What Input Resolution for BW Negative?

[AFSmithphoto]

Two things. A Minolta can NOT do 5400 optical. Reality is in the 2000-2500 range. Just because something can generate that many pixels does not mean that the optical capturing system is that good. Only the Eversmart Supreme claims that much in a flatbed, and most drum scanners can do about 4000, with one or two at the 8000 level.

I think you're confused about which minolta he means. There are two Minolta 5400 Elite scanners (I and II) They are both dedicated film scanners, and both capable of far more than 2500. I haven't much experience with the I, but I own the II and it is the best 35mm scanner I've ever had the priveledge of working with. It blows away my Nikon 8000 (4000 dpi) for 35mm.

[Brian Ellis]

Based on the tests done by reviewers around the time the 4990 was first sold, it can resolve about 2100 - 2200 ppi. That's what I use when scanning 4x5 and 8x10 b&w film with mine. I don't use it to scan smaller formats.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think you're confused about which minolta he means. There are two Minolta 5400 Elite scanners (I and II) They are both dedicated film scanners, and both capable of far more than 2500. I haven't much experience with the I, but I own the II and it is the best 35mm scanner I've ever had the priveledge of working with. It blows away my Nikon 8000 (4000 dpi) for 35mm.

With all due respect, I am not confused. You are talking about manufacturer's numbers vs real resolution. There is no Minlota capable of more than 2500, nor is there e Nikon capable of 4000 - in optical resolution.

These are CCD scanners and there is physics to consider...

Lenny

[sanking]

Lenny,

You really should avoid commenting about equipment you yourself have not tested. Have you ever tested a Minolta 5400 Elite? The answer is obviously no, because if you had you would know that these machines are indeed capable of real resolution of 4000 dpi, or in fact higher.

Several years ago I saw some comparison scans of a very high resolution negative (Leitz aspherical glass, low ASA very high resolution film) made with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and a Minolta 5400. These scans were made by a very smart operator who knew how to get the most out of his camera and scanners. The Minolta scans captured more detail than the Howtek drum scanner, no doubt about it.

The fact that a scanner is based on a CCD does not mean that it is not capable of capturing a very high percentage of the stated optical resolution. Some do, many don't.

Sandy

With all due respect, I am not confused. You are talking about manufacturer's numbers vs real resolution. There is no Minlota capable of more than 2500, nor is there e Nikon capable of 4000 - in optical resolution.

These are CCD scanners and there is physics to consider...

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,
You really should avoid commenting about equipment you yourself have not tested. Have you ever tested a Minolta 5400 Elite? The answer is obviously no, because if you had you would know that these machines are indeed capable of real resolution of 4000 dpi, or in fact higher.

Sandy,
You should really stop making this personal. I have indeed seen scans from this machine. I believe it was a II, but its possible I am incorrect about that. I did scans with my machine, and the ones from the Minolta did not compare on a number of fronts. They weren't bad, just like a Nikon scan... which, with a glass carrier can be fine. The most surprising thing was that my Premier saw a lot more subtle colors that the other scanner didn't even see. The photographer agreed wholeheartedly. Did he have have an out of alignment Minolta? Could be.

Several years ago I saw some comparison scans of a very high resolution negative (Leitz aspherical glass, low ASA very high resolution film) made with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and a Minolta 5400. These scans were made by a very smart operator who knew how to get the most out of his camera and scanners. The Minolta scans captured more detail than the Howtek drum scanner, no doubt about it.

The fact that a scanner is based on a CCD does not mean that it is not capable of capturing a very high percentage of the stated optical resolution. Some do, many don't.

I would say its possible that many of the scanners work better if they are somehow perfectly aligned. I see no reason to doubt that you have seen something amazing happen. I would certainly say that a Howtek after a maintenance is way better than one before. I have experienced this directly.

I was just on Facebook looking at the posts of some of my friends. Everything they posted is a photo. Except that most things are actually not photos at all, but posters. It bothers me. As photographers, we make all kinds of things work. I see no reason why someone couldn't make a very nice print by taking a picture with a digital camera (even the smallest of them), making a digital neg at a reasonable size and making an alt process print. They can have atmosphere, lots of feeling to them and everything else. Is it the same as using an 8x10 neg and contact printing? No. It's different.

It's not right to say one is the same as the other.

I am not saying everyone needs a drum scan. But they are different, they do have a better sensor than a ccd, and the files come off of them are sharp. It isn't right to compare them to the consumer scanners. They're different.

Lenny

[sanking]

Lenny,

Yes, perhaps I should not have responded. Before commenting on your remarks about the capabilities of the Minolta scanner I should have reminded myself of something I read recently in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

"Even if you burst with indignation, they will still carry on regardless."

Sandy