nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400
mark
minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
other similarities, but in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
What should be my other considerations when deciding between these two
scanners. At first I was sold on the Minolta 5400, but I have read
several less than inspiring reviews. While the Minolta model has an
edge over the nikon by offering a claimed 5400 ppi, I have recently
read a less than enthusiastic review in PC Magazine regarding the 5400
(rating it worst among dedicated and flat bed scanners) and I have
read several user reports complaining about mechanical malfunctions
from users. In CNET, the review rated the Minolta 5400 7 out of 10
with the following remarks: "While the Dimage 5400 produces very good
scans, with excellent dynamic range and shadow detail, it isn't
capable of the sharpness we saw from the Nikon Coolscan V. As you can
tell, I am a little confused in deciding which model to pick. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Mark
Kennedy McEwen
<mrop...@yahoo.com> writes
that many of these are a consequence of superficial use, relying on the
default focus, which is less than perfect. The manual focus control
available on the scanner appears to make a significant improvement,
based on the images that I have seen. There have been some excellent
images produced by the Minolta which undeniably outperform those from
the Nikon.
As a long time Nikon scanner user, I have no hesitation in recommending
the Minolta.
Nikon's chief weapon is speed; speed and the optional roll film
adapter...
Nikon's two chief weapons are speed, the optional roll film adapter and
the equally optional bulk slide feeder...
No, no, Nikon's three weapons are speed, the optional roll film adapter,
the optional bulk slide feeder AND the ability to work reliably with
Vuescan...
Dammit, AMONGST Nikon's weapons are...
but if speed, bulk film and Vuescan aren't an issue, the Minolta is a
better scanner - perhaps they expected the Spanish Inquisition!
;-)
--
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)
Dierk Haasis
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>but if speed, bulk film and Vuescan aren't an issue, the Minolta is a
>better scanner - perhaps they expected the Spanish Inquisition!
This week I came around "testing" the Minolta rather extensively; I
had to scan over 170 transparencies from the family vaults. They
spanned the last 50 or so years, with redly tinted Agfas, badly faded
and tinted Perutz, and the odd Orwo and Kodak (both had been in much
better condition than the others). Many photos had been taken under
less than perfect conditions, containing harsh contrast, underexposure
and as a result obvious film grain.
I used the 5400 with Vuescan with calibration through Minolta's sw to
be sure I have a correctly calibrated scanner with the latest firmware
loaded.
The scanning took about ten minutes for a single picture - 4x
sampling, no GD, IR filter Medium, 16bit, Archival. This is with
saving the TIFF but without preview and manual cropping. GD lengthens
the process considerably, other IR filter settings don't change much.
Vuescan's IR algorithm, BTW, sometimes works very good and sometimes
almost not at all. Also the autofocus worked quite well with only
three pictures out of focus on preview; that could be remedied by
setting the focus point manually and let VS autofocus again on scan.
If I hadn't the necessity to crop manually scanning would have been an
automatic process except for loading the holder. Admittedly I wished
for a quicker way, scanning and loading. But the quality is
outstanding, in Photoshop I only corrected for the colour casts in the
original photo, contrast and inabilities of the photographers (like
oblique horizons). Otherwise the - colour managed - images could have
been printed directly (that is, those that were straight and didn't
deteriorate over time).
Sometime ago I saw comparisons for the Minolta and the Nikon with the
Minolta "winning" hands down. Actually the differences in image
quality are so small that we are splitting hairs here. Considering the
price the Minolta would still be my first choice, it is at least as
good, if not better, as the Nikon but at less cost.
Leaves the matter of the software. Neither Minolta's nor Nikon's is
the Holy Grail in scanning but both are better than their reputation.
from what I've seen Minolta now offers colour management, too, an
important step up.
For both scanners Lasersoft offers silverFast, a really good but
expensive piece of sw with only minor squabbles in usability - the
icons on the buttons are too small, and the UI is a bit on the cryptic
side (not to forget the completely inadequate documentation).
Both scanners also work with Vuescan, although some folks do have
problems when using VS with the Minolta. Problems I haven't seen, yet.
Bare in mind that the firmware update of the Minolta scanner seems to
be a software-based solution: The fw seems to be loaded every time you
calibrate with the Minolta sw. So you have to switch on the scanner,
then start Minolta's sw (which you can quit after calibration) and
after calibration start Vuescan. One time this week I had to quit and
switch off everything and restart. For reasons I can't even imagine
one batch of photos came out way off.
--
Dierk
Alan Browne
Consider that the 5400 captures 82% more pixels from an image v. the 4000 dpi
scanners and one begins to understand that at that level they might appear soft
to the uninitiated.
http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm shows several steps in a 5400 dpi scan.
Note in the 3rd -> 4th image the amount of detail that can be extracted. The
5th image will give you a feeling for what a 300 dpi printed image would look at
from a full 5400 dpi scan. Obviously, downsampled to a 4000 equivalent it would
be sharper looking.
Go not to PC Magazine / CNET for photographic advice. (Do you go to photography
magazines for computer advice?). They know not of what they speak (in spades).
Chasseur d'image gives the Nikon 5000 a slight edge over the 5400, but states
that the detail available from the 5400 is greater (duh). In any case, a recent
set of user tests were done, and the 5400 came out on top:
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
Another 'complaint' regarding the 5400 is the slow scan time with ICE ... and
again, if you realize that you're getting 82% more pixels it is normal that it
would take more processing time.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
mark
Thanks Gents-
Not to beat a horse to death or parrot in your case, but if you have
not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
comments?
Thanks again.
Mark
Wilfred
> Bare in mind that the firmware update of the Minolta scanner seems to
> be a software-based solution: The fw seems to be loaded every time you
> calibrate with the Minolta sw. So you have to switch on the scanner,
> then start Minolta's sw (which you can quit after calibration) and
> after calibration start Vuescan.
Hmm, interesting theory - I never realized that it could be the complete
firmware that is downloaded to the scanner every time. I thought it was
just a calibration result that was stored in the scanner and I suspect
that is what Ed Hamrick thinks, too. If your theory is true, it would be
a useful clue for Ed Hamrick for improving VueScan.
BTW I apply the same procedure as you do and I have no problems with
VueScan on the 5400 either. Perhaps the ones reporting problems are
using an older version of the Dimage Scan Utility.
--
Wilfred
e-mail: (first five letters of my name) at gmx dot net
Fernando
>not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
>http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
>http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
>for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
>a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
>producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
>reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
>lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
>review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
>comments?
Yes: they don't know how to properly test a scanner. :)
Not that I expect more from those magazines...
The Minolta 5400 is an excellent performer, and speed apart, it easily
rivals the SuperCoolscan 5000 as for final image quality. I'd say it's
better from a resolution standpoint, while not as good in the color
accuracy department, but this is only my personal opinion. Both
machines are capable of excellent scans, appropriate for your 16x20"
needs if originals are good enough.
The problem with the DSE 5400 is the AF. I've got an excessive
percentage of non-sharp scans by leaving the AF on, so now I
manually-focus all my scans, and as a result, I get excellent
sharpness from both slide and negative scans. I guess that's the
problem those "testers" from PCWorld and CNet encountered.
Some examples from a DSE 5400 guru:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400.htm
Fernando
Alan Browne
1) I don't look for advice on computers in photography magazines, you shouldn't
look for advice on photo gear in computer magazines. Chasseur D'Image (a
photography magazine) rated the 5400 slightly below the Nikon 5000 (based on
speed and sharpness) while noting that the 5400 delivered more detail...
