Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kennedy · Aug 13, 2003, 04:40 AM

Saw the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III.
Seems like a much easier way to scan in reams of pictures... just feed in your negatives. Has anyone used this?

Does it scan super-high-DPI such that you get as high quality a scan as if you scanned an 8x11 print off that negative? or off a 4x6 print? or off a 3.5x5.25 print?

Are there cheaper options? (I've seen much more expensive options...)

datawrangler · Aug 13, 2003, 04:33 PM

I don't have a Minolta, but I do have a Nikon CoolScan IV ED film scanner. I assume they have similar resolution. The Nikon is 2900 dpi, which produces scans of 35mm at about 4100 x 2800 pixels. We're talking really high resolution here. Professional film scanners achieve greater resolutions, but 2900 dpi is sufficient for most if not all home photography. I print 12 x 18 enlargements from these scans on my Epson Photo Stylus 1270 and the quality is great.

emdash · Aug 13, 2003, 06:01 PM

Well, Steve (of Steve's Digicams) seems to like it.

The bottom line is that you'll be way, way, way happier with a dedicated slide/negative scanner than with trying to scan slides, negatives, or prints on a flatbed scanner.

According to Steve, this Minolta model makes 2,688 x 4,032 scans, which is close to 11 megapixels -- not too shabby. By contrast, my Nikon LS-4000 does 3,654 x 5,646 scans, or about 20 megapixels in digicam-speak. It's really dazzling to have pixels that are smaller than the film grain, and it's an important factor if you're trying to do really fussy work; it may or may not be important in your case, though.

I love my Nikon 4000, but the Minolta seems like quite a worthy machine, and you can't beat the price! I'd say go for it!

superblue · Aug 14, 2003, 02:02 AM

Just out of interest, are most modern film scanners now Firewire based? I've always fancied one but those I've come across have been SCSI. I don't own any SCSI equipent and don't intend to start. Any recommendations for home/semi-pro use?

datawrangler · Aug 14, 2003, 08:55 AM

Most modern film scanners are USB and/or Firewire devices. The Nikon CoolScan IV ED I use is USB 1.1. When I bought it, I was concerned that USB would be too slow, but couldn't justify the expense of a high-end Firewire model, either. As it turns out, USB is adequate for me. I always scan at maximum quality, and it takes 2-3 minutes total. Much of that time is spent acquiring and processing the image - I don't know how much faster it would be over a Firewire bus.

Ron Goodman · Aug 14, 2003, 09:17 AM

If you're going to buy a film scanner, take a look at Vuescan(www.hamrick.com). Vuescan provides better scanner support for the most part than that provided with the scanner and is constantly being updated. Minolta has a new 5400 dpi model which is getting good reviews.

emdash · Aug 14, 2003, 02:22 PM

The Nikon Coolscan IV is USB 1.1, as noted by datawrangler; the Coolscan 4000 is FireWire; the Minolta model that sparked this thread is USB 2.

I honestly can't say how much of a factor FireWire is. My scans take a good 10 minutes (!) each, but most of that time is Digital ICE/GEM processing.

superblue: I don't think you can go wrong with any of these three scanners; you just have to decide if you want to spend $300, $600, or $1200.

Camera God · Aug 14, 2003, 04:10 PM

I would go with the NIkon based on the fact that it uses an LED light source. It is more consistant than the cold-cathode fluorescent tube of the Minolta.

One other factor is the Dynamic range. I like the Coolscan 4000 because of the better than color negative dynamic range. I wouldn't want inferior tonal ranges as input right off the bat.

Good luck with the purchase though,
-CG

Powaqqatsi · Aug 14, 2003, 05:32 PM

The Minoltas are the best bang for your buck. Take my word for it. I have a new one on order right now. The Nikons are a bit too expensive.

kennedy · Aug 15, 2003, 01:05 PM

This MacWorld article makes an interesting point:

The Dimage Scan Elite II has some capabilities that greatly speed the import of a lot of pictures vs. the Dimage Scan Dual III. Though $400 may see a lot for some features, if you're thinking of pulling in 10 years of film into digital format (as I am), that $400 may mean time savings worth far more than that.

So, that leads to the next questions:

1) Those of you with these scanners, how long do you have to spend manually adjusting each frame? How long does it take to scan in 20 frames of negatives? (And what scanner and software are you using?)

2) Can anyone confirm the time savings offered by the higher-end Minoltas vs. the Dimage Scan Dual III?

3) How "automatic" is the scanning by the Nikon? How much manual adjustment do you need on each frame to get good quality? Its 4-digit pricetag might be far more justifiable, if in addition to the higher resolution you also get much faster scanning of lots and lots of frames.

Thanks again.

emdash · Aug 15, 2003, 02:29 PM

Nikon Coolscan 4000/Nikon Scan 3.1 user here....

1) Those of you with these scanners, how long do you have to spend manually adjusting each frame? How long does it take to scan in 20 frames of negatives? (And what scanner and software are you using?)

