Buying my first/last scanner soon. Need some advice.

[ralf_strandell]

Hi,

 

I would like to buy my first (and last) film scanner so that I could

scan my films. I have both color and B/W 35mm film, framed slides, and

IX-240 (APS) rolls. The idea is to make a digital archive. I want dust

and scratch removal and multi pass scanning for better

shadow/highlight detail. Restoration of faded colour (based on

emulsion type and age; Minolta has this) would be lovely, too. The APS

system stores medatada in the film stripes (date, time, cropping etc).

I would like the scanner to read that info, too (at least date and

time) and store it with the image.

 

I have thousands of frames to scan so I want a reasonably fast scanner

and an APS roll feeder. Photography is just a hobby, but I want to

archive those images with best possible quality.

 

1) I have heard that Nikon LS-5000 would be pretty good, and I'm

interested in it. Would that be a good choice?

 

2) I have 64bit Windows XP and Nikon doesn't offer any 64bit drivers

for its scanners yet, so I'm also interested in Minolta scanners.

Which one of the Minoltas would you recommend (it needs APS/IX-240

support)?

[phil_jarrett]

The Nikon's good, but I don't think it supports APF roll feed - you may have to scour eBay for an APS scanner.

 

To be honest, I don't think the scanner you want is available - yet. There maybe something in pipeline that will scan and transfer either by firewire or wirelessly. Also there will probably be more support for 64bit processing once Adobe and others write native 64bit versions of pro software. Once that happens finding a highspeed scanner will be easy. Personally, I'd wait another six months and see what happens.

[victor_podinovski3]

Ralf

 

I bought Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED before Christmas. Overall it's a very impressive machine. I have two points which may not be specific to Nikon.

 

1) I've noticed that I rarely get a sharp scan after the first attempt, especially with the old emulsions from the 70's. Yes, the scanner automatically focuses before the scanning but the result is not sharp. However, if I refocus (automatically, not manually) and rescan, the results are almost always fine. My own explanation is that under the intense heat during the scanning process the film warps, exactly as the slides would in the projector or negatives in the enlarger, so after that a refocus is needed. Once I realised this, I do a prescan first which is slightly quicker than the actual scan but enough to heat up the slide and cause it warp. After that, without taking the slide out, I always refocus and scan again. In most cases this produces far better results than those straight scans done in one go. This by the way makes me wonder if the batch scanning produces sharp results. (I have not done this myself and would be interested to hear from other people.)If my theory about the heat is correct, there must be a sharpness issue with the batch scanning.

 

2) My Nikon scanner is with the Nikon service at the moment because it produces ghosting, or flare, around areas of high contrast. See the attached example. This is not in the slide itself because, if I rotate the slide 90 degrees and rescan, the ghosting changes direction. This is not new and there have been discussions of this flaw in some Nikon 5000 scanners. Just watch out.

 

Best

 

Victor

[pete_andrews10]

Victor, there's no "intense heat" generated in a modern film scanner. The light source used is either cold running LEDs (in the case of your Nikon scanner), or a fluorescent tube, which runs just moderately warm, so I doubt that film "pops" in a scanner due to heat. It's more likely that there's a bug in Nikon's focusing algorithm, or that the film carrier shifts from vibration, or some other reason than heat.

[Ed_Ingold]

There is no "bug" in the Nikon focusing algorithm. Slides are not flat! You can help by moving the focusing area from the center (default) to a point midway between the center and one corner. There must be some detail near that spot, because the focusing is by contrast.

 

There is an automatic APS feeder available for the Nikon LS-50/5000, the model IA-20s adapter.

 

Slides do not "pop" in a Nikon scanner (nor any other scanner, AFIK). The LED light source in the Nikon is cool running, and extremely stable. Even K-M adopted LED lights (changing from cold-cathode fluorescent lamps) before giving up on photography.

 

I have not observed any blooming while scanning slides. I have observed blooming in the slides themselves on close examination, which the scanner faithfully reproduces. If the direction of blooming changes with the orientation of the slide, it is due to the slide.

