Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Can y'all recommend a very good one (top notch - price not an issue)?
Thanks!
Oly
--
Thanks!
Oly
--
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Film scanner??
- Thread starter Olyinaz
- Start date
chasz25tsax
Member
I own a Nikon Coolscan V ED and absolutely love it. It cost me around $600 back in November. I only bought it scan all of my family's old photographs, and it does the trick. Just be warned, that no matter which scanner you buy, it will take a long time to scan in negatives. The Coolscan V takes about 15 minutes for 4 negatives.
sjstremb
Leading Member
I think the Imacon is the best of the bunch, and for the more budget minded, I have a Epson flatbed V700 that does a terrific job.
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/scanners.aspx
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056499
Stan
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/scanners.aspx
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056499
Stan
Is about $2000 and it covers most formats. The 5000ED is $1000 less but very similar. It only does 135 format and APS.
Above that, price is a big, big factor.
The next "amateur" scanner above this are the Hasselblad Flextight X5 which is like ~$20,000or an X1 for like ~$12,000. New car prices are for very serious film users.
Above that they get into industrial prices.
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
Above that, price is a big, big factor.
The next "amateur" scanner above this are the Hasselblad Flextight X5 which is like ~$20,000or an X1 for like ~$12,000. New car prices are for very serious film users.
Above that they get into industrial prices.
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
frank perry
Senior Member
used with vuescan is giving me good results. (35mm negatives and slides)
--
Frank Perry
--
Frank Perry
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
I used to have this baby and it screams with MF & 35mm. Yes, a drum scan will get you higher rez and better Dmax, but really, with multisampling and 4000ppi scans, you're pulling of pretty much everything there is off the film.
Pretty much the only film I shoot now is 4x5, and for that I either use an Epson V700, or I get a Tango scan.
Pretty much the only film I shoot now is 4x5, and for that I either use an Epson V700, or I get a Tango scan.
LesDMess
Senior Member
Nikon Coolscan 5000 for up to 35mm films only - best quality and fastest at less then 50 seconds per frame with ICE and about 32 seconds without. Best handling with motorized strip feeder or optional 50slide or whole strip adapter.
Nikon Coolscan 9000 for up to medium format 6X9. Uses film holders for all scans and highly recommend glass film holder for MF. About double the scan times of the Coolscan 5000. My initial tests seems to indicate that it's ICE is more effective when scanning Kodachrome. Initial tests seems to indicate that it is just a tad less sharp as the Coolscan 5000, but that helps to soften grainy film as well as badly scarred film better.
The Coolscan V is functionally like the 5000 with the motorized feeder. At about half the cost, it doesn't have the optional slide and whole roll feeder and scans take about twice as long as the 5000.
Anything less then this and you will be sacrificing film handling, DMAX, color accuracy and resolution. Scan times will take twice as long and longer when using ICE.
To get slightly better results will require substantially more money and less convenience. Better results of course will depend on the film type, equipment used and technique.
Nikon Coolscan 9000 for up to medium format 6X9. Uses film holders for all scans and highly recommend glass film holder for MF. About double the scan times of the Coolscan 5000. My initial tests seems to indicate that it's ICE is more effective when scanning Kodachrome. Initial tests seems to indicate that it is just a tad less sharp as the Coolscan 5000, but that helps to soften grainy film as well as badly scarred film better.
The Coolscan V is functionally like the 5000 with the motorized feeder. At about half the cost, it doesn't have the optional slide and whole roll feeder and scans take about twice as long as the 5000.
Anything less then this and you will be sacrificing film handling, DMAX, color accuracy and resolution. Scan times will take twice as long and longer when using ICE.
To get slightly better results will require substantially more money and less convenience. Better results of course will depend on the film type, equipment used and technique.
Can y'all recommend a very good one (top notch - price not an issue)?
Thanks!
Oly
--
LesDMess
Senior Member
All indications seems to point to your computer not able to accept the data fast enough as Nikon states 38 seconds per frame for the Coolscan V.
I have the Coolscan 5000 and I am close to Nikon's published times. For instance the longest scan the 5000 takes on my machine is 9minutes per frame but that is if I have 16X multisampling on, ICE and GEM. Otherwise it is 32 seconds per frame without ICE and under 50 seconds with ICE.The Coolscan V doesn't have multisampling so I don't know what possible setting you could have that would take so long?
I have the Coolscan 5000 and I am close to Nikon's published times. For instance the longest scan the 5000 takes on my machine is 9minutes per frame but that is if I have 16X multisampling on, ICE and GEM. Otherwise it is 32 seconds per frame without ICE and under 50 seconds with ICE.The Coolscan V doesn't have multisampling so I don't know what possible setting you could have that would take so long?
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Can you add anything to what the other fellow had to say? Is speed the only real difference between the two or am I missing something key?
Thanks,
Oly
--
Thanks,
Oly
--
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Long time no read! You move on from Olympus?
At any rate, thanks for the tip. I picked up on the part that the 9000 is multi format whereas the 5000 less so, but what I'm not keying in on is what the key difference other than speed is between the 5000 and the V ED. Do you know?
Thanks for the input!
Best,
Oly
--
At any rate, thanks for the tip. I picked up on the part that the 9000 is multi format whereas the 5000 less so, but what I'm not keying in on is what the key difference other than speed is between the 5000 and the V ED. Do you know?
Thanks for the input!
Best,
Oly
--
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Best,
Oly
--
Oly
--
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Award for most informative reply. 
Thank you so much.
Best,
Oly
--
Thank you so much.
Best,
Oly
--
For what size film? Or are you looking for a 35mm slide scanner? If so the Braun 4000 will do up to 100 glass/plastic or cardboard mounts fully automatically at up to 3600dpi (native) 0r 7200 dpi with interpolation. It will do single slides, batches of slides, random orders of slides or all of the slides in a tray. Has GEM, ROC and ICE and works on Mac or PC.
. . .no still chugging away with my E500 and OM2. Just trying to get more skilled rather than well heeled. LOL.
Although some summer trips coming up might call for a new UWA for my OM or my 4/3 job.
Yeah, the V ED and 5000 are different animals.
The key stat you want to check on the scanners is DMAX-- it is like DR but is a read of how far it can penetrate into the NEG/Slide.
The V ED has a slightly smaller DMAX.
The numbers don't need to make too much sense out of context . . but I think it is 4.2 to 4.8 for the 5000.
The 5000 has single pass multi-sampling (it has a two line CC) which means that it can read the same slide twice in one run, or 8 times in four runs, and multisampling is the best way to get quality.
All in all it is a little quicker, and little better color and DR.
I believe (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that the V ED, 5000, anmd 9000 all use essentially the same optics, which are industry leading.
Why the need for a scanner?
Some old slides or are you coming to the film side!!
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
Although some summer trips coming up might call for a new UWA for my OM or my 4/3 job.
Yeah, the V ED and 5000 are different animals.
The key stat you want to check on the scanners is DMAX-- it is like DR but is a read of how far it can penetrate into the NEG/Slide.
The V ED has a slightly smaller DMAX.
The numbers don't need to make too much sense out of context . . but I think it is 4.2 to 4.8 for the 5000.
The 5000 has single pass multi-sampling (it has a two line CC) which means that it can read the same slide twice in one run, or 8 times in four runs, and multisampling is the best way to get quality.
All in all it is a little quicker, and little better color and DR.
I believe (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that the V ED, 5000, anmd 9000 all use essentially the same optics, which are industry leading.
Why the need for a scanner?
Some old slides or are you coming to the film side!!
--
--
Comments are always welcome.
Zach Bellino
'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
LesDMess
Senior Member
The advantages of the 5000 over the V are:
1. 16bit over 14bit
2. DMAX
3. Multisampling
4. Optional 50 slide adapter
5. Optional whole roll feeder
6. Aforementioned speed
Unless the frame of film has it, the first three may not be much of an advantage. The optional adapters are useful if you need them. I have scanned over 6,000 frames of film and occassionally tried multisampling on about a hundred or so frames and have not found any advantage to using it. Perhaps it may be for you.
1. 16bit over 14bit
2. DMAX
3. Multisampling
4. Optional 50 slide adapter
5. Optional whole roll feeder
6. Aforementioned speed
Unless the frame of film has it, the first three may not be much of an advantage. The optional adapters are useful if you need them. I have scanned over 6,000 frames of film and occassionally tried multisampling on about a hundred or so frames and have not found any advantage to using it. Perhaps it may be for you.
Can you add anything to what the other fellow had to say? Is speed
the only real difference between the two or am I missing something
key?
Thanks,
Oly
--
LesDMess
Senior Member
Hopefully with the right advice you win!
Anyway, I don't know what kinds of film you'll be scanning but my Film 2 Album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/D163377BD1A059A has mostly full res examples from my Coolscan 5000 that were all scanned with only auto focus/expose, crop, orientation and ICE (none b&w) - no pre or post processing except for copyright and identified. If you magnify past a certain point you will start seeing JPEG compression which is not to be misconstrued for grain. I also have examples of comparisons from other scanners, grain reduction and others. Good luck.
Anyway, I don't know what kinds of film you'll be scanning but my Film 2 Album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/D163377BD1A059A has mostly full res examples from my Coolscan 5000 that were all scanned with only auto focus/expose, crop, orientation and ICE (none b&w) - no pre or post processing except for copyright and identified. If you magnify past a certain point you will start seeing JPEG compression which is not to be misconstrued for grain. I also have examples of comparisons from other scanners, grain reduction and others. Good luck.
Award for most informative reply.
Thank you so much.
Best,
Oly
--
LesDMess
Senior Member
Have any examples of scans from this scanner? TIA.
LesDMess
Senior Member
Have any examples of scans from this scanner? TIA.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum