Just got the minolta 5400.....my thoughts

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by JR, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. JR

    JR Guest

    I AM IMPRESSED. I am replacing my older and finicky Minolta Scan Dual
    II which has been used to death for about 3 years now. I picked up the
    Scan Elite 5400 and setup was no sweat at all on my Titanium Powerbook.
    I started the scan utility software and slide some Portra 400 BW film in
    just to see what happened and the speed shocked me. With low quality
    prreviews and ICE turned off...it did 6 images in about 3 seconds. So I
    selected some images and scanned at 5400 DPI...not too bad on the scan
    time, and the image was SHARP. Wow...was it sharp and clear. This was
    with ICE which I read softened the image. I tried some Portra 400UC and
    the colors were great...they just popped. I then started throwing
    everything at it, E100VS, E200, Velvia Acros 100, Tri-X 400, and Provia
    100F and 400F. All were wonderful in it's detail and sharpness. I
    thought the extra grain in the scna may be distracting, but the images
    are SO much smoother than the Scan Dual II's. I thought that I would
    throw something really tricky at it. I grabbed some undrexposed Provia
    100F. The scene was tricky. The subject was in a shady area on the
    coast and there was a lot of sky and clouds in the image. The camera
    was fooled by the sky and seemed to meter from that. The subject which
    was in the shade was underexposed. So the sky scanned great, but
    nothing I did with the SD II gave an acceptable image. Well, the fisrt
    time I scanned it, it came out great...not perfect...the grain was more
    pronounced than it should have been, but by no means was it bad. The
    subject was well exposed, and the sky and clouds were not blown out! A
    great test of its dynamic range. I can't wait to scan a few shoots I
    have just sitting at the office.

    JR, Aug 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. There have been several threads discussing this scanner in comp.periphs.scanners.
    One poster has put up comparative resolution charts.
    We are currently discussing the limitations of the Minolta supplied software.
    I suggest you check/post there.
    Robert Feinman, Aug 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. JR

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hi JR,

    Thanks for the report. It's on my shortlist, and nice to hear user

    Did you use photoshop? Are you conserving 16 bit depth throughout your
    image manips?

    Alan Browne, Aug 3, 2003
  4. JR

    JR Guest

    Yes I am using PS 7. I am trying to stay at 16 bit depth, but as you
    know some functions cannot be done in PS at 16 bit color depth, so it
    really depends on what editing I do to the image once in Photoshop.

    JR, Aug 3, 2003
  5. JR

    Jim Waggener Guest

    Just set levels in 16bit and then convert to 8bit.
    Jim Waggener, Aug 4, 2003
  6. JR

    Alan Browne Guest

    My usual trail is crop, fix dust/scratches, color/hue/contrast, save,
    XX size for output, unsharp mask, save (go to XX for next size). With
    that type of editing I should be okay.

    Does unsharp-mask work at 16 bit?

    Alan Browne, Aug 4, 2003
  7. JR

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Aug 4, 2003
  8. JR

    Marko B. Guest

    That's what i was saying for the scanner the same day i plug it in and ran
    first scan on it.

    Amazing thing.
    Marko B., Aug 4, 2003
  9. I used different words. IIRC I muttered: THIS IS AMAZING!
    I never knew some of my images held so much detail.

    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 4, 2003
  10. <snip>

    Good to know.

    Anyone got this thing who can compare to to the Nikon 4000?

    Bill Tallman
    William D. Tallman, Aug 4, 2003
  11. SNIP
    Only a single resolution test image vs the LS4000, but maybe it helps:
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400.htm .
    The page may take a while to load (depending on your connection) because of
    the images, I'll try to speed it up somehow without compromising image

    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 4, 2003
  12. JR

    Rafe B. Guest

    I dunno, I'd guess that the Nikon in question wasn't properly
    focused. I just don't see how the difference in resolution
    explains the differences in the test patterns.

    I mean: The optics in the Nikon LS-8000 are world-class,
    and it compares favorably to drum scans, for sharpness.
    So is the LS-4000 really so inferior? Doesn't seem right.

    I've also compared scans of negatives at 5000 dpi from
    a LeafScan 45, versus my LS-8000, and there was nowhere
    near the difference that Bart's test targets show.

    To be sure, if I were shopping for a 35-mm-only film
    scanner right now, I'd take a very close look at the
    Minolta. Or skip the scanner and get a 10D <G>.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Aug 5, 2003
  13. SNIP
    It was the best focus I could get from that same image. Both of the Nikon
    images benefited perceptually from 'stair-step' interpolation, but the
    resolution limit didn't change. The (from that target image!) measured
    resolution limit for the LS4000 was substantially larger, but with little
    contrast, so you'll have to look closely at the center when you compare.

    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 5, 2003
  14. JR

    Matt Clara Guest

    Levels and any color adjustments.
    Matt Clara, Aug 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.