2) http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
speaks for itself
3) Print at 16 x 20? Cool. Check: http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanEx.htm
4) Speed? At 5400 dpi, you are getting 82% more pixels than at 4000 dpi. This
has a minimal effect on non-ICE scans, but a direct effect on ICE scans... they
take longer to process.
Cheers,
Alan.
Bart van der Wolf
"mark" <mrop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bb070482.04120...@posting.google.com...
SNIP
> http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp
"We examined printouts of uncorrected scans..." should tell a lot
about how serious you should take the words from a PC oriented
magazine on the specialism of scanning and printing film originals.
> and
<http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-31
36_7-30477780-2.html?tag=top> for more information.
Who claim (amongst other mistakes) that multisampling "averages out
some of the dirt and noise". Complete bollocks. But then Cnet isn't
exacly known for their Photographic expertise either.
Bart
Kennedy McEwen
>
>Not to beat a horse to death or parrot in your case, but if you have
>not read the slightly dated articles re: scanners, refer to
>http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115072,pg,1,00.asp and
>http://reviews.cnet.com/Konica_Minolta_Dimage_Scan_Elite_5400/4505-3136_
>7-30477780-2.html?tag=top
>for more information. While speed is not my primary goal in selecting
>a scanner, results and ease of use matter most. I am interested in
>producing a file with the potential of creating a 16 x 20 print. I
>reference the article only because the Minolta 5400 received the
>lowest ranking among both film and flat bed scanners. In the other
>review I referenced, the 5400 lost out to the older Nikon model. Any
>comments?
>
slightly cropped 35mm frame. I wouldn't produce a print that size from
a substantial crop, because the camera physical optics and the film
itself isn't up to it. The difference between the scanners isn't enough
to make the difference between an acceptable print and an unacceptable
one in any situation, but the Minolta will generally give slightly
better resolution if the detail is there on the film. Most of the time
it isn't - hence the flexibility of review conclusions. If your raw
material has the detail, and speed isn't a problem, go with the Minolta.
If speed, volume or colour purity (the value of Nikon LED illumination)
is a major driver for your choice then choose the Nikon - but it needs
to be worth it to justify twice the price.
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes
>At 5400 dpi, you are getting 82% more pixels than at 4000 dpi. This
>has a minimal effect on non-ICE scans, but a direct effect on ICE
>scans... they take longer to process.
>
This common assessment never ceases to amuse me.
With ICE off, the Nikon LS-5000 scans at 20s.
Witha 3GHz P4 and ICE on, it scans at about 46s.
So ICE is responsible for about 26s of scan time.
Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.
I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here with
similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer than this -
so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta down, it just
hasn't been designed for speed.
WD
underestimate the usefulness of the 'grain dissolver' in the 5400. I
have tried a 'scanhancer' (diffuser similar in concept to the grain
dissolver) with the Nikon 5000. I have scanned BW as well as color
negs and positives with the 'scanhancer' diffusion plate. I have found
phenomenal improvement in some images (due to the diffused light
source). To be fair, in some images there is virtally no difference
between diffuser and no diffuser. I wish the Nikon had this built in
as does the Minolta.
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvd...@no.spam> wrote in message news:<41b38671$0$78749$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
Wilfred
> In article <covoq1$8iu$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes
>
>> At 5400 dpi, you are getting 82% more pixels than at 4000 dpi. This
>> has a minimal effect on non-ICE scans, but a direct effect on ICE
>> scans... they take longer to process.
>>
> This common assessment never ceases to amuse me.
>
> With ICE off, the Nikon LS-5000 scans at 20s.
> Witha 3GHz P4 and ICE on, it scans at about 46s.
> So ICE is responsible for about 26s of scan time.
>
> Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
> correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
> whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
> order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.
>
> I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here with
> similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer than this -
> so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta down, it just
> hasn't been designed for speed.
That's right - the Minolta has only one sensor array (like the LS-50);
the LS-5000 has two ('designed for speed'). Also, when scanning with ICE
using the Minolta software, the grain dissolver is always enabled. This
increases exposure time.
--
Wilfred van der Vegte.
Replace 'invalid' with my first name to reply by e-mail
Dierk Haasis
>Hmm, interesting theory - I never realized that it could be the complete
>firmware that is downloaded to the scanner every time.
Oh, I thought we agreed on that a long time ago, or was it another
forum ...
If you look through your Minolta DSE 5400 directories you'll find the
new firmware. And I remember that I wondered why it is there without
any instruction. When it came out a lot of testing between the users
went on and we came up with this theory, but I haven't actually tested
it myself (by simply moving the firmware file to another place).
Currently scanning for me is much more important than testing - I've
been a "follower" of the Minolta since it came out, never had such
trouble as others reported.
I'd be interested in the results of the firmware test, if anybody can
do it, which means he has to have a piece of equipment known to
perform wrongly with the old firmware.
--
Dierk
Alan Browne
Alan Browne wrote
>> At 5400 dpi, you are getting 82% more pixels than at 4000 dpi. This has a
>> minimal effect on non-ICE scans, but a direct effect on ICE scans...
>> longer to process.
> Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
Yes, that's what "82% more" means ... no need for 5 sig. digs. of precsion.
> correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
> whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
> order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.
>
> I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here with
> similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer than this -
> so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta down, it just
> hasn't been designed for speed.
Regarding your numbers above, the rate of processing would have to be determined
for both scanners on the same computer. In my case, an ICE'd 5400 dpi slide
takes 4.5 minutes, where a non ICE takes about 45 seconds.
For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is also active
during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.
Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working 1 image in
photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go through 1 to 2 more scans... so there
is more work waiting for me in the rawscan directory than what I'm able to
complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is in the main a non-issue for
my workflow and I suspect that the same would be for most people if they made
that adjustment.
The only thing I wish Minolta had provided was a device to allow batch scanning
(a la Nikon) of about 50 slides. This would make the logistics simpler... I
hate stopping my photoshop work to empty and reload the filmholder, and my
computer might as well do something useful while I'm sleeping.
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>
>> Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
>>whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of the
>>order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.
>> I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here
>>with similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer
>>than this - so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta
>>down, it just hasn't been designed for speed.
>
>Regarding your numbers above, the rate of processing would have to be
>determined for both scanners on the same computer.
No - just known and comparable computers, that is why I specified a 3GHz
P4 in both cases, something you decided to omit from your quote even
though both manufacturers conveniently rate themselves with.
>In my case, an ICE'd 5400 dpi slide takes 4.5 minutes, where a non ICE
>takes about 45 seconds.
>
When I started using the Nikon LS-4000ED, my computer was an 266MHz
Pentium-II, overclocked to about 333MHz, with 384Mb of RAM. Even that
managed to produce an ICE enabled full frame scan in less than four and
a half minutes!
>For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is
>also active during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.
As I pointed out, the Minolta is not designed for speed or bulk
scanning. That is Nikon's realm - at the moment.
>
>Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working 1 image in
>photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go through 1 to 2 more scans...
