5400 Grain Dissolver and MTF impact?

[Dierk Haasis]

I tend to disagree. IMHO it is the more diffuse shadow of a
three-dimensional dye/grain cluster that reduces its (edge)
visibility.

Which is, IIRC, exactly the idea the original inventor (lost his name
and URL) had in mind when he developed a grain dissolving plastic
device to be put into the way of light of Minolta scanners before the
5400.

Even the name given by Minolta hints at that ...

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Which is, IIRC, exactly the idea the original inventor (lost his
name and URL)...

That would be the "Scanhancer" by Erik de Goederen:
http://www.scanhancer.com or http://scanhancer.iddo.nl .

Konica/Minolta was charmed enough by the idea to implement it in their
5400 scanner.


Bart

 

[Fernando]

Focussing (across the film area) becomes an issue. Focussing on a
small area of film indicates to me that the GD doesn't have enough
impact by itself.

Oh, but I didn't use film at all: I used the SET target (framed razor
blade).
And, I didn't find the best focus with the AF function of the
software, nor visually: I just executed 20 (+20 w/GD) consecutive
tests with very little focus steps within Silverfast AI, after having
set the "ballpark" by MF. This allowed me to get the best focus
setting with and without GD by evaluating Imatest numbers directly.
;-)
It took a couple hours, but it gave me results that I consider quite
accurate.

Fernando

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03:25:29 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"


Oh, but I didn't use film at all: I used the SET target (framed
razor blade).

I use a similar procedure with a home made slanted edge target.

However, what I meant was that when scanning film, there is enough
variability in the focus plane to have more impact on the MTF than the
small difference I have found sofar under ideal circumstances. And
that assumes there is at least something in the perfect focus plane,
if the (auto-)focus did what it's supposed to do.

And, I didn't find the best focus with the AF function of the
software, nor visually: I just executed 20 (+20 w/GD)
consecutive tests with very little focus steps within Silverfast
AI, after having set the "ballpark" by MF. This allowed me
to get the best focus setting with and without GD by evaluating
Imatest numbers directly.
;-)

That takes care of another variable. Soon there will be little left to
speculate about ;-).

It took a couple hours, but it gave me results that I consider
quite accurate.

Yep, same procedure here (although without Silverfast), but I also
looked at auto-focus consistency/repeatability. That is a bit harder
to judge, because film has much more detail/graininess to focus on.

Bart

 

[WD]

A somewhat belated response, yes I have.
The following link gives a graphical representation of the best MTF
curves I could produce so far:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_DSE5400_GD.png

Please note that, of the dozens of scans at different focus positions,
a single scan without GD stood out from the rest. The more common
results for both GD and non-GD scans, which showed similar results,
were only slightly lower than the orange (GD) line with a Nyquist
frequency modulation response between 15% and 18%. By the way, this
modulation shows that (grain-)aliasing is a real risk for spatial
frequencies above 106 cy/mm. Of course, the modulation of the film
detail/graininess would need to be more than 55% at those spatial
frequencies to be visible in the combined result.

IMHO the major effect of the more diffuse light-source is a less
pronounced edge definition of dye/grain clusters, due to the more
diffuse shadow/diffraction effects. The Callier effect (Q factor) is
usually quite small (close to 1.0) for dye-based film, but more
important for opaque silver grain. Nevertheless, I find the
'Grain-Dissolver' very useful for both dye- and silver-based film,
with minimal impact or resolution, assuming good focus (which is more
difficult with a diffuse lighting), see:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm .

Bart

Bart,

I agree with your 'real world' assessment. I have been playing with
a diffuser plate (scanhancer) with an LS-5000. I have found cases where
there was little difference and I have found cases where there is
a striking difference. Specifcially, I have seen reduction
in some types of 'peppergrain' or specs in color negatives, a reduction
of grain in color negatives (albeit this can be quite small). I have
scanned T-MAX and found two striking things here. Some negs seemed to
have large amounts of tiny white specs ('peppergrain'). These virtually
disappeared with the diffuser plate. Also, dark areas (after inversion)
of the image can be far far smoother looking than without the diffuser plate.
Again, there are instances where there seems to be virtually no difference.
Im sure it depends on many factors. But the cases where there is a significant
difference, it can be striking.

It is also interesting to note that Imacon in there latest top of the
line scanner is boasting a diffuse light source!

 

[Dierk Haasis]

That would be the "Scanhancer" by Erik de Goederen:
http://www.scanhancer.com or http://scanhancer.iddo.nl .

Correct, thanks for reminding me!

