Nikon Coolscan vs. Epson Perfection scanners - recommendations?
Local Girl
thousands of slides, of which I am probably going to scan a few
hundred. So, it's a big job but not so immense that it will be
impossible to finish.
I also am considering the idea of offering a slide scanning service,
once I am set up with the equipment and have gained some expertise
doing my personal project.
Can anyone give me some recommendations as to equipment? I have been
looking at the Epson Perfection V700 and the slightly more expensive
Perfection V750-M Pro.
And I have been looking at the Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and 9000ED.
The Epsons have a much lower pricetag than the Nikon. Epson is
currently offering a rebate, making even the more expensive of their
two only $700, as opposed to either $1200 or $2200 for the Nikons,
depending on which of those is considered. The Epson scanners are a
flatbed that scans film and slides; the Nikons are dedicated film
scanners.
I also received a suggestion that I could photograph the slides with a
digital camera. I would also appreciate any comments on this
technique.
Thanks in advance for any input. That Epson rebate is only good
through this Wednesday, so I am hoping to make a decision about this
before then.
-LG
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Charlie Hoffpauir
Personal opinions follow....
The suggestion to photograph the slides with a digital camera is the
lease desirable for a quality of reproduction standpoint. Probably not
as good of results as scanning prints of the slides with a flat bed
scanner (not mentioned).
The Nikons, true film scanners, will give results that you can easily
see are superior to that of "most" flat bed scanners. I say most
because I've not used the Epson scanners that you mention, and I've
heard that some Epsons give very good results.
I have a "cheap" Epson flat bed that will scan slides and negatives,
and I've used it for scanning 4x4 negatives with decent results. I
have compared the results in scanning 35mm slides and negatives with
results from a fairly inexpensive Nikon (Coolscan IV) and the Coolscan
scans are clearly superior.
If cost is significant factor, then the Epson might do the job... but
if you really intend to scan as a "service" then you really need the
best equipment available.
Barry Watzman
Go with the Nikon scanners. SOME Epson scanners are quality
competitive with the Nikon scanners, but Nikon offers a bulk slide
feeder (SF-210) for the LS-5000. And for that reason alone, it's the
clear choice. You don't need the LS-9000, unless you have some medium
or large format negatives to scan. It offers no benefit for 35mm slides.
Photographing the slides is a highly inferior option, it's something I
would consider as a "backstop" if I was sending the slides out to a
service for scanner, in case the slides were lost you would still have
"something". Do not think that photographing them with an x.x megapixel
camera is anything even remotely close to scanning them to the same
resolution with either a Nikon or Epson scanner. It most definitely is not.
Alan Wrigley
> You don't need the LS-9000, unless you have some medium
> or large format negatives to scan. It offers no benefit for 35mm slides.
I've been told that the 9000 is better for Kodachrome because ICE works properly
with that film - can anyone confirm this?
Alan
Charlie Hoffpauir
That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Kodachrome is Kodachrome
whether 35 mm or large format, and ICE doesn't work well (or at all)
with Kodachrome, just as it doesn't work with silver-based black &
white.
Local Girl
What about PrimeFilm Film scanners? I found this page:
http://ssl.adgrafix.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?scanace1STORE:CKIE:home+
These devices are dedicated film/slide scanners ranging from $100 to
$800, offering Digital ICE with units starting at $250. Any comments?
-
> properly
> with that film - can anyone confirm this?
It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a better/more advanced
version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson scanners, etc., that is
programmed to better handle the characteristics of Kodachrome. I have never
seen any published tests in regard to how much better it works but there are
people who say they have had good success with it.
Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners
Charlie Hoffpauir
>Thank you to all for your knowledgeable comments.
>
>What about PrimeFilm Film scanners? I found this page:
>http://ssl.adgrafix.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?scanace1STORE:CKIE:home+
>
>These devices are dedicated film/slide scanners ranging from $100 to
>$800, offering Digital ICE with units starting at $250. Any comments?
>
I have no personal knowledge about PrimeFilm scanners.... but
considering the prices, I'd say they must be more cheaply made than
either the Nikons or the Epsons. I'd recommend you check a few
comments from past users. Usually you can find users comments on sites
that retail the products.... check Amazon first , and if they don't
handle them. do a goggle search for sites that sell the PrimeFilm.
Alan Wrigley
> > I've been told that the 9000 is better for Kodachrome because ICE works
> > properly
> > with that film - can anyone confirm this?
