Scanner questions

[Chuck A]

I am currently using an Epson flatbed 3170 scanner. It does an excellent job with med format film but so so with 35mm. I have been looking at 2 35mm scanners recently and need some opinions.

MINOLTA DiMAGE Scan Dual IV is 3200dpi and gets good reviews and runs around $200. The newer model the Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II is 5400 dpi and also get good reviews and runs around $500. Is it worth the extra cash to go from 3200 to 5400 dpi? It will cost 2.5 times the price to do so.

I want to make prints ranging from 8x12 up to 16x24 or so. Will I see any meaningful difference in these print sizes? Does anybody have experience with these scanners? From what I have read they are fast and easy to use. 😕

 

[GeneW]

The Scan Dual IV is an excellent scanner and a 'best buy', BUT ... if you want to go up to 16x20 or larger, the extra pixels of the 5400 will make a distinct difference at those sizes. The 5400 also has Digital ICE that helps enormously with spots and scratches when you scan C-41 films. Given how large you want to print, I'd say think seriously about the 5400.

I own a Minolta 5400 (1st generation) and previously owned a Minolta Scan Elite II (similar to the Scan Dual IV but with Digital ICE). The 5400 is a sweet scanner.

Gene

 

[MrBuhl]

Hey Chuck - no experience with these specific scanners but some additional thoughts on scanner choice - I have a dedicated Nikon Coolscan IV for 35mm and an Epson 3200 for LF stuff - I think your dissatisfaction with the 3170 probably results more from the lower Dynamic Range than the resolution.

So, the long answer is yes, if you are planning on going as big as 16x24 from a 35mm negative, it will make a difference to have the higher resolution. I don't know about 2.5 times that though. Just bear in mind a couple of things - your dynamic range is equally important - how far does the scanner get into the shadows and such - I would bet the 5400 is 4.2 or so. The 3170 is probably 3.8 or 3.6. That will make a difference. Also, files that big are hard to move around without copius quantities of RAM.

In the end, my guess is that the dedicated 3200dpi would satisfy your needs. My Coolscan at 2400x2400 and 3.4 Density still gives a better file (about 56megs) from 35mm than the higher resolution Epson 3200.

Anyway - that's my two cents. I should also add the caveat that I am currently looking to upgrade to the new Coolscan V so maybe I am full of hot air....

 

[dkapp]

I own the Dual IV, and wonder if the higher resolution of the 5400 is true resolution, or some kind of interpolation done w/ the scanner & software.

When I scan at 3200dpi & 16bit depth, my file sizes are 76mb-100mb per file.

How often do you plan to print at 16x24?

Dave

 

[Nikon Bob]

Another vote in favour of the Minolta 5400 if you plan on going 16X24 inch at 300 dpi sized prints. It will do so without the need to upscale the file in another program. You should be aware that these high rez scans at 5400 will take a long time if you do not have a lot of RAM in your PC. I say this having the older Minolta 5400 not the new 5400 II, which could be different. I have steadily brought my scan times down by increasing the RAM, having started with 512 and gone to 2 GIG. The scan times are quick without the digital ICE on, but when it is in use the times drag on. With 2 GIG RAM the times with ICE on are around 5 to 8 minutes depending on how the neg exposure was. Also consider that you will generate, at 5400, a file size of around 110 MB in 8 bit and about 220 MB in 16 bit colour with B@W being quite a bit smaller. The very size of the file demands lots of RAM to work in Photo Shop. Hope this helps a bit.

Bob

 

[Chuck A]

I own the Dual IV, and wonder if the higher resolution of the 5400 is true resolution, or some kind of interpolation done w/ the scanner & software.

When I scan at 3200dpi & 16bit depth, my file sizes are 76mb-100mb per file.

How often do you plan to print at 16x24?

Dave

At those file sizes I don't see why a 16x24 wouldn't be very nice indeed. Have you tried printing this large with your Dual IV?

I will print at 16x24 whenever the image calls for that size. I will be putting together photos for sale and want good quality. If the negs dont need any work then I will just print them on silver. If they need work I would like to scan them and use PS to do the adjustments.

It is like this. I can buy the Dual IV now and get going with my scans or wait some months to save up the extra and but the 5400 II. If the Dual IV will give me excellent results then I will go for it now. I can't see waiting if the results of the 5400 II are not that much better. That is my dilema.

 

[dkapp]

At those file sizes I don't see why a 16x24 wouldn't be very nice indeed. Have you tried printing this large with your Dual IV?

I will print at 16x24 whenever the image calls for that size. I will be putting together photos for sale and want good quality. If the negs dont need any work then I will just print them on silver. If they need work I would like to scan them and use PS to do the adjustments.

It is like this. I can buy the Dual IV now and get going with my scans or wait some months to save up the extra and but the 5400 II. If the Dual IV will give me excellent results then I will go for it now. I can't see waiting if the results of the 5400 II are not that much better. That is my dilema.

