Nikon super coolscan 9000 ED scanner

Hi guys,

 

I post a question a week ago or so asking if the Nikon super coolscan 9000 ED could scan 6X17 film.....

 

Your comments were very helpful and I figure out how could it work, but reading the comments made me have

another question about this scanner.

 

I saw in your comments that some of you told me that sometimes you need to buy crystal holders or something like

that for the film to be scanned.

 

My question is now..... Do I need a special holder to scan medium format film for this scaner?

 

I make 6X7 films on a Mamiya and I want to buy this scanner because I read it scans medium format..... but does

this scanner has everything to scan 6X7 or I have to buy this cristal holders too???

 

I dont want to buy a scanner that wont work..... does anyone know if the scanner has everything you need to scan

6X7 films?

 

Thanks a lot

 

Aaron

Yes, even for sharp corner to corner with 6x7 let alone 6x17 you would need to purchase an optional glass film holder.

 

They have 2 types but I'll let someone else recommend which woud be better for panoranic films considering I've only used

the non rotating glass hoder.

 

Keep in mind these holders are a bit hard to find and can add either $220.00 USD to $330.00 additional expense depending on

which one you decide to buy.

I wanted to throw in one question to this discussion. Is there any other scanner apart from Coolscan (and of course the hasselblad semi-drum) that can be used to scan medium format? Also, I heard that Nikon would be discontinuing coolscans. Is that true?

Some flatbed scanners can also scan medium format; probably the best out there right now is the Epson V750 Pro. It won't be as good as the Coolscan, however. As for being discontinued, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they stopped making new ones a long time ago and are just selling off stock. Officially, however, the Coolscan 9000 and the 5000 are still current and in production. The Coolscan V was indeed discontinued a little bit ago.

The Nikon rotating glass holder is not one you'd want. It has a 6x9 maximum aperture, so you would need to remove it, and reload the film for every next frame you want to scan.<br>The non rotating glass holder is the thing to have.

Just so no one is misled by the above responses...

 

The Nikon Coolscan 9000 DOES coms with a film holder for scanning 120/220 film, at no extra cost. It works reasonably well, but you may think that getting the glass holder to keep the film flatter is worth it if you want perfect focus over all the frame.

I find that 60% to 80% of the time the glass holder produces Newtonian Rings - which destroy the image. Sometimes I don't get them, sometimes it is impossible to get rid of them. They are a big problem nonetheless. You will get these too.

 

Now I wet scan my 645 and my 617 transparencies using the film holder that came with the 9000. I use a glass plate and a thin clear strip and the quality is fantastic. I purchase from Scan Science (http://scanscience.com/) but there are other companies.

 

I seriously suggest that you look into wet scanning. It is easy after some trial and error and it smells great! Best of luck to you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Derek Jecxz

 

http://www.jecxz.com

I started with and used the non-glass holder for my 6x6 and6x7 scans with my Nikon 9000 and as soon as I could find one, purchased and now use only the glass holder, non-rotating, as Q G recommended. It is annoying to have to pay extra for it, and they have been quite hard to locate recently but it is worth it if you want the quality you bought when you purchased Hasselblad-Zeiss or Mamiya 7 glass. For a few hundred dollars, granted not trivial, it is clearly (pun intended) worth it.

 

The Nikon 9000 makes incredibly wonderful scans.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

I use the glass holder and have never had trouble with Newton rings. I use the supplied black mask between the film and glass as recommended in the instruction book.

That - using the black masks supplied with the holder - is indeed the thing to do. They lift the film off the plain glass,

preventing Newton rings.<br><br>The glass holder is indeed a thing we absolutely need. The strips sag terribly in the

glassless holder, making it impossible to get a sharp scan across the width of the film.<br>Frightfully expensive

though.

You can (and I do) still get Newtonian Rings with the strips - and I use the strips with the glass holder as specified in the manual. Actually, I don't think I've tried it without the strips in the glass holder.

 

These Newtonian Rings can be a huge issue.

 

Either way, get the glass holder. I could never get the film flat with the supplied holder (the holder that comes with the 9000) and the edges are often blurry.

 

Hopefully you will not have NRs. Good luck!

 

Kind regards,

Derek

I've been using the LS-9000 to scan 120 & 220 neg and chrome shot on a 'Blad 503cm and Mamiya RZ PROII for hi-rez image editing

and printing over the last two years; and use the optional, non-rotating glass holder to do so. My scans are always made at the highest

sampling level with no special grain / dust / etc. removal features turned on. My average print size is 17" x 22". I work in advertising as

a technical visual consultant and am very critical of image integrity.

 

I love the scan quality, have never had "Newtonian Rings" or other blemishes and am of the opinion this unit is the best deal in town for

those who wish to professionally print / archive medium format from a digital master. The Epson V750 isn't as high-end and the

cheapest Hasselblad medium-format scanner costs $11,000 more. The Hasselblad has about twice the optical dpi of the LS-9000

which is nice, but not at that price difference. If you're ok with print sizes of 17" x 22" or a tiny bit larger then you'll have no complaints

about the LS-9000's 4000 dpi. Using T-Max 100 & 400, I can't even see grain at this print size. I do begin to notice a slight decrease in

sharpness over this print size when working from a 6x7 neg / chrome though. If you need to go larger then you may just have to fork out

more cash for a higher dpi scanner.

