Coolscans now ridiculously priced.

[JDMvW]

<p>Out of nostalgia (I had one of the originals), I bought a Honeywell Repronar made especially for slide duplication and 'correction'. I lucked out and what I and everyone else thought was a incomplete Repronar, turned out to be a post-"Pentax" Repronar made to take any camera. As a result I got it for peanuts (not counting shipping, of course). Maybe, someday, I'll do a post on it.<br /> It actually works quite well. But all of my slides are pretty much all scanned in, with great effort and time. :(</p>

<p>I can tell you that the Spiratone and similar slide copying attachments sold "like new" are that way because no half-way sentient being ever tried to use them more than once. Trust me, you can skip that experiment. Spiratone actually sold a rear projection 45º device for getting slides into movies. It's better than wall or screen projection if you want to go that route.</p>

<p>In the end, there's no real substitute for a dedicated film scanner, although some of the newer flatbeds are OK, but just that, OK.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>Without a good dust removal program the idea of copying slides with a duplicator, macro lens or cheap scanner may end up with a frustrating experience - Photoshop takes too long to rectify this.<br>

That´s why many prefer the Coolscan series and pay these inflated prices. I use Vuescan nowadays with a Coolscan 5000 and am pleased, though sharpness may be slightly inferior to the Nikonscan software I used before and the learning curve is steep though by no means impossible.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>IMHO the price in image quality from any "dust removal program" I have ever seen is unacceptable except for web use.</p>

<p>Clean the film carefully and hand spotting, avoiding 'reduction' artifacts, in PS is manageable.</p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<blockquote>

<p>Clean the film carefully and hand spotting, avoiding 'reduction' artifacts, in PS is manageable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true for material that is otherwise ok (e.g. no scratches). If you digitize old slide collections hardware supported restauration (ICE) is very helpful. Such techniques do not degrade the impage quality as pure software solutions. For me, this is also one of the best reasons to use a scanner instead of a camera with a slide reproduction set. The Nikon 5000 and 9000 do a very good job here.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have digitized 10s of thousands of old slides, mostly Kodachrome, mostly at 4000 dpi and I simply can't agree that the ICE, etc. software is "very helpful" for Kodachrome, and even for Ektachrome. Nowadays I shoot mostly C/N or B&W film, and nothing there has changed my outlook.</p>

<p>I tried everything I could find and nothing worked nearly so well as "clean and spot".<br>

Careful cleaning of the slides <em>before</em> scanning is far productive than cleaning the image afterwards, and skipping the noise reduction step<em><strong> also</strong> speeds up scanning by a huge amount</em>. I especially feel that it is precisely things like scratches that can be fixed much better by a human than by an algorithm. If you're doing web posts, and a handful of images, then ICE away, of course.</p>

<p>Of course, you can just blur the thing to eliminate all detail although you probably ought to scan at 72 or 90 dpi for that. ;)</p>

<p>If ICE works for you, bravo, but it is not for everybody, nor should it be the test of the quality/utility of a scanner or work flow for digitizing images.</p><div></div>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I believe ICE and like software are based on recognition of foreign bodies (dust) on the emulsion side of the film via a special infrared channel built into the scanner. This is specified not to work with Kodachrome, as I understand it because of the "relief" effect on the emulsion side of Kodachrome. <br>

Thus stating that ICE does not work with Kodachrome or creates artifacts is well known lacking true relevance. My results with Ektachrome and Fuji slide film are good, sometimes amazingly so, particularly if used with Nikonscan. Vuescan works pretty well too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It is well known that Kodachrome is difficult to scan. Unfortunately, I used that extensively until the early to mid 1990's, when I switched to mainly Fujichrome. So I have plenty of Kodachrome slides around.</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Reflecta sells under the Pacific Image brand in USA, and will soon sell a medium format scanner for about 2K. That might be your answer. I bought a Nikon 9000 when it was "only" $1800, but there is no way I would pay the inflated prices nowadays --- I would rather go digital ;). And don't forget the software. From what I can tell on the blogs, you need to upgrade to SilverFast when using the Reflecta scanners --- there has been some complaints about the included software. FYI: I use the SilverFast archive suite with my Nikon 9000. Works great.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't think that it is all that well known that Kodachrome doesn't work well with these things, and it is highly relevant for those of us whose library of slides is mostly Kodachrome.</p>

<p>I have used Nikon scanners and found the situation there to be materially the same as with other scanners and software. At one time or another, I've tried most of the consumer (ca. 4000 dpi) scanners at one time or another, and nothing I've seen changes my mind about 'noise' reduction software.</p>

<p>As have said at least once above, if it works for you, great.</p>

<p>I still say it should not be the criterion by which one chooses a scanner and a work path for digitizing images, especially slides. Resolution and speed are far more critical than whether there are built-in or other noise reduction procedures.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>FWIW, I do recommend biting the bullet and getting a fast Nikon scanner. Not for the noise reduction, but for its speed and quality of imaging.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I think we are starting to agree :-) . And ICE is not a noise reduction (that would be detrimental to image quality!) but rather a dust removal program.</p>

[craig_andrew_yuill]

<p>Since Nikon left the scanner market people have been looking for similar-quality alternatives at a reasonable price. One strategy is to leverage existing DSLR gear. I have seen some images of B&W negs posted by someone who used a Nikon D700 with a 60mm AF Micro Nikkor as the copy lens and a lightbox as the light source. They looked sharp and had good DR.<br /><br /> For 35mm scans the current Plustek 7600i has been well received, and seems to be a scanner of choice for Leica film shooters. It was designed in close collaboration with the company that makes Silverfast software. I bought the Silverfast Ai Studio version of the 7600i a few months ago for $439 at B&H to scan slides taken with my Nikon FM2 and F801S. I started to reuse those cameras once I got the scanner. I have been generally quite pleased with the results, although I am still learning how to get better results from it, especially from "difficult" slides and negs.<br /><br /> Some people are using a Plustek for 35mm scans and an Epson V700 or 750 for medium- and large-format scans. There is a good review at the Luminous Landscape website that compares the Plustek 7600i, Nikon Coolscan 5000, and Epson V750 scanners, showing the relative strengths of each scanner. Go to <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml">Plustek Optic Film 7600i review</a>, and be sure to download the full review, which contains plenty of scan comparisons between the three scanners. The Plustek compares quite favorably to the Coolscan, although the Coolscan is still a bit better for overall scan quality, and has a few features not found in the Plustek.<br /><br /> The Reflecta/Pacific Imaging medium-format scanner looks interesting. There have been sightings of a medium-format prototype from Plustek, but who knows when or if that scanner will come out? Good luck in your search for a suitable scanner.</p>