Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Scanning B&W film via a Nikon LS-4000 vs. a Minolta Elite 5400 Conventional wisdom says that a film scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan does not scan B&W film well because the scanner light source acts like the light source in a condenser enlarger ("collimated" light source) and the B&W film's silver grains scatter the light and thus the scans are more contrasty and the grains "clump" together. There is a nice diagram illustrating the light source differences (condenser vs. diffuser) on this web site: http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html. One important note is that this site does not present any photos supporting this claim. http://www.scanhancer.com/ sells a diffuser plate for the Minolta Multipro scanner and they make a similar claim that the Multipro with their Scan Enhancer (or the Minolta Elite 5400 with the Minolta's own grain dissolver) makes less grainy scans, especially on color scans. I have been using the Nikon LS-4000 scanners for over 3 years, scanning well over 300 rolls of slides. I process my own slides on a Jobo rotary processor and bulk scan the whole strip of 36-38 exposures using the Nikon bulk film adapter. For the past six months, I have been gradually doing more and more B&W, and playing with different film types and developers. Again, the films are developed in the Jobo and then scanned in. While searching for the web for scanning info, I found the sites mentioned above. Since my local camera shop rents the Elite 5400 per day basis, it is a cheap way to find out whether the conventional wisdom is right or not. I use Vuescan to drive both scanners, setting the film type to B&W, "Generic" vendor and selecting "White Balance." Personally I do not find Vuescan's user interface particularly friendly or intuitive, but it does produce good scans. The short answer is that I see no noticeable contrast differences. The so called "clumping" effect due to the collimated light sources is not apparent at all. I have tested it on Delta 400, HP5+, Efke 100, and Tri X, processed (mostly) in Xtol, and a few in Rodinal and D76. Some of the rolls were pushed but most are used in the box speed. The light scattering effect does show up in the Nikon scans as being more dusty. Unfortunately, you cannot use the automatic dust removal system (usually a technology called ICE) built into these scanners on B&W film as ICE uses the IR channel to detect dust and scratches. So it is worthwhile to keep your negatives clean. In fact, whether due to its higher resolution or other factors, the Minolta scans seem to be more grainy. (All photos are not processed except with an USM of 120%/1/0 since scanners are known to soften the scans) The following is the engine compartment of a working 1911 Pierce Arrow. This is an Elite 5400 scan. The film is not held flat by the scanner mechanism so notice the left and right edges are out of focus: http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/elite5400.jpg 100% crop: http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/elite_enlarged.jpg The Nikon 4000 scan. http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/Nikon4000.jpg 100% crop: http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/scanner_tests/Nikon_enlarged.jpg Since the Nikon scan is 4000 DPI, the 100% crop is smaller than the Elite's. Notice also the hair or dust on the Nikon enlargement :-( In summary: while there are real benefits to the diffuser light source on the Elite 5400 with the grain dissolver option (e.g. less dusty scans), there is no discernable differences otherwise. If anything, the Nikon scans seems less grainy and are sharper since the film is held flatter. The Nikon is also significantly faster. However Minolta just releases Elite 5400 II so it may have even the score in the speed front. The Minolta is also cheaper than the LS-4000 or the LS-5000 replacement. // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com)