A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 7th 07, 12:54 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default 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  
Old September 7th 07, 06:43 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
DonS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old September 8th 07, 10:40 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old September 8th 07, 01:01 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?

Recently, posted:

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?

Frankly, I think you'll find more variation between users of these
scanners than between the scanners. The dynamic range of either is
suitable for capturing the image for most purposes. Keep in mind that
these are low mid-range units that will do a decent job on most images. If
you need to get beyond the capabilities of these scanners (and users), a
professional using a high-end drum scanner can do the job. I use those
kinds of services for about 5% or less of my work.

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.

Well, no, they won't.

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.

Grain aliasing can even be an issue when drum scanning. To understand
more, it might be better to start a discussion in comp.periphs.scanners,
as there are some very knowledgeable folks in that group that can get very
specific about such issues. There are also very detailed discussions on
grain aliasing in the archives for that group.

Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide
films.

That hasn't been my experience. Keep in mind that most "pros" shooting
during the introduction of scanners (more than 25 years ago) were using
slide films to make editorial decisions easier, so the equipment was
optimized for that kind of film. Negative films were not designed to be
scanned, and therefore exhibit more artifacts 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.

However, this level of scanner has Dmax capabilities of 4, so that isn't
the problem one runs into.

Neil


  #15  
Old September 9th 07, 07:02 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old September 9th 07, 09:06 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Toni Nikkanen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default 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  
Old September 13th 07, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old September 15th 07, 01:02 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 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  
Old September 15th 07, 01:27 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default 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  
Old September 15th 07, 08:40 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Matthew Winn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.