FocalPoint glass carrier for 9000ED

[woolly1]

<p>Hi All,<br />Finally obtained a Nikon 9000ED and am looking at the glass carrier for my Pentax 67ii negs and slides. Nikon's FH-869G is silly money but I've seen the AN glass for sale from Focal Point Inc for an fraction of the money that will sit in the FH-869S tray. This is $38 a side for the glass.<br />They have a plain glass for the emulsion side too on offer. Does anyone have hands on experience of these glasses they might like to share? Use both glass sheets? Use the AN glass only on the top side only? Is the seller ok?<br>

On a side note, does anyone have problems using the 9000ED with Vista 64bit?<br>

Any hints would be greatly appreciated, thanks</p>

[steve_parrott]

<p>This is not going to really answer your question, so I apologize for that, but I will just state my point of view on this matter. I also recently made the purchase of the 9000ED. It had been something I wanted for a long time and I finally did it. After reading a ton of reviews and usage tips on it, I knew the glass carrier was a MUST for medium format film. So I actually had already bought the rotating glass carrier before I ever bought the scanner. I agree with you, the cost of the glass carrier is too high, but then, so is the cost of the scanner for that matter. But I look at it like this. If you are spending the price on the scanner, and it needs the glass holder, then you need to accept that as part of the package. Kind of like it makes no sense to use your Pentax 67 with poor quality lenses. </p>

<p>I bought the rotating glass holder due to the fact that it comes with precut masks that fit all formats of medium format. The masks are even coded so the scanner automatically knows the size of the negative you are scanning. The standard glass carrier requires some aggravating placing of little adhesive strips between the negatives and cutting masking paper and masking off any negative area you don't want scanned. The rotating carrier only allows one scan at a time, but to me it is the far better, and easier, way to do it.</p>

<p>I can't help you on the Vista part. I use my scanner with my Mac Powerbook G4. Nikon Scan software works perfect for me. You may need to use either Silverfast of Vuescan with your system.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>The 'standard' glass holder also comes with precut masks for all formats. So are you sure you did the right thing, trading the opportunity to scan more frames at onnce for precut masks?</p>

<p>I too haven't tried Nikon Scan under Vista (or Win 7). I keep some XP machines running for a couple of reasons. So no help from first hand experience there.<br>

But Nikon Scan should work under Vista.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Thanks guys,<br>

I don't think 'Vista' is a problem. From painful experience with a golf GPS meter which the makers claimed was Vista compatibilty I eventually discovered they were being 'economical with the truth' and that it was good for Vista 32bit but not 64bit.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Nikon glass carrier has AN glass on the upper part only. The lower glass has an anti-reflection coating (like a camera lens) but no texture. The texture of AN glass is likely to affect resolution if placed between the film and lens.</p>

<p>It is not necessary to use stickers with the non-rotating holder, and it comes supplied with pre-cut masks for common film sizes. Since I scan only 6x6 film at present, I put a sticker on the upper glass between the first and second frames to prevent Newton's Rings (they still form if film contacts AN glass). With the film emulsion-side down, I don't get Newton's Rings against the lower glass.</p>

<p>Scanning is extremely time-consuming, and being limited to a single frame at a time even more so. You don't need masking to eliminate extraneous light - the Nikon light is applied in a single, thin line as the film moves through the scanner. It is easy to line up the film by tapping the film holder - there is enough space between the glass for the film to move and line up on one of the edges.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Thanks for the input Edward.</p>

<p>FocalPoint glass sheets.<br />Does anyone have hands on experience of this companies glasses they might like to share? Or the company in general.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Re. Vista/W7 and application software: the problem you may run into is when your app was written for 32bit drivers and you are trying to run 64bit.</p>

<p>I hit this problem last week when I was trying to run my Kodak digital back in tethered mode (Firewire) on a new laptop with 64bit W7 installed. The Kodak Camera Manager software just could not find the camera. This puzzled me since it ran fine on my W7 desktop. I initially put it down to an XP expectation, so I installed the XP Mode virtual environment; still no good. Then I made the laptop dual-boot, and put 64bit XP on the other partitition; still no good. I finally twigged that what really mattered was not the OS generation (XP, Vista or W7), only the OS bit depth: it had to be 32 bit for Firewire driver compatibility. So I replaced all the OSes on the laptop with 32 bit W7; problem solved.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Crikey Mickey,<br>

it's a long way from photography nowadays :(</p>

<p>This thread could grace the pages of Practical PC</p>

[noah]

<p>Until recently I was using an LS9000 and I went through a lot to get good scans from the machine from my 6x7cm negs.</p>

