Nikon + ScanScience Wet Mounting - Which Side Goes Up?

<p>With the Nikon LS-9000, ScanScience recommends you spray the emulsion side of the film with LUMINA, then attach that to the glass plate. Then, insert this into the original holder (with top removed) such that the glass is facing up (towards the light source) and the film base then is facing down (toward the CCD).</p>

<p>This is exactly the opposite of what Nikon recommends. Nikon recommends you scan with the emulsion side down (toward the CCD).</p>

<p>I just verified that when you scan with the emulsion side up, you have to flip the image in Photoshop.</p>

<p>So, then, Nikon LS-9000 + ScanScience users, which side of the film to you attach to the glass plate? Glass plate HAS to be on the side of the light source (which is on the top in Nikon scanners, correct? as the mirror assembly and all is underneath... I know b/c I took my scanner apart). So then do you attach the film base side to the glass?</p>

<p>Should Julio modify his instructions for the Nikon LS-9000 then?</p>

<p>Many thanks in advance,<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>P.S. Also, I don't quite understand why ScanScience says one can save *time* by not using ICE... Does the IR exposure really require that much more time for a scan? Also, in Vuescan, I see no way to turn the IR exposure off anyway... as even if you scan with IR cleaning set to 'OFF', it still does an infrared channel scan, as is evidenced by the fact that when you do the scan with IR cleaning 'OFF', you can still, post-scan, apply IR 'Light' and it gets rid of all the blemishes. Which means the IR scan did occur in the first place (can also be verified by scanning with IR 'off', but then looking at the IR channel post-scan).</p>

<p>I scan with the emulsion side down when using Lumina. Try it.</p>

<p>Thanks Robert. Wouldn't that mean that you wouldn't even need an ULTrans Overlay, since the film backing would already be fluid mounted to the glass plate, thereby 'healing scratches/imperfections' even without the overlay (don't know how much this actually heals scratches/imperfections, but Julio's premise for using the Overlay is to have the film backing fluid mounted to <em>something</em> ... whereas if you scan with the emulsion side down and the film base fluid mounted to the glass, it <em>already</em> is fluid mounted to something)?</p>

<p>I haven't ordered yet... I have one more thing I want to try before I give up on dry film scanning. And that is scanning with the film base side down (toward the CCD), but with a piece of clear (not AN) glass against the emulsion side, essentially lying on top of the film pushing it down (flattening it).</p>

<p>I just tried a comparison of putting the clear side of the AN glass that I have against the film backing and, of course, got newton rings. But then I put the clear side of the AN glass against the emulsion side, and no newton rings.</p>

<p>This seems too easy though... surely someone would've tried this by now?!</p>

<p>I prep my slides by spraying Lumina on the plate, the film emulsion, and the overlay. I then place the film, emulsion side down, on the plate. I then spray Lumina on the back of the film and then place the sprayed side of the overlay on the film. A gentle squeegie from the center will remove any trapped air. Blow off the prepped slide to remove excess fluid and then place in the film holder. It's pretty easy once you've done a few.</p>

<p>Wait a minute, Robert, if you place the emulsion side down on the plate, and then place the emulsion side down in the scanner, that means you have the glass on the bottom when everything is inside the scanner, correct?</p>

<p>I thought the light source was on the top and the CCD on the bottom of the scanner. Wouldn't that mean you have the glass plate in between the emulsion and the CCD?</p>

<p>Isn't that bad?</p>

<p>I must be off on something here...</p>

<p>That's the way I've been scanning, and the results are a lot better than with the standard holder. I'm not sure where the ccd is located - I haven't taken mine apart, and I can't find a diagram of the internals on the net. Perhaps I should flip the plate over and run a test scan.</p>

<p>Actually, I can guarantee you that the light source is on the top for the Nikon LS-4000 & the LS-5000, as I place the Scanhancer optical diffuser ABOVE the film in the MA-21 holder, i.e. in the path between the light source and the film. If the CCD were on top, I wouldn't see anything in my scans, b/c the optical diffuser would be in the way.</p>

<p>I doubt it has changed for the LS-9000.</p>

<p>Knowing that, if I were you I'd probably try spraying the film base and plate with LUMINA, then putting the film base side down onto the glass plate, then placing this assembly emulsion side down in the Nikon film holder. This way, the glass is facing the light source, and there is <strong>nothing</strong> in between the emulsion and the CCD, no glass, no overlay, nothing. Which would ensure optimal optical quality of the scan.</p>

<p>This way also there is no use for the overlay, since the scratches and imperfections of the film base are 'healed' since they are fluid mounted to the glass.</p>

<p>Seems like this would be the most elegant solution. Now, I haven't nor can I try this myself right now, but I don't see why you do it your way nor why Julio does it his way. It just seems like your guys' ways places extra junk in between the film and CCD, which certainly can't help the optics.</p>