 

[AlexT8432]

I use a similar procedure with a home made slanted edge target.

However, what I meant was that when scanning film, there is enough
variability in the focus plane to have more impact on the MTF than the
small difference I have found sofar under ideal circumstances. And
that assumes there is at least something in the perfect focus plane,
if the (auto-)focus did what it's supposed to do.


That takes care of another variable. Soon there will be little left to
speculate about ;-).


Yep, same procedure here (although without Silverfast), but I also
looked at auto-focus consistency/repeatability. That is a bit harder
to judge, because film has much more detail/graininess to focus on.

Bart

I posted a question earlier about the relationship between GD and
focusing and the responses seemed to say there is none. Now Fernando and
you seem to say otherwise. The MTF etc. technical discussion is way over
my head, so I could have misunderstood. Please clarify what you guys
meant by "SET target (framed
razor blade)", "20 (+20 w/GD)", "home made slanted edge target", etc. I
use the Minolta 5400 sw, and would like to learn how to get a good
focus. Thanks.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

I posted a question earlier about the relationship between
GD and focusing and the responses seemed to say there is
none. Now Fernando and you seem to say otherwise.

There shouldn't be a difference, but there may be, depending on the
focus algorithm used. A common method to determine optimal focus is by
measuring the contrast of a small area of film at different focus
settings. Since the GD reduces graininess, it is harder to determine
good focus on a featureless area, because the grain/dye clouds are
less of a clue.

The MTF etc. technical discussion is way over my head, so
I could have misunderstood.

The MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) is a measure of contrast loss
at different levels of fine detail. Increasingly finer detail (higher
spatial frequency) is captured with increasingly reduced contrast
(lower modulation response), up to the point where the sensor cannot
reliably resolve finer detail. If the detail to scan (e.g. grain) is
even smaller than the sensor limit (usually referred to as the Nyquist
frequency limit), it will start to aliase (looks like a
different/larger size detail) if the modulation is still significant
enough.

Please clarify what you guys meant by "SET target (framed
razor blade)", "20 (+20 w/GD)", "home made slanted edge
target", etc.

In order to determine the MTF of a scanner (optics+sensor), a test
object is needed. One such test target consists of a very sharp high
contrast edge that has to be scanned at a slight slant (approx. 5
degrees out of alignment with the sensor array, or with the direction
that the scan assembly travels). This can be referred to as a Slanted
Edge Target, and can be home made by e.g. framing a slanted razor
blade in a slide frame. The actual calculation of the MTF is easy to
do with a piece of software called Imatest (http://www.imatest.com).

I use the Minolta 5400 sw, and would like to learn how to get a good
focus. Thanks.

Assuming you use the Minolta Scan Utility that comes with the scanner,
make sure you place the (auto-)focus point on a part of the film with
high contrast features (e.g. well focused tree branches, power lines,
roof edges, etc). That will make it easier for the software to find
the best contrast (=optimal focus). It also helps to focus on
lighter/more transparent film areas rather than darker ones. To
compensate for film curl, it is best to find such a focus position
somewhere halfway between the crop area's center and corner.

Bart

 

[Mendel Leisk]

There shouldn't be a difference, but there may be, depending on the
focus algorithm used. A common method to determine optimal focus is by
measuring the contrast of a small area of film at different focus
settings. Since the GD reduces graininess, it is harder to determine
good focus on a featureless area, because the grain/dye clouds are
less of a clue.


The MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) is a measure of contrast loss
at different levels of fine detail. Increasingly finer detail (higher
spatial frequency) is captured with increasingly reduced contrast
(lower modulation response), up to the point where the sensor cannot
reliably resolve finer detail. If the detail to scan (e.g. grain) is
even smaller than the sensor limit (usually referred to as the Nyquist
frequency limit), it will start to aliase (looks like a
different/larger size detail) if the modulation is still significant
enough.


In order to determine the MTF of a scanner (optics+sensor), a test
object is needed. One such test target consists of a very sharp high
contrast edge that has to be scanned at a slight slant (approx. 5
degrees out of alignment with the sensor array, or with the direction
that the scan assembly travels). This can be referred to as a Slanted
Edge Target, and can be home made by e.g. framing a slanted razor
blade in a slide frame. The actual calculation of the MTF is easy to
do with a piece of software called Imatest (http://www.imatest.com).


