Would I be happy with flatbed in place of Nikon 9000 scanner?

<p>The answer is no. You won't be happy.</p>

<p>Stuart this is the test you asked me to do on the Coolscan vs the V500. The V500 is downsized to 4,000 dpi to match the Coolscan 9000.</p><div></div>

<p>And the Coolscan is the bottleneck.... There is even more detail on the negative than the scanner can capture.</p>

<p>In order of resolving power:<br>

On a 6x7 frame, my Mamiya lenses project over 300 megapixels of true detail.<br>

On a 6x7 frame of TMAX there are more 150 megapixels of true detail. <br>

The Coolscan effectively captures 90 MP (3850 effective resolution). <br>

The V500 effectively captures 23 MP (1950 effective resolution). <br>

For comparison a 20MP DSLR effectively captures approximately 15MP.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had a Nikon 9000 scanner (again, one of the last ones sold in the country), and the only reason I gave it up is because I've gone all digital and have no film cameras left. If I had a film camera (especially the Hasselblad 501cm -- a wonderful camera with superb lenses) and if I used it with any regularity, I would definitely have kept the 9000 (I also have an Epson V750 scanner).</p>

<p>But I hear what you're saying about limited scanning needs. If I seldom used a film camera, it would probably make economic sense to commercially scan the subset of that limited use that is suitable for relatively large printing -- for me, that would be a pretty small number. Given the significant decline in film, this may be the best time to be selling big-ticket items associated with film that you seldom use.</p>

<p>For the sake of science (and the big heart that I have) I just spent the last 30 minutes toying with the height of the film on the V500 to find the sharpest and most detailed possible result and then applied optimal 3-layer sharpening. This is the best I could obtain (with very painful work) on the V500. An improvement but still not fair to the negative.</p>

<p>Coolscan - left. V500 manually adjusted and sharpened - right.</p><div></div>

<p>Wow! Thanks for all your responses. There is much for me to think about. Mr. John Shriver: Thanks for the offer to scan a negative. I think I'll take you up on that.<br>

Regards,<br>

Seth "Benny"</p>

<p>But Mauro, what about the 8x10" print limitation? A 4000 PPI scan from a 56x56mm frame prints at about 30" on a side at 300 PPI. If you make a 4000 PPI scan from a Nikon and an Epson and view at 100% you're looking at more detail that you can see in an 8x10 print. If you do some sensible contrast adjustment and sharpening and print 8x10, how much difference is there?</p>

<p>Andy, agree at just 8x10 the V500 will not be the limiting factor for resolution. Drange and tonality maybe a bit compromised at times but it can make a fantastic print. Even at 11x14 or 16x20 the V500 with 120-film would do very well.</p>

<p>Benny, you're getting lots of good advice. I'll add mine. I like a print that's sharp enough inspect up close with the naked eye. With my V500, I get prints of this quality at 6x the linear dimension of the film. That is, I make 12x18" prints from my 120 file (6x9).</p>

<p>I'm happy with the color.</p>

<p>I agree with all the comments that a V500 or V600 will be about half the linear resolution of your Nikon 9000.</p>

<p>Unless you know that you are really not going to be using it and if you think you might get more into MF film and really can get by without the extra cash, I would hold on to it. It's a really good scanner and it will be difficult to get them should you change your mind later. Also, it scans 35 mm really well, especially color film. So if you are into shooting film you might miss it later.</p>

<p>Well, I suspect that in the future, I will shoot much more 120 format film than 35mm. I want to get use out of my Hasselblad. So maybe the V600 is good enough?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>agree at just 8x10 the V500 will not be the limiting factor for resolution. Drange and tonality maybe a bit compromised at times but it can make a fantastic print. Even at 11x14 or 16x20 the V500 with 120-film would do very well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And isn't that exactly the point. I can't see anyone on this thread promoting a view that Epson flatbeds scan as well as a Coolscan. The question is, given that the OP quotes a rather undemanding range of applications, will a flatbed be good enough, as he is prepared to go to a lab when he wants anything more than a small print? In fact you are more generous to the flatbed than I'd be- and I use a supposedly superior V700. </p>

 

<p>David, I agree that a real film scanner certainly gives more image quality, and 20" is stretching what I'd do from a flatbed, but given the parameters of the question I think the flatbed carries it. Ebay sellers are getting $3000 for a 9000 these days and a new Epson V500 sell for $150, and Benny says he doesn't use it a lot and asks about on-screen viewing and 8x10 prints.</p>

<p>Thanks Mauro for uploading the V500 Coolscan comparison.</p>

No. If you like your scans now, you will not be able recreate them with an Epson. You will waste time trying. Sell the

9000 if you need. But, send your film to a service to be scanned if you do.

