Want to move beyond Nikon 5000 Ed, ...drum scanner?

[jay_bees]

I have been scanning my collection of 35mm Kodachromes using my Nikon 5000 ED. I

think I have mastered the Nikon 5000 ED and think I am getting all I can out of

this nice little machine, however I would like to move to a better scanner for

some scans of my best work (better shadow detail, better, resolution, less

grainy appearance with west mounting, etc.). There are hundreds of these slides,

so having them drum scanned professionally is probably cost prohibitive.

 

What are my options? Would a $8000 budget be adequate to move into a drum

scanner of current design that will have software/hardware compatibility into

the future?

 

Thanks.

[Stock-Photos]

http://www.digitaloutput.net/content/ContentCT.asp?P=431

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/drum_scans.shtml

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CfQ2

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=FSvym1TFvG!1038924694!1167237800787?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=drum+scanner&image.x=0&image.y=0

[brettdeacon]

The Nikon 5000ED is a very good scanner. A drum scanner will indeed provide better resolution, shadow detail, and clarity (due to wet mounting), but the difference will not be huge - I'd say maybe a 20% improvement based on my experience with the Nikon 4000 and my Optronics drum scanner. This will be less than the difference between your 5000 and an Epson flatbed. What I appreciate most about the drum scanner for 35mm is that it holds the film perfectly flat, whereas the Nikon tends to render the corners of mounted slides as somewhat out of focus.

 

A budget of $8000 is more than enough to get a good drum scanner. You can purchase used scanners for much less than this on Ebay or through several dealers such as:

 

http://www.genesis-equipment.com/products.cfm?prodTypeID=6

 

http://www.bob-weber.com/equip_list.asp?id=136

 

Buying a used drum scanner, especially without a warranty or service contract, may be a crapshoot. I highly recommend that you seek the advice of this group (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/), and perhaps even inquire there about whether anyone has a working drum scanner for sale.

 

Regarding the issue of current design, the PMT technology used in drum scanners is over a decade old but is still superior to the latest offerings from Nikon, Epson, etc. You can pay $30,000 for a new drum scanner but the difference in quality over a $3000 used scanner from the mid-1990s will be small. As for software/hardware compatibility into the future, only Aztek (formerly Howtek), Screen, and ICG are still making drum scanners. Of these, Aztek is well known for its dedication to servicing older Howtek scanners and providing excellent new software for running these machines. Probably the least risky bet for you to enter the world of drum scanning is to purchase a refurbished Howtek from Aztek. This way, you can be certain that it works and have a 90-day warranty for peace of mind. When I inquired into this a year ago, the price of a refurbished Howtek 4500 with drum, mounting station, all scanning consumables, and the current version of the very fine DPL software was $6500. If you are less risk-averse, you can get all this on Ebay for less than half this price (like me).

[upscan]

A really good drum scanner (not all are equal) will technically be superior. More significantly, it is a very large step in quality and a small expense going from the Nikon to fluid scanning. I'd spend the difference in a really good printer and a computer with the highest possible RAM and a really good calibrated monitor. Hint: the old conventional glass carrier converts your film scanner into a virtual flatbed. Take a look at the difference in dry and fluid scanned chromes and the fluid scanning kits for the Nikon. If you have been dry scanning only, you'd be surprised at how much more the little machine can yet deliver!

http:www.scanscience.com

[jay_bees]

Thanks for all the information folks.

 

As for wet mounting, does anybody have some good example of Kodachrome compared scanned dry and wet?

 

Does anybody have comments on wet mounting with a Nikon 9000?

[upscan]

<As for wet mounting, does anybody have some good example of Kodachrome compared scanned dry and wet?

 

Does anybody have comments on wet mounting with a Nikon 9000?>

 

In the ScanScience site http://www.scanscience.com there are examples of dry and fluid scaned Kodachrome on the Canon FS 4000US. The same differences would apply to the Nikon 9000 or the Nikon 5000. For other's experience on using the ScanScience kits for the Nikon 9000 have a look at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/message/788. Quote: <I agree, I purchased the wetmounting kit from scanscience and there's no

turning back - its better than the more expensive competition. I have

the Nikon 9000ED and my scans have improved enormously with the kit.

Plus Julio, the owner ensures great service.

Xavier Nuez Contemporary Photography

http://www.nuez.com >

[roger_smith4]

Thanks for the links. I use the FS4000US and based on the scns posted here suggest trying a Scanhancer before wet-mounting as there are similar benefits to highlight smoothness (based on the posted link). The apparent increase in dmax to wetmounting looks impressive.

 

Provia 100F IT8 crop with scanhancer and without (FS4000US @4000dpi)

 

http://jingai.com/vuescan2/peppergrain%20normal.jpg

 

http://jingai.com/vuescan2/peppergrain%20scanhancer.jpg

[rich815]

No doubt it looks like wet mounting improves the scan but it looks suspiciously close to me like the results one can get from judiciously applied NeatImage or Noise Ninja with a slight jolt of unsharp mask afterwards. And without a fraction of the trouble, I imagine. At least in regards to grain and noise removal. (I personally see barely an improvement in the dmax myself)