[victor_podinovski3]

Pete

 

If the vibration was responsible then it would probably affect the second scan as well. I am not sure how much heat is actually needed to pop a slide. The scanner itself gets quite warm outside during the scan, and surely inside it's worse. Maybe it's not the light sourse but the electrical circuits that generate heat inside the scanner and the emulsion reacts naturally. I don't know. It's just the second pass works much better than the first if you press the autofucus button before it. (Makes no difference if you press it before the first scan.) Just a conjecture, not a proof.

 

Victor

[charles_stobbs3]

I am no expert but from what I have read on photonet and elsewhere some films do not scan well. Kodak advertising describes some films as better for scanning. Maybe before you get your hopes too high you should have commercial scans made from representative samples fom your archives to see if its worth going ahead with your project.

[victor_podinovski3]

Edward

 

I must have been clearer. I attach two small crops of one slde. One scanned normally, the other rotated 90 degrees. You will see how the ghosting changed. It's not in the slide, and almost all other slides I scanned exhibit this defect. That's why my scanner is in for repairs now.

 

Cheers,

Victor

[victor_podinovski3]

Just another illustration to the above. I posted the normally scanned slide of a monument to Mozart in my first reply to this thread. In the attachment you can see that the rotated slide (on the right) has a very different shape of the ghosting effect. The slide itself is crystal clear.

Regarding different emulsions, the Mozart is either Ektachrome 100 or Sensia 100 (can't check now), but not Kodachrome. My previous example with three people was from the mid-70s on old ORWO.

 

Victor

[ralf_strandell]

"To be honest, I don't think the scanner you want is available - yet."

 

- Ok, this is going to sound ridiculous, but well... tell me what I want :) I don't know scanner technology that well so I have no idea of what might be coming in near future.

 

"There maybe something in pipeline that will scan and transfer either by firewire or wirelessly. Also there will probably be more support for 64bit processing once Adobe and others write native 64bit versions of pro software. Once that happens finding a highspeed scanner will be easy. Personally, I'd wait another six months and see what happens."

 

- Firewire? Why? Wouldn't USB2 already offer enough bandwidth for scanning? It should be able to transfer 60 megabytes per second (480Mbit/s)... FireWire400 isn't going to be much faster I guess. Or is there a big difference in effective throughput? Nikon says that a frame is scanned in twenty seconds. Transfer would take one or two...

 

- In what way would 64bit applications make the scanning faster? Is it the scanner driver that does the job and is slow, or is it the device itself that causes delay? If it's the driver, then wouldn't multithreaded processing offer a speed boost, too?

 

- What exactly should I wait for? Double the speed? Better algorithms?

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

- On focusing issues: Doesn't scratch removal use infrared ie. heat? Does anybody else have focusing issues at first attempt or is it just this one scanner?

 

- On ghosting: just remove the star filter ;) Maybe the surface of the film has such a constitution that it spreads light at higligts just like the star filters do? Or maybe the scanner is just broken?

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

If I buy now, then should I get the Nikon (provided I get drivers), or should I get a Minolta?

[ralf_strandell]

"Maybe before you get your hopes too high you should have commercial scans made from representative samples fom your archives to see if its worth going ahead with your project."

 

A little background:

 

At present I have several thousand "priceless" images on APS film (tightly rolled inside the APS film rolls for up to eight years...) that were taken with a pocket sized Konica Revio. It probably didn't have worlds best optics but it surely was portable and quick. I enjoyed photographing with it a lot...

 

However, the images had to be printed. The attempts of several minilabs have left me with fifteen albums of prints suffering from red cast, blue cast, yellow cast, magenta cast, clipped highlights or shadows, flat or excessive contrast, cropped images... and one damaged film. I have now had enough of that and I got a dSLR so that I can have colour managed workflow and display and enjoy the full glory of colour and contrast on screen. I don't want tiny, flat, cropped, clipped prints with a colour cast and plastic cover anymore... My digital images are lovely.

 

Now I want to rescue my APS films before they suffer more permanent damage from bad storage inside rolls and to SEE them. That's why I am looking for a scanner. I know there is some potential in the negatives as I had some films scanned at a minilab. Result: 2 MPix, 8 bit jpeg, compressed "times million". Was I happy? No, but there was no colour cast, more vibrant colour, more contrast, more shadow/highlight detail... However, if I scan the films myself, then I get much better image quality (more dpi and colour depth and a lossless format) and at much lower price.

