400dpi without question. Your priorities may vary.
And: I have scanned Kodachrome with ICE, and, in my opinion, It Depends. Depending on age (and Dog knows what else), some K'chromes manage "okay" via ICE, while some do badly. Verdict: when in doubt, scan it without ICE, and do the retouching grunt-work yourself.
- Barrett
Last edited:
R2-D2
Established
Those are not "real" dpi, but only "nominal" dpi. The 5400's resolution is below 4000dpi.amateriat said:Oh, dear. Let me see if I can help things out here...
Firstly, while the Minolta 5400 (I) isn't the swiftest boat in the fleet, I've gotten scan times of about 7 minutes average, at maximum resolution, with ICE engaged (Power Mac G4, dual 1.25GHz, 2GB RAM, several big, fast internal HDs, FireWire connection to scanner). Sometimes the scans are actually faster, sometimes slower. And, while I wouldn't regard a 10-minute scan as fast, what would this be compared to, a 4000dpi scanner? I'll trade a few minutes scan time per frame for that extra 1400dpi without question. Your priorities may vary.
You're referring to the manufacturer's implementation of ICE and not VueScan's "Infrared Cleaning", right?
venchka
Veteran
Stop and think about it
Stop and think about it
IF those three things were possible, 7200 dpi-48 bits AND a sales price of $200, don't you think everyone would be making them? As things stand today, there is no independent testing and verification of scanner resolution. The builders can claim anything they like. For what it's worth, most consumer flatbed scanners max out between 2100 & 2400 dpi REAL OPTICAL resolution.
Take the time to learn what it means.
Using a Nikon Coolscan at 300 dpi is squandering 95%-99% of it's capabilites.
Not sure if they still have them, but the last time I was in Houston Camera Co-op they had 2 Coolscans: A 5000 ED and a V ED. GOOGLE can find them.
Stop and think about it
shimo-kitasnap said:
IF those three things were possible, 7200 dpi-48 bits AND a sales price of $200, don't you think everyone would be making them? As things stand today, there is no independent testing and verification of scanner resolution. The builders can claim anything they like. For what it's worth, most consumer flatbed scanners max out between 2100 & 2400 dpi REAL OPTICAL resolution.
Take the time to learn what it means.
Using a Nikon Coolscan at 300 dpi is squandering 95%-99% of it's capabilites.
Not sure if they still have them, but the last time I was in Houston Camera Co-op they had 2 Coolscans: A 5000 ED and a V ED. GOOGLE can find them.
amateriat
We're all light!
This has been bandied about, but I've yet to see it substantiated. "Not real" might suggest interpolation, but from my own experience I don't see it.R2-D2 said:
Yep, although I've also used VueScan. Generally speaking, running K'chrome through ICE, IMO, isn't a great idea, so I'm with you (and the manual) on that
- Barrett
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
One other factoid to take in is that this company's previous top-end scanners had an optical-resolution spec of 3600dpi. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but what does the spec sheet on the 7200dpi model actually spell out?venchka said:
- Barrett
amateriat
We're all light!
Regarding dedicated film scanners, I wouldn't suggest postponing anything if funds allow. That's just the way things are now.dexdog said:
- Barrett
myoptic3
Well-known
The sample scans I have seen on the web of the Plustek look good. They don't have the detail of the higher priced film scanners, but not bad at all. Search around on the web and you can find some reviews that show the scans. Sorry, I can't remember where exactly. The Dmax is lower than most, but again, not bad. And there is no DIG ICE or ROC or GEM like the Nikons, but hey. It's 200 bucks. They kept the cost down by less software and instead of a motorized film feeder you do it manually. In fact, I was going to buy one but I got a Minolta Scan Dual III at a great price from a fellow RF member and my first scan looks very promising. If I shot color I would probably opt for a Nikon or other higher end scanner, but for my type of B&W the Minolta looks like a keeper.
What surprises me is that Nikon hasn't upgraded their very capable and popular V ED scanner, but that's Nikon. They stayed w/ the D50 for the longest time, then in a flurry came out w/ the D80, D200 , D40 (should have just kept the D50) and a lot of other cameras.
What surprises me is that Nikon hasn't upgraded their very capable and popular V ED scanner, but that's Nikon. They stayed w/ the D50 for the longest time, then in a flurry came out w/ the D80, D200 , D40 (should have just kept the D50) and a lot of other cameras.
R2-D2
Established
No, the 5400dpi are not interpolated. The stepper and the CCD unit just aren't capable of resolving 5400dpi. The measured resolution (USAF-1951) for the 5400 II is 4598dpi horizontally and 3649dpi vertically according to this test:amateriat said:
http://www.filmscanner.info/MinoltaDimageScanElite5400II.html
The 5400 I(!) might be the best scanner (without Digital ICE Professional as found in the Nikon 9000) for trying to scan Kodachrome slides with ICE, because of it's integrated "Grain Dissolver" (which, when used, automatically enables ICE). Diffuse light sources are supposed to work better with B/W negs and Kodachrome slides.Yep, although I've also used VueScan. Generally speaking, running K'chrome through ICE, IMO, isn't a great idea, so I'm with you (and the manual) on that
So is VueScan's "Infrared Cleaning", which uses a different algorithm to factor in the data form the infrared channel than "Digital ICE". As a downside it's (much) less effective...
