Another CoolScan 5000 ED question(s.)

[brian_johnson5]

<p>Hi, I am considering buying a new Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED.<br>

I have a MacBook 10.5 with 4gb ram running Photoshop CS3. I need to scan about 30 rolls of mostly Fuji Velvia with some Provia and the occasional Kodak slide roll.<br>

My concerns are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Software compatibility with a MAC, is this still a problem? </li>

<li>Darker scans (or some with a bluish tint) </li>

<li>Any other issues</li>

<li>Is a new scanner going to be released soon? How old is this one?</li>

<li>Am I going to be happy dropping $1000 on this?</li>

<li>I simply would like good quality and accurate scans with higher resolution.</li>

</ul>

<p>Any help would be appreciated. I have scoured other forums, but many of them are at least 2 years old, and this world changes fast. Any other hints, idea, comments, stories or anything would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks all!<br>

Brian</p>

[lex_harris]

<p>Brian, the Coolscan 5000ED has been around for a few years. To my knowledge there has been no new release to supersede it and I suspect probably never will be.</p>

<p>I have a Coolscan 5000ED myself and I would not recommend it it anyone. This is why:<br>

<a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF</a><br>

However to be fair there are many happy users and possibly I just have a lemon.</p>

<p>Be aware that getting good quality scans is not just simply a matter of putting in the film and clicking "scan". There is a big learning curve involved. If you have done scanning before on other scanners you will know what I mean :-)</p>

[lex_harris]

<p>I believe you Les, I guess I must just be unlucky with my Coolscan. I too scan with all controls off or neutral, but usually considerable adjustment is needed in PS (levels, curves, colour balance, etc etc) to get something that looks like the original film image. Scans straight from my Coolscan usually look fairly poor - dark and muddy. And the flare, well it just can't be fixed in PP. I'm referring here to positives, to be fair the scanner does do a better job with negatives. My Coolscan gets little use nowadays, for positives there is simply no contest compared with Imacon scans and even for negatives Imacon has the edge (albeit a much smaller one).<br />Oh, I forgot to mention, ICE doesn't work that well with Kodachrome. Some say it does, but my experience is that it does not remove that much dust etc and introduces far too many artefacts to be worth bothering with. It does work well with E6 and colour negatives though.</p>

[lex_harris]

<p>I guess I must be unlucky with Coolscan and lucky with Imacon :-) Agreed Coolscan 5000ED is very fast but the flare is an insurmountable issue in my case and negates any other advantage. My suggestion for Brian would be to carefully road test the very scanner he is thinking of purchasing because it seems there is variation in performance from one example to another. Many other users have reported similar flare - and many have reported none.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>I have one too and like it (but <1,000 slides to date). Nikon won't update their software past OS-X 10.5x, which took awhile to get installed from 10.4x, so I went to Silverfast's AI Studio and found it slightly better for resutls, signifcantly faster scanning and better workflow (esp. prescan and edit tools). And they have calibration targets for several films.</p>

[dallalb]

<p>I own a CoolScan 5000 ED and I'm pleased with the results. I do the same workflow as Les and then I fine tune the results in Photoshop. About all the shots in my portfolio were scanned with Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ED.<br>

Sometimes there are shots that require more post processing in PS, but I don't mind since I scan only my best.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>Les, no, it's AI Studio Pro IT8 (for the target calibration). For HDR you need <a href="http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-hdr/en.html">Silverfast HDR</a>. Silverfast splits all their applications into separate packages. They provide discounts for owning other applications, but I had to get a version for each scanner. Once you fork out the initial (big) bucks, the updates are free and the upgrades reasonably priced.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Brian,<br>

I operate a slide scanning service out of my home office and use 3 of the Nikon 5000 scanners. I have scanned scanned 150,000 slides, at least.</p>

<p>IMO, it is not realistic to expect slide film scans to look perfect right out of the scanner. Some do, but most don't. I review all and individually enhance those that need it in Photoshop, prior to delivery to the customer. I scan to tif format then duplicate to jpg after edits are done.</p>

<p>Post processing for color correction, shadow brightening etc., is almost always required.</p>

<p>High contrast-scenes scenes, shot on Kodachrome, can be the most difficult to get good scans from.</p>

<p>I created a page of <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/tips/">35MM slide scanning tips</a> .</p>