 

I bought my LS-9000 brand new in the U.S. with factory warranty and glass holder for $1,800 two years ago. The cheapest units I see

with no glass holder today are going for $200 more. This either means the rumor of discontinuing the unit is true, Nikon realizes it's too

good a deal or both.

 

My photo.net portfolio is quite outdated. I'll have to upload some new stuff soon that was scanned on the LS-9000.

 

The Nikon scanning utility that ships with the scanner is utter crap. It's nearly impossible to get a clean, wide-latitude scan from it. Pay

the $75 for Ed Hamrick's Vuescan app. Works like a charm and is simple to operate. Many say it's better than Silverfast, which is the

alternative option for another $400 or so. Do not use Digital ICE or any of the in-scan dust removal / sharpening tools or other filters. It

may save you an hour or two of cleanup however it will be at the expense of image quality - no matter what anyone tells you otherwise.

Also, always use the highest sampling level. The scans will take long however you'll get incredible results. I don't think there's any

point in not getting the 120 / 220 glass holder since it's highly improbably you'll have a completely flat source to scan.

 

http://www.scancafe.com/ supposedly uses the LS-9000 for medium-format work. If they can guarantee you high-sample .tiff scans

using the glass holder, this would be a damn cheap test to see if the unit is what you're looking for.

 

Lastly, a great scan is worthless amidst poor image-editing or printing technique. Most of us can find resources to improve our image

editing skills but one of the less obvious imperatives is to print at your printers native output resolution. If your printer's native output

resolution is 360 dpi but your master print file is 1000 dpi - your print quality will suffer a low-grade resize operation that can significantly

cut down the quality available to you.

 

Good luck.

I've been using the LS-9000 to scan 120 & 220 neg and chrome shot on a 'Blad 503cm and Mamiya RZ PROII for hi-rez image editing

and printing over the last two years; and use the optional, non-rotating glass holder to do so. My scans are always made at the highest

sampling level with no special grain / dust / etc. removal features turned on. My average print size is 17" x 22". I work in advertising as

a technical visual consultant and am very critical of image integrity.

 

I love the scan quality, have never had "Newtonian Rings" or other blemishes and am of the opinion this unit is the best deal in town for

those who wish to professionally print / archive medium format from a digital master. The Epson V750 isn't as high-end and the

cheapest Hasselblad medium-format scanner costs $11,000 more. The Hasselblad has about twice the optical dpi of the LS-9000

which is nice, but not at that price difference. If you're ok with print sizes of 17" x 22" or a tiny bit larger then you'll have no complaints

about the LS-9000's 4000 dpi. Using T-Max 100 & 400, I can't even see grain at this print size. I do begin to notice a slight decrease in

sharpness over this print size when working from a 6x7 neg / chrome though. If you need to go larger then you may just have to fork out

more cash for a higher dpi scanner.

 

I bought my LS-9000 brand new in the U.S. with factory warranty and glass holder for $1,800 two years ago. The cheapest units I see

with no glass holder today are going for $200 more. This either means the rumor of discontinuing the unit is true, Nikon realizes it's too

good a deal or both.

 

My photo.net portfolio is quite outdated. I'll have to upload some new stuff soon that was scanned on the LS-9000.

 

The Nikon scanning utility that ships with the scanner is utter crap. It's nearly impossible to get a clean, wide-latitude scan from it. Pay

the $75 for Ed Hamrick's Vuescan app. Works like a charm and is simple to operate. Many say it's better than Silverfast, which is the

alternative option for another $400 or so. Do not use Digital ICE or any of the in-scan dust removal / sharpening tools or other filters. It

may save you an hour or two of cleanup however it will be at the expense of image quality - no matter what anyone tells you otherwise.

Also, always use the highest sampling level. The scans will take long however you'll get incredible results. I don't think there's any

point in not getting the 120 / 220 glass holder since it's highly improbably you'll have a completely flat source to scan.

 

http://www.scancafe.com/ supposedly uses the LS-9000 for medium-format work. If they can guarantee you high-sample .tiff scans

using the glass holder, this would be a damn cheap test to see if the unit is what you're looking for.

 

Lastly, a great scan is worthless amidst poor image-editing or printing technique. Most of us can find resources to improve our image

editing skills but one of the less obvious imperatives is to print at your printers native output resolution. If your printer's native output

resolution is 360 dpi but your master print file is 1000 dpi - your print quality will suffer a low-grade resize operation that can significantly

cut down the quality available to you.

 

Good luck!

I've been using the LS-9000 to scan 120 & 220 neg and chrome shot on a 'Blad 503cm and Mamiya RZ PROII for hi-rez image editing

and printing over the last two years; and use the optional, non-rotating glass holder to do so. My scans are always made at the highest

sampling level with no special grain / dust / etc. removal features turned on. My average print size is 17" x 22". I work in advertising as

a technical visual consultant and am very critical of image integrity.