>
> It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a better/more advanced
> version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson scanners, etc., that is
> programmed to better handle the characteristics of Kodachrome. I have never
> seen any published tests in regard to how much better it works but there are
> people who say they have had good success with it.
Would be interesting to hear from one of them if reading this group. Spotting
Kodachromes after scanning is the most time-consuming (and probably
health-destroying) part of my life.
Alan
Surfer!
Hoffpauir <inv...@invalid.com> writes
User's comments about products are often not very useful, unlike their
comments about suppliers. They don't have anything to compare the
product with, and are not measuring it's performance objectively.
--
Surfer!
Charlie Hoffpauir
Still, I tend to worry about a product for which the user has this to
say:
By FourDees "Dee" (Glendale, CA) -
This scanner is a piece of junk. Support tech was good at first,
responding quickly by email when I had trouble with the basic
operation of the unit. After scanning several slides and coming up
with hideous colors, I finally simply asked them if this was a case of
"you get what you pay for"--from that point on dead silence. This
scanner has two colors--dark and red. An extremely well-lit slide
scans very dark and quite red. Out of 61 slides that I have scanned so
far, only two came up basically true to their colors. If you take the
time to try to tweek the colors for each slide, the colors still
stink! I am very sorry I bought this. If there was less than a
one-star rating, that would be my choice.
On the other hand, another user said this:
By Ernest B. Bell -
(REAL NAME)
This little machine is simply great.. almost a plug and play.
I have tried larger scanners.. what a mess.. Pacific Image is best.
All you can do is find as much information as possible, then make a
choice.
Noons
<spamha...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
> > It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a better/more advanced
> > version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson scanners, etc., that is
> > programmed to better handle the characteristics of Kodachrome. I have never
> > seen any published tests in regard to how much better it works but there are
> > people who say they have had good success with it.
>
> Would be interesting to hear from one of them if reading this group. Spotting
> Kodachromes after scanning is the most time-consuming (and probably
> health-destroying) part of my life.
The 9000 ED works perfectly with Kodachrome and Ice. It's one of its
best features.
David
"Noons" <wizo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:582f5735-5abd-4a65...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I have a Nikon Coolscan V and other than having to clean it
once because of dirt collecting on the first surface mirror.
My biggest disappointment is that Nikon never released a
version of Nikonscan for 64 bit Vista/Windows 7.
David
Barry Watzman
Understand what is going on with Kodachrome. Digital ICE works by
scanning the image with infrared (IR) light.
There have been more than 12 different formulations of film sold under
the "Kodachrome" name over a period of more than 50 years.
Many of these are opaque to IR light. For those formulations, Digital
ICE won't work. There is no really good complete fix for this; you
can't scan IR opaque films with IR light and get meaningful results.
Digital ICE has been tweeked to work better with some of the
formulations of film that are dense but not totally opaque, and these
tweaks are present in the later scanners. But they don't fully resolve
the fundamental issues, and, furthermore, I believe that anything that
the LS-9000 has, the LS-5000 would also have.
Barry Watzman
over a period of more than 50 years. The issue with Digital ICE is that
many of these are either very dense or completely opaque to infrared
light. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. [also, some other, non-Kodachrome films
are also IR opaque]
Noons
> the fundamental issues, and, furthermore, I believe that anything that
> the LS-9000 has, the LS-5000 would also have.
The light source of the LS-9000 is quite different from the one in the
5000.
For example: the 5000's harsh "condenser-like" lighting is hopeless
with most b&w film, while the 9000 can be used on all b&w without any
major problems due to its much softer, almost "diffuser-like" light.
I am fully aware both use LEDs. Please read on the subject rather
than stating that they have same lighting. They don't.
Still: that has little to do with how well either handles D-Ice. Fact
is: I have access to both scanners and the 9000's D-Ice is so much
better with Kodachrome it's not even a contest. If that is due to a
ligthing difference or a different processing done by NikonScan, I
don't know. I do know there is no way I'll bother with Kodachrome and
the 5000 if I have access to the 9000.
coolscan
I use the Coolscan 5000. Given you have thousands of slides to copy, and
you wish to develop a business scanning slides, this is the only
realistic choice. The flatbed will never scan slides or filmstrip as
well as the dedicated Nikon.