[brian_johnson5]

<p>Hi all, thanks for the posts.<br>

Les, I haven't, and they are sitting to my left boiling with curriosity. I think I may just get the scanner. I previously used the Canonscan 2700 and spent hundreds of hours cleaning up pics. I have patience. I think what I will do it scan them all and then drum scan the top 50. I just really want the thing to work on my MAC, that's all. I did scan a couple with the canoscan, and here is one. It is has too much contrast, and too bad that guy on the left wasn't looking.<img src="http://heybrian.com/lib/images/travels/india/rickshaws_walking.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="520" /></p>

[lex_harris]

<p>Oh my goodness... that IS contrasty. Brian, out of curiosity, what film was that?</p>

<p>I think you can reasonably expect better output from the 5000ED. There is some shadow detail there though - after some quick adjustment in PS:</p>

[lex_harris]

<p>Oops, problem with attached image, here it is (I hope):</p><div></div>

[robert_k1]

<p>I agree with Lex, and have been responding to similar questions with the following.<br>

=======<br>

Before making a decision, check the following links. Some Nikon users reported flares in their scans, but no Minolta users had reported this problem. I own many Nikon equipment, and would have gotten a Nikon scanner if not for the flares.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IGyN">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IGyN</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001A4q">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001A4q</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2Sh">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2Sh</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF</a><br>

<a href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/">http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html">http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html</a><br>

This member apparently was aware of the flares:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H558">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H558</a><br>

Here's what he ended up with after buying a Nikon:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HCnM">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HCnM</a></p>

[lex_harris]

<p>As pointed out by Robert above the evidence is pretty overwhelming and I am not alone with this problem. Such poor performance from a brand new AUD2,000 scanner was bad enough. The subsequent denial of any problem by the then Australian Nikon agent and their refusal to make good under warranty was even worse. Nikon products remain firmly on my black list.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Brian, if you want to try before you buy send some slides to http://digitalslides.net/<br>

I've used the service myself and you'll get decent LS-5000 slides for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>Your Canoscan example looks really bad. Try a higher exposure (I almost never use the base exposure of 1 but rather 2 with my Fs4000US when scanning slides).</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I'd think flare would only be visible on high contrast transparencies, so I'd find a slide with a light source or very bright highlights within the frame next to something that doesn't emit light.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Flare is the worst when you have a scene with white below black, on Kodachrome. The flare only happens in one direction. The flare becomes much more apparent when you brighten shadows, as is often needed w/ high contrast scenes shot on Kodachrome. Flare will become more apparent on scans from under-exposed slides, that you attempt to brighten post-scan, or use DEE on.</p>

<p>I think Mr Pearson stated his mirror cleaning was inconclusive as to whether it reduced flair. Certainly, dirty optics might increase it.<br>

I beleive you'll get the flare (under the right conditions) from a brand new Nikon 5000. I don't feel the flare should stop anyone from buying this machine. The vast majority of scans will not show it unless you shot all high contrast scenes on Kodachrome.</p>

[brian_johnson5]

<p>Hi, thanks again for all the answers, it is going to take a while to read through.<br>

The film was either Velvia or Provia, not sure at this point. I think I will buy the scanner and see. Is Adorama the way to go? They have a 14-day return policy with this scanner. Not sure if that will be enough time to see if mine flares. Are there any other places worth shopping?<br>

That is a good idea about sending the slides to the above URLs. Perhaps I will do that with a roll. BTW, these slides are from Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, SW China, Vietnam, etc. I can't wait.<br>

Here is one I shot with color film on my A2 with the 28-135IS and scanned in with the CanoScan:<br>

<img src="http://heybrian.com/lib/images/travels/vietnam/sapa_flower_hmong_girl.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="897" /><br>

These girls were incredibly shy. The would hide from any camera, so I was lucky to get this.</p>

[lex_harris]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 15, 2009; 12:55 p.m.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Lex, Robert or others,<br />Just to be sure, is it your experience that this flare is due to a design inherent to all Coolscan 5000s, specific film types/conditions/exposure or . . . ?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It is inherent in the scanner, but the degree of flare depends on the film type. My experience indicates it is due to the protective glass on the CCD sensor. The evidence suggests that internal reflections are occurring between surface of the actual sensor itself and the underside of the protective glass, leading to ghost images. These are most apparent when you have a dark area right next to light area, in which case you see a distinct ghost image. But in fact this ghosting is occurring throughout the image leading to overall loss of microcontrast.</p>

