Shouldn't I expect more out of a Nikon 8000ED?

[josphy]

Every year my mom's family has a huge family reunion, and this past

year I managed to get most of the people to line up for a big family

photo with my Yashica 6x6. I already have a scan that I did myself on

a Fuji Frontier machine, but I'd like to have a large print made --

something like 8"x32" or larger -- so I decided to take the photo to a

local shop that has a Nikon 8000ED scanner to have them do a 4000dpi

scan. When I got home, I immediately noticed the scan looks really

soft, which didn't freak me out because I understand all digital can

use some sharpening. My experience has been that a scan may look soft

at first, but all the detail is there and you just have to apply

sharpening to bring it out. Well, maybe my photoshop skills are

lacking, but in this case, I think the scan they did for me just

sucks. I talked to the guy at the shop today, and he offered to

rescan the negative for me, but he said that the Nikon 8000ED scan

isn't really very good and the Frontier scan would probably be better

at equal dpi.

 

I downrezed the Nikon scan (so I could compare them at the same dpi)

they gave me and applied sharpening and compared that against my

Frontier scan...and the Frontier scan just looks so much "cleaner" for

lack of a better word. To do sufficient sharpening to get the Nikon

scan anywhere near the Frontier scan, I start getting artifacts and

noise and the detail just isn't there.<div></div>

[josphy]

Here is the scan I did myself off a Fuji Frontier machine.<div></div>

[josphy]

Here is an interesting comparison...this is the Fuji Frontier scan resampled up 200%...and it still has more detail than the Nikon 8000ED scan that I downsampled to an equal dpi.<div></div>

[josphy]

Oh, so I guess the question is...shouldn't they be able to get better results out of a Nikon 8000ED? I know the Fuji Frontier applies sharpening already, etc., but I am fairly competent in Photoshop, so I don't think I am the weak link here. The guy that I spoke to today on the phone is their "digital guy", and he's not the one that did the scan originally, so maybe the other guy just botched it, but I don't know how you'd get something that bad. I think I could have done as well or better on a flatbed.

[jonathan_traupman]

Yes, you should be able to do better than that with a Nikon 8000. Scanners are basically special purpose digital cameras, and require a fair amount of skill to use correctly. A lot of operators simply don't know how to use the equipment correctly.

 

The biggest pitfall with the 8000 is that the standard 120 film holder is junk. It simply does not hold the film flat enough for even focus across the image. You really need the 869G glass holder to get sharp scans from 120. If your lab doesn't have one, recommend that they get it. I simply can't imagine getting away with the standard holder for professional work.

 

You also have to be careful that the autofocus point is set correctly. I get the best results with the focus point set about 1/3 of the way into the image and on a high contrast edge. If there is one particular part of the image that's most important, put the autofocus point on it.

 

Take the images you posted to the lab and politely insist that they scan it again and do it right this time. Properly operated, the Nikon should give better results than a Frontier. I'm guessing the Frontier scan has some sharpening applied automatically, so it's not a direct comparison, though. The Nikon scan will probably need a bit more sharpening before printing.

[robert_martin5]

I have a Nikon 9000 scanner and it does a much better job than the one you posted for the 8000. Ask the lab which film holder they used to do the scan. FH-869S holder supplied with the 8000/9000 scanner is glassless and will not hold the film flat. If the film is not flat it is impossible to get a scan that is in focus from edge to edge, this is what your 8000 scan looks like to me. You need to use a glass holder like the Nikon FH-869G to get scans that are sharp edge to edge. If they don't have a glass holder, it's unlikely you will get a sharp scan from them.

[robert_martin5]

If they are using a glass carrier, it's possible the mirror in the scanner is dusty or the scanner needs servicing. I keep my scanner covered in a closed cabinet when not in use.

[josphy]

Thanks -- glad to get some feedback. And just to reiterate...I know that the Frontier applies sharpening already. I applied GENEROUS AMOUNTS OF SHARPENING myself to the Nikon scans just to get them to the point they're at now.

 

I'll try to stop back by the lab later this week and get their official resident "digital guy" to rescan it, and I'll ask him which carrier they have. I just wanted to get some feedback on here first because I have no direct experience with the Nikon, but I just assumed a dedicated scanner like that (when operated correctly) ought to be able to out-do the Frontier. If they can't do any better than what I have now, I think I'm justified in asking for my money back. I'm not a perfectionist by any stretch of the imagination, it's not a razor sharp negative to begin with, it was only $5 for the scan, and this is just for a family project...BUT, I already know from having scanned the neg myself that there's a lot more detail on there than they're giving me.

[andre_noble4]

I keep mine covered AND stored on it's side.

[Ed_Ingold]

The LS-8000 can do much better than you show. The sample does not even look grain sharp, or I would suspect the camera was not focused properly. The standard holder does no keep the film flat enough, but some part, usually the center, is in sharp focus. I really can't imagine how the operator could have messed up this badly. Then again, he displays his ignorance claiming the Frontier gives better scans. This is what you can expect from an LS-8000 and a 6x6 negative...<div></div>

[josphy]

Well here is a crop from the full resolution file -- this is without any sharpening applied, but it doesn't seem that any amount of sharpening improves anything...just sharpens noise. I don't see any sharp points anywhere on the full scan...it just all looks soft.

 

And granted this isn't probably the world's most razor sharp negative -- so I didn't really expect it to look as good as yours does, Edward, at 100% at 4000dpi. But now I'm even questioning if this was scanned on the Nikon or maybe they have some other flatbed scanner or something that the guy scanned it on instead, because I would think that even if the negative itself weren't totally pin-sharp, I'd still be seeing the grain pattern @ 100% on the full 4000dpi file, but all I have is weird mush and noise. Like I mentioned above, sharpening only brings out the green noisy artifacts more.<div></div>

[erik scanhancer]

You didn't tell us in what format they delivered, but I notice two things: 1) the scan itself is

simply not in focus and 2) I can clearly see JPEG compression artifacts. You should have

received a full res (and 16 bit) TIFF file. A few hundred MB's large. Then you would have a

good base to work from.

[josphy]

It was a TIFF file, 8-bit, 4994x8664 (I didn't want/need the full neg. scanned), looks like 123MB.

 

The crop I posted in my last post before this one is a 100% crop exactly as I received it (except converted to a JPEG in photoshop, quality level 10).

 

The other examples I put up above that are downsampled and then sharpened to try and match the Frontier scans I made myself -- those may show a little bit of JPEG artifacts or some pixelation on the Frontier scan especially on the one where I upsampled it 200% just to show how even a 200% upsample of the Frontier still had more detail than the scan they gave me).

[jtk]

The original is not just slightly soft.

 

Yes, the heavy sharpening done by the Fuji is effective with this bad film and yes, the 8000 does, as a design, require skilled use...unlike the Fuji.

 

Ultimately, a scan of good film by the 8000 should look LOTS better than one by Fuji, but in this case we have a poor film and, apparently, a poorly done Nikon scan...not a good way to evaluate the Nikon as a gizmo.

 

Yes, you should expect more from Nikon, but not at that trailerpark price...it should cost twice or three times as much.

[josphy]

Well, trailerpark price or no...what's the point of having the equipment and selling scans if they are not up to par?