Together with the optional slide feeder, you will be able to get
through 50 slides at a time. It takes about 2 minutes for a full scan
running at 4,000 dpi. The TIFF image (you can choose other formats)
takes 2 minutes with ICE processing alone. Add a few seconds (depending
on how fast your computer is) to do more complex processing such as
correcting for colour fading). Yesterday, I timed an 8 bit scan using
ICE (dust removal, colour correction, and 4x multiscan to reduce CCD
noise) and it took about 2 minutes 10 seconds. A basic scan ran 2
minutes. The resulting file size was 65 megs.
Most of my processing has been for slides from the 1940s through to the
1980s. The Coolscan has done a remarkable job of it.
The Nikon has a lot of built in post - processing features too, which
are done at the time of the scan should you wish to use them.
Alternatively, you could simply leave the post processing until later if
you wish to use Lightroom or Photoshop Essentials to process each
image.
I have used flatbeds in the past. Never again. The effort to scan a
filmstrip drove me to distraction. It is very much a manual operation.
The time needed basically drove me away from the effort. With the
Coolscan, I can set it quickly, and walk away until the job is done. I
have rarely had a slide jam either.
All in all, I would only use a flat bed for its design purpose - to
scan in occasional positive prints etc. A flat bed is not really meant
for the job you are looking for.
So, in my experience, the main differences between the flatbed and the
dedicated scanner for slides or filmstrip are: the Nikon is far faster,
requires far less effort, and has a far higher output quality. I am glad
I chose a dedicated scanner.
Good luck.
Nigel Feltham
Exactly - There are enough good reviews of the cheap film scanners that
aren't really scanners (I'm sure you've all seen them - the USB powered
5mpixel camera and lightbox type that's often advertised in newspapers) to
prove you cannot trust many user scanner reviews.
Some reviews of these claiming how good they are even point to flickr pages
with their best scans, all of which have no detail in the shadows and burnt
out highlights worse than just photographing the film with a budget camera.
However if you're looking at PrimeFilm as a budget option you may also want
to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200, 7300 and 7400 models
are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true optical resolution of
7200dpi, again reviews are limited (and I've not tried one myself as I'm
happy with my old Nikon LS-30 and LS-2000 scanners). Similar prices to the
PrimeFilm models.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Plustek-OpticFilm-7200i-4248
Barry Watzman
optical resolution of 7200dpi"
Another indication of people's ignorance.
7200 dpi is not a benefit, it is a deficit. 2,700 DPI scans of a 35mm
image are 10 megapixels.
7200 dpi is more than 70 megapixels.
Even the optics are of that quality (they are not), there is just not
that much information present. In fact, 2,700 dpi is very nearly
optimal for the vast majority of 35mm images. You can, generally, see
film grain at 2,700 dpi (depends on the film and some other parameters,
of course, but usually it's visible). Once you are seeing film grain,
yet more resolution (which, in most cases, the optics won't really
support anyway) actually degrades the overall useable quality of the image.
Nigel Feltham
> Re: "may also want to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200,
> 7300 and 7400 models are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true
> optical resolution of 7200dpi"
>
> Another indication of people's ignorance.
>
> 7200 dpi is not a benefit, it is a deficit. 2,700 DPI scans of a 35mm
> image are 10 megapixels.
True but then you don't need to use the full resolution of the scanner but
having a high resolution does give you the option to do higher resolution
test scans and find the best resolution for the type of film you want to
scan.
If you have a 2700dpi scanner you'll never know if you could be scanning
better at higher resolutions, if you get a budget model that goes higher
than that you can at least give it a shot then settle on 2700dpi when it
proves to be the best you can get out of your film stock - and at the price
of the Plustek or Primefilm scanners you may as well give it a go anyway as
they cost less new than a used Nikon/canon/minolta USB model.
> 7200 dpi is more than 70 megapixels.
Just because the scanner does high resolutions doesn't mean you have to scan
at the full resolution but it's at least there to try. I'm not completely
convinced by the 2700dpi being the highest you can get from film anyway,
there are enough reviews of the 4000dpi Nikons claiming they give more
detail than the 2700dpi models to give me at least some doubt, the article
on grain aliasing (where grain size looks bigger than it really is due to
aliasing between scanner and film) also sheds some doubt as well as I've
seen signs of this on my LS-2000 where previews can look more grainy than
the full 2700dpi scan (and what looks like grain can sometimes be CCD noise
that goes away when using multipass scanning).