<p>What do you think?<br /> Rishi</p>

<p>When using fluids to mount film on a drum scanner or on a glassplate for scanning you should always use the fluid on the emulsion side. Think of the emulsion side of the film as a rough surface, which is filled with optical fluid in order to get trouble-free in/outlet of light rays. It would be possible to stick your film onto a glass plate on the underside, so that it "hangs" inside your scanner. This way there would be no glass surface between the film and the CCD optics. Only the transparent carrier of the film itself will be between the emulsion and the CCD optics.</p>

<p>Fluid mounting does <b>not</b> do anything for suppressing dust particles, so I would still use ICE or similar systems if I were you. On a modern speedy computer the ICE calculation will not slow down the scanning process since the actual scanning by the scanner will take longer than the ICE calculations by the computer. In reality the computer will still have to wait for each scanning line that drips through the firewire line. No time gains here.</p>

<p>I have emailed Scan Science twice asking about support for the Coolscan 4000 (they only mention the 5000), but to no avail; they do not reply. I might be interested in buying their package if my scanner is supported, but the lack of effort on their part concerns me.<br>

If they aren't interested enough to even attempt to make a sale, how helpful are they likely to be if assistance with their products is needed?</p>

<p>"if I were you I'd probably try spraying the film base and plate with LUMINA, then putting the film base side down onto the glass plate, then placing this assembly emulsion side down in the Nikon film holder. This way, the glass is facing the light source, and there is <strong>nothing</strong> in between the emulsion and the CCD, no glass, no overlay, nothing."<br /> <br /> There is the problem of gravity. What, other than surface tension, would hold the film to the plate? It may work with the overlay, but not without.<br /> <br /> I checked my Scan Science manual. Julio claims that the light source is below the film holder and that the ccd is above. There is no problem if the light goes through glass prior to passing through the film. Can anyone verify the ccd location? Erik, perhaps?<br>

<br /> Howard - you may want to give Julio at Scan Science a call. He's been very helpful whenever I've called.</p>

<p>"Also, I don't quite understand why ScanScience says one can save *time* by not using ICE... Does the IR exposure really require that much more time for a scan?"</p>

<p>It's not the IR exposure that's responsible for the extra time. Keep in mind that ICE is a combination of hardware (the IR channel) and software which is responsible for figuring out how to replace the defects detected by that channel. It's the software which takes incremental time. As Erik points out, on many newer systems that time will not even be noticed.</p>

<p>Even if ICE took a great deal of extra time, I find the advice curious at best. If time was of concern, you wouldn't be involved with fluid mounting anyway. Scan times pale in comparison to the time spent prepping for a fluid mounted scan.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>Howard, yes, call -- he was very helpful on the phone.</p>

<p>Scott, fair enough... I've never noticed much processing times for IR removal on my dual-core MBP. And while I agree with you that fluid mounting itself is the time-limiting factor, I must say that with a Scanhancer (due supress pepper grain) + multi-sampling (which I find essential to reduce noise in shadows of slides, and to reduce the appearance of a vertical striping pattern I see on both LS-4000 & LS-5000 scans explained here: <a href="00MAlu">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MAlu</a> ) yields ~30 minutes or longer scan times per frame, making the scan the limiting factor. All in all, 30 minutes per scan is ridiculous, I know. It's better with the LS-9000, but for the LS-4000, Scanhancer significantly increases scan times (for the 5000 too, I just haven't clocked it yet).</p>

<p>For that matter, can anyone confirm that fluid mounting reduces pepper grain? Sorry, but if you're using a LS-9000, you're not qualified to comment, since the LS-9000 itself does an incredible job at suppressing pepper grain :)</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I, as well as Erik, can confirm that for the LS-4000 & LS-5000 the light source is at the top. This is why you can place a Scanhancer <strong>above</strong> the plane of the film. If the CCD were above, you'd get no scans with the Scanhancer placed above the film plane.</p>

<p>For the LS-9000, why would they have changed it? I'd be willing to bet you a dime that the light source is at the top. Especially if you take a look at the design of the scanners. The light source at the top and the optics at the bottom is what makes the design of the scanners such that the film is inserted near the top of the scanner. This remains the same for the LS-9000, and I find it hard to believe that all that space below the film feeding spot would be devoted to a light source + electronics, while the optics and the CCD would be crammed into that little space at the top of the scanner.</p>

<p>Of course, I could be wrong. Erik, you must know...?<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>Damn I keep forgetting to write everything on my mind in one post. Sorry.</p>

<p>Robert -- as for gravity -- I was assuming the surface tension would be enough to hold the film to the glass plate. But, if not, you still have the bottom of the FH-835S mount pushing up (well, depending on your frame of reference :)) against the edges of the film strip... which should hold it in place, no?</p>

<p>Also, Howard -- I also recommended to Julio to make a solution for the LS-4000, especially since it has the smallest DOF of all of the Nikon scanners I've tested. Fluid mounting and/or some other flattening solution would make the LS-4000 <strong>usable</strong> to me. Currently, I consider the LS-4000 a product that should be <strong>recalled by Nikon for monetary compensation</strong> (see this thread: <a href="00Obu1">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Obu1</a> ).</p>