Which slows down *both* processes to *more* than the summation of their
individual times - try it. Unless you are spending a lot of time
looking at the output of individual steps with the computer idling the
Photoshop process that is a far less productive use of the processing
power available. Of course, as a slow Minolta user, you'll be used to
that. ;-)
>so there is more work waiting for me in the rawscan directory than what
>I'm able to complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is in the
>main a non-issue for my workflow and I suspect that the same would be
>for most people if they made that adjustment.
>
It is fortunate that speed is not important to you because your workflow
is exacerbating the speed problem. I usually read email or usenet while
the film is scanning - that doesn't consume significant cycles once the
page of text is displayed.
>The only thing I wish Minolta had provided was a device to allow batch
>scanning (a la Nikon) of about 50 slides. This would make the
>logistics simpler... I hate stopping my photoshop work to empty and
>reload the filmholder, and my computer might as well do something
>useful while I'm sleeping.
>
Until it jams. :-(
At least the SA-30 runs a full film through without such problems.
Bart van der Wolf
"Alan Browne" <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cp2fap$kq7$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
SNIP
> For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain
> disolver is also active during ICE, and this slows it down
> too, I expect.
Indeed, it roughly doubles exposure time. The main slowdown can be
caused by the CPU usage, which can go to 100% depending on interface,
film density, and multisampling settings. The data is ICE processed
when it arrives through the interface with the Minolta software, where
VueScan processes the data after all data has been accumulated.
> Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working
> 1 image in photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go
> through 1 to 2 more scans... so there is more work
> waiting for me in the rawscan directory than what I'm able
> to complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is in
> the main a non-issue for my workflow and I suspect that
> the same would be for most people if they made that
> adjustment.
Yes, you have ample tweaking time between scans.
Bart
Dierk Haasis
<alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is also active
>during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.
I guess because with IR you get more prominent grain due to more
pronounced edges.
--
Dierk
Maciej Zwierzycki
> I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
> minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
Mark, I am not an expert on theory of these things but I understand that
4.8Dmax is _theoretical_ value, determined by the number of bits in the
A/D converter. The real world values are probably closer to 3.2-3.2.
My guess would be that they are similar for both scanners.
Anyone out there who can verify/correct this statement?
Regards
MZ
--
Maciej Zwierzycki | Training signature
Alan Browne
> In article <cp2fap$kq7$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes
>
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Since the Minolta scans at 5400ppi there is 1.8225x as many pixels to
>>> correct, so the ICE process time *should* be of the order of 47.4s,
>>> whilst the equivalent scan time of 1.35 as many lines should be of
>>> the order of 51.3s, giving a total of just under 99s.
>>> I get the impression, from the times that have been reported here
>>> with similar processing power that the Minolta takes a lot longer
>>> than this - so it isn't the extra pixels that is slowing the Minolta
>>> down, it just hasn't been designed for speed.
>>
>>
>> Regarding your numbers above, the rate of processing would have to be
>> determined for both scanners on the same computer.
>
>
> No - just known and comparable computers, that is why I specified a 3GHz
> P4 in both cases, something you decided to omit from your quote even
> though both manufacturers conveniently rate themselves with.
I didn't even notice it.
> When I started using the Nikon LS-4000ED, my computer was an 266MHz
> Pentium-II, overclocked to about 333MHz, with 384Mb of RAM. Even that
> managed to produce an ICE enabled full frame scan in less than four and
> a half minutes!
For a smaller image, IAC and w/o GD.
>
>> For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is
>> also active during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.
>
>
> As I pointed out, the Minolta is not designed for speed or bulk
> scanning. That is Nikon's realm - at the moment.
>
>>
>> Finally, and as I have said in the past... while I'm working 1 image
>> in photoshop, the 5400, with ICE on, can go through 1 to 2 more scans...
>
>
> Which slows down *both* processes to *more* than the summation of their
> individual times - try it. Unless you are spending a lot of time
> looking at the output of individual steps with the computer idling the
> Photoshop process that is a far less productive use of the processing
> power available. Of course, as a slow Minolta user, you'll be used to
> that. ;-)
The slowdown in photoshop is hardly noticeable, and the consequence to the
scanner is irrelevant (since its providing work faster than I can work on it).
If you watch the CPU load during a scan and while doing a function such as
custom rotate on a very large file, then the unused cache and non-cache CPU
cycles saturate (during the operation) instead of being underutilized. This
means, at a minimum, that the scanner is not giving the PC as much work as the
PC is able to do. This may mean in turn that the scanner is too slow for the PC
or that the communications is not optimized to give the CPU all it could do.
All that to say, that the relative slowness of the 5400 is a non issue if ones
workflow is the way mine is. I've considered buying a second PC for scanning
alone with an Ethernet connection to pick up the scan, but I doubt there would
be any real improvement.
>> so there is more work waiting for me in the rawscan directory than
>> what I'm able to complete in photoshop. So the whole speed issue is
>> in the main a non-issue for my workflow and I suspect that the same
>> would be for most people if they made that adjustment.
>>
> It is fortunate that speed is not important to you because your workflow
> is exacerbating the speed problem. I usually read email or usenet while
> the film is scanning - that doesn't consume significant cycles once the
> page of text is displayed.
See above. The imapct of using PS on scanning (and vice versa) is slightly more
than negligeable in measurable terms, and totally negligeable in terms of real life.
gew...@yahoo.com
> >For mysterious reasons known only to Minolta, the grain disolver is
> >also active during ICE, and this slows it down too, I expect.
>
> As I pointed out, the Minolta is not designed for speed or bulk
> scanning. That is Nikon's realm - at the moment.
Yes, that was one of the plusses for Nikon when I made my
recent purchase of the Minolta 5400. The Nikon add-on slide
handler in particular so that a whole roll of slides could be scanned
unattended (as opposed to the Minolta's maximum of four slides
for unattended auto-scanning).
Mike
false_...@yahoo.com
This has to be the most comprehensive and informative single thread
I've seen on this topic. You're a lucky guy. :)
false_dmitrii
false_...@yahoo.com
comfier already....
false_dmitrii
false_...@yahoo.com
Steven
<M.Zwierzy...@tn.utwente.nl> wrote:
>Mark, I am not an expert on theory of these things but I understand that
>4.8Dmax is _theoretical_ value, determined by the number of bits in the
>A/D converter. The real world values are probably closer to 3.2-3.2.
>My guess would be that they are similar for both scanners.
>
>Anyone out there who can verify/correct this statement?
Yes, I think you are quite right. I have only seen one advert that
specified the optical density range (as well as the theoretical range)
and the scanner didn't do that well anyway.
-- Steven
Alan Browne
The way the signal processing guys have said it to me is that the dynamic range
coming out of an A/D converter is all the bits less the bottom 1.5 bits.
For a 16 bit A/D, manufacturer claimed Dmax: log(2^16) = 4.82
real world Dmax: log(2^14.5) = 4.4
Then, what does film hold? I often hear that the best slide film has a max Dmax
of 4.0...
...
Cheers,
Alan
Bruce Graham
gew...@yahoo.com says...
> The Nikon add-on slide
> handler in particular so that a whole roll of slides could be scanned
> unattended (as opposed to the Minolta's maximum of four slides
> for unattended auto-scanning).
>
scanning" is an oxymoron.
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
> Then, what does film hold? I often hear that the best slide film has a
max Dmax
> of 4.0...
dynamic range=Dmax-Dmin, I believe you confuse dynamic range with Dmax
AFAIK the dynamic range is related to the quantisation in a DSP procedure...
