Minolta 5400 and Vuescan - good combination ?

[Holger Horn]

Hello,

I use a Minolta Elite II for 2 yeas now and want to upgrade to a higher
resolution.

At the moment I prefer the Minolta 5400 over the Nikon Coolscan V but I
have heared of the very slow speed of the 5400 when used with the
original software and dust removal (ICE) on.

So I would like to use the 5400 together with Vuescan.

So my question is: Does the 5400 work fine withe Vuescan and ist this
combination significantly faster when used with dust removal functionality ?

Thanks for any informations,

Holger Horn

Bremen, Germany

 

[Dierk Haasis]

So my question is: Does the 5400 work fine withe Vuescan and ist this
combination significantly faster when used with dust removal functionality ?

There have been some problems with this combination, and still are,
AFAIK. I haven't been using the scanner for some weeks now (mostly
lack of time and material ...). Vuescan is not significantly faster as
long as the settings are comparable - if the Grain Dissolver is
engaged, the Minolta needs much more time due to much less light
reaching the film strip.

OTHO, my experiences with Vuescan are good, not better than with
Minolta's sw, but as good most of the time. In the end it comes down
to work flow and a good part self-deception: Vuescan obviously has
much more options to be set by the user, but, as you know, it is
recommended to use the defaults mostly. DiMAGE Scan may not be as
configurable but it is much easier to use and gives you very good
results out of the box.

I still use both, VS particularly if I want the colour profiles Ed
provides for numerous film bases.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

There have been some problems with this combination, and still
are, AFAIK.

There still are VueScan problems with the Maximum density that the Minolta
software doesn't have.

I haven't been using the scanner for some weeks now (mostly
lack of time and material ...). Vuescan is not significantly faster as
long as the settings are comparable - if the Grain Dissolver is
engaged, the Minolta needs much more time due to much less light
reaching the film strip.

But it manages to repair some defects that IR cleaning cannot.
Once the Dmax issue is solved, it will be useful to do a comparison. The
Minolta implementation takes a lot of time cleaning while scanning
(saturating the CPU). VueScan first scans, then cleans, which might be more
efficient but still computationally expensive.

Bart

 

[Barrett Benton]

So my question is: Does the 5400 work fine withe Vuescan and ist this
combination significantly faster when used with dust removal functionality ?

I've been working with a Minolta 5400 for about four months, using both
Minolta's software and VueScan (last version that works with Mac OS
9.x). I've had no problems so far, but have found that Minolta's own
software works quite well for most all my color work, and I tend to use
VueScan for scanning Ilford XP2, as well as a few conventional b/w films.

Just before buying the Minolta I was hearing a bit of buzz via Usenet
about the new crop of Nikon scanners, and it became apparent that
Nikon's emphasis was on speed instead of increased resolution. Some
need/want a faster workflow, so Nikon likely offers a more compatible
solution. I just liked the idea of leaving the "interpolate" box in
Photoshop unchecked when I want to print big.

 

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

Holger Horn wrote:

But it manages to repair some defects that IR cleaning cannot.
Once the Dmax issue is solved, it will be useful to do a comparison. The
Minolta implementation takes a lot of time cleaning while scanning
(saturating the CPU). VueScan first scans, then cleans, which might be more
efficient but still computationally expensive.

I'm still having a problem with VueScan 'cleaning' areas without
defects, resulting in large brurred areas on some of my DSE 5400 scans.
Ed still hasn't found the time to tackle this issue, it seems. As far as
I can judge, VueScan clips the white point in the IR channel to
distinguish defects from clean areas, but it seems that it doesn't clip
enough, so that certain dark areas on the original are treated as
defects. If I do this manually in Photoshop, VueScan's IR channel seems
perfectly usable for removing the real defects.

 

[Simon]

At the moment I prefer the Minolta 5400 over the Nikon Coolscan V but I

have heared of the very slow speed of the 5400 when used with the
original software and dust removal (ICE) on.

Holger,

Would you care to expand a little on your preference for the Minolta
over the Nikon? I'm currently also in the process of looking for a new
scanner, deciding between exactly the same two models. I listed my
considerations in another very recent thread with the name
'high-iso scanning: minolta 5400 or nikon ls-50?'

I'm having a rough time deciding between the two so I'm interested in
your opinions...
Thanks you in advance!

Simon

 

[Holger Horn]

Hi Simon,

my judgement at the moment is:

Nikon

+ Very good reputation for "predecessor" LS4000
+ Fast also with ICE
- DOF Problems (0,26 mm tested by German "Color Foto")
- No batch scannng for mounted slides


Minolta

+ Higher Resolution
+ Better DOF (0,39 regarding to "Color Foto")
+ 4 Slides Batch Mode for mounted slides
+ FireWire (I am a Mac User)
- Slow when used with ICE
- Not so good reputation in the newsgroups
- Not 100% compatible with Vuescan at the moment


I still did not make a decission ...

Best regards from Bremen, Germany

Holger

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

my judgement at the moment is:

Nikon

+ Very good reputation for "predecessor" LS4000
+ Fast also with ICE
- DOF Problems (0,26 mm tested by German "Color Foto")
- No batch scannng for mounted slides


Minolta

+ Higher Resolution
+ Better DOF (0,39 regarding to "Color Foto")
+ 4 Slides Batch Mode for mounted slides
+ FireWire (I am a Mac User)
- Slow when used with ICE
- Not so good reputation in the newsgroups
- Not 100% compatible with Vuescan at the moment

Holger, be sure that you are not confusing the time loss of the Minolta
scanner to the Grain Dissolver plate with that of processing ICE. Scan
times for both systems are similar given that the Minolta has twice as
much data to process. So while it is expected that the Minolta would
also take twice as much time to ICE process a full resolution image,
most of the concerns I have read relate to the increased exposure time
brought on by the Grain Dissolver diffusion plate. This is inevitable
because the Grain Dissolver is a diffusion unit which results in less
light reaching the CCD - and thus longer exposures. The same time
increase would occur on Nikon scanners - if they offered such a well
needed facility!

The ICE software is directly licensed from Kodak by both Nikon and
Minolta, so there is unlikely to be significant differences in its
efficiency between the two parties. Having said that Nikon have been in
the ICE game longer and may have implemented a few tweaks or have access
to some undocumented ASF calls. Then again, if they did, they seem to
have forgotten them now. For example, I find that NikonScan 4 runs 25%
slower than NikonScan 3 one exactly the same hardware (Nikon LS-4000 on
2.4Ghz P4B with 1Gb Ram and 100GM free contiguous drive space).

Anyway, I digress, I am not saying that the Minolta doesn't take longer
to implement ICE, just that I have been unable to discern from the
reports if this is just ICE or the diffuser. So be sure the time loss
is really due to what you think it is before making that decision if
that is likely to be the deciding point.

BTW, DOF concerns kept me from buying the LS-4000 for over a year after
it was initially launched. My personal opinion is that this is only
relevant if you have film stock which is very curled from edge to edge.
In my experience this only occurs with film which is left to dry at room
temperature rather than in a heated drying cabinet. In any case, the
problem is only relevant to the motorised feed system of the included
SA-21 and the optional SA-30 adapters. If it does occur then the
included FH-3/MA-20 adapters overcome it by holding the film flat, as do
normal slide mounts. The FH-3 is only marginally less ergonomic than
the only means of getting film into the Minolta scanner, whilst the
SA-21 is luxury and simplicity by comparison.

In consequence, although I have encountered it, compared to the
competition the DOF issues of the LS-4000 are a complete red herring and
of no consequence to real users at all.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Holger, be sure that you are not confusing the time loss of the Minolta
scanner to the Grain Dissolver plate with that of processing ICE. Scan
times for both systems are similar given that the Minolta has twice as
much data to process.

Yes, the much larger amount (+82%) of data due to the higher resolution is
often overlooked.

The Grain Dissolver (GD) more than doubles the scan time, mostly because the
optimal exposure time is much longer. As a small bonus it also reduces the
speed at which data is sent to the interface, meaning the choice of
interface less critical (although FireWire still helps).

