Back in 2004, there was a thread here titled "Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED"
with lots of discussion on the relative merits, especially speed, of
the Nikon 5000ED compared to the Konica Minolta 5400. I have the 5400-2
which is a slightly newer model, but want to add something to the
rather long discussion on digital ICE and speed.

While, as noted in 2004, the K-M has a longer processing time for
digital ICE than the Nikon, at least with older slides (which that
thread was about), I have found my 5400-2 vastly superior to a
professional service's 5000ED. Many slides which were unusable from the
5000ED but "very good" (not excellent) with my 5400-2.  Maybe the
longer processing time is producing better dust and scratch removal?

Something similar goes on with DVD production. A fast processing time
is not always better and the professional DVD's we buy in the stores
use an amount of processing time that none of us would put up with --
in order to get the much better picture quality of professionally
produced DVD's.

I'll admit that two samples of one (mine and the services) is far from
a scientific study, but it does point up an important hypothesis that
was mostly overlooked in the original thread. (Kudos to the one or two
back then who did touch on the issue.)

Some of the slides I've been scanning are as much as 65 years old,
dating back almost to the dawn of Kodachrome, and come out amazingly
vibrant, but only after digital ICE and a little PhotoShop work.

Hope this is of some help.

Martin

PS I realize the discussion is a bit academic since K-M is out of this
business now, but the 5400-2 is probably available used and the general
idea applies to all scanners: long ICE processing times may actually be
good!