The quantisation step (or resolution) = (Dmax-Dmin)/(L-1) where L is the
number of quantisation levels. There is no DSP procedure when shooting film
....
-- dimitris
Alan Browne
That makes sense, so the Drange would be what?
log(2^14.5) - log(2^1.5) = 3.9 which is plausible
For "number quantization levels", what specifically do you mean? the number of
bits?
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
>
> That makes sense, so the Drange would be what?
>
> log(2^14.5) - log(2^1.5) = 3.9 which is plausible
>
> For "number quantization levels", what specifically do you mean? the
number of
> bits?
>
>
"number quantization levels", or L, is the number of different binary
numbers you need and L<=2^b where b is the number of bits, in our case say
b=16 so L<=65536. Now, Dmax and Dmin are the max and min values
respectively of the sampled analog signal. If Dmin=0 and Dmax=65535 (i.e.
65536 numbers), then (Dmax-Dmin)/(L-1)=1. Now, for the particular case of
scanners, I do not know the max and min values, but I can definately tell
you that
log(2^14.5) - log(2^1.5) = (14.5-1.5)*log2=3.9, which may translate:
"The way the signal processing guys have said it to me is that the dynamic
range
coming out of an A/D converter is all the bits less the bottom 1.5 bits."
into (16-1.5)*log2=4.36 but again, I am not sure if this is the way to
calculate it....
Regards,
Dimitris
Alan Browne
It is simply the log compression of the full range, so log(2^16) before
considering noise. (actually log(2^16-1) would probably be right but
insignificant in log terms).
So (Dmax-Dmin)/(L-1) does not make sense to me...
Alan Browne
> "Unattended auto-> scanning" is an oxymoron.
...redundant, but not an oxymoron.
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
> It is simply the log compression of the full range, so log(2^16) before
> considering noise. (actually log(2^16-1) would probably be right but
> insignificant in log terms).
>
> So (Dmax-Dmin)/(L-1) does not make sense to me...
this is the resolution which tells you how close a number must be to a
quantisation level, in order to make it equal to that level. In the example
I gave you, you have a resolution of 1, so, depending on the roundoff
procedure, you could say that 23000.2 is equal to 23000 and 23000.8 is equal
to 23001. 0.2 and 0.8 are smaller than the resolution, and you have to map
each discrete signal sample to the 'closest' quantisation level.
Regards,
Dimitris
P.S. I am not very good in explaining things, am I? ;-)
Bruce Graham
alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> Bruce Graham wrote:
>
> > "Unattended auto-> scanning" is an oxymoron.
>
> ...redundant, but not an oxymoron.
>
posting...I meant that my attempts to scan unattended with a four slide
feeder have been very unproductive.
Alan Browne
I was waiting for your *oops*/correction before posting...
When I do full 5400 dpi ICE scans I also work on previous scans in parallel.
Usually the scanner provides work faster than I can do my cropping, color
corrections, USM save,
re-size-USM-reload-save-re-size-USM-save-reload-re-size-USM save (etc.) loop.
Sometimes I'll load a final four when I go to bed, but it's not really worth it.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
>>It is simply the log compression of the full range, so log(2^16) before
>>considering noise. (actually log(2^16-1) would probably be right but
>>insignificant in log terms).
>>
>>So (Dmax-Dmin)/(L-1) does not make sense to me...
>
>
> this is the resolution which tells you how close a number must be to a
> quantisation level, in order to make it equal to that level. In the example
> I gave you, you have a resolution of 1, so, depending on the roundoff
> procedure, you could say that 23000.2 is equal to 23000 and 23000.8 is equal
> to 23001. 0.2 and 0.8 are smaller than the resolution, and you have to map
> each discrete signal sample to the 'closest' quantisation level.
That I know, but consider what we're trying to find out... what is the Drange?
If we follow your equation we get:
Dmax-Dmin/(L-1) = (Log(2^16)- Log (2^1.5)) / Log (2^16-1) = 0.9 ... and that
don't dog don't hunt...
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
> That I know, but consider what we're trying to find out... what is the
Drange?
>
> If we follow your equation we get:
>
> Dmax-Dmin/(L-1) = (Log(2^16)- Log (2^1.5)) / Log (2^16-1) = 0.9 ... and
that
> don't dog don't hunt...
It is not my equation, it comes right out of every single introductory
handbook to DSP. DRange=Dmax-Dmin. Resolution=DRange/(L-1). And yes, I am
obviously not good at explaining things ;-D
Dimitris
Alan Browne
It is "your" equation in this thread, you presented it.
And oops. What did I miss? Now you're saying DRange is Dmax-Dmin... so it is
as I stated at the start: log(2^14.5) or log(2^16) - log (2^1.5). Which is
possibly higher than the Dmax of the film... so 16 bit scanners should be
getting more Drange than the film can provide.
Cheers,
Alan
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
> It is "your" equation in this thread, you presented it.
>
> And oops. What did I miss? Now you're saying DRange is Dmax-Dmin... so
it is
> as I stated at the start: log(2^14.5) or log(2^16) - log (2^1.5). Which
is
> possibly higher than the Dmax of the film... so 16 bit scanners should be
> getting more Drange than the film can provide.
That's what I've been saying in the first place!!! check my first post
(8/12)!!!! BUT all I wanted to say (also check my first post) is that there
is no Dmax or Drange or whatever defined form *FILM*. These are only
meaningful in an A/D conversion, there is no A/D conversion when shooting
film whatsoever!!!!. There is no quantisation when shooting film, because
film exposure is an analog process.
Regards,
dimitris
Alan Browne
Dynamic range is quantifiable regardless of a signal being digital or analog.
Ask an electrical engineer. Or here: http://www.jeffrowland.com/tectalk6.htm
Film is not an "analog", it is an image. ("Analog" means, "by analogy", such as
a voltage representing a temperature sensor and a meter indicating that voltage
as a temperature instead of as a voltage.).
The confusion (as much mine as anyone's) is that the term Dmax for film means
maximum density, and this has a figure of 4.0. A film burned clear would have a
Dmin approaching 0 and a signal on the A/D would be at or near maximum.
Conversely, the densest area would have a signal at the A/D approaching 0, but
necessarilly would contain noise. The range between the two can be construed as
the Dynamic range of the film.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alex Tutubalin
> I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
> minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
Mark,
I've used both SE5400 and 5000ED in parallel for several months.
After that, I've decided to keep Nikon and sell Minolta.
Nikon scanner is
* sharper! (esp. visible on Velvia scans)
* faster
* can scan entire roll (with SA-30 adapter)
* film loading is faster and confortable
On the other side, Minolta can resolve more fine details but
it is not needed for 35-mm scans (I've never print photos larger
than 16x20 from 35-mm)
Alex Tutubalin,
Moscow, Russia
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes
>
>Dynamic range is quantifiable regardless of a signal being digital or
>analog. Ask an electrical engineer. Or here:
>http://www.jeffrowland.com/tectalk6.htm
>
digital convertor was even invented.
>Film is not an "analog", it is an image. ("Analog" means, "by
>analogy", such as a voltage representing a temperature sensor and a
>meter indicating that voltage as a temperature instead of as a voltage.).
>
However, Alan, by that definition (which I partially disagree with in
any case) film certain is an analogy of the scene, and thus analogue.