 

I love the scan quality, have never had "Newtonian Rings" or other blemishes and am of the opinion this unit is the best deal in town for

those who wish to professionally print / archive medium format from a digital master. The Epson V750 isn't as high-end and the

cheapest Hasselblad medium-format scanner costs $11,000 more. The Hasselblad has about twice the optical dpi of the LS-9000

which is nice, but not at that price difference. If you're ok with print sizes of 17" x 22" or a tiny bit larger then you'll have no complaints

about the LS-9000's 4000 dpi. Using T-Max 100 & 400, I can't even see grain at this print size. I do begin to notice a slight decrease in

sharpness over this print size when working from a 6x7 neg / chrome though. If you need to go larger then you may just have to fork out

more cash for a higher dpi scanner.

 

I bought my LS-9000 brand new in the U.S. with factory warranty and glass holder for $1,800 two years ago. The cheapest units I see

with no glass holder today are going for $200 more. This either means the rumor of discontinuing the unit is true, Nikon realizes it's too

good a deal or both.

 

My photo.net portfolio is quite outdated. I'll have to upload some new stuff soon that was scanned on the LS-9000.

 

The Nikon scanning utility that ships with the scanner is utter crap. It's nearly impossible to get a clean, wide-latitude scan from it. Pay

the $75 for Ed Hamrick's Vuescan app. Works like a charm and is simple to operate. Many say it's better than Silverfast, which is the

alternative option for another $400 or so. Do not use Digital ICE or any of the in-scan dust removal / sharpening tools or other filters. It

may save you an hour or two of cleanup however it will be at the expense of image quality - no matter what anyone tells you otherwise.

Also, always use the highest sampling level. The scans will take long however you'll get incredible results. I don't think there's any

point in not getting the 120 / 220 glass holder since it's highly improbably you'll have a completely flat source to scan.

 

http://www.scancafe.com/ supposedly uses the LS-9000 for medium-format work. If they can guarantee you high-sample .tiff scans

using the glass holder, this would be a damn cheap test to see if the unit is what you're looking for.

 

Lastly, a great scan is worthless amidst poor image-editing or printing technique. Most of us can find resources to improve our image

editing skills but one of the less obvious imperatives is to print at your printers native output resolution. If your printer's native output

resolution is 360 dpi but your master print file is 1000 dpi - your print quality will suffer a low-grade resize operation that can significantly

cut down the quality available to you.

 

Good luck!!!

I understand why wet mounting works so well - it fills any space between the film and glass (and any scratches) with a medium of comparable refractive index to both.

 

But I am a bit puzzled about dry mounting in the sort of glass carriers you've described. I always thought that the point of glass carriers is to sandwich the film absolutely flat between two planar sheets of glass. But if you have to insert these spacers ("black masks") which "lift the film off the plain glass, preventing Newton rings", you no longer have the film supported and sandwiched on both sides - it is now in an enlarged space between the two glass plates, and free to bulge out of flatness. Can someone please explain to me why this is any use at all?

Ray

 

You are right of course. I guess the point is that the glass makes contact on only a few points on the curved/bent film, effectively flattening it, but it is not perfectly flat. The depth of field of the scanner is enough to make this curvature relatively insignificant. Without the glass some negatives bow too much to be within the depth of field.

The top, anti-Newton glass makes full contact with the film. It suffices to keep the thing flat.<br>Perhaps a glass carrier would only need one glass?

No, I have modified the standard MF carrier to use it with the anti NR glass I bought for my Epson V750 - with most films

there were still issues with the "sagging belly" in the middle of the frame, so I gave up and bought the double glass non

rotating carrier - I shoot almost only B&W, but I have not seen any Newton rings even using the carrier without any

additional masks or strips. The nly problem remains the dust which inevitably accumulates on so many surfaces.

I have used the glass carrier too, and have indeed been getting Newton rings regularly when not using the black strips.<br>I have had no problem with sharpness when using the strips.<br>So though it is not quite as quick and easy to load the carrier with both strips and film, it's the better way of going about it.

"The Nikon scanning utility that ships with the scanner is utter crap. It's nearly impossible to get a clean, wide-latitude scan from it."

 

I use NikonScan to make linear (Gamma = 1) scans as positives. That eliminates any clipping. I then use the Photoshop plug-in ColorNeg to invert negatives. So far I really like the results. A recent thread follows:

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ

Re scanning with the glass neg carrier vs the straight open plastic carrier.

 

I get very sharp corner-to-corner scans using the standard carrier for 6 by 6 cms because I store the individual transparencies in

archival plastic sheets under several heavy books for at least a month before I make serious scans.

 

The resulting transparency is very flat with none of the "bowing" associated with "green" slides. (To be fair, as I usually scan a

horizontal or vertical rectangle, the extreme corners of the full square slide are not being scanned.)

 

Hope this might save someone the cost of the rather expensive glass holders!

 

Bill