<p>He said that he didn't think there'd be enough demand, especially given that more professionals use higher end equipment. I didn't pursue this line of discussion for very long but, for what it's worth, I wholeheartedly disagree with him. The LS-4000 & LS-5000, for half the price of the LS-9000, <em>can</em> be used to yield <em>just as good</em> results as the LS-9000 for 35mm film. Assuming you use a Scanhancer to suppress pepper grain, and some solution to keep the film flat. The latter being where Julio could step in.</p>

<p>It's not like we all have endless $$ to throw at a dying technology (film), as much as I love film. As a student, I'd be crazy to go out & (ask my parents to) buy a LS-9000 or an Imacon. Not crazy, though, to just modify my LS-4000 till I get it to work.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I suggested to Julio to adapt a solution to use the FH-3 strip film adapter with the fluid mounting solution... this way one could fluid mount strips of film for both the LS-4000 & LS-5000. Currently he has a solution for only the mounted slide feeder on the LS-5000... useless to me as I work with strips. He said that it's not possible to fluid mount with the FH-3...</p>

<p>To which I say: if I can use Mike's (Focal Point) AN glass in FH-3 holder by removing half of the holder or just removing the black plastic portion of the holder on one side, then fluid mounting <strong>IS</strong> possible. In fact, Howard, I say you and I just both order some clear glass from Mike over at Focal Point for the FH-3 holder, preferably the 3mm thick one so we can just remove half the holder, and get some LUMINA from Julio, and try to hack a wet mount ourselves this way for the LS-4000/5000.</p>

<p>How's that sound?<br /> Rishi</p>

<p>Yes, Rishi, it seems reasonable that the light source is above the holder on the 9000, too. Let's not bet a dime - it will cost 4x the bet to ship the dime to the winner. Wherever it is, I have found that I get excellent scans even if there is glass between the film and the sensor. Perhaps it's possible to do better by flipping the plate over - I may give it a try in the coming week, as long as I can convince myself that everything will stay together in my scanner.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have one more thing I want to try before I give up on dry film scanning. And that is scanning with the film base side down (toward the CCD), but with a piece of clear (not AN) glass against the emulsion side, essentially lying on top of the film pushing it down (flattening it).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doh! Mike over at Focal Point raised a very valid counterargument to my proposed scheme above to solve the film flatness problem WITHOUT wet mounting:</p>

<p>Basically, if I place the emulsion side up, and place clear glass of formidable weight (3mm thick?) on top to flatten the film, and have nothing between the film base side and the CCD, then I may not entirely solve my film flatness problem because film tends to curl towards the emulsion... so the very fact that the film base will be hanging with no obstruction means it could slightly 'pop' outward.</p>

<p>I just tried this and gave it a quick visual inspection and, sure enough, on badly curled film, the film base does pop a little bit out below the holder (thru the frame in the holder). The glass does flatten the film quite a bit though.</p>

<p>But, this badly cupped film is only from Walgreen's development (I didn't care about this roll). Film from professional developing places are pretty flat (yet still not flat enough for these damn scanners). So I'm hoping that the relatively flat film with the clear glass on top with emulsion pointing up will solve the film flatness problem.</p>

<p>This is probably OT at this point.</p>

<p>I've tried the Focal Point AN glass, too. But I used it with the emulsion side down and with a single sheet of glass above. It seeemed to flatten the film well, but fluid mounting still seemed a bit better.</p>

<p>I don't recommend using the Focal Point glass in an unmodified holder - too much risk of getting the entire assembly stuck inside the scanner (don't ask).</p>

<p>Cool, Robert, didn't know you tried the Focal Point glass.</p>

<p>The more diffuse the light source, the less you see the pattern. On an unmodified LS-4000/5000, the AN glass is downright unacceptable.</p>

<p>I take it you didn't see the pattern on your LS-9000?</p>

<p>Emulsion side down is better, but I wanted to swap out the AN glass for clear glass. Clear glass you can't place on the film base side, of course, due to Newton rings... I tried it.</p>

<p>Cheers, Rishi</p>

<p>Rishi - Have you contacted Julio to ask him about the orientation of the plate and film for wet scans?</p>

<p>I didn't see patterns using AN glass on the 9000. But I only did a few scans before I got the holder stuck. I'll need to have the clamps on my MF holder ground down a bit to accomodate the thickness of the glass.</p>

<p>I do prefer fluid scans, but not for every photo because dry scans are faster to prep.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I checked my Scan Science manual. Julio claims that the light source is below the film holder and that the ccd is above. There is no problem if the light goes through glass prior to passing through the film. Can anyone verify the ccd location? Erik, perhaps?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, the light source in the Nikon 9000 is above the film, the CCD is under it, 100% sure.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Erik. I'll try a few scans with the overlay down towards the ccd and see if it makes any difference.</p>