My disagreement with your definition becomes apparent when you consider
that the temperature can also be represented by a series of digital
numbers on a meter just as well - the numbers are an analogy of the
temperature. Thus, your definition leads to the immediate paradox that
digital is analogue - and thus, using the established "proof by
contradiction" method, your definition must be false.
In general terms, analogue means "continuous" whilst digital means
"discrete". A digital representation of the signal can only indicate
discrete values, whilst an analogue representation can indicate all
values with infinitesimal discrimination. The digital representation
can only indicate the signal to the noise floor if there are sufficient
discrete steps, however the analogue representation *always* indicates
the signal into the noise floor.
>The confusion (as much mine as anyone's) is that the term Dmax for film
>means maximum density, and this has a figure of 4.0. A film burned
>clear would have a Dmin approaching 0 and a signal on the A/D would be
>at or near maximum. Conversely, the densest area would have a signal at
>the A/D approaching 0, but necessarilly would contain noise. The range
>between the two can be construed as the Dynamic range of the film.
>
What seems to be missing in this entire thread is any consideration of
why the DRange of the scanner *MUST* be significantly higher than the
DRange of the film it is scanning. This relates to perception and gamma
as much as it does to the difference between analogue and digital.
Film reproduces the luminance changes in the shadows by increasing the
number and size of silver grains or dye clouds per unit area. This is
continuous, and thus effectively analogue - even at the quantum level it
remains analogue with the presence of atoms in a unit area being
probablistic.
If the DRange of the scanner simply matched the DRange of the film then
the Dmax on the film would represent a count of 0 from the scanner,
whilst the Dmin on the film would be represented by a number close to
(2^n)-1. The next darkest level on the scanner from this Dmin
representation would be a count of one less, which would be a virtually
indistinguishable visual change of density on the film. However the
next lightest level from Dmax which the scanner could represent would be
1, due to the discrete nature of the digital data. This would represent
DMax-0.3 on the film, and would be visibly discrete and lighter than the
Dmax. For example, film Dmax is generally around 3 - 3.6, which should
require no more than 10-12-bits, however a 1 bit change in the shadows
of such a linearly encoded digital image is clearly visible. In short,
an ADC which has a DRange equal to the film is inadequate to
discriminate the shadow information.
The problem this throws up is that the equations that both you and
Dimitris have been debating relate to *linear* representations of
signals, whilst our perception of density is very non-linear. It is
well known that your vision is more sensitive to fine changes of
luminance in the shadows than it is in the highlights of the scene,
hence the use of gamma encoding to minimise the bit depth used to
describe the image digitally. This means that the dynamic range
required to describe the shadows on the image is much higher than
dynamic range necessary to describe the highlights - however, your
equations relate to a uniform dynamic range in a linear system which, at
best, indicates an *average* dynamic range. Since perception of
discrete steps is the driver for quantisation level, your equations for
Drange should be applied in perceptual space, the space in which the
discrimination of discrete steps is equal throughout the range, ie.
perceptually linear. The results can then be transformed via the
inverse gamma space to voltage, luminance and digital linear space to
determine the Drange necessary to describe the shadows without
posterisation, and thus the minimum Drange necessary on the scanner.
--
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)
Alan Browne
>> Film is not an "analog", it is an image. ("Analog" means, "by
>> analogy", such as a voltage representing a temperature sensor and a
>> meter indicating that voltage as a temperature instead of as a voltage.).
>>
> However, Alan, by that definition (which I partially disagree with in
> any case) film certain is an analogy of the scene, and thus analogue.
An image of a scene is an image. We can look at it, project it, scan, replicate
it, etc. We don't need to 'convert' its meaning in any way.
> My disagreement with your definition becomes apparent when you consider
> that the temperature can also be represented by a series of digital
> numbers on a meter just as well - the numbers are an analogy of the
> temperature. Thus, your definition leads to the immediate paradox that
> digital is analogue - and thus, using the established "proof by
> contradiction" method, your definition must be false.
The 'digital' temp meter has made a translation in information type. It samples
the voltage, converts to digital and then discrete logic or s/w converts it into
numbers.
IAC, as previously ranted, I simply do not like the term analog for film as I
believe it had come up as some sort of counter for the term digital as applied
to cameras. Did anyone call film "analog" before digital? We certainly called
analog circuitry analog circuitry long before the great rise of digital systems.
(Most computers in my industry were certainly dominated by their analog
interfaces and sensors over the relative simplicity of the digital computer
part).... it never entered anyone's mind to call film "analog"... it was a
recording of an image and that image was (post dev.) identifiable as such on the
same film on which it was shot.
>
> In general terms, analogue means "continuous" whilst digital means
> "discrete".
I agree with that, but only as that is the nature of most analog signals. The
signal however remains some abstraction (as a voltage, current, frequency) of
something else it represents. A film image is undeniably an image.
Agree. I don't see how having more bits gives much improvement in the shaddows,
however, as a minute change in the light going through, with the high resolution
of the low order bits will raise the detector value from very low to some what
high. eg: a slight change in the light level will result in several bits worth
of information. (eg: go from values close to 0 to values in excess of 32 or 64,
quite quickly.)
> The problem this throws up is that the equations that both you and
> Dimitris have been debating relate to *linear* representations of
> signals, whilst our perception of density is very non-linear. It is
> well known that your vision is more sensitive to fine changes of
> luminance in the shadows than it is in the highlights of the scene,
> hence the use of gamma encoding to minimise the bit depth used to
> describe the image digitally. This means that the dynamic range
> required to describe the shadows on the image is much higher than
> dynamic range necessary to describe the highlights - however, your
> equations relate to a uniform dynamic range in a linear system which, at
> best, indicates an *average* dynamic range. Since perception of
> discrete steps is the driver for quantisation level, your equations for
> Drange should be applied in perceptual space, the space in which the
> discrimination of discrete steps is equal throughout the range, ie.
> perceptually linear. The results can then be transformed via the
> inverse gamma space to voltage, luminance and digital linear space to
> determine the Drange necessary to describe the shadows without
> posterisation, and thus the minimum Drange necessary on the scanner.
I'm beginning to see the light on this one. Thanks. Is it possible, then, to
map the gamma curve over the film to A/D response and thereby determine the
minimum number of bits required to span the response of the film?
Cheers,
Alan
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>
>>> Film is not an "analog", it is an image. ("Analog" means, "by
>>>analogy", such as a voltage representing a temperature sensor and a
>>>meter indicating that voltage as a temperature instead of as a voltage.).
>>>
>> However, Alan, by that definition (which I partially disagree with in
>>any case) film certain is an analogy of the scene, and thus analogue.
>
>An image of a scene is an image. We can look at it, project it, scan,
>replicate it, etc. We don't need to 'convert' its meaning in any way.
>
mass of grains and/or dye clouds to represent the luminance levels in
the original scene. The fact that this can be viewed as an image by
projecting light through it is no different from the voltage recording
of a sound wave, which can just as readily be used to reproduce a
further analogy of the original sound be feeding it to a speaker.
>> My disagreement with your definition becomes apparent when you
>>consider that the temperature can also be represented by a series of
>>digital numbers on a meter just as well - the numbers are an analogy
>>of the temperature. Thus, your definition leads to the immediate
>>paradox that digital is analogue - and thus, using the established
>>"proof by contradiction" method, your definition must be false.
>
>The 'digital' temp meter has made a translation in information type.