<p>The effect is worst on Kodachrome slides, but also occurs to a lesser extent on E6 films - Provia, Velvia, Ektachrome etc. It occurs on ALL scans, not just some. It is just more noticeable on some than others. I shoot mostly Provia now and ALL scans of Provia on my Nikon have unacceptable flaring to my eye. </p>

<p>It is not just this problem that makes the Nikon a lemon in my view. It also suffers from poor edge to edge focus. Scans on my Imacon are razor sharp edge to edge, the same images on the Nikon will always show significant defocus towards the ends of the long axis. This occurs with both the mounted slide adaptor and the strip film feeder. The fact that it occurs with the strip film feeder as well suggests to me that it is not a film flatness problem, but a lens problem. In the strip film feeder the film itself will be flat along the long axis so defocussed edges indicate the lens does not have a flat plane of focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=215599">J. Harrington USA (Massachusetts)</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 15, 2009; 05:59 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Flare is the worst when you have a scene with white below black, on Kodachrome. The flare only happens in one direction.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Turn the slide 180 degrees and scan it again. The flare will now be on the other side of the bright highlight. The "pin hole test" in my original thread about this issue shows the effect clearly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The flare becomes much more apparent when you brighten shadows, as is often needed w/ high contrast scenes shot on Kodachrome. Flare will become more apparent on scans from under-exposed slides, that you attempt to brighten post-scan, or use DEE on.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. But with scans from a better scanner you can crank the shadows up as high as you like and not see ANY flare. This is a very limiting and unacceptable artefact from a so-called "professional" scanner.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>....I beleive you'll get the flare (under the right conditions) from a brand new Nikon 5000</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you may! I did! And not just under "the right conditions", but ALL the time. I tried everything I could think of to minimise this flare but after a couple of years of banging my head against a brick wall I gave up. Scans from my Nikon were simply unacceptable for any sort of presentation, web, print, etc , the flare could always been seen.</p>

 

[lex_harris]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 15, 2009; 10:57 p.m.<br>

Lex,<br />Would you expect flare in Brian's rickshaw example - chrome fender with dark background?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Yes, on my Nikon there would be distinct ghost images for sure.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Kodachrome image shown below with bright rims inside of plenty of black tires. Would this be a candidate for flare/ghosting?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, I would get distinct flare around the rims.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>First of all I don't believe my examples exhibit the issues you describe, so let me know if you think they do.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>They do, but only very, very slightly. It is only visible if you crank shadows way up which you wouldn't normally do anyway. I would be quite happy with these scans in regard to the very low level of flare. It seems you are one of the lucky ones with a Nikon that doesn't exhibit this problem. But they are many users who are not so lucky and I am one of them.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[yoshio]

<p>Lex</p>

<p>I have now just got my LS-4000 back from Nikon service. Though they claim to have cleaned the optics and mirror I get substantial blooming. This is a scan of a Stouffer wedge, the numbers are 'clear' on the side as the wedge gets denser. Substantial blooming can be seen. This is scanned with x8 multi sampling incase it made some difference (it did not). (Note, the small black section of the FH-3 holder appears in frame, this is because the wedge is much longer than a single 35mm frame). No curves were applied to this, only the careful setting of levels. Also of note is that such dense scales could not be penetrated without some small amount of analog gain being applied to the master gain control.</p>

<p>just for your interest</p><div></div>

[robert_k1]

<p>I'm in agreement with Lex' and Harrington's comments regarding flares. I have tested and found flares on a few Fujichromes and Kodachromes with a few different models of Polaroid and Nikon film scanners, new and used. The Minolta 5400 is the only one with nearly unnoticeable and tolerable flares. I have no clue what causes the flares. Although this is a small sample, it is worth keeping in mind. Removing the flares in PS can be a nightmare. More on this below.</p>

<p>Why are only some Nikon users noticing this? Here's my take from a past post:</p>

<p><em>As reported by many posts here and elsewhere, flares on scans are not isolated incidents. There may be a few explanations to why some users do not encounter them.</em><br>

<em>1. Flares are only found on certain models. (I found them on all four makes and models I had access to.)</em><br>

