Okay - somebody kick me. Kick me hard.
I have been using the Dimage 5400 film scanner for a long time. I have been using it with the “grain dissolver.” I set this up as a job a long time ago, and never really did tests with the dissolver on and off. The scanner is also set to do a 2x multi-pass to pick up more in the shadows. I did do tests with the multi-scan option and found enough difference in what was picked up in the shadow areas to double the scan time. But –
This morning - just for the hell of it - this is what I discovered: To do a full 5400 scan with the dissolver @ 2x passes takes about 7 - 8 minutes. The same image scanned at 2x with the “dissolver” off takes 2.5 minutes.
Maybe worthwhile if the results were significantly better with the dissolver - but in fact the dissolver gives a slightly softer rendition which is then “fixed” when you unsharp it later which also brings back the grain.
The difference between the two renditions is so slight - that looking at both versions of a scan side by side - if I didn’t know which was which - I don’t think I could tell.
So there you go. How could I not have noticed this way back when? I think I need a supervisor to watch what I’m doing or at the very least, a wizard to pop up saying - are you sure you want to increase the time it takes to do a scan? Or - you might want to look at the manual - page 32 before you press that nice icon on the toolbar.
I have not been using the grain dissolover but did activate the dust removal function. I don’t know if that ads any time to the process. I have been scanning at 3200 which is as high as IV will go. Does not appear to have a 2X function, althoug the book is written in aviation english.
Comment by Craig Nisnewitz — September 9, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
hey Dave- what is the output size of your scans (in pixels)?
Nikon has a grain management tool in their film scanning software but it has never proven useful to me. I want to try it sometime with TMZ…
Comment by emory — September 9, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
bill - output file:
dpi 240 (which is what I print at)
print size: 20 x 29 inches
pixels: 7016 x 4786
16 bit scan filesize about 70 MB.
I do my touching up on the big file, then scale down for the print; and then again for the web.
Comment by Dave Beckerman — September 9, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Good, I thought those scans you did took forever, and now the idea of finally buying a film scanner and entering the 21st century, seems plausible…
Comment by matt — September 9, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Matt - and the new Dimage 5400 II is faster and cheaper.
Comment by Dave Beckerman — September 9, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
Dave, what scanner are you using for the medium and 4×5 negs?
Comment by JeffK — September 9, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
Jeff - the short answer is the Epson 1600.
It’s okay for the 4 x 5 stuff; but barely makes it with the medium format.
I scan them in 16-bit color. I tweak the thing to give it a deep orange color. Then it goes into Power Retouche where I have a setting saved that turns it to b&w by removing the orange cast.
Dumb but the only way I could get a good dynamic range out of the thing.
Comment by Dave Beckerman — September 9, 2005 @ 7:12 pm
Ow…head hurts after readng all this. My setup is out ot commission at the moment (it’s set up physically, but nothing’s hooked up yet in the New Abode), but here’s the score about the 5400 (first version):
When you invoke Digital ICE, the Grain Dissolver automatically kicks in. No way to separate the two functions unless you use VueScan as your principal scanning app. None of this applies for scanning conventional b/w film since, of course, DICE doesn’t work with such film. DICE will slow down your scan speed noticeably; it’s just a question of a trade-off between how long it takes to do a DICE-aided scan of a piece of C41/E6 film versus doing manual “spotting” in PS (I’ll choose DICE every time, thanks); with b/w, you just deal with making sure your ned is as clean as you can get it before shoving it in the film scanner, and deal with the spotty bits as necessary. THe end resuld will likely be worth it.
The K-M 5400 II is faster than the first 5400, but it’s a six-of-one/half-dozen-of-the-other deal, as the original 5400 utilizes a fluorescent tube versus the “new” 5400’s Nikon-style LEDs. Which is “better”? Dog knows, but I’m keeping my 5400-I, as I’ve been crazy-happy with it (and working towards possessing its natural companion in the printing world, the Epson 4800).
As far as scanning 4×5/8×10 film goes, I hear this is the hot performance/value setup at the moment:
http://tinyurl.com/8ymqf
Comment by Barrett — September 9, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
Barrett, I was just reading a site with scans of a 4×5 done on the Epson 4990 vs. a Howtek drum scanner and the Epson was so close to the Howtek it was amazing!
Here is a link to the Epson for $399 on Amazon!
http://tinyurl.com/c6zao
The Epson 4990 can’t match the Dimage 5400 II for 35mm, however.
Comment by JeffK — September 10, 2005 @ 1:28 am
Jeff: True, but what a wonderful two-scanner come my o for the multi-format photographer (But since I’m a strictly-35mm shooter, I stick with mt 5400, and use large UMAX 2100XL for digital contact sheets - I can scan two rolls at once! - and the occasional MF or larger scan for others once in a while.
Comment by Barrett — September 10, 2005 @ 1:43 am