Only in the same way as the digital scan of the image, whether or not
film forms an intermediary step.
>It samples the voltage, converts to digital and then discrete logic or
>s/w converts it into numbers.
>
Just as happens with the scanner or digital camera.
>IAC, as previously ranted, I simply do not like the term analog for
>film as I believe it had come up as some sort of counter for the term
>digital as applied to cameras. Did anyone call film "analog" before
>digital? We certainly called analog circuitry analog circuitry long
>before the great rise of digital systems.
Actually, we didn't. In fact, even systems that we would now consider
to be digital in nature, such as the original PCM system proposed by
Alec Reeves in 1941 were not described as digital for some considerable
time, and neither were any that we would now call analogue so described.
Even Claude Shannon's 1948 paper on information theory, whilst refering
to systems of decimal-digits and binary-digits (and inventing the term
bit) failed to discriminate between analogue and digital encoding
schemes, referring to continuous and discrete. Even the original
publications on CCDs by Boyle & Smith or Amelio in 1970, as a device
which quantised what we would now term analogue signals in time, but not
level, did not use language to discriminate digital and analogue
techniques. The use of the terms analogue and digital first appear
during the development of the computer, to distinguish between computing
systems which used continuous analogue computations and those which used
discrete numerical calculations. The transfer of that terminology to
describe electrical systems only appears in the late 1960's when such
computational processing could be applied to real signals.
> (Most computers in my industry were certainly dominated by their
>analog interfaces and sensors over the relative simplicity of the
>digital computer part).... it never entered anyone's mind to call film
>"analog"... it was a recording of an image and that image was (post
>dev.) identifiable as such on the same film on which it was shot.
>
Nevertheless, just as we can now refer to the original telegraph system
as digital, film is an analogue representation of the image. The issue
being that it is effectively a continuous rather than a discrete record
of the luminance it each point in the scene. The fact that we didn't
understand the distinction at the time of the original invention doesn't
mean the distinction didn't exist. Darwin wasn't aware of DNA when he
recognised the principle of evolution, but we now know that it is random
mutations of DNA that is responsible for it.
>
>> In general terms, analogue means "continuous" whilst digital means
>>"discrete".
>
>I agree with that, but only as that is the nature of most analog
>signals.
It is the nature of *all* analogue systems. That is what distinguishes
digital from analogue. We have become used to consider digital as only
being binary in nature, with only two discrete levels, however there are
multi-level digital systems as well, with 3, 4, 5 or more discrete
levels of digital data. Indeed, if you ever used a 56K modem in your
computer then its operation at the highest data rate relied on such
multi-level digital signals.
> The signal however remains some abstraction (as a voltage, current,
>frequency) of something else it represents. A film image is undeniably
>an image.
It is still an abstraction in a different medium from the original scene
and does not contain all of the information of the original scene, only
a limited selection that camera lens can reproduce and the film record.
It is inherently analogue in nature.
>I don't see how having more bits gives much improvement in the
>shaddows,
Because your eye is more sensitive to changes in the shadows.
> however, as a minute change in the light going through, with the high
>resolution of the low order bits will raise the detector value from
>very low to some what high. eg: a slight change in the light level
>will result in several bits worth of information. (eg: go from values
>close to 0 to values in excess of 32 or 64, quite quickly.)
>
But, if the Drange of the digital data is the same as the Drange of the
analogue signal then you will not be able to represent those small
changes at low levels. You need more bits than the analogue Drange. In
addition to this, you need to digitise into the noise floor to
adequately represent the noise itself.
>> The problem this throws up is that the equations that both you and
>>Dimitris have been debating relate to *linear* representations of
>>signals, whilst our perception of density is very non-linear. It is
>>well known that your vision is more sensitive to fine changes of
>>luminance in the shadows than it is in the highlights of the scene,
>>hence the use of gamma encoding to minimise the bit depth used to
>>describe the image digitally. This means that the dynamic range
>>required to describe the shadows on the image is much higher than
>>dynamic range necessary to describe the highlights - however, your
>>equations relate to a uniform dynamic range in a linear system which,
>>at best, indicates an *average* dynamic range. Since perception of
>>discrete steps is the driver for quantisation level, your equations
>>for Drange should be applied in perceptual space, the space in which
>>the discrimination of discrete steps is equal throughout the range,
>>ie. perceptually linear. The results can then be transformed via the
>>inverse gamma space to voltage, luminance and digital linear space to
>>determine the Drange necessary to describe the shadows without
>>posterisation, and thus the minimum Drange necessary on the scanner.
>
>I'm beginning to see the light on this one. Thanks. Is it possible,
>then, to map the gamma curve over the film to A/D response and thereby
>determine the minimum number of bits required to span the response of
>the film?
>
Yes - it is somewhere in the region of 17 to 18-bits of linear encoding
with typical slide film.
Alan Browne
> projecting light through it is no different from the voltage recording
> of a sound wave, which can just as readily be used to reproduce a
> further analogy of the original sound be feeding it to a speaker.
I really don't want to debate this, but a voltage recording of a soundwave needs
a transducer to allow conversion back to the orignal sound. All I need to look
at filmphoto is the filmphoto.
>
>>> My disagreement with your definition becomes apparent when you
>>> consider that the temperature can also be represented by a series of
>>> digital numbers on a meter just as well - the numbers are an analogy
>>> of the temperature. Thus, your definition leads to the immediate
>>> paradox that digital is analogue - and thus, using the established
>>> "proof by contradiction" method, your definition must be false.
>>
>>
>> The 'digital' temp meter has made a translation in information type.
>
>
> Only in the same way as the digital scan of the image, whether or not
> film forms an intermediary step.
>
>> It samples the voltage, converts to digital and then discrete logic or
>> s/w converts it into numbers.
>>
> Just as happens with the scanner or digital camera.
That is a translation (or conversion). The film, alone, conveys the same
information without translation/conversion. A digital camera makes its A/D
conversion in real time and immediately afterwards destroys the image itself.
The file created is maeningless without interpretation (as is a scan).
> computational processing could be applied to real signals.
You're going back too far with that one.
>
>> (Most computers in my industry were certainly dominated by their
>> analog interfaces and sensors over the relative simplicity of the
>> digital computer part).... it never entered anyone's mind to call film
>> "analog"... it was a recording of an image and that image was (post
>> dev.) identifiable as such on the same film on which it was shot.
>>
> Nevertheless, just as we can now refer to the original telegraph system
> as digital, film is an analogue representation of the image. The issue
> being that it is effectively a continuous rather than a discrete record
> of the luminance it each point in the scene. The fact that we didn't
> understand the distinction at the time of the original invention doesn't
> mean the distinction didn't exist. Darwin wasn't aware of DNA when he
> recognised the principle of evolution, but we now know that it is random
> mutations of DNA that is responsible for it.
You're stretching you analogies further and further...
>
>> I don't see how having more bits gives much improvement in the shaddows,
>
>
> Because your eye is more sensitive to changes in the shadows.
That is now sufficiently clear, thanks.
>
>> however, as a minute change in the light going through, with the high
>> resolution of the low order bits will raise the detector value from
>> very low to some what high. eg: a slight change in the light level
>> will result in several bits worth of information. (eg: go from values
>> close to 0 to values in excess of 32 or 64, quite quickly.)
