Recommend me a scanner

[mike_willis1]

In a previous thread that I now can't find I had mentioned that I took some

Velvia 50 in for processing and requested the Hi Res CD-ROMs too. Well this was

my first time doing this and even though I am an analog guy at heart, the fact

of being able to share my pics via the internet strongly attracks me. Well I

was warned by some of you that these Hi-Res scans wouldn't be impressive and I

have to say you are right.

 

I use Helix camera's lab to do my processing and when I asked the guy at the

counter when I picked them up, what type of scanner do you use? His response

was "I don't know". That should of been the warning. Well when I arrived home I

threw the CD into my computer and found out that these so called Hi-Res photos

are only 3.88Mb each. I thought that if they used the Nikon or similar scanner

the files would be larger or even larger if they used a drum scanner.

 

The scanned images definitely do not pop like the images on the Velvia 50 do.

This tells me that if I want to my photos in a digital file, I will need to buy

a slide scanner. Please recommend one for me and any pros and/or cons , I was

thinking about the Nikon Coolscan series. Also what size file do those of you

who do use a Coolscan unit end up with?

[lahuasteca]

Well, I have a Coolscan 4000 - the new version is the 5000. I get images that "pop"

with the 4000 ED, but it does require post-processing in Photoshop, sometimes a lot. File

size - 50-60 mb scanning in 8 bit depth, and 110 mb in 14 bit. I haven't used Velvia (I

hear it's hard to scan), but I get good results using Provia 100F, Superia-Reala 100, and

Astia 100F.

 

I did just buy a D70s, it gives good or better results without the hassles of scanning, but I

am a dinosaur at heart. I prefer to aperture ring and primes on my FE2 (with the

scanning) to the buttons, menus, and those control dials of the D70s, like I can move

faster in the field with the former.

[eric friedemann]

It has taken me a long while to master- to a reasonable degree- my Nikon LS 8000 scanner. The difficulty stemmed from the fact that Nikon does not include what one would consider an instruction manual with any of its scanners- you need to figure the scanners out by trial-and-error and through whatever third-party materials you can find online.

 

 

If I were to replace my scanner, it would be with an Imacon. That having been said, if you buy a Nikon scanner, I would suggest the LS 5000 (35mm) or the LS 9000 (35mm and 120 up to 6x9 cm).

 

 

This image is a scan from from a 35mm Kodachrome (I believe Pro Kodachrome 64). At 4000 d.p.i., the original file is a 136.2 Megabyte "16 bit" TIFF file.<div></div>

[jim_ochwat]

Mike,

 

I think that this is the thread you were looking for. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GhIE&tag=

 

By the way, I just ordered a Nikon 5000 from B&H.

[mike_willis1]

Thanks for the information, another relevant question. What is the difference between the Coolscan V and the Coolscan 5000, both are listed at the same resolution, yet the price of the 5000 is twice that of the V. I checked them out on B&H.

[Robert_Lai]

Re: V vs 5000, a minor difference is that the V scans at 14 bits, and the 5000 natively runs at 16 bits.<p>A major difference is that the 5000 has the ability to mount automated film feeders to speed up throughput when you have a large number of frames to scan. I use the SF-210 slide feeder on a daily basis. That will feed up to 50 slides at a time. I also own the IA-20(s) feeder for APS film, but I've yet to use it. There is also a roll film feeder to allow scanning of an entire roll of uncut 35mm film.

[ilkka_nissila]

LS-5000 also supports multiscanning which basically means that the scan takes longer but dark noise is reduced. So you get better shadows.

 

Post-processing scans is not that hard ... color matching is tough as monitors don't necessarily show all the colors of the slide, so you may need to go blind into print (printers have a range of colors of their own, depending on model). Color management helps but matching is not perfect. Digital cameras are designed to work within the color range of typical output devices so they're easier, as is color negative film.

[eric friedemann]

One other thing, as noted, my LS 8000 scans at 14 bit, but the images read in Photoshop as 16 bit. The LS 5000 scans in true 16 bit.

 

 

However, the not-inconsiderable distinction between 14-16 bit scans may be lost when you go to have images printed. At home, I can print 14 or 16 bit images on an Epson 2200 printer. If I'm going to have the images printed on the digital-to-C-Print Noritsu machines at my store, I need to dumb the images down to 8 bit.

[brettjohnson]

If you are looking for versatility and need to scan a variety of different media, then it is worth looking at the V700 or V750 Epson scanners that have just been released. I have just ordered one and from all the reviews I have seen it is as good as the dedicated film scanners in terms of quality and the Epson is very affordable less than half the price of the Coolscan. It is flatbed so the die-hards won't recommend it but the results are simply fabulous.

 

Worth a look.

[robert_k1]

Before settling for a Nikon film scanner, read others' nightmare with the flares in their scans:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF