If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
"Toni Nikkanen" wrote: While the original advice of buying a new Nikon 9000 when I have gathered the money is probably the best choice (I could have the money tonight if I wanted to; I have a mortgage it is also a question of just how much spending I can justify for the silly obsession of scanning film One of the reasons for my suggestion is that I'm a real wimp when it comes to electronic equipment: your US$2,000 buys you a year of use (with optics that start out clean), whereas you don't know when something in a used unit is going to blow, at your expense (if even repairable, especially with the Minolta, since the company doesn't even exist any more). I purchase at a store that provides an extended limited 5 year guarantee (for 5% of the purchase price), and they've fixed things that have died after one but less than 5 years from time of purchase. Sorry to be on your case here, but, IMHO, buying a used scanner is a bad idea. I'd stick with the V700. (Have you tried scanning at 6400 ppi, applying light noise reduction, downsampling to, say, 2700 ppi? That might create a very nice file that'll print nicely at 300 ppi, which is a 9x enlargement, which is about all film is good for for quality prints anyway.) One thing you might want to do is to take your sharpest slide and have it drum scanned at 8000 ppi and see how much better that is than the V700, although that will take a large bite out of your scanner fund. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sep 5, 9:26 am, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
I'm perhaps looking for a true medium format film scanner that I could afford. It seems I just might able to buy a second-hand Minolta Scan Multi Pro or Nikon Coolscan 8000 unit from eBay or elsewhere. I've been trying to come up with a preference between these two units on information I found on the web. Are there any updates to what I have gathered he Minolta Scan Multi Pro: + Glass holder is included + I like Minolta Scan software (experience from my Scan Elite 5400 II) + Slide scanning quality is said to be damn good - There are reports of problems scanning negatives: excessive grain and clipped highlights. The "scanhancer" apparently solves the first problem, what about the other? I scan B&W and color negatives a lot, also slides. - Digital ICE, which I intend to use a lot, causes artifacts in sharp edges Nikon Coolscan 8000: - Banding issue when not scanning at the slow setting - Glass holder an expensive option + No reported problems with scanning negatives + No reported problems with ICE + For some reason I trust Nikon build quality more but have no actual data to justify this opinion Both have one common (potential) problem: Minolta doesn't make scanners anymore at all. Nikon doesn't make the Coolscan 8000 anymore, it's replaced by the Coolscan 9000. Will service be a problem? Will my scanner turn into expensive junk when something breaks inside? I'm coming from an Epson V700 + Scan Elite 5400 II combination, I plan on selling both when I have acquired the true MF film scanner. My "dream scanner" would be one that was as convenient and produces as good results as the Scan Elite 5400 II, but for medium format. This includes convenience of handling film with the scanner and the magically wonderful way ICE is implemented on the 5400II. I have been using the Nikon 8000 since the week it was introduced. I have no experience with the Minolta scanners. What I can relay to you is that I have scanned: 6mm negatives from very old disc cameras; 35mm film in both negative and positive form; 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 Kodak and Fuji Meduim Format negatives and 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 negatives from the 1920's and 1930's. The only problem is that you cannot use ICE on the very old BW film and some older color slides. I have acheived very high quality scans from all media with no problems at all. I generally do not scan at 8000dpi as I nearly never need a file of that size for my prints. 4000dpi is my norm and I try not to do any tweaking with grain removal, sharpenning, etc. The only adjustments I make are in levels and exposure to get the histogram in proper shape. I do all editing in photoshop. I would invest in the glass holder as the one that comes with the unit causes much frustration for everyone I know that uses the 8000. One warning is that I cannot use my Nikon 8000 at present because I was forced to get a new computer and there is no driver from Nikon for the Nikon 8000 or 9000 for Windows Vista. They say that one *may* be in the works, but nothing yet. I am an active member of the 'I hate Vista' club Cheers, Don S. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
I do have the same problem with the money - I really wouldnt like to
use 2700 euros for a new Nikon, or 1500 for used 8000. About 1000 euros could maybe some day be affordable . At the moment I own Canon 8400F, which can scan medium format, but the result is nowhere near to what I get out of 35mm frames with my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV. I would like to know about the Minolta Multi Pro vs. Nikon.. The Dmax- stuff? Does it have poorer, better or same ability to record highlights and shadows? The given Dmax or D-range values of course do not tell everything, but could give some help comparing these scanners. I think they both have enough resolution for most purposes, of course would be nice if it really got every detail out of even 50 ASA slide films. But the differences might be bigger or more important with the dynamic? Some comments on the earlier topics: Grain problem: I really think at this level in equipment, the scanners should be able to reproduce the REAL grain of film. My Scan Dual IV at 3200 dpi can do that with most B&W negatives, at least with 100 ASA or more. Some problems with Agfa 25 APX, because the grain is so small. 8000 dpi should be fine to record the grain from any film, I think. This means, there should not be grain aliasing problem, if you use high enough dpi when scanning. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think this problem exists only when the scanner cant record the real grain, just the picture it produces. If the frame has grain, I want it to scan it also. I wouldnt use any grain removing filters, because it will change the look of the photo (maybe by blurring it). ICE: I think these filters only work with E-6 (etc.) slides and color negatives, not B&W or Kodachrome films, because it work with Infra-Red light. IR-light will not pass silver grains, that B&W negatives (except C-41) and Kodachrome slides do have. I'm not sure if there is some application, that does support also films with silver grain. Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide films. Slide films have way higher density level, than negatives. Velvia 50 is said to have Dmax up to 3,8 or something. Ideal B&W negatives usually have Dmax up to 1,3 or 1,5. This should mean the scanners would be able to record all the shadows from negative, which will be highlights in the picture. Of course also the Dmin is important and some scanners might have problems there also, especially with underexposed negatives. Problems with dynamic range should anyway be greater with slide films than negatives, at least with the Dmax. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Minolta Scan Multi Pro: Nikon Coolscan 8000: I've had two Minolta film scanners (Dimage Scan Dual and 5400 (non - II)) and now the Nikon 9000 ED. (I also have a Mustek flatbed that is a bit long in the tooth). The Minolta's were always great and reliable. I got $500 for the 5400 after well in excess of 5000 scans. Some slide film would only scan well with the Minolta s/w; some negative film only with VueScan. I'm no fan of the Nikon scan s/w, but slowly getting used to it. The 8000 has a very good rep, but of course is improved in the 9000. I have heard various horror stories about Nikon scanner service in the US. Of course you don't here of the many likely good stories. I reluctantly say: don't get the Minolta, but only because there is no more Minolta in this business. Further, as OS' evolve it will be harder and harder to assure support for the s/w. As Littleboy says ... pinch a few pennies (who needs a girlfriend anyway) and get the 9000 ED. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah, might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so I can find out if this was a good decision or not. The decisive factors we Nikon is still sort of making the software (last release of Nikon Scan in 2006), I trust it's longevity a bit more (LED lamps, some parts such as film carriers still available new as they are the same ones as in the Coolscan 9000 model, Nikon is still around), and, I got it for a price that seemed reasonable, though, after customs and taxes and shipping it really isn't _cheap_ anymore.. I guess I can cover the cost by selling my two scanners and some little-used camera/lens gear. I probably won't have use for Silverfast AI Studio for Epson anymore, I wonder it the license is resaleable... An added bonus I didn't realize until after purchase: It can actually scan 12 frames of 135 film at once, so actually my scanning of 135 film got a slight boost as well, even though improving medium format was the primary goal here. The glass film holder included with the price of Multi Pro would have been very nice, though. By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder? The rotating holder allows a few degrees of rotation allow you to get verticals or horizontals parallel to the frame before scanning. Theoretically better than rotating in photoshop. This will hold panoramic sized film up to 24 x 65mm (and of course 6x9 mf). I bought the glass holder (FH-869G) which works better than the "all air" one that comes with the scanner. But on curled film you will get Newton's rings. (With the rotating holder as well). Cheers, Alan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah, might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so I can find out if this was a good decision or not. Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and have never looked back even though it was hideously expensive: bought it new, not from ebay. I've also recently got one of the old Kodak rfs3600, re-baged PIE scanners for my 35mm old stuff: using a 9000 for that is almost an overkill. the kodak rfs is very sharp indeed and produces excellent scans, but it doesn't use ICE and that can sometimes be a problem. I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with Nikonscan. and get the latest versions. there is no reason why one should not use software corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the scans and the results are absolutely stunning. and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
"Noons" wrote: On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen wrote: I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah, might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so I can find out if this was a good decision or not. Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and have never looked back even though it was hideously expensive: bought it new, not from ebay. Yep. They're wonderful gismos. I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with Nikonscan. and get the latest versions. I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from there. there is no reason why one should not use software corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the scans and the results are absolutely stunning. But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over time.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:27:45 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: "Noons" wrote: I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with Nikonscan. and get the latest versions. I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from there. I tend to be suspicious of algorithms that I don't understand. With ICE I know what's happening to the image, but without the knowledge of what GEM and ROC actually do to the image data I'm reluctant to trust them. -- Matthew Winn [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: Nikon Coolscan LS-8000 NEW YORK CITY Only | [email protected] | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 6th 06 05:06 PM |
CoolScan 8000 | Alan D Bell | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | July 25th 04 12:58 AM |
Coolscan 8000 | Alan D Bell | Medium Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 24th 04 06:35 PM |
Coolscan 8000, more questions. | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 2 | February 11th 04 01:36 PM |
FS:Nikon Coolscan 8000 | Chris | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 1st 03 04:19 PM |