nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400

[Bart van der Wolf]

(e-mail address removed) wrote: SNIP
CS5000 has definitely more DOF than SE5400.

I'm not sure how you determined that, but perhaps the stronger
magnification by the SE5400 made you see the limited sharpness
better...?
For a fair test, the 4000 ppi scan should be resampled to 5400, that
way you'll see the limitations at the same magnification factor (of
course the up-sampling won't add detail, but just lose apparent
resolution).

Bart

 

[gewgle]

There's also a flare thread about one of the current roughly
equivalent Nikon scanners either here or at photo.net

Mike

 

[Alex Tutubalin]

Just to be clear, did you measure depth of field on both scanners and,
if so, how? Or does the 5000 just hold the film flatter and, if so, how?

I'm not 'pixel peeper' , I prefer to see at prints.

Every second frame on CS4000 was _very_ soft on edges (I use Vuescan and
autofocus on 2/3 of frame), so if I need large print (10x15 in. or
larger) I need to rescan this frame in framed holder (MF-20? forget
exact part number).

After I bought SE5400, I used it to rescan these 'to-large-print'
frames. Again, I've had problems with grain sharpness at edges
for first and last frame in 6-frame strips.

On CS5000 I've virtually no problems with edge-to-edge sharpnes
(sometimes with first strip of 36-frames roll, but I use this frame
to set color balance, so it not need to be razor sharp).

So I've virtually never used SE5400 after I bought CS5000. Only for
resolution test, color tests and so on.

On CS4000 and CS5000 I've used the same film holder (SA-30 roll
film adapter). Has bought it for use with CS4000 and use
now with CS5000 now.

In the short time I have played with an LS-5000 it seemed to have
identical DOF limitations as the LS-4000.

May be you have very heavy curled film ?
I develop my E6s and C41s myself, keep them for one day in roll,
emulsion side outside so my films are relative flat. 120-films are
another story

Alex

 

[Alex Tutubalin]

I'm not sure how you determined that, but perhaps the stronger
magnification by the SE5400 made you see the limited sharpness
better...?

I prefer to look at final print (of course, after re-touching,
sharpening and etc.

For a fair test, the 4000 ppi scan should be resampled to 5400, that
way you'll see the limitations at the same magnification factor (of
course the up-sampling won't add detail, but just lose apparent
resolution).

Upsampling 4000-ppi scans to 5400 (or downsampling 5400 to 4000)
will result in lost of sharpness. So we need to unsharp mask after
resampling. This test is not 'fair' enough.

So we need to upsample 5400 to 16200, 4000 to 16000 (by
propagation of pixel values to 3x3 or 4x4 matrix) and than compare
results. Too far from real world. Who needs 2Gb scans ?

Alex

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

In the short time I have played with an LS-5000 it seemed to have
identical DOF limitations as the LS-4000.

May be you have very heavy curled film ?[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I didn't say I head a problem with DOF issues on the
LS-4000, merely that the LS-5000 did not appear significantly different.

However, so far we still haven't ascertained whether you are
experiencing a difference in film flatness or a difference in DOF
between either of the Nikon scanners or, for that matter, the Minolta.

Hence my question as to how you had reached your conclusion - your
answer tends to suggest that you jumped to it with less than adequate
supporting evidence.

 

[Alan Browne]

supporting evidence.

Hey, this usenet, whaddya mean supporting evidence?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Hey, this usenet, whaddya mean supporting evidence?

Something that would discriminate between whether it was just variable
film curl, different resolution, or an actual DOF difference. So far
nothing that Alex has said indicates one way or another.