Assuming you use the Minolta Scan Utility that comes with the scanner,
make sure you place the (auto-)focus point on a part of the film with
high contrast features (e.g. well focused tree branches, power lines,
roof edges, etc). That will make it easier for the software to find
the best contrast (=optimal focus). It also helps to focus on
lighter/more transparent film areas rather than darker ones. To
compensate for film curl, it is best to find such a focus position
somewhere halfway between the crop area's center and corner.

Bart

Hi Bart,

Regarding your last paragraph, I full agree with the second and third
points (lighter areas and halfway). However, regarding the high
contrast areas, I'm finding I get quite consistant results, focussing
on "smooth" areas. They are, in fact, gritty with the micro-contrast
of film grain, and seem to be sufficient for the scanner to focus on.

For me the big pain in the *** is the maddeningly short depth of
focus, when scanning my (fairly typical) mounted slides. Getting (as
close as possible to) corner-to-corner sharpness, is a real balancing
act. I really don't want to remove them from their current holders and
glass mount them (too many, might damage, too much effort), so am just
doing my level best with manual focus, at compromise position between
center and edge.

Cheers,

Mendel

 

[AlexT8432]

There shouldn't be a difference, but there may be, depending on the
focus algorithm used. A common method to determine optimal focus is by
measuring the contrast of a small area of film at different focus
settings. Since the GD reduces graininess, it is harder to determine
good focus on a featureless area, because the grain/dye clouds are
less of a clue.

By "harder to determine good focus", are you referring to by the scanner
or by the human? In other words, does enabling GD first and then focus
on a spot makes it harder for the scanner to focus well? Or is it better
to focus on a spot first, then enable GD and then scan (my workflow)? Or
does it matter?

The MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) is a measure of contrast loss
at different levels of fine detail. Increasingly finer detail (higher
spatial frequency) is captured with increasingly reduced contrast
(lower modulation response), up to the point where the sensor cannot
reliably resolve finer detail. If the detail to scan (e.g. grain) is
even smaller than the sensor limit (usually referred to as the Nyquist
frequency limit), it will start to aliase (looks like a
different/larger size detail) if the modulation is still significant
enough.

Thanks for your patience.

In order to determine the MTF of a scanner (optics+sensor), a test
object is needed. One such test target consists of a very sharp high
contrast edge that has to be scanned at a slight slant (approx. 5
degrees out of alignment with the sensor array, or with the direction
that the scan assembly travels). This can be referred to as a Slanted
Edge Target, and can be home made by e.g. framing a slanted razor
blade in a slide frame. The actual calculation of the MTF is easy to
do with a piece of software called Imatest (http://www.imatest.com).

After determining a scanner's MTF (assuming I can get that far), how I
can I make use of that information (for a better focus?)? Told you I'm a

Assuming you use the Minolta Scan Utility that comes with the scanner,
make sure you place the (auto-)focus point on a part of the film with
high contrast features (e.g. well focused tree branches, power lines,
roof edges, etc). That will make it easier for the software to find
the best contrast (=optimal focus). It also helps to focus on
lighter/more transparent film areas rather than darker ones. To
compensate for film curl, it is best to find such a focus position
somewhere halfway between the crop area's center and corner.

I do use the Minolta Scan Utility, and pretty much follow your steps.
But when I apply both Auto and Manual focus at the same spot on the same
slide for two scans, there are cases when one scan is observably sharper
at that spot than another when viewed in Photoshop at 100%. Sometimes
the grains are crisper in the Auto focused spot, and sometimes in the
Manual focused spot. What could be the explanation? Also how big is the
5400 focus area?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

So you are saying in fact that with an incoherent source the MTF
cutoff
actually is at a higher spatial frequency than with a coherent source,
but in the 'region of interest'
(spatial frequencies above Nyquist cutoff of CCD array)
there is an attenuation of spatial frequencies.

Yes. In the "region of interest", as you put it, the MTF of the
semi-coherent/collimated source is much higher than the diffuse source.

Another related question I have regards scattering effects.
For example the Callier effect, small trapped air bubbles
(peppergrain),
etc. Your above discussion made no differentiation regarding
scattering
vs. pure transmission/absorption. For example if there was an element
(say grain or tiny bubble), which corresponded to spatial frequencies
beyond the Nyquist freq. of the CCD array, your above explantion
compares
the effect of collimated vs. non-collimated light sources whether or
not
these elements absorb or scatter the light.

That is correct - the previous discussion centred on the effect of MTF
as a function of the spatial frequency.

How does this play into
the picture? Is it merely a matter of the resultant amplitude of the
nasty
spatial frequencies in question? (scattering element vs.
non-scattering element)

The Callier Effect has an impact on contrast that is essentially
constant across the spatial frequency band. Scattering occurs from
grain centres independently of whether the grain centres are part of a
large object or a small high resolution part of the image.

