Scanhancer? have you tried it? I have.

[jtk]

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15

Have you played with Scanhancer?

I'm amazed that the website continues to exist. It focuses on defunct Minolta scanner.

My Minolta failed after a few scans due to bad physical design/construction and was returned in 2005 via Amazon, which replaced it with my Nikon V. The few Minolta scans I was able to make were as good as Nikon's subsequent scans.
.
I last corresponded with Scanhancer in 2005.

I'm wondering if Scanhancer, as a diffuser for spectral light, would contribute to camera digitizing ("dslr scanning") if someone had a lot of scratched slides or can't remove dust easily. Several on Photrio are apparently plagued with that problem.

 

[jtk]

Should mention that after I returned the Minolta I tried to use Scanhancer with my Nikon V...which didn't like the extended exposure time demanded by Scanhancer on top of the dreadfully long exposure required already by the Minolta. Returned the Scanhancer.

 

[Bayliss]

Should mention that after I returned the Minolta I tried to use Scanhancer with my Nikon V...which didn't like the extended exposure time demanded by Scanhancer on top of the dreadfully long exposure required already by the Minolta. Returned the Scanhancer.

Ah did you get the Scanhancer recently? I tried to order one via the Scanhancer website but apparently they've been sold out for a while - I really want to try one with my Minolta.

 

[jtk]

I don't think I can find my Scanhancer but will PM you if I do. Probably discarded. It seemed to be simply a properly sized piece of pehaps-specialized, opal-white-seeming plastic.

Amazon called (!) to explain that they wouldn't sell more Minolta scanners or cameras. I had tried to order #3 after 2 failed scanners so I switched to Nikon.

If you compare the 35mm Nikon to the 35mm Minolta as I did before returning Minolta #2 you will see that Nikon is FAR better-built physically...weighted a ton. Minolta managed a couple of scans before it died....I suspect the "specular" issue had to do with the kind of light Minolta, not Nikon, used.....perhaps somebody has figured out a way to replace Minolta light source.

Should stress that my bad experience with Minolta had to do with the 35mm scanner, not the medium format version. It might be that the MF version got more care in manufacturing or engineering than the 35mm version.

 

[Bayliss]

I don't think I can find my Scanhancer but will PM you if I do. Probably discarded. It seemed to be simply a properly sized piece of pehaps-specialized, opal-white-seeming plastic.

Amazon called (!) to explain that they wouldn't sell more Minolta scanners or cameras. I had tried to order #3 after 2 failed scanners so I switched to Nikon.

If you compare the 35mm Nikon to the 35mm Minolta as I did before returning Minolta #2 you will see that Nikon is FAR better-built physically...weighted a ton. Minolta managed a couple of scans before it died....I suspect the "specular" issue had to do with the kind of light Minolta, not Nikon, used.....perhaps somebody has figured out a way to replace Minolta light source.

Should stress that my bad experience with Minolta had to do with the 35mm scanner, not the medium format version. It might be that the MF version got more care in manufacturing or engineering than the 35mm version.

Ah interesting! Let me know if you do find it - I'd be very interested in trying it!
Thanks,
Bayliss.

 

[brbo]

If you compare the 35mm Nikon to the 35mm Minolta as I did before returning Minolta #2 you will see that Nikon is FAR better-built physically...weighted a ton. Minolta managed a couple of scans before it died....I suspect the "specular" issue had to do with the kind of light Minolta, not Nikon, used.....perhaps somebody has figured out a way to replace Minolta light source.

Why (and how) did you use Scanhancer on a 35mm Minolta. There is no mention of Scanhancer for 35mm Minolta scanners on their site. Minolta 5400 already has a built-in "scanhancer" (called "grain dissolver"). Did you use it on Minolta 5400 II?

 

[jtk]

Tried to send a response earlier, sorry.

a) Scanhancer was an accessory sold by an individual not connected with Minolta.

b) Minolta never sold Scanhancer. It wasn't a mere "grain dissolver."

c) arguably my three scans looked equal in the same critical image to Nikon. I opened both (during several day lag time at Amazon) and was shocked to see how crappy the Minolta was physically compared to the Nikon replacement (V5). Was informed at that time that Minolta service techs couldn't deal with all the returned Minolta DSLRs much less the scanners.

d) ALSO arguably (my guess) the effect might have been similar to Zeiss (Hass or Rollei) " Softar " filter, which gives ONE sharp level of focus along with softening continuous out-of-focus:: very sharp eyes etc and softened skin. When you closely inspect a Softar filter you can see thousands of little lenses (like a fly's eye). Scanhancer seemed to be totally smooth. .