Last edited:
goo0h
Well-known
FWIW, I believe I read not too long ago that they now support the Mac. Oh yeah....sitemistic said:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/plustek_opticfilm_7500i_ai_se/
JTK
Established
I've closely compared Nikon 50ED and Minolta 5400II, owning the Nikon and having owned two of the 5400II.
1) the Minolta 5400II is mechanical junk, unlike it's ancestor. It's made of the lowest grade of plastic. It weighs literally half as much as Nikon, and there's a reason. Nikon's made properly , Minolta was made to be as cheap as possible. Minolta's negative carriers are far inferior to Nikon's, and Minolta lacks Nikon's precise autofocus. If you doubt "junk" properly describes 5400II, open one. Or just look at its weight Vs Nikon's as advertised.
2) @ 5400ppi Minolta DOES produce a bigger file than it does at 4000ppi, and than Nikon does at 4000ppi. But that bigger file doesn't translate to greater detail resolution.
3) Vuescan's Infared is as good as Nikon's Ice4, and implimented on Nikon 50ED it's better than the earlier iterations of Ice (1/2/3...found on Minolta and earlier Nikons). Ice4 and Vuescan's contemporary version makes use of Nikon's 4th lamp that earlier Nikons lack, and that no Minolta had. In other words, there's a hardware difference as well as software. Used on an earlier machine, Ice4 and contemporary Vuescan works like Ice3, which is nearly perfect...but the 4th lamp results in ability to use lower settings. I especially like the way Vuescan does "grain reduction," keeping it sharp...that is enough reason sometimes to prefer Vuescan with fast films.
Nikon's Ice4 and Vuescan's Infared result in 1.5 minute scans @4000ppi....no perceptable variation from frame to frame. If Kodachrome is your concern, 5000's Ice implimentation is better than 50ED's.
Time isn't valuable to everybody, but it is for me. If 10-15 minute scans of the original Minolta are acceptable, you may enjoy trying to find an advantage to its diffuser. And you do have to accept an older version of Ice with 5400I.
If all you want to do is scan the occasional Kodachrome, 5400 I may make sense.
If you're an active photographer, wanting to scan a whole roll, do the math.: 10min ea plus handling for 24 exposures will take well over two hours longer than Nikon 50ED (10 minutes X 24 Vs 1.5minutes X 24)...add to that the time required to double-check Minoltas focus, which shifts because of its far longer scan time, which causes film to "pop" focus, just as with a slide projector.: this is the specific reason Nikon uses "Coolscan" to describe its machines.
1) the Minolta 5400II is mechanical junk, unlike it's ancestor. It's made of the lowest grade of plastic. It weighs literally half as much as Nikon, and there's a reason. Nikon's made properly , Minolta was made to be as cheap as possible. Minolta's negative carriers are far inferior to Nikon's, and Minolta lacks Nikon's precise autofocus. If you doubt "junk" properly describes 5400II, open one. Or just look at its weight Vs Nikon's as advertised.
2) @ 5400ppi Minolta DOES produce a bigger file than it does at 4000ppi, and than Nikon does at 4000ppi. But that bigger file doesn't translate to greater detail resolution.
3) Vuescan's Infared is as good as Nikon's Ice4, and implimented on Nikon 50ED it's better than the earlier iterations of Ice (1/2/3...found on Minolta and earlier Nikons). Ice4 and Vuescan's contemporary version makes use of Nikon's 4th lamp that earlier Nikons lack, and that no Minolta had. In other words, there's a hardware difference as well as software. Used on an earlier machine, Ice4 and contemporary Vuescan works like Ice3, which is nearly perfect...but the 4th lamp results in ability to use lower settings. I especially like the way Vuescan does "grain reduction," keeping it sharp...that is enough reason sometimes to prefer Vuescan with fast films.
Nikon's Ice4 and Vuescan's Infared result in 1.5 minute scans @4000ppi....no perceptable variation from frame to frame. If Kodachrome is your concern, 5000's Ice implimentation is better than 50ED's.
Time isn't valuable to everybody, but it is for me. If 10-15 minute scans of the original Minolta are acceptable, you may enjoy trying to find an advantage to its diffuser. And you do have to accept an older version of Ice with 5400I.
If all you want to do is scan the occasional Kodachrome, 5400 I may make sense.
If you're an active photographer, wanting to scan a whole roll, do the math.: 10min ea plus handling for 24 exposures will take well over two hours longer than Nikon 50ED (10 minutes X 24 Vs 1.5minutes X 24)...add to that the time required to double-check Minoltas focus, which shifts because of its far longer scan time, which causes film to "pop" focus, just as with a slide projector.: this is the specific reason Nikon uses "Coolscan" to describe its machines.
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
They have all the detail of higher-spec scanners (e.g. Coolscan V), able to fetch from a good neg more than an average user is ever willing to print. Their main weakness is low DMax, sufficient for well-exposed stuff but struggling in extreme cases.myoptic3 said: