Digital BW, The Print

I have recently had the opportunity to compare these two film
scanners and 
have found the following. I use a Mac 10.2.8, 1gigabyte of RAM and PS
7.0
1. The Dig. Ice function on the 5400 results in substantial image
degradation. I 
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. 
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.
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.
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. They seemed about the same.  I did find
the film 
carrier/holder for the Dimage relatively easy to use. It made for
easy air 
gunning of the negative once it was loaded into the carrier. 
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.
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.
Kevin Monroe
kevinmonroephotography.com

> 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

I used Fugi REALA 100 predominantly. The effect is especially 
noticeable at 200x.





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Staver" 
<daniel@p...> wrote:
> > 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

>>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.

Just a thought: has anyone tried glass slide holders for slides? I 
realize this would introduce other problems, but if you didn't get 
the dreaded newton rings, it might be worth the effort in some 
cases. This problem is much worse on the medium format Nikon, mf 
film being so much flimsier, etc. At least there you do have a glass 
carrier available. Ernst Dinkle once posted a link to detailed 
instructions showing how to take a MF strip holder and convert it to 
a glass carrier; perhaps the idea could be applied to a 35mm carrier?

I have a simpler (though not as effective) way to deal with the 
problem. I use 2" lengths of miniature 'I' beams or square tubes 
(model-making construction components picked up at a hobby shop) 
tacked down between frames and at any unsupported ends to hold the 
film a bit flatter. They are held down by double-surfaced sail-
maker's tape, which is aggressively tacky, and lasts through many 
applications if kept out of the dust. The tape is available from 
canvas/sailmaking shops, or in art supply stores in smaller rolls.

As I said, this isn't as effective as a glass carrier, but it helps 
a lot and is much less trouble than keeping six surfaces dust free.

Hope this helps

Steve Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

>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 use my laptop for scanning and photosho (vt) on the desktop.
 
> > 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.
> 

Anti-Newton glass is made for the Nikon 4000,  These are contact 
addresses Email:mike@..., Web Site http://www.fpointinc.com 
that I found on the Yahoo Nikon 4000 group

Mike emailed me as follows:
<<You have to replace the top piece of plastic with our glass and 
bend the 
small aluminium tabs thst hold the plastic up and out of the way of 
the 
glass.  This means that your holder effectively is permanantly 
converted 
to a glass holder since the tabs will eventually break off if you 
bend 
them each time the plastic is replaced by the glass.

It can be ordered online at
http://www.fpointinc.com/cgi-local/web_store/web_store.cgi   Just
enter the word "nikon" in the search window and glass sizes
will come on screen.  Indicate the number you need and add them to 
the 
shopping cart.  Then check out.>>

 I've only just received mine and cannot comment other than to say it 
sort-of clips into the aluminium part of the film strip.  For me the 
fit was difficult and not entirely satisfactory as the glass could be 
thinner:I guess it would have been if it were not then more 
susceptible to breakage.  It cost US$33 for shipment to my son in 
continental USA and he shipped it to me across the pond.

Colin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "colingruk" 
<cconway@b...> wrote:
It cost US$33 for shipment to my son in 
> continental USA and he shipped it to me across the pond.


Sorry, $33 INCLUDING SHIPMENT continental USA> 
> Colin