<em>2. On a particular model, the amount of flares varies from batch to batch.</em><br>

<em>3. On a particular model, the amount of flares is so faint that they are not noticeable to the casual users.</em><br>

<em>4. Flares are on the scans, but the users never notice them.</em><br>

<em>I suspect that my experience with the DSE 5400 is probably due to either 2 or 3.</em></p>

<p>On how to detect flares, also from the same old post:</p>

<p><em>There is an easy way to detect flares. Choose an image with a high contrast area (such as a piece of white chalk against a black blackboard). View the film under a loupe, and note that there is an abrupt transition from the chalk edge to the blackboard background, and there is no glow around the chalk. Scan the film and open in PS. Move the cursor from the chalk center into the blackboard. Observe how the rgb/cmyk values change in the Info Palette as you move the cursor. The numbers should change quite abruptly when the cursor crosses the chalk/blackboard boundary. If the numbers change very gradually, then flares exist on the scan. This method will eliminate flares not noticed due to poor monitor quality or user eyesights. Numbers don't lie.</em></p>

<p>While the reviews and bake offs focus on scanners' resolution and speed, etc., none would comment on flares. Shame on them.</p>

<p>Removing flares in PS can range from easy to impossible. The above example is easy, assuming the chalk and backboard are the only elements in the image. But more often than not, an image would have multiple elements. If the flares spread among them, it would be impossible (for me) to remove. I tore my hair off for a few years trying. After getting the Minolta 5400, I have not have to, and still have some hair left.</p>

[lex_harris]

<p>Yoshio, that scan does indeed look pretty awful. But it doesn't look like the sort of ghosting that plagues my scanner. If that wedge was scanned on my Nikon you would see distinct ghost images to one side of the numbers. I think what you have there is more likely general flare arising from dust on the lens, mirror or CCD cover glass. Notice that the flare surrounds the highlight in all directions - this suggests light is being scattered by some dirty optical element somewhere. There is some hint of either faint ghosting or CCD blooming (notice the more pronounced smear to the left of the top and bottom of the number "1"), but this seems to be pretty much swamped by the general flare in all directions.</p>

<p>Increasing analog gain will make these ghosting or flare problems worse - you may recover a bit more information from dense parts of the image but along with it you will be amplifying an already noisy baseline.</p>

<p>I would go back to Nikon service and confront them with your test result. </p>

<p> </p>

[pburke]

<p>I had very much the same flare issues with a 4000 ED I recently got from a friend. I cleaned it myself and all of that was taken care of. I would say almost all Nikon scanners that exhibit the flare/ghosting or halo type problem are simply dirty. Don't pay them to clean it - it takes less than 30 minutes to do it yourself with care.<br>

two scans, done with vuescan, 1:1 pixel crop at 4000 dpi:<br>

<a href="http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/outdoor/gallery/test/palisade_test_vuescan_dirty.jpg">before cleaning</a><br>

<a href="http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/outdoor/gallery/test/palisade_test_vuescan_clean.jpg">after cleaning</a></p>

 

[pburke]

<p>you're right - they are not the same frame, but almost identical - I shot a whole roll there that evening. I should dig out the one I used on the dirty scan and redo the clean scan, however, the result would be near identical. There were absolutely no post adjustments and the vuescane settings were pretty much default in both scans.<br>

Film was Fuji RD 100, exposed in 1990. Full frame here, but this is done with a Polaroid Sprintscan 35 Plus, which has no flare issues, but the colors are nowhere near as accurate.<br>

<a href="http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/outdoor/gallery/JMT1990/Day%2006/slides/433_palisade_clouds.jpg">http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/outdoor/gallery/JMT1990/Day%2006/slides/433_palisade_clouds.jpg</a></p>

[pburke]

<p>I scanned the proper slide for the above comparison and replaced the clean file - now you should see the exact slide with very much the same scanner settings.<br>

And here's another scan I did earlier today, of a much more challenging slide which without the cleaning would have had a major halo around the bright/dark edge. Crop is again 1:1 scanned at 4000 dpi on the 4000 ED, vuescan, multi exposure, default settings otherwise, 4 passes.</p>

<p><a href="http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/outdoor/gallery/test/frosty_leaf_4000dpi.jpg">Frosty Leaf, Black background scan</a></p>