<p>To make a long story short(er), the stock carrier wasn't working at all for me, the center could be sharp but the edges would be way out of focus. I bought the Nikon glass filmstrip carrier (NOT the rotating, single frame model) and it didn't really work for me either. I was using the included masks but I was still getting newtons rings. I never quite understood the concept of that holder. You're placing a piece of glass between the film and the CCD, but then you use spacers so the glass isn't really holding the film flat. I don't get the logic, though apparently it works for some people.</p>

<p>I decided to remove the bottom glass from the Nikon carrier. In it's place I made a negative carrier out of black matt board with an opening the size of my neg. I had to experiment with the thickness of the matt board, so that it held the film firmly against the Anti-Newton glass on the top part of the carrier. This setup worked very well. There was nothing between the film and the sensor and the glass on top held the film very flat. I had planned on getting someone to machine me some metal carriers to replace the matt board prototypes. But in the end I bought a drum scanner instead. </p>

<p>So if I had to do it again, I'd buy some AN glass and use it on top of my film with the stock 120 carrier. Perhaps you'll also need a carrier on the bottom, which will give support between frames instead of merely supporting the film along the long edges. But it's worth a try. Worst case, you need to buy the nikon carrier and you're out $40. But I think this would work very well.</p>

<p>Can't vouch for the seller personally, but I've heard them mentioned elsewhere as a good supplier of glass. And I use vuescan so I can't comment on the software issue... </p>

[fwstutterheim]

<p>For scanning 120 size slides with the non-rotating glass carrier I do not use any masks or spacers at all. </p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>I have also never used any masks or spacers in the non-rotating glass carrier. Without, you can scan all of the negatives on a strip without having to remove the carrier from the scanner. With the rotating carrier, this wouldn't work of course, as the 9000 ED doesn't recognize the carrier without a mask inserted.<br>

Christoph</p>

[noah]

<p>I tried my glass carrier without the masks/spacers, and I would often get Newtons rings.</p>

<p>Besides that, the two pieces of glass don't get close enough to each other to truly sandwich the film flat, at least on my carrier. I still got soft edges, though it was much better than with the stock carrier.</p>

[paul swenson]

<p>I used to own a 9000 ED, during those transitional years where folks were transitioning to digital and scanning film was still king over shooting digital. At the time I did a fair amount of research, on this site in particular. Long story short, rather than buying the expensive Nikon glass holder, I made my own.</p>

<p>Here's how I did it: I took the stock medium format clip/clamp glassless holder and carefully removed the hinged clamp. This can be done with out breaking it, and it can be reattached later if wanted. I took the holder down to a local picture framer and had him cut two pieces of his best quality non-glare picture glass (ground on one side only) to size, so that they would nest in the opening of the holder.</p>

<p>To scan, the film is placed emulsion side down between the two pieces of glass, with the ground part of the glass contacting the top and bottom of the film. Care must be taken to make sure the glass is clean and dust free. Put a small piece of black tape on either end of the two pieces of glass to hold it all together. The film sandwich is carefully laid in the holder. I never used to tape the glass in place on the holder. The weight of it seemed to be adequate to hold it in place, but you could carefully tape it to the holder.</p>

<p>Feed the holder into the scanner as per usual. scans are clear and edge to edge sharp. In my experience the ground glass in no way interferes with the quality/clarity/sharpness of the image. I don't remember having problems with newton rings</p>

<p>For optimal quality I always heard that the wet mount holders were the best for hiding dust etc..</p>

 

[ray .]

I got the standard glass holder, don't use masks, and the results are great. For me, it's not worth the time

tinkering around with a do-it-yourself holder. I agree that if you paid $2300 or so for the scanner, it seems silly to be trying to save a couple hundred bucks on a key tool for the job at hand.

[paul swenson]

<p>You could also say it's silly to spend a couple a hundred bucks, when you could get the same quality job done for 20. It all depends on your point of view. And not a big risk financially if you are not satisfied with the results. </p>

[pavel_dan]

<p>I have used the FocalPoint AN glass on a FH-869S tray, with and without the clear glass underneath, with a 8000ED scanner. Using both glasses is a too thick combination and the tray closes with difficulty. I wouldn't recommend it. Using only the AN glass is possible but you lose details. I was not satisfied with the results and I quit using those glasses at all. Instead I made some thin metal masks to keep the film flat and the results are much better.<br /> <br />By focusing at different points in the image I noticed that focusing distances are different even if you keep the film flat between the two glasses. So, if I need a really sharp scan, I make a general scan of the whole image with focus in the middle and some other detail scans of the zones of interest in the image with focus on them. In Photoshop I overlap the details on the general scan and the result is a very sharp corner to corner scan. As the method is time-consuming I only use it if I intend to make really large prints.</p>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<p>I use the Nikon 9000. With the standard holder I removed the lower rubber strips (on the film support rails) and screwed down the big screw tight so that the width was just enough for the focal point glass. After a few experiments, I now just use one piece of AN glass on top of the film and the clamps still lock. Overall flatness on 6x7 is very good</p>

