Digital BW, The Print

> The Dig. Ice function on the 5400 results 
> in substantial image degradation.

I haven't noticed image degradation at all with ICE enabled. Which type
of film did you scan?

> was shocked how bad the results were with Dig Ice activated. 
> WITHOUT the Dig. Ice turned on, the Dimage scan for most negatives was

> comparable in quality to the Nikon WITH Dig. Ice activated. Even here,
I 
> give a slight edge to the Nikon in quality, crispness etc. Of course,
with the Dig 
> Ice turned off,  there is substantially more time/work involved in
cleaning up the 
> scans on the Dimage.  You will be disappointed if you expect  the
5400dpi 
> to result in a better scan than the Nikon 4000dpi. IT DOESN'T. 

I can't comment on the Nikon, but my 5400dpi scans look better than the
4000dpi scans I got from my previous Canon FS4000US. They don't seem to
resolve more detail, but the grain looks better and more detailed than a
4000dpi image upsampled to 5400dpi. In other words the 5400dpi seems
useful purely as an upsampling method.

> 2. The Dimage was significantly  slower.  With Dig. Ice 
> turned on and 4x multisampling at 5400dpi, a scan takes at least 40
minutes 
> compared to about 15-20 for the Nikon. With Dig Ice off , the Dimage
can do a 
> 5400 dpi scan(4x multisample) in about 15 minutes.

The scanner is MUCH slower with C41 films and ICE enabled than with
slides or BW negatives. Part of the reason for the slowness is also that
the Minolta software enables the grain dissolver when you use ICE,
without the option to switch it off. Vuescan lets you scan with
dust-removal without using the grain dissolver, and that easily halves
the scanning times. Unfortunately the dust removal in Vuescan affects
the entire image, so I prefer to use the Minolta software for this and
do something else while it's scanning.

I have never noticed any improvement when using multisampling with this
scanner, so I would only use it if I specifically noticed a problem with
a certain slide or negative that I thought could be solved by using
multisampling. I have not come across such a slide or negative yet.

> 3. The scanning process with the Dimage is markedly impeded by 
> simultaneous work in Photoshop. I don't have an explanation 
> for this , and neither did Minolta's technical help. I have a GIG of
RAM so 
> memory should not be an issue. All of the scan times are markedly
prolonged 
> with Photoshop being used simutaneously, and in some cases the scanner
will 
> simply abort the scan leaving you nothing after an hour scan. The
Nikon 
> scanner does not seem to be affected specifically by Photoshop, but
I've  
> found it too will occasionally abort a scan for unknown reasons.

I've never had any aborted scans or performance problems when using
Photoshop, but I'm on a PC (1gig ram) with windows XP, so it could be a
hardware/os specific issue.

> 4. The Nikon is known for some softness around the edges due 
> to a very  narrow depth of field and failure to hold the negative 
> perfectly flat . I have found this to be true for the Nikon, but could
not determine 
> in a test scans if the Dimage was any better. 

Unfortunately, there IS a problem with edge to edge sharpness. A glass
holder would be desirable, but I don't think such a thing exists for
this scanner.

> 5. Dimage scans in general are more contrasty . I prefer the 
> Nikon in this regard since I can always adjust the contrast in
Photoshop 
> and don't want to lose any detail up front.
> 6. There was one test negative I used that the Dimage totally 
> failed to give a good scan on. On two attempts the scan was
overexposed and 
> blown out on the high end.I thought maybe the scanner had broke, but
it 
> worked fine on another negative minutes later. No explanation. The
Minolta 
> technical help said simply" if you think the scans are overexposed,
send it 
> back to us so we can test it". The Nikon did a great job on this
negative.

I prefer Vuescan for BW negatives. The included film profiles does
wonders for many BW negatives which doesn't look all that good when
scanned with the Minolta software. Especially TMAX-100 and Tri-X looks
much better when scanned with Vuescan.

I've also found the Minolta to be much better at handling difficult
negatives than my previous Canon. 

> 7. The Minolta is cheaper by a few hundred dollars, so if 
> cost is a factor it may be the only way to go. Do not use the digital
ice if you want 
> high quality scans. The Nikon wins otherwise. I hope this 
> helps anyone who might be looking at these two scanners. 

I'm a little puzzled by the image degradation you're experiencing with
ICE, as it does not reflect my experience with this scanner. I can
hardly tell the difference between scans done with and without ICE,
except that the dust is gone when ICE is enabled of course.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no