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)