On a negative, the CE has the effect of increasing contrast - the dense
parts of the negative scatter more, and thus appear more dense, whilst
the light parts of the negative scatter less and thus appear lighter. In
a slide the effect is reversed and, of course, the effect is almost
negligible with diffuse sources, since light that is scattered out of
the field of the projection lens is almost perfectly balance by light
that would normally be travelling out of the field but is scattered into
it.

However, the CE is virtually negligible with colour emulsions and this
is fairly obvious by scanning a grey ramp on a slide (or colour
negative) in a collimated source scanner and then observing the colour
balance throughout the ramp.

Scattering from particles such as grain is a strong function of the
wavelength of the light and the size and transparency of the particle.
One of the commonest examples of this is the clear blue sky and the red
sunset that everyone is familiar with. The sky is blue because the
short blue wavelengths of light scatter more easily from particles in
the atmosphere than the longer red wavelengths. Thus, in the clear sky
the only light that reaches your eye is sunlight that has been scattered
by the atmosphere. Without that scattering, the blue sky would be black
- and indeed, because the scattering also produces polarisation, it can
be made to appear a much darker blue with a crossed polariser.
Similarly, the setting sun appears red because the shorter blue
wavelengths have been scattered out of the direct line of sight to the
sun, leaving only the red. As the density and size of the scattering
centres increases, , even the longer red wavelengths become scattered,
so the cloudy sky appears white, grey or even black, and all of the
direct rays to the setting sun become scattered and it cannot be seen.

Thus, with the grey ramp on the film one would expect to see a strong
change of colour as the ramp increases in density - with it initially
becoming yellow then redder (or more cyan, if a negative) and then
returning to neutral balance, with reduced density, finally the red rays
are scattered. This doesn't appear, at least in any tests I have made,
to be the significant colour change, and is much less than the general
bias of the film itself. Note that this colour shift should be
independent of the film type, yet we all know that the choice of film
can dictate the general balance of shadows and highlights much more than
any general trend that the CE would suggest should occur.

This is all very interesting. I have been playing around with a
diffuser
with a coolscan 5000 and have found in certain cases dramatic
improvements.
What surprises me is that scanner vendors are so slow to catch on.
Nikon seems not yet to have caught on, Minolta presumably has with the
5400,
Imacon in their latest and greatest top of the line scanner is touting
its diffuse light source.
I would guess that the increase in scan times from a marketing
perspective
explains part of it,

That is true, and is more significant for Nikon than other manufacturers
because of the light source they use. Nikon have already optimised
their scanners for speed, for example choosing a low f/# optic with
limited depth of field in preference to something that would give a
longer scan time.

but with such potential improvement (in certain
cases),
it still surprises me.

Me too! It isn't as if this is new to scanning - although the effect of
aliasing the grain may be - the principle has been understood for the
best part of a century or more.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

SNIP

I tend to disagree. IMHO it is the more diffuse shadow of a
three-dimensional dye/grain cluster that reduces its (edge)
visibility. That has also been the goal in traditional darkroom film
processing and enlargement, with the additional effect on density
dependent contrast in silver-based films. The limitation of
frequencies beyond Nyquist is determined by grain(-cluster) size
versus sampling density, a characteristic of scanner+film.

The change in MTF between a collimated and diffuse source is just as
significant in the traditional darkroom as it is in the scanning world.
Indeed, all of the "examples" in my old optics textbooks were almost
certainly "traditional" type photographs, and my first experiments in
this area certainly were. The significant difference between collimated
and diffuse sources was noticeable even with very vine grain (ie.
extremely thin) monolayer monochrome emulsions. So I am not sure what
your disagreement is.

It is required for the combined scanner (lens+CCD) *and* film MTF to
be below 10% response for visibility.

I am not sure that isn't a typo - I think you mean "invisibility" here.
But even so, that 10% or 5% rule is just an approximation and depends
critically on the source contrast. The outline fine structure of a leaf
photographed against a clear sky can be much more visible on film than
the coarser structures within the leaf itself, which have a much lower
contrast.

Yes, however, it would be more efficient to attenuate spatial
frequencies above Nyquist (before capture), or boost (sharpen)
frequencies below Nyquist (after capture).