 

So, it is worth doing. I just need to find the best scanner for the job...

[victor_podinovski3]

Ralph

 

Your dissatisfaction with processing labs is exactly the reason I am going to switch to digital. (Not yet but soon.) Not so much because digital gives me more flexibility, as I have enough of it with 100, 400 and, occasionally 800, film. It is those people who heartlessly and almost irreversibly ruin in processing your 30+ films you brought from your holiday that make me switch. Just one reason above all.

 

Regarding predictions, I may be wrong but the film is probably going to be a niche market in the near future, so the R&D money is in digital. Current scanners are good already, faults apart.

 

Nikon indeed scans in about 20 seconds but there is more to it. You first take the previous slide or neg out and wait while the green indicator on the scanner stops blinking. Then you insert the new slide and wait for it to adjust and stop produsing characteristic noise. Then you prescan with at least dust removal on and in most cases DEE which automatically improves the shadow and highlight detail. Then you wait for about 2 minutes to see the pre-view. Then you can change the settings in DEE and other digital options to see what is best. This is very quick as no rescan is needed. Then, when happy, refocus and scan. Another two minutes. Evaluate the sharpness. Provided everything is OK, save. All in all this might take about 5-10 minutes, definitely not 20 seconds (which is true but only accounts for a small part of the workflow).

 

Victor

[roger_smith4]

"- On focusing issues: Doesn't scratch removal use infrared ie. heat?"

 

Pretty negligible- IR from LEDs in scanners isn't very intense at all. If you want heat powerful enough to warp film, try a projector bulb.

[john_shriver]

I'd be worried about support on Konica/Minolta scanners as KM totally exits the photography business. Maybe Sony will support them, but they really aren't into support, this is the same company that make audio CDs that rootkit Windows!

 

I would say you better make your system dual-boot with 32 bit Windows XP if you want ANY hope of device drivers for ANY scanner. All of these scanner companies can barely write software, they're not going to pull it off for 64 bit Windows until they are forced to. Of course, by the time Microsoft forces the 64-bit conversion, nobody will be making film scanners. (The only application that is presently driving real demand for 64 bit microprocessors and operating systems is relational database software, which needs more than 4 gigabytes of RAM.)

 

I've been very happy with my Nikon CoolScan IV-ED.

 

If you are in the US, think long and hard before buying a grey market (unofficially imported) Nikon scanner. Nikon USA will not touch them for love or money. Not just warranty repairs, they won't repair them for money either. Any problem will require shipping them to Japan.

 

Now, as for archiving, get the APS film out of those wretched little cartridges, and into Mylar sleeving. Forget about the magnetic stripe, most of the cameras never wrote it, even less of the printing equipment read it. (Chicken and egg problem.) Too clever engineering, too late.

[ralf_strandell]

"Then you wait for about 2 minutes to see the pre-view ... Then, when happy, refocus and scan. Another two minutes ... All in all this might take about 5-10 minutes"

 

Aaaaaaaaaaargh!

 

I have 3000 frames to scan.

250 hours!

 

What takes that long? Is there some speedier hardware coming?

[victor_podinovski3]

Ralph

 

I have over 25,000, of which 10,000 are b&w negs, 10,000 colour negs and 5,000 slides, starting from the early 70s up to today. I am not going to scan everything but at least most of the family events and close friends. Landscapes and flowers, which seemed so dear at the time, will have to wait.

 

Victor

[craig_shearman1]

"The idea is to make a digital archive." Please keep in mind that everything about digital is the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of archival. Scanning your slides and negatives is NOT a way to preserve them for the future. Remember 5 1/4-inch floppies? Good luck finding a computer that will take them today. Even 3.5-inch floppies aren't standard on new computers anymore. True, any computer in the world today can open a jpg on a CD. But what about 20 years from now? 50 years from now? How about the 40 differerent formats of videotape that have come and gone since the 1950s? There's a company in NY that makes a full time business of rescuing video from obsolete formats that nobody else has the equipment for. But you can still hold a Civil War glass negative up the light and you can still take the 1930s newsreel footage my grandfather shot for his movie theaters and thread it up on any projector at any multiplex. Scan your photos for the sake of convenience but don't kid yourself that they amount to any kind of archive.

