Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/10/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In my case, I've had the 5400 for about three weeks and have done a few dozen scans, at all resolutions, mainly HP5+, Tri-X, Kodak Ultra 400 and a vew Velvia slides. The software installed without much trouble but I couldn't get the green pilot lamp to stop flashing until I found -buried in the manual- that the scan utility must be running before attempting to use the scanner. After that all was well. The scanner is connected through Firewire. To this date there has been no problem whatsoever that I can relate to the scanner or its software. Since my previous scanner was an Epson 2450 which I've kept for MF and LF, as well as reflective scans, I don't have a good comparison point for quality. However, I can attest that the prints that my 2200 does out of the 5400 scans, put to shame my silver prints done with a LPL 4500 and a Schneider Componon 50/2.8 at f/5.6, its optimum aperture. The scans of HP5+ processed in Xtol 1:1 apparently show the actual grain structure, not grain aliasing. On finer films, I cannot judge. About stability, I ran both the Minolta 5400 and the Epson 2450 (which is connected to USB2 for safety sake) at the same time through their standalone scan apps successfully. I could not get Photoshop 7 to run both plugins at the same time tho. My system is a PC with 1.0Gb of RAM on a P4 2.41GHz Intel processor running under WinXP. I hope it helps. Jorge. * * * www.jorgemtrevino.com * * * - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Anyone been using the DiMAGE 5400? > At 9:17 AM -0700 10/13/03, Adam Bridge wrote: > >I'm wondering how this puppy does around issues related to grain > >aliasing. It's > >attractive because it has a full 16bit imaging system at 5000dpi. > > > >Adam > > I have one right now that I'm trying out on a Mac with OSX 10.2. My > own scanner since it came out has been the Nikon 8000, so that is my > reference. I've also tried the Nikon 4000. > > The Nikon 8000 is considerably better than the 4000 w.r.t. B&W, > probably because it uses a different type of sensor array (3 rows). > It suffers from the lack of depth of field the same as the 4000, so > for any critical work I use the glass holder that I got for MF work. > > The 'Konica Minolta' DiMage 5400 is very good both with respect to > grain aliasing and depth of field. I seems to have no problems with > any film I have tried with it to date, and does a fine job right into > the corners. I have tried Tri-X, HP-5 and Delta 100 all recently > developed in Xtol, as well as old 1960's Tri-X souped in D-76 and > Acufine, FP4 in Perceptol and the old High Contrast Copy and H&W's > film in their developer. No aliasing artifacts noticed. > > What was interesting was that even HP5, shot at 800 and developed in > Xtol, showed more detail with the Minolta than the same frame scanned > on the 8000. The finer grained films obviously showed more detail. > The 5400 can also penetrate deeper into the denser negative areas, so > even in the severely overexposed areas some gradations are still > visible, well after the Nikon has given up. > > Mechanically, the unit is well made, and the film holders are of a > much better and probably longer lasting design than Nikon's. > > Scan times were fast (about 1-1/2 minutes to get a 72Mb 16 bit > grayscale image). I used the firewire port, as I don't have a USB 2 > port. Speeds should be comparable. This was faster than the Nikon, > which produced a 40Mb 16 bit grayscale tiff file in about 2-1/2 > minutes, also over firewire. > > The software seems to be reasonable, and was as good as anything to > work with. I used version 1.1.1, which I got off the web. I didn't > load the stuff from the CD, nor the Photoshop Elements that it comes > with, but used Photoshop 7 instead. > > So much for the good stuff. > > There is no strip or bulk loader available. :-( > > At first, I plugged everything in, and started the standalone > software. It said that either no scanner was attached, or that some > other software was using the scanner. I had plugged the firewire into > a hub, as I have a total of 8 firwire devices, and only two ports on > the machine. My older Epson flatbed scanner is somewhat fussy, so it > gets the virgin port on the computer while everything else goes > through a hub or is daisy chained. > > I tried plugging it into the port on the machine directly, and > rebooted the machine just for good measure. Otherwise I only reboot > about once a month, and I haven't had a kernel crash for 10 months. > > This worked, and the scanning software worked fine. I played around, > and made a number of scans which were all easy to adjust in > Photoshop. I then quit the software, and tried starting again. No go. > Had to reboot. Then the software recognized the scanner again. I > tried Vuescan, which now has support for the 5400. This is > non-workable at the moment, because whatever you do, Vuescan wants to > 'warm up' the lamp for about 3 minutes. It takes you nearly 25 > minutes to get one scan. I gave up after one scan (which was fine). > > I then tried the photoshop plugin, but it works essentially the same > as the standalone utility (which is what the plug-in calls), but > seems even flakier. > > The final straw came when Photoshop froze, and also locked up the > whole machine in the middle of setting up the plug-in, so that I had > to hard boot the system. When I booted up again, nothing on either > firewire port was visible (Nikon scanner, four hard drives, CD drive, > printer etc) including the Minolta. Things didn't get back to normal > until I unplugged the Minolta scanner. > > So. The hardware seems great, but the firmware on the scanner doesn't > do things right as far as I can tell. The USB 2 connection might be > better, but I would have to buy a card (third party of course) and > I'm not sure I want to try that. If you want to use the firewire > port, I wouldn't consider the scanner until they offer a firmware > upgrade. USB 1.1 might work, but with 72Mb for a grey scale scan, and > over 200 Mb for a colour scan at max resolution, this is a solution > for masochists only. > > -- > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html