ICE, which in the Minolta software always enables the GD, requires another
doubling of the exposure time (the IR channel is the difference between the
RGB and RGBI exposures). So switching on ICE may increase the scantime by a
factor of 5 versus neither GD nor ICE.
ICE also uses the CPU as the data comes in through the cable and, on all
except the fastest CPUs, it will claim 100% usage which causes a huge
slowdown (the scanner has to wait for the processing to finish). VueScan
offers the choice of IR cleaning with, or without, the GD and only after all
the data is in.

Bart

 

[Simon]

Nikon

+ Very good reputation for "predecessor" LS4000
+ Fast also with ICE
- DOF Problems (0,26 mm tested by German "Color Foto")
- No batch scannng for mounted slides


Minolta

+ Higher Resolution
+ Better DOF (0,39 regarding to "Color Foto")
+ 4 Slides Batch Mode for mounted slides
+ FireWire (I am a Mac User)
- Slow when used with ICE
- Not so good reputation in the newsgroups
- Not 100% compatible with Vuescan at the moment

Hello Holger,

I see you have a list very similar to mine, with two exceptions
favoring the Minolta. The ability to batch-scan mounted slides and the
firewire port. Both are not an issue for me.

I'm leaning towards the Nikon now, although in your situation I would
probably prefer the Minolta.. I guess one cannot really go wrong with
any of them.

I have one more question though. I see you have access to the Color
Foto numbers for both scanners. I only have the new magazine in which
the ls-50 is tested. One of the things that is noted is it's `worse'
Dmax rating with B&W material (2.44). Can you post the value for the
minolta?

Thank you and good luck with your choice!

Simon

 

[Simon]

The ICE software is directly licensed from Kodak by both Nikon and

Minolta, so there is unlikely to be significant differences in its
efficiency between the two parties. Having said that Nikon have been in
the ICE game longer and may have implemented a few tweaks or have access
to some undocumented ASF calls. Then again, if they did, they seem to
have forgotten them now. For example, I find that NikonScan 4 runs 25%
slower than NikonScan 3 one exactly the same hardware (Nikon LS-4000 on
2.4Ghz P4B with 1Gb Ram and 100GM free contiguous drive space).

I seem to remember reading somewhere (how vague can I get) that one
user encountered a big speedup going from nikonscan 4 to 4.0.1. Are
you using that already?

Simon

 

[David Chien]

Digital photo guy at Cal's Camera in Newport Beach, CA replaced the
former slide scanner with the Minolta 5400 and loves it!

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I seem to remember reading somewhere (how vague can I get) that one
user encountered a big speedup going from nikonscan 4 to 4.0.1. Are
you using that already?

Yes, I went through the full upgrade, having initially tried v4 and
found the speed drop. I was hoping that v4.01 would improve things, but
it didn't make any difference whatsoever.

The latest response from Nikon Tech Support is that the scan time
increase is normal because NS4 has been optimised for the LS-5000
series, not the LS-4000 series. I find this difficult to believe and
have requested confirmation that the software Nikon recommend for the
LS-4000 is actually NS3 and, if so, that their web site be amended to
reflect this recommendation rather than waste customer time by upgrading
for reduced performance.

 

[Mike Engles]

Yes, I went through the full upgrade, having initially tried v4 and
found the speed drop. I was hoping that v4.01 would improve things, but
it didn't make any difference whatsoever.

The latest response from Nikon Tech Support is that the scan time
increase is normal because NS4 has been optimised for the LS-5000
series, not the LS-4000 series. I find this difficult to believe and
have requested confirmation that the software Nikon recommend for the
LS-4000 is actually NS3 and, if so, that their web site be amended to
reflect this recommendation rather than waste customer time by upgrading
for reduced performance.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Hello

My new Ls 50 takes 11/2 minutes to scan with ICE a full frame 3768 by
5522 pixels.
It seems pretty fast to me, but I cannot remember how long my LS 40 took
with Nikon scan 4. That only scanned at 2900dpi

Mike Engles

 

[Barrett Benton]

Hello

My new Ls 50 takes 11/2 minutes to scan with ICE a full frame 3768 by
5522 pixels.
It seems pretty fast to me, but I cannot remember how long my LS 40 took
with Nikon scan 4. That only scanned at 2900dpi

Mike Engles

Hold it...I thought the LS 50 was supposed to be a good deal faster than
this!?