 

[brbo]

I know perfectly well what Scanhancer is (maybe you got the idea I don't because you read my sentence in a way that I was looking for Scanhancer on Minolta's site when I was saying that I never found any mention that Scanhancer is being offered for Minolta 5400 on Scanhancer's site?).

And I was merely asking how did you use it on a Minolta 5400 (if that even was a scanner you were using it on, since you haven't specified your Minolta scanner model beyond being a "35mm Minolta scanner").

As for Scanhancer not being a mere "grain dissolver"... I don't understand what's so "mere" about grain dissolver? Scanhancer is quite proud of Minolta and Imacon copying their diffuser and even their FAQ says:

"The sharper Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 does not need a Scanhancer 5LE because it has a similar device (Minolta calls it "Grain Dissolver") built in. The new Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II does not need a Scanhancer. It does not have a "Grain Dissolver" built in, but it has a fixed light diffuser that makes the scanner act like a compromise between scanning with and without "Grain Dissolver". Only for scanning B&W silverbased emulsions this scanner's light source is not optimized. Tests with a Scanhancer inside the Elite 5400 II have shown that some improvement is possible in this field."

 

[250swb]

It was around 2005 when I was using a Scanhancer with my Minolta Multi Pro, the idea seemed sound and it worked very well. It was a very low tech but clever idea for a diffuser, a rectangle of opal or semi opaque white Perspex with one side flatted to give it a very fine matt surface. It may possibly have been some super-duper optical quality Perspex (but I think that unlikely, it just didn't have any distortion which good quality Perspex doesn't anyway), but ostensibly it's something that could be experimented with at home by scrounging a few offcuts.

 

[jtk]

Scanhancer's website (which may be an antique) claims their diffuser (whatever) did work with Multi Pro but denies that it works on 5400II. In order to confuse things, it claimed it wasn't needed in the earlier 5400 because that had adequate grain dissolving.

The current (antique?) Scanhancer website is still pretending Scanhancer may work on 5400II.

Nobody other than me seems to have tried Scanhancer with 5400II..

I suspect the genius behind Scanhancer is still trying to make money off something that never worked with 5400II (and was never needed on the original, perhaps properly built , 5400).

Visit the one Scanhancer review to see that the second version (5400II) was crappy plastic whereas the original version might have been something better.

When Amazon kindly sent me a Nikon V I still had possession of 5400II (the plastic junk version). The Nikon weighed pounds more than the Minolta,, which prompted me to open the plastic case and discover Minolta's lousy internal construction.

 

[jtk]

Switching to a positive note, Nikon V has worked totally reliably ever since I got rid of that Minolta. Good decision per Amazon's telephone advice. Hard to believe Amazon actually used telephones to handle some situations.

 

[shijan]

I used Scanhancer with 5400II when my scanner was alive. At that time i request to cut glass in special size, so i glue it to the light door instead of original diffuse sheet. Overall as expected it didn't make any dramatic difference in grain look, but combined with some other diffusion filters between light lenses elements it successfully blurred well known magenta/yellow shaded stripes caused by randomly aged LEDs array in that scanner. It also creates tiny cool blue color cast. And scan time was increased a lot.

 

[Archiloque]

I used Scanhancer with 5400II when my scanner was alive. At that time i request to cut glass in special size, so i glue it to the light door instead of original diffuse sheet. Overall as expected it didn't make any dramatic difference in grain look, but combined with some other diffusion filters between light lenses elements it successfully blurred well known magenta/yellow shaded stripes caused by randomly aged LEDs array in that scanner. It also creates tiny cool blue color cast. And scan time was increased a lot.

Interesting. I remember reading about your experiments with the 5400 II on photo.net a few months ago.

Were the scan times really that long ? Did your scanner eventually failed ? I am trying to find a working 5400 mark II and wonder how it behaves in time. At this point, 17 years after their release date, they probably need service.

 

[ant!]

At this point, 17 years after their release date, they probably need service.