I dispute the "or" here - once the aliasing has occurred, boosting the
spatial frequencies below Nyquist simply exaggerates the aliased
content. Defocus attenuates frequencies above Nyquist more than those
below Nyquist, and subsequent sharpening can recover some of the
reduction of the useful lower frequencies. However, that rapidly gets
into diminishing returns because the SNR of the CCD data is the same in
either case, and sharpening reduces this further. A method which
improved the SNR whilst reducing high spatial frequency response would
offer advantage in this context - which is where the HyperCCD structure
comes in. This has pixels which have 4x the area, and thus at least 2x
the SNR, of the equivalent pitch linear arrays and also have reduced
response to higher spatial frequency. Thus, with the HyperCCD you get
an advantage on both sides of the sampling process - less information to
alias and more SNR to provide better robustness to post-scan sharpening.
Indeed, sharpening is virtually mandatory for the HyperCCD to allow fair
resolution comparison to a linear device.

SNIP

Indeed, but it requires a Don Quixote kind of approach to educate the
majority,
reporting for duty...

I long ago gave up on "educating the majority", Bart - its only worth
educating the interested. ;-)

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Which is, IIRC, exactly the idea the original inventor (lost his name
and URL) had in mind when he developed a grain dissolving plastic
device to be put into the way of light of Minolta scanners before the
5400.

I think your memory may be confusing you there.
The text of the Scanhancer simply described how it creates a diffuse
light source from a three-dimensional bubble structure in the plastic
sheet itself. It does not assume anything about the effect of that
diffuse light on the film emulsion, merely that the grain is less
resolved with a diffuse light source.

Indeed, some of the examples on the Scanhancer site show lost image
information - eg, the hairs on the insect leg. This is information
which the MTF of the system can resolve without the Scanhancer, but the
sampling density is unable to support and appears, fortunately, as a mid
grey. Only a few of these hairs remain in the image with the Scanhancer
included, but these are capable of being resolved and reproduced by the
sampling system. If this was merely a granular reflection of diffuse
light, it is difficult to visualise how this image detail would be lost
when the Scanhancer is used, since it is clearly in the middle of the
tonal range.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

However, regarding the high contrast areas, I'm finding I get
quite consistant results, focussing on "smooth" areas. They are,
in fact, gritty with the micro-contrast of film grain, and seem to
be sufficient for the scanner to focus on.

That might be the case, depending on the actual film used.

For me the big pain in the *** is the maddeningly short depth of
focus, when scanning my (fairly typical) mounted slides. Getting (as
close as possible to) corner-to-corner sharpness, is a real balancing
act.

That depends on how the film was processed and how flat it was
stored/archived (relative humidity also matters). My 35mm films are
stored as strips of 6 in film albums that lay flat, and that usually
allows almost edge to edge DOF focus.

In pathetic cases you could alway resort to scanning twice, focusing
at two different planes, and align and combine the results as in:
http://www.sgi.com/misc/grafica/depth/index.html

Bart

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

By "harder to determine good focus", are you referring to by
the scanner or by the human? In other words, does enabling GD
first and then focus on a spot makes it harder for the scanner to
focus well?

That's how it looks to me, and it seems to make sense because the GD
softens 3D edge contrast.

Or is it better to focus on a spot first, then enable GD and then
scan (my workflow)?

That might help in difficult situations, but also realise that as the
scanner heats up internally, the film can change shape (even during
the scan pass).

SNIP

After determining a scanner's MTF (assuming I can get that far),
how I can I make use of that information (for a better focus?)?
Told you I'm a slow learner. <g>

The MTF can show you things like the effect that sub-optimal focus
will have on sharpness (detail contrast), and thus help in
determining/predicting how important that is for a given situation
(e.g. enlargements). You could see it like the specifications for a
car; it will predict behavior, but it is the driver who determines how
he will use it within the hardware set boundaries.

But for the actual focussing of an individual slide/negative there is
only one advice, try and get the best focus and keep the film flat
during the scan pass.

SNIP

I do use the Minolta Scan Utility, and pretty much follow your
steps. But when I apply both Auto and Manual focus at the
same spot on the same slide for two scans, there are cases when
one scan is observably sharper at that spot than another when
viewed in Photoshop at 100%. Sometimes the grains are crisper
in the Auto focused spot, and sometimes in the Manual focused
spot. What could be the explanation?

The focussing algorithm got it wrong. All you can do is optimize the
chance of it getting it right by providing 'enough' contrast to focus
on. The visibility of graininess in a 100% zoom preview is usually a
good indicator.

It may also help to let the film acclimatize a while in the scanner.
That will reduce the chance of shape changing due to heat and
dehydration during the scan pass.