I don't do any manual adjustment at all when scanning; I leave that all to subsequent Photoshop sessions. (IMHO, Photoshop is better optimized for that sort of thing.) The only manual tweak I do is realigning the frames; for some reason, the scanner often mis-aligns the frames on the negative strip -- mildly annoying, but it takes 2 seconds to fix. (The design of the Minolta filmstrip holder looks like it would eliminate this problem -- though, of course, it's actually just changed the problem from a software offset adjustment to a physical exercise in filmstrip placement). I don't crop or anything while scanning; I just pop in the negative strip, click the "manual offset" buttons if necessary, select the frames I want to scan, click "Batch scan", and go do something else. When I come back, I have four or five new huge tiff files in my scan folder.

It takes about 10 minutes per scan on my Sawtooth 450 with Digital ICE and GEM turned on. Thus, one negative strip takes 40 or 50 minutes, depending. in the bad old days of OS 9, I couldn't do anything with my computer while the scanning was taking place, but now I can.

If you're really hardcore, Nikon makes a roll-film adapter that would let you scan in a whole roll at a time (you'd have to keep the photo lab from cutting the negatives after processing them, naturally). Haven't tried this. They also make a batch-slide-loading appliance; haven't tried this either.

3) How "automatic" is the scanning by the Nikon? How much manual adjustment do you need on each frame to get good quality? Its 4-digit pricetag might be far more justifiable, if in addition to the higher resolution you also get much faster scanning of lots and lots of frames.

For me, it's absolutely automatic, as noted above (and aside from the manual offset glitch). As far as I'm concerned, there's no point to adjusting curves, colors, etc. in Nikon Scan; I just want pixels, and I'll mess with them in Photoshop later.

It did take a little while initially to arrive at Digital ICE and GEM settings that I found optimal, but now that's set and I've moved on with my life. You do have to revisit those settings if you use a dramatically different film, though (as I found out when trying to scan some Tri-X for a friend -- yikes!).

Hope that helps!

kennedy · Sep 29, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by kennedy:
So, that leads to the next questions:

1) Those of you with these scanners, how long do you have to spend manually adjusting each frame? How long does it take to scan in 20 frames of negatives? (And what scanner and software are you using?)

2) Can anyone confirm the time savings offered by the higher-end Minoltas vs. the Dimage Scan Dual III?

3) How "automatic" is the scanning by the Nikon? How much manual adjustment do you need on each frame to get good quality? Its 4-digit pricetag might be far more justifiable, if in addition to the higher resolution you also get much faster scanning of lots and lots of frames.

Thanks again.

Anybody else use either the Minolta or Nikon scanners???

A deal on the Nikon expires tomorrow, so I need to make this decision... but don't yet feel I have enough data... especially given the HUGE price differences.

I am planning to scan in a HUGE amount of film... so, I am willing to pay more if it is really a time saver. But at 10 minutes a photo, I am wondering if the best option is to wait for the next generation of film scanners. To suck in a mere 100 rolls of film, that's 600 hours! 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 15 weeks! To keep the machine fed, I need spend very little time, but need to be there every hour or so. It would be nice if I could load up say 10 separate strips such that it keeps feeding and scanning all day without human involvement... one roll a day.

Do either Minolta or Nikon have any such thing in the works that I should wait for? Where are those rumor boards?

Thanks for anything that might help my decision!

OreoCookie · Sep 30, 2003, 04:59 AM

I for one use my Epson 1660 Photo to scan negatives. I get a bit more than 3 MP which is perfectly fine for inkjet output. There is a good Minolta model for less than 500 Euros, a bargain basically. Excellent quality. As many people have pointed out here: you don't need more than that.

OreoCookie · Sep 30, 2003, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by kennedy:
Anybody else use either the Minolta or Nikon scanners???

A deal on the Nikon expires tomorrow, so I need to make this decision... but don't yet feel I have enough data... especially given the HUGE price differences.

I am planning to scan in a HUGE amount of film... so, I am willing to pay more if it is really a time saver. But at 10 minutes a photo, I am wondering if the best option is to wait for the next generation of film scanners. To suck in a mere 100 rolls of film, that's 600 hours! 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 15 weeks! To keep the machine fed, I need spend very little time, but need to be there every hour or so. It would be nice if I could load up say 10 separate strips such that it keeps feeding and scanning all day without human involvement... one roll a day.

Do either Minolta or Nikon have any such thing in the works that I should wait for? Where are those rumor boards?

Thanks for anything that might help my decision!

Well, then go for the one with a roll adapter and tell your lab not to cut the negatives/positives. In Germany, it is usually cut after four pix. Six would be nice so that all slots in my scanner are filled and the negatives take up less space.

kennedy · Sep 30, 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, then go for the one with a roll adapter and tell your lab not to cut the negatives/positives. In Germany, it is usually cut after four pix. Six would be nice so that all slots in my scanner are filled and the negatives take up less space.

Yeah, but that doesn't do much for the hundreds of rolls I have already developed... already cut into the traditional four pix.

emdash · Sep 30, 2003, 03:59 PM

My hunch is that my Nikon 4000 would be significantly faster on a faster computer. But that's rank speculation; I have no info to back that up.

The bigger question I have for you, kennedy, is, do you really want 60 or 120 MB tiffs of each shot on every one of your hundreds of rolls? I mean, more power to you if so, but that's a hell of a lot of gigabytes of pictures to wrangle. If you're just looking to do cataloging/iPhoto type stuff at this point, maybe you ought to do your batch scanning on some low-res flatbed or something and then do high-res scanning on images you select out of your catalog. Just a thought....