Unless finances are dire, I would not risk seller's remorse.

I see 8000s for sale, how do they compare to 9000s?

<p>I have an 8000. My understanding is that there may be a slight difference in dynamic range for the 9000, but the biggest advantage is speed. Other than that I doubt you'll see a difference.<br>

I've compared prints from both my 8000 and an Epson v500. With judicious sharpening/contrast adjustments, it is difficult to tell the prints apart at 16x16. Above that, the Nikon pulls ahead.<br>

While it's true that the Epson can't pull out the tiniest details, whether those details will be missed is another matter. It all depends on the lens, technique, film, and subject matter. If you shoot fast film handheld of people and print 12x12, you don't need a Nikon. If you shoot slow film on a tripod with fine glass stopped down and print 26x26, you need a Nikon.</p>

<p>Thanks, I think I will save for an 8000, a 9000 is well out of my price range, as even an 8000 is worth more than my car</p>

<p>I have both the Epson 4870 (forerunner of the V700), and the Coolscan 9000. For 35mm, there is no comparison, 9000 blows it away. However, for 645 (and larger), the 4870 does an excellent, fantastic job. Plus, you can buy several film holders for peanuts, and bulk scan the preloaded holders. Doing that with the 9000 will cost $$$ for the holders.<br>

Anyways, for what you describe, the 4870 will be a fine replacement for the 9000 - for 8x10's and monitor viewing. Heck, even for larger sizes like 11x14 with a little sharpening. So if you really need the money, you could go this route.<br>

Note that I considered the same thing last year, when prices went cary high for the 9000, even used. I was scanning some Fall Colors 645 slides, and was impressed that the 4870 actually had more vibrant colors straight out of the scanner. I -preferred the scans to the 9000 scans - for this application. Dont know, maybe with portaits would be a drawback with the 4870. Plus, I had several 4870 film holders I could preload for "scan and walk away" scanning, simply swapping holders as scans finished. Less disruptive than changing out and reloading film after every scan.<br>

But, I use my 9000 for 35mm too, so I decided not to sell it. But again, if you really need the money, you would be happy with a 4870 for the purposes you state (and NOT 35mm). Plus, they can be had for peauts nowadays - a $600 (new) scanner for around $100.</p>

<p>Why are you shooting medium format when you only ever make 8x10 prints? Just as a comparison I think a 17x20" print from 35mm B&W film scanned on the 5000ED look good. If you sell your scanner you should perhaps sell your camera as well and pick up a decent 35mm instead and have the film developed and scanned? An 8x10 print will look great if the scanning is not too bad and you'd free up some more cash.</p>

<p>That said unless it was a must (and then you don't have an option) I would keep both the camera and the scanner and start making some big prints to justify having both a good scanner and shooting medium format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why are you shooting medium format when you only ever make 8x10 prints?</p>

</blockquote>

<ol>

<li>Shallower DOF</li>

<li>Prints with no visible grain</li>

<li>Sharpness close to that of a contact print</li>

<li>Retain the possibility of always printing larger</li>

</ol>

<blockquote>

<p>I think a 17x20" print from 35mm B&W film scanned on the 5000ED look good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To each his own. I have a 5000, and 9000 as well. For me, 6x9 prints from 135 Tri-X is about right, and maybe 11x14 from 400 TMAX or Acros.</p>

<p>The reason why I went into medium format is that when I rekindled my interest in photography some 10 years ago, I put together a darkroom, with the belief that good optical prints from medium format would be easier to obtain than from 35mm. Of course, nowadays with scanners and almost grainless film like the new Portras and Ektar 100, it may not be so important to use medium format.</p>

<p>Great responses all round. Thanks for those who posted outstanding quality examples. Having seen many of these threads. Yes, a dedicated film scanner is preferable. But, if I were using a flatbed, I would opt for what used to be the professional quality scanners, Linocolor Saphir2, UMax Powerlook series, Mircotek-Agfa, that have, I believe, superior optics to today's consumer models. With good technique as already outlined, and there are ways to combat Newton's rings, one can get excellent quality from at least 120 negatives. Some of the later models had Firewire and I retain SCSI capable computers to use older, but still excellent scanners.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would I be happy with flatbed in place of Nikon 9000 scanner?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>No!</strong></p>