Also how big is the 5400 focus area?

I don't know, but it is at least a couple of pixels in size. Whether
it's linear or square in shape is unknown, but for speed's sake (it
has to run through many focus positions and choose the one with the
highest contrast) I assume it starts with (tri-)linear (the film
remains stationary), and it might fine-tune with area samples (the
film shifts a few steps), but that's just speculation on my part.

Bart

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

The change in MTF between a collimated and diffuse source is just as
significant in the traditional darkroom as it is in the scanning world.
Indeed, all of the "examples" in my old optics textbooks were almost
certainly "traditional" type photographs, and my first experiments in
this area certainly were. The significant difference between collimated
and diffuse sources was noticeable even with very vine grain (ie.
extremely thin) monolayer monochrome emulsions. So I am not sure what
your disagreement is.

I agree with the significance in a traditional darkroom setting. My
disagreement is with the "...the whole principle behind the grain
dissolver is that it reduces the MTF, particularly the MTF above the
Nyquist..." part of your answer.

I do not observe any significant reduction *particularly above
Nyquist*, only an *overall* slightly lower MTF in a few samples
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_DSE5400_GD.png),
although most (auto-)focus attempts produce practically identical MTFs
(but with reduced graininess with the GD).

I am not sure that isn't a typo - I think you mean "invisibility"

here.

Correct, it's a typo, thanks for pointing it out.

But even so, that 10% or 5% rule is just an approximation and
depends critically on the source contrast.

True, but when the combined system MTF is below 10% response, it would
take a film density contrast of D>=1.00 at that level of detail to be
visible under normal viewing conditions. A 5% rule-of-thumb would even
require a D>=2.00 contrast for fine detail. At such a contrast level
for fine detail, scattering in the emulsion would become an issue.

SNIP

I dispute the "or" here - once the aliasing has occurred, boosting the
spatial frequencies below Nyquist simply exaggerates the aliased
content.

That's correct, I should have written "and".

Bart

 

[AlexT8432]

The focussing algorithm got it wrong. All you can do is optimize the
chance of it getting it right by providing 'enough' contrast to focus
on. The visibility of graininess in a 100% zoom preview is usually a
good indicator.

By "100% zoom preview", did you mean in the Minolta Scan Utility or in
PS? I think that the Minolta preview does not show as much details as
PS.

It may also help to let the film acclimatize a while in the scanner.
That will reduce the chance of shape changing due to heat and
dehydration during the scan pass.

Good advice. Any other hints on keeping the film (mounted or unmounted)
flat on the 5400?

Thanks for all the answers.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

By "100% zoom preview", did you mean in the Minolta Scan
Utility or in PS? I think that the Minolta preview does not show
as much details as PS.

Yes in PS, although that's not much help when the scan has yet to be
made. For that you can crop a smaller area of film and preview that.
Unfortunately the preview functionality is a bit simple for a scanner
driver, it e.g. also lacks clipping indication.

Good advice. Any other hints on keeping the film (mounted or
unmounted) flat on the 5400?

Well in general, try to avoid temperature/humidity swings while
handling the film, and store as flat as possible (requires unmounted
media) and cool/dry is best for longevity. That's about all we can do
besides mounting in glass frames or wet-mounting (seems a bit
dangerous in the standard frame holder).

Bart

 

[WD]

Yes in PS, although that's not much help when the scan has yet to be
made. For that you can crop a smaller area of film and preview that.
Unfortunately the preview functionality is a bit simple for a scanner
driver, it e.g. also lacks clipping indication.


Well in general, try to avoid temperature/humidity swings while
handling the film, and store as flat as possible (requires unmounted
media) and cool/dry is best for longevity. That's about all we can do
besides mounting in glass frames or wet-mounting (seems a bit
dangerous in the standard frame holder).

Bart

As has been well documented, the Nikon scanners also have depth of field
issues. Seems like it's a common issue. I have done some scans by putting negs
in glass mounts. This helps alot. Of course that is not a great solution if your
negs are in strips

W

 

[AlexT8432]

As has been well documented, the Nikon scanners also have depth of field
issues. Seems like it's a common issue. I have done some scans by putting negs
in glass mounts. This helps alot. Of course that is not a great solution if your
negs are in strips

What kind of glass mount do you use on the Minolta 5400?

There seems to be more complaints from Nikon scanners users than from
Minolta users about the uneven focus across the film. Not sure if it is
because there are more (picky) Nikon users, or because Nikon's LED light
source is the cause of a shallow doff as reported by some.