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

<p>I bought the glassholder new after I bought a used LS 9000. The price I payed of the holder was approx 1/7 of the scanner. I think it is a very nice scanner that I hope to use for many years to come. IMHO the glassholder is definitely worth its value, regarding the improvement of image quality. Else, it wouldn't make sense to spend $ 1000,- on a good camera lens.<br /><br />I already mentioned before on this site and at other places: it is becoming a problem that Nikon does not provide the protocols for controlling this scanner. This problem will only grow in time until we, as photogs, will end up with an obsolete device. If Nikon would provide the driver protocols, driver software could be written for any program running on any Operating System, for now and in future, be it 32, 64 or more bits, MS-WINDOW, MAC, Linux, whatever will come. I am convinced that free driver software for film scanners is strongly required as people will still scan film for a very long time to come, while software and Operating Systems change rapidly and quickly become incompatible with existing software and driver programs. Also, I have the feeling that Nikon is not strongly interested in developing new scanners or maintaining the (driver) software for the existing ones.<br /><br />Recently I wrote Nikon asking to issue the protocol and / or the source code of the driver software for this scanner in order to use it in the SANE software. As an answer I only received an automatic reply containing some commercial. I never received a proper reply on my request, even though promised at their (Asian) website. Which indicates the lack of interest of Nikon towards its customers.<br /><br />Therefore I ask you, as user of the LS 9000, to contact Nikon and its representatives, and insist to publish the protocol and / or issue their driver software under a Free and Open Source (FOSS) license. So any software engineer can adapt and improve it to the needs that are required, now and in the future, and not depending on the will of an individual company.<br /><br />It just doesn't make sense for Nikon to keep the driver protocols for themselves: their market will not grow, on the contrary. It doesn't make sense for users of this device to run old computer architectures with obsolete software. It's up to you.</p>

[rickbehl]

<p>Hi, I also recently purchased the Coolscan 9000 primarily to scan my Pentax 67 II transparencies too. While 35mm slides and filmstrips are handled pretty well I haven't really managed to get 'edge to edge' sharpness on the 6x7 images.</p>

<p>I have resorted to ordering the non-rotating glass carrier as from this and other forums it seems to do the job more often than not. Again I agree with the other posters in that if you have to do the job then it's worth spending the money to get it done right especially if you have already 'invested' in the scanner.</p>

<p>As for the 32-bit/64-bit question after some problems getting the CS9000 running under Vista 64-bit I managed to get it to work with the help of another posting on these forums. You have to mess around with a file or two but it wasn't difficult and it is all explained in the post. Do a search and I'm sure you can find the information easily.</p>

<p>Rick</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Wopuld this be the one Rick?</p>

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

 

[rickbehl]

Yes, that is the thread and advice I used to get my Coolscan 9000 working under Windows Vista 64-bit. I'm glad I

found that thread as I was starting to panic when I bought the scanner home and it wasn't recognized by my computer.

And I really wasn't keen to downgrade back to 32-bit.

 

As always make a backup of any system files you are changing before starting.

 

Rick

[thomas_janik]

<p>I used link mentioned by Clive to get Nikonscan and Dimage Scan (for a Minolta 5400) to run in Windows 7 (64 bit). Similar fix is here :<a href="http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html">http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html</a><br />I use the Focal Point glass as well. I made a glass sandwich carrier from the Nikon stock, useless, carrier the same way Paul Swenson reports. I use framer's AN glass on top (somewhat heavier than the FP glass). I have scanned many times using both FP clear and AN glass on the bottom (for the AN glass the matte side is up facing the emulsion); I have never found any difference in sharpness. The only real difference is the Newton Rings using the clear glass. I tried making masks for use with the clear glass bottom, but that didn't keep film flat enough. I tried using a single sheet of glass on top, again the film was not perfectly flat. Example here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=694413">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=694413</a><br />So now I just use FP AN on the bottom with framer's glass on the top.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em> I have scanned many times using both FP clear and AN glass on the bottom (for the AN glass the matte side is up facing the emulsion); I have never found any difference in sharpness.</em></p>

<p>The reason is clear from your examples - your pictures are not sharp, which obscures any differences in the holder or even the scanner.</p>

[thomas_janik]

<p>Ouch! You’re right of course; it is not a sharp photo. When I originally posted this, I was involved in a discussion as to the best procedure for the 9000. I was corresponding with others who did not yet know everything. It is an illustration of the difference in grain between the two methods.<br>

I suggest you visit the Nikon 8000/9000 user group in Yahoo groups and search for posts involving the depth of focus:<br>

<a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/</a><br>

Then, using your Nikon Holder, focus on a test slide in the corners and center. Note the variation in focus distance.<br>

Finally, I took the time to post this in response to question and gave the best information I have. Your response was a mean-spirited and added nothing. </p>