I've never printed over 8x12 with my scanner, so it was a good fit for me. I would test one out, but don't have a printer that will do that size, just 13x19 from my Epson 2200.

If you are selling your art and want to create the highest quality prints for your customers, a 5400 may not be a bad idea. Knowing this, I would almost go for the 5400. Visible quality increases if you have to downsize for a print, and quality will decrease if you have to upsize for a print.

Dave

 

[Chuck A]

I've never printed over 8x12 with my scanner, so it was a good fit for me. I would test one out, but don't have a printer that will do that size, just 13x19 from my Epson 2200.

If you are selling your art and want to create the highest quality prints for your customers, a 5400 may not be a bad idea. Knowing this, I would almost go for the 5400. Visible quality increases if you have to downsize for a print, and quality will decrease if you have to upsize for a print.

Dave

Dave, actually if you are willing to test you don't have to print the entire photo, just size the scan to 16x24 and pick a portion of the 16x24 size and print it at 4x6 or 8x10 and see how it looks. Just compare it to an 8x12 or 11x17 size and see if the quality really goes downhill.

I understand what you are saying about buying the 5400 but if I am getting maybe 5 or 10 % better prints and paying 2.5 times the cost for the scanner, I am not sure that it is worth it. Now if the 5400 was that much better that the difference is very noticeable, that is a different story.

I have little to no experience with film scanners. All I know is that my 3170 does not give me very good quality in a 35mm scan. The medium format scans are very nice and detailed though.

 

[dkapp]

Do you do your own printing at home? If so, shoot me a PM & we may be able to work something out.

Dave

 

[back alley]

i still don't get it.

i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).

why do i need a 'better' scanner?

joe

 

[Chuck A]

i still don't get it.

i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).

why do i need a 'better' scanner?

joe

I am afraid that I can't answer that. I have very little experience with scanners. That is why I am posting questions.

 

[back alley]

sorry chuck, the question is out there for anyone who can answer it.
didn't mean to put ya on the spot or anything...

joe

 

[egpj]

I regularly make inkjet prints to the size 10x15.5. And they look stunning! The scanner I use is a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED. If the Minolta 5400 is anywhere near as good as the Nikon then you should have no problem printing.

 

[Chuck A]

sorry chuck, the question is out there for anyone who can answer it.
didn't mean to put ya on the spot or anything...

joe

No problem, I am frustrated by this myself. Trying to decide how much cash to spend on a scanner.

 

[T_om]

i still don't get it.

i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).

why do i need a 'better' scanner?

joe

Because the scan is not the end product.

In this digital processing age, people have yet to come to terms with the workflow requirements.

To get the maximum quality from any scan, be it film or even scanning prints, the file MUST be processed through at least a minimum few steps in an image editor.

Most scanners have, of course, some built in controls to adjust things like contrast and color. However, NONE of them can touch PhotoShop's power in this regard nor even the other image editors power like GIMP, Paint Shop Pro, etc.

The reason is that the purpose of a scan is not to produce a finished image, it is to extract the most information from the scanned original.

Machine parameters such as dMax and resolution are there to get out all the picture info they can so that follow on processing can take that info and manipulate it into the best image possible. This manipulation process is usually destructive in nature. by destructive, I mean picture elements start to be eliminated, not that the picture "looks' worse. As you work down to a final image, you want the absolute most starting data that you can get. That is why working from 16 bit scans and a large color gamut is worthwhile. Although you may end up printing to a 8 bit sRGB machine, you will always end up with a better (at least technically) photo if you start with more data.

Tom

 

[back alley]

hhhmmm...need to ruminate.

 

[Chuck A]

Although you may end up printing to a 8 bit sRGB machine, you will always end up with a better (at least technically) photo if you start with more data.

Tom

But at some point don't you start scanning more film grain than photo detail? Where is that point as far as dpi scanning goes?

 

[Roman]

Chuck,
something else to consider: do you intend to only scan color negs or tranparencies, or do you want to scan conventional B&W negs, too? Depending on the kind of light source the scanner uses, some might be better than others - IIRC, I heard on some other forum that the original 5400 was better for B&W negs than the new 5400 II.

Roman

 

[Chuck A]

Chuck,
something else to consider: do you intend to only scan color negs or tranparencies, or do you want to scan conventional B&W negs, too? Depending on the kind of light source the scanner uses, some might be better than others - IIRC, I heard on some other forum that the original 5400 was better for B&W negs than the new 5400 II.

Roman

I will be doing lots of B&W. Probably more than color. Your comments are appreciated. I didn't realize that a scanner good for color might not be as good for B&W. But, now that I think about it it makes sense. I lower contrast light source would benefit B&W I think. Kinda like a cold head on an enlarger.

 

[Roman]

I think the ones that are good for B&W negs use a 'cold cathode light source' (whatever that may be), not an LED light source...
But I'm not really an expert on this, that's just what I overheard on various forums, like the Digital Darkroom one on photo.net.

Roman