| Author |
Message |
Alan Browne
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:47 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
Alex Tutubalin wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | * faster
Less pixels too. |
| Quote: | * 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.
--
-- 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
In article <_x_ud.16785$xS6.114983@wagner.videotron.net>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes
| Quote: | 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.
Even if it were true it wouldn't prevent it from being an analogue |
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.
--
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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Tutubalin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:27 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
Alan Browne wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | * 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.
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dps
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:36 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:45 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
"Alex Tutubalin" <lexa@lexa.ru> wrote in message
news:cpjcpb$1ham$1@news.demos.su...
SNIP
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Browne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:24 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
Alex Tutubalin wrote:
| Quote: | 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
| Quote: | 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.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Tutubalin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
Alan Browne wrote:
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 :).
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Browne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:07 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
Alex Tutubalin wrote:
| Quote: | 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).
| Quote: | 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.
--
-- 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:35 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
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.
mark wrote:
| Quote: |
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
I'm surprised that the different light sources on these two scanners are
not mentioned by you or others.
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <bb070482.0412041535.23914829@posting.google.com>, mark
mroplatka@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!
;-)
--
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) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:43 pm Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
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.
Alex Tutubalin wrote:
| Quote: |
Alan Browne wrote:
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Tutubalin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:26 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
beenthere@att.net wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Browne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:29 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
beenthere@att.net wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
--
-- 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:30 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
In article <cpq34p$14bi$1@news.demos.su>, Alex Tutubalin <lexa@lexa.ru>
writes
| Quote: |
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
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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:34 am Post subject:
Re: nikon 5000ed vs minolta 5400 |
|
|
In article <41C075A6.6FEF96D@att.net>, beenthere@att.net writes
| Quote: | I'm surprised that the different light sources on these two scanners are
not mentioned by you or others.
Because it doesn't directly feature in the parameters that Mark was |
asking about:
| Quote: | in terms of use, image capture, resolution,
software, reliability and end results which is the right one to pick?
-- |
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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in