>>
> But, if the Drange of the digital data is the same as the Drange of the
> analogue signal then you will not be able to represent those small
> changes at low levels. You need more bits than the analogue Drange. In
> addition to this, you need to digitise into the noise floor to
> adequately represent the noise itself.
Got it.
>> I'm beginning to see the light on this one. Thanks. Is it possible,
>> then, to map the gamma curve over the film to A/D response and thereby
>> determine the minimum number of bits required to span the response of
>> the film?
>>
> Yes - it is somewhere in the region of 17 to 18-bits of linear encoding
> with typical slide film.
Thanks.
Alan Browne
> I've used both SE5400 and 5000ED in parallel for several months.
> After that, I've decided to keep Nikon and sell Minolta.
>
> Nikon scanner is
> * sharper! (esp. visible on Velvia scans)
Kinda goes against what you say below.
> * faster
Less pixels too.
> * can scan entire roll (with SA-30 adapter)
> * film loading is faster and confortable
>
> On the other side, Minolta can resolve more fine details but
> it is not needed for 35-mm scans (I've never print photos larger
> than 16x20 from 35-mm)
Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Cheers,
Alan.
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> projecting light through it is no different from the voltage
>>recording of a sound wave, which can just as readily be used to
>>reproduce a further analogy of the original sound be feeding it to a
>>speaker.
>
>I really don't want to debate this, but a voltage recording of a
>soundwave needs a transducer to allow conversion back to the orignal
>sound. All I need to look at filmphoto is the filmphoto.
>
recording of the scene. However you need several transducers to look at
the image on the film. The first of these, which actually comprises
several transducing steps, is development of the latent (analogous)
image into a density map and then secondly, after development, a
backlight by which to view that density mapped image. Not only that,
but the brightness of the image is dependent on the intensity of that
backlight, just as the volume of the reproduced soundwave depends on the
sensitivity of the speaker used.
There is no getting away from it, an image recorded on the film is
analogue, just as the latent image pre-development is analogue and just
as the image produced by the camera lens on the film is analogue itself.
Alex Tutubalin
>> Nikon scanner is
>> * sharper! (esp. visible on Velvia scans)
> Kinda goes against what you say below.
Sharpness and resolving power are _different_ characteristics.
In MTF terms, Nikon scanner has higher MTF in 30-50 cycles/mm
range.
>> * faster
> Less pixels too.
'information density' is not too high on SE5400.
I've never see 1-pixel details on Minolta scan at full res.
>> On the other side, Minolta can resolve more fine details but
>> it is not needed for 35-mm scans (I've never print photos larger
>> than 16x20 from 35-mm)
> Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sure. So scaner selection depends on planned average print size.
If you shot several films per year :) and every frame should be
printed larger than 16x20 in, go and buy Minolta.
For several dozens/hundreths of rolls per year and most prints 16x20 or
less - I recommend buy Nikon and use drum scans for larger prints.
I've used all mentioned scanners (sell Nik. 4000 to buy Minolta, than
returned to Nikon 5000 for mass scans, than sell SE5400 because not used).
Another problem for Minolta is edge-to-edge sharpness when scanning
first (or last) frame in 6-frames strip. DOF is very shallow so
film curl is a serious problem.
SE5400 is much better in edge-to-edge sharpness than Nikon _4000_
but not Nik. 5000.
Alex
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
"An analog (American English spelling) or analogue (British English
spelling) signal is any continuously variable signal. It differs from a
digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful.
Analog is usually thought of in an electrical context, however mechanical,
pneumatic, hydraulic, and other systems may also use analog signals.
The word "analog" implies an analogy between cause and effect, voltage in
and voltage out, current in and current out, sound in and frequency out.
An analog signal uses some property of the medium to convey the signal's
information. For example, an aneroid barometer uses rotary position as the
signal to convey pressure information. Electrically, the property most
commonly used is voltage followed closely by frequency, current, and
charge."
"Dynamic range is a term used frequently in numerous fields to describe the
ratio between the smallest and largest possible values of a changeable
quantity.
Audio engineers often use dynamic range to describe the ratio of the loudest
possible relatively-undistorted sound to silence or the noise level, say of
a microphone or loudspeaker.
Electronics engineers apply the term to:
a.. the ratio of a specified maximum level of a parameter, such as power,
current, voltage or frequency, to the minimum detectable value of that
parameter. (See Audio system measurements.)
b.. In a transmission system, the ratio of the overload level (the maximum
signal power that the system can tolerate without distortion of the signal)
to the noise level of the system.
c.. In digital systems or devices, the ratio of maximum and minimum signal
levels required to maintain a specified bit error ratio.
In music, dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest
volume of an instrument, part or piece of music.
Photographers use dynamic range as a synonym for the luminosity range of a
scene being photographed; the light sensitivity range of photographic film,
paper and digital camera sensors; the opacity range of developed film
images; the reflectance range of images on photographic papers."
1) Did I ever say that I mostly enjoy this ng because, besides the knowledge
I get on scanning my pictures, I get the chance to read such interesting
views from interesting people?
2) Note the comment on photographers.
3) A film image is analogue in the sense that there is no sampling,
quantisation and encoding. You are allowed to have as many digits to your
numbers as you want, at any point, and that's analogue. Maybe in contrast to
digital, but that's still what we call it. It might not be a time series,
but that's not a problem.
4) What I meant to say is that I think the "dynamic" or "light sensitivity"
range of a film does not have exactly the same meaning, nor usefulness, nor
maybe robust and precise methodology of definition, as in DSP. Anyhow, it
was just an observation, maybe just that I feel people use the dynamic range
for films as a property that should be written on the spec sheet of the
film. The value of 4 is something like an estimated upper bound - not the
actual maximum value that is recorded on the particular film type, which,
BTW can be stochastic.
Anyway, I really agree with the opinion of Kennedy on these two:
"computational processing could be applied to real signals"
and
" Nevertheless, just as we can now refer to the original telegraph system
as digital, film is an analogue representation of the image. The issue
being that it is effectively a continuous rather than a discrete record
of the luminance it each point in the scene. The fact that we didn't
understand the distinction at the time of the original invention doesn't
mean the distinction didn't exist. Darwin wasn't aware of DNA when he
recognised the principle of evolution, but we now know that it is random
mutations of DNA that is responsible for it."
Regards,
Dimitris
Bart van der Wolf
"Alex Tutubalin" <le...@lexa.ru> wrote in message
news:cpjcpb$1ham$1...@news.demos.su...
SNIP
> I've never see 1-pixel details on Minolta scan at full res.
I have, see:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Minolta_DSE5400_5400_scr
atch.jpg>
It's a small crop of a horizontal scratch on Provia film, rather than
a lens MTF limited projection of detail. The scratch is not exactly
horizontal, so you can see it cleanly going from one line of pixels to
the next and never occupy more than 2 pixels in between. You'll see a
slanted vertical edge at the right, which *is* limited by the
lens/focussing. So the scanner outresolves the film image detail.
If you like to know my scanner's MTF (no film, just the scanner-lens
and CCD):
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_DSE5400_GD.png>
You can see that even at the Nyquist limit of 106.3 cycles/mm there is
significant modulation, more than most films can resolve on high
contrast edges, and there is potential for aliasing if there is
film/grain detail with even higher spatial frequencies.
This all demonstrates that the lack of pixel detail is mostly due to
camera lens/focus and camera shake limitations, and the combined
lens+film+scanner MTFs in the total imaging chain. The scanner cannot
record what isn't there to begin with.