I used in the last years a Minolta Dual Scan III and a Minolta Scan Elite II, both worked still fine with Vuescan, and are a bit older than the 5400 (II). I find this overview quite useful, it lists the grain disolver as well as a feature on the latest models (5400 and Dual Scan IV, the list doesn't show the 5400II) : https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/fileadmin/scanner_minolta/comparison/v_scan_e.htm
Which I would have a Scan Multi PRO or he Nikon equivalent, but out of my budget, so I use a (used bought) Epson V800 for medium format...

 

[Archiloque]

I use a "fleet" of a couple 5400 mark 1 too. But their CCFL tubes aren't getting any younger - I am still trying to find a good replacement - and they tend to produce weird noise in the thicker part of negatives and slides, something they didn't do a few years back, probably failing capacitors.

After all, they're mechanical pieces of hardware and mechanics usually needs to be serviced once in a while.

 

[shijan]

Interesting. I remember reading about your experiments with the 5400 II on photo.net a few months ago.

Were the scan times really that long ? Did your scanner eventually failed ? I am trying to find a working 5400 mark II and wonder how it behaves in time. At this point, 17 years after their release date, they probably need service.

5400 II have bright light source, so scan times where slower but ok. From some point slower speed helped to improve scan quality because scan goes slowly but without interruptions. In original setup it always where few interruptions probably due too slow data transfer speed.
Guess there is no clean answer if it makes sense to order old scanner today. Minioltas are mechanically weak. There are many situations when film holder stick and motor goes on. Sometimes those two flat brass springs inside that you can see on the photo are bended or broken due incorrect insertion of film holder.
LEDs ages and start to generate 3 color tinted stripes. Some people see this problem, some don't. Could it depend of LEDs batch? Of scan hours amount? Of air pollution? I don't know.
I got my scanner in 2013 and it already looked like it was heavy used, so it was a lottery from start.

5400 II have very very nice high resolution sensor. Digital ICE quality is great. Very sharp lens. Nice film holder.
Same time it is not too robust mechanically, so it will not last forever. LEDs degradation is the main problem of this scanner.

I personally moved to camera scan system of my own design and don't want back to scanners anymore.

 

[Archiloque]

I read in multiple occasions that the mechanical construction of the minolta scanner was weak and prone to failure. Seems you confirm this decade old rumour. That is a shame. If I ever find an affordable one, I'll try my chance for science sake, but I won't hold my breath, they're pretty rare.

The first minolta 5400, on the other hand, can be found quite easily and is much sturdier (but slower). Its light bulb can be changed quite easily - I found a supplier that can even make custom order for the right size - so there is hope to extend its life if necessary. I understand your point about scanner. But ICE is still unmatched in my mind, especially with complicated negatives so i'll stick to them for now.

 

[snusmumriken]

I had some email correspondence with the guy behind Scanhancer (I cannot recall his name) back in the early 2000s. I was curious to try a piece of the material in my enlarger light path for the same reason as one would use it in a scanner. The guy claimed (and I have no reason to question this) that the material was a particular type of Perspex that was hard to source, IIRC one with millions of tiny bubbles in it.

(I did buy a piece of the material from him, and tried it in my enlarger above the negative. It made no discernible difference to tonality, but increased exposure times by about 1 stop.)

 

[Randy Stewart]

Minolta incorporated Scanhanser technology into the 5400 II, so adapting a Scanhaser product into the 5400 II is not going to improve your image output. I have used the full set of Scanhanser devices which came with my MF Minolta scanner, and it seems to work as claimed.

 

[Archiloque]

Minolta incorporated Scanhanser technology into the 5400 II, so adapting a Scanhaser product into the 5400 II is not going to improve your image output. I have used the full set of Scanhanser devices which came with my MF Minolta scanner, and it seems to work as claimed.

Actually Minolta removed it from the 5400 mark II. It was indeed present in the first iteration of the scanner but then removed when they moved to LED backlighting and released the 5400 II in 2005

 

[shijan]

Yes and no. There are some thin diffusion sheets in light path between lenses and the strongest sheet near output. But this scheme can't create real diffused light because too large distance from last diffused sheet to film . It only slightly softens direct light.
Scanhanser from other side should be placed directly in film holder as close to film as possible. This creates diffused light.