[roger_smith4]

"What takes that long? Is there some speedier hardware coming?"

 

Exposure does. Nikons have intense LED light and wide apertures (and associated focusing issues) and it still takes time to expose a frame. Don't hold your breath for significantly faster hardware...

 

The nice thing with APS is that you can scan a roll at a time. My Canon FS4000US will do it and so will other scanners. You don't need multipass scanning for negative film- you won't have any scanner noise to sample out, so don't worry about that. With a LS-50 or similar caliber scanner, you really don't need it for slide film either.

 

"Restoration of faded colour (based on emulsion type and age; Minolta has this)"

Well, I wouldn't expect too much with this feature... rememember all the shots in your album with bad color casts? That's what I'd expect with a one-size fits all feature (maybe others who've used it can comment more).

[victor_podinovski3]

To add to the post of Les

 

1) "Preview nothing on - my time = 25sec vs Nikon time of 17sec"

 

I found that preview is more useful when you have DEE and ROC on. That takes considerably more time but, once performed, you can change the levels in these functions, and the preview almost instantly will reflect this in the image. If you perform preview without DEE and ROC on, you cannot experiment with different settings. Again, in my experience the levels, thresholds etc can be specific to every slide you scan.

 

2) Nikon does have an adaptor for APS film but see the price first to avoid disappointment later.

 

Victor

[ralf_strandell]

Thank you. These replies have been usefull.

 

I'll avoid Minolta and possible future support issues then, and get a Nikon 5000 once the drivers (or a new model + drivers) become available...

 

I know that the APS-film adapter is expensive. Next year it costs even more, if available.

 

I'll also archive my negatives properly once I'm happy with the scans.

[ralf_strandell]

"You don't need multipass scanning for negative film- you won't have any scanner noise to sample out"

 

Ok, so I could save some money... but I don't understand this. What makes negative film so different? Darker frame and longer exposure? Something else?

 

 

I'm also open to suggestions, so if you think that there is some scanner that would be better than a Nikon 5000, please tell. The cheaper Nikons are a choice if I don't need multipass scanning - but they have the driver issue, too (and it might be worse than with LS-5000).

 

I didn't exactly love the Sony rootkit, so I'm not very happy about buying from that company right now. So that (and the uncertain future) rules out Minolta, I guess. I also tried to find Canon film scanners, but there seem to be none available right now.

[ralf_strandell]

"Did you hear about a replacement?"

 

Sorry :(

 

I have heard nothing about any replacement.

I don't even know about new drivers.

 

I asked Nikon about the drivers, but obviously they cannot comment on future products...

 

I don't dare to buy something that doesn't work right now. I'll have to wait - and possibly take a look at Microtek scanners, too (just found out they exist).

[jtk]

Ralf's pulling everybody's leg.

[ralf_strandell]

I'm not sure about the mood of the previous comment about pulling everyones leg. Joke or frustration? Hence, lets make a few things clear.

 

1) If you mean that I might know something about future scanner models, then no, I don't. I wouldn't be asking then :)

 

2) If you mean that I'm not seriously trying to find a scanner to purchase, then no, that's not true. I am looking for one. I was just a little uncertain knowing very little about these devices. The Nikon doesn't have drivers, so I was a bit interested in the Minolta. Now, however, I realize that it might be better to wait a bit more.

 

Anyway, I got the information I needed, so I guess it's time to end this thread soon.

 

No bad feelings :)

[jtk]

Minolta's dead, kaput unless one wants to buy used, loves grief, and can do one's own repairs...or unless (d'oh!) one believes Minolta's going to continue to make scanners while abandoning cameras as part of their announced 100% focus on poor quality photocopiers. APS is like Edsel or passenger pigeon, or wooly mammoth, extinct a long time ago: Another Minolta mistake (I bought one). Microtek doesn't make a credible 35mm scanner, not to mention APS. That doesn't leave too many options.

 

I still think our collective legs are being pulled :-)