Bart
P.S. The LS-5000 would be Nyquist limited to a maximum of 78.7
cycles/mm, which would lose film detail if the lens and camera
technique are good.
Alan Browne
> Sharpness and resolving power are _different_ characteristics.
> In MTF terms, Nikon scanner has higher MTF in 30-50 cycles/mm
> range.
try this:
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
>> Doesn't mean they don't exist.
>
> Sure. So scaner selection depends on planned average print size.
> If you shot several films per year :) and every frame should be
> printed larger than 16x20 in, go and buy Minolta.
> For several dozens/hundreths of rolls per year and most prints 16x20 or
> less - I recommend buy Nikon and use drum scans for larger prints.
You're neglecting cropped prints as well.
See link above.
Alex Tutubalin
>> Sharpness and resolving power are _different_ characteristics.
>> In MTF terms, Nikon scanner has higher MTF in 30-50 cycles/mm
>> range.
> try this:
> http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
There is only one scan from CS5000. Also, results from SE5400 are very
different.
I've tested only one SE5400 (may be broken, but resolution was higher
than CS5k's :) and only one CS5000 (may be carefully selected by Nikon
to make me happy :).
>> For several dozens/hundreths of rolls per year and most prints 16x20
>> or less - I recommend buy Nikon and use drum scans for larger prints.
> You're neglecting cropped prints as well.
Sure. I prefer to crop 6x7 frames :)
Alex
Alan Browne
> There is only one scan from CS5000. Also, results from SE5400 are very
> different.
Variance is normal. Some scanners (people) are better at setting up their
machine and assuring sharp focus than others (similar variance occurs in other
scanners).
> I've tested only one SE5400 (may be broken, but resolution was higher
> than CS5k's :) and only one CS5000 (may be carefully selected by Nikon
> to make me happy :).
May be the case. Jim may be repeating the bake off, and so you could do your
own scan for the next round.
been...@att.net
was only based on a few samples, it is worth bearing in mind. You want
to avoid the flare problem at all costs.
mark wrote:
>
> I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
> minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
> other similarities, but in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
> software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
> What should be my other considerations when deciding between these two
> scanners. At first I was sold on the Minolta 5400, but I have read
> several less than inspiring reviews. While the Minolta model has an
> edge over the nikon by offering a claimed 5400 ppi, I have recently
> read a less than enthusiastic review in PC Magazine regarding the 5400
> (rating it worst among dedicated and flat bed scanners) and I have
> read several user reports complaining about mechanical malfunctions
> from users. In CNET, the review rated the Minolta 5400 7 out of 10
> with the following remarks: "While the Dimage 5400 produces very good
> scans, with excellent dynamic range and shadow detail, it isn't
> capable of the sharpness we saw from the Nikon Coolscan V. As you can
> tell, I am a little confused in deciding which model to pick. Any
> advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mark
been...@att.net
not mentioned by you or others.
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
> In article <bb070482.04120...@posting.google.com>, mark
> <mrop...@yahoo.com> writes
> >I am deciding between two scanners: the nikon coolscan 5000ED vs. the
> >minolta scan elite 5400. Both have a 4.8 Dynamic range and share
> >other similarities, but in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
> >software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
> >What should be my other considerations when deciding between these two
> >scanners. At first I was sold on the Minolta 5400, but I have read
> >several less than inspiring reviews. While the Minolta model has an
> >edge over the nikon by offering a claimed 5400 ppi, I have recently
> >read a less than enthusiastic review in PC Magazine regarding the 5400
> >(rating it worst among dedicated and flat bed scanners) and I have
> >read several user reports complaining about mechanical malfunctions
> >from users. In CNET, the review rated the Minolta 5400 7 out of 10
> >with the following remarks: "While the Dimage 5400 produces very good
> >scans, with excellent dynamic range and shadow detail, it isn't
> >capable of the sharpness we saw from the Nikon Coolscan V. As you can
> >tell, I am a little confused in deciding which model to pick. Any
> >advice would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> Whilst there have been a few bad reviews of the Minolta, it would appear
> that many of these are a consequence of superficial use, relying on the
> default focus, which is less than perfect. The manual focus control
> available on the scanner appears to make a significant improvement,
> based on the images that I have seen. There have been some excellent
> images produced by the Minolta which undeniably outperform those from
> the Nikon.
>
> As a long time Nikon scanner user, I have no hesitation in recommending
> the Minolta.
>
> Nikon's chief weapon is speed; speed and the optional roll film
> adapter...
> Nikon's two chief weapons are speed, the optional roll film adapter and
> the equally optional bulk slide feeder...
> No, no, Nikon's three weapons are speed, the optional roll film adapter,
> the optional bulk slide feeder AND the ability to work reliably with
> Vuescan...
> Dammit, AMONGST Nikon's weapons are...
> but if speed, bulk film and Vuescan aren't an issue, the Minolta is a
> better scanner - perhaps they expected the Spanish Inquisition!
> ;-)
been...@att.net
scanners. There seems to be more complaints from Nikon users on this
problem. Some suggested that it is due to Nikon's LED light source. Or
perhaps there are just more Nikon users.
Your implication that the LS5000 has less problem than the LS4000 is the
first time I have seen this comparison made. Nikon never claimed that it
has done anything to address this problem on the LS5000.
Alex Tutubalin
> The shallow dof appears to be a common problem on both of these
> scanners. There seems to be more complaints from Nikon users on this
> problem. Some suggested that it is due to Nikon's LED light source. Or
> perhaps there are just more Nikon users.
>
> Your implication that the LS5000 has less problem than the LS4000 is the
> first time I have seen this comparison made. Nikon never claimed that it
> has done anything to address this problem on the LS5000.
Nikon never claimed that CS4000 has DOF problem :)
I've used all three scanners mentioned. SE5400 has definitely more
DOF than CS4000 with motorized adapter. For SE5400 shallow DOF is a
problem only for first/last frames in strip (or for heavy curled film).
CS5000 has definitely more DOF than SE5400. I've directly compared
them when I own both (unfortunately, scan files not saved)
Alex
Alan Browne
> Check the "Flare on Minolta 5400" thread. Though my posted experience
> was only based on a few samples, it is worth bearing in mind. You want
> to avoid the flare problem at all costs.
I've had my 5400 for 15 months. I can find flare if I really dig for it.
Nothing as bad as the posted example.
Kennedy McEwen
writes
>
>CS5000 has definitely more DOF than SE5400. I've directly compared
>them when I own both (unfortunately, scan files not saved)
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?
In the short time I have played with an LS-5000 it seemed to have
identical DOF limitations as the LS-4000.
Kennedy McEwen
>I'm surprised that the different light sources on these two scanners are
>not mentioned by you or others.
>
asking about:
>> >in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
>> >software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
Bart van der Wolf
> been...@att.net 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
gew...@yahoo.com
equivalent Nikon scanners either here or at photo.net
Mike
Alex Tutubalin
>> CS5000 has definitely more DOF than SE5400. I've directly compared
>> them when I own both (unfortunately, scan files not saved)
> 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
>>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...?
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
writes
>> 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 ?
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
<alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> supporting evidence.
>
>Hey, this usenet, whaddya mean supporting evidence?
>
film curl, different resolution, or an actual DOF difference. So far
nothing that Alex has said indicates one way or another.