> Even the optics are of that quality (they are not), there is just not
> that much information present. In fact, 2,700 dpi is very nearly
> optimal for the vast majority of 35mm images. You can, generally, see
> film grain at 2,700 dpi (depends on the film and some other parameters,
> of course, but usually it's visible). Once you are seeing film grain,
> yet more resolution (which, in most cases, the optics won't really
> support anyway) actually degrades the overall useable quality of the
> image.
I do know what you mean by the optics having a big effect having recently
upgraded my compact camera to a budget 8m pixels model (Polaroid i835) and
finding the images aren't really any more detailed than my old 4m model, if
anything they're fuzzier. Presumably this is the optics failing to keep up
with the sensor (seems similar to effect of using cheap film compacts or
disposables) as my Fuji S5700 bridge camera doesn't have the same fault.
Makes me wonder why compacts are now selling with 12m+ sensors if the lenses
can't even handle 8m.
Barry Watzman
Yes, but there is a problem with that also. Say that you have a 4,000
dpi scanner (about 22 megpixels) and you want to not use "the full
resolution". You have only two choices:
1. Use "interpolated" pixels; which most people feel degrades quality
2. Drop back to 2,000 x 2000 (every other pixel) which is only about
FIVE megapixels and which clearly degrades quality.
To put it differently .... you do NOT have an option to use arbitrary
lower resolutions unless you are willing to accept arbitrary
interpolated pixels.
Which is why I really like 2,700 dpi. VERY FEW (FEW; not "none") 35mm
image have even that much resolution much less more.
[As for comments that the 4000 dpi Nikons have better print quality; I
believe it's as much (in fact almost all) because they ALL have more
bits per pixel than because they have more pixels.]
Noons
> of course, but usually it's visible). Once you are seeing film grain,
> yet more resolution (which, in most cases, the optics won't really
> support anyway) actually degrades the overall useable quality of the image.
Nothing could be more wrong. Film grain is not the same as pixels.
Film is NOT binary!
Luminous Landscape is dead wrong in their assertion. Then again, the
guy has no clue about high quality film scanning, regardless of his
unsubstantiated claims of an extensive past life with film.
What you see in old film scan as grain at low resolutions is actually
not the film grain at all, but aliasing of the irregular emulsion side
surface of older films.
You need at least 4000 to start to see real film's grain, even the
high speed ones such as Fuji 800ISO. And you need twice that in
resolution to start getting rid of scanned film grain alias, yet
another problem altogether.
Of course as you said: this assumes enough care was taken with the
lens focusing and camera steadiness: once you go over around 14MP,
those are critical or else you don't get sharp images at 35mm sensor
size, regardless of the sensor being film or digital.
Once again, just to reiterate it: film is NOT binary and Luminous
Landscape doesn't have a clue about high quality scanning. Go here to
get the correct story:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008_10_19_archive.html
Barry Watzman
it's not.
But once you have enough resolution to scan film grain, you are also at
(or past) the point at which the resolution you are using will capture
ALL of the actual IMAGE data. Consequently, once you have enough
resolution to capture film grain, further resolution increases provide
no benefit and are actually detrimental in a number of ways.
Noons
> But once you have enough resolution to scan film grain, you are also at
> (or past) the point at which the resolution you are using will capture
> ALL of the actual IMAGE data.
Oh no I am not! Film "grain" is not the end of detail in film. Flat
T-grain for example shows detail within each "grain".
> Consequently, once you have enough
> resolution to capture film grain, further resolution increases provide
> no benefit and are actually detrimental in a number of ways.
Disagreee completely. That might have been true 15 years ago, it
certainly isn't anymore.
And I have proof of that.
Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:
Now THAT really interest me..... What has changed with film technology
in the last 15 years? (other than that there is much less use of
film). Or is it that scanning technology has improved? Please expand
on that, I'm sure a lot of us are interested in just what you're
referring to.
Noons
> Now THAT really interest me..... What has changed with film technology
> in the last 15 years? (other than that there is much less use of
> film). Or is it that scanning technology has improved? Please expand
> on that, I'm sure a lot of us are interested in just what you're
> referring to.
I'll try and be brief, but of course the subject is not simple:
1- most remaining makers have "silently" changed film to become a lot more
"scanner friendly". This entailed mostly getting rid of the "hazy" emulsion side
which caused horrible artifacts during scanning with the harsh light of LED
light sources. These were responsible for 90% of the common claims of "film
grain". It wasn't grain at all. Even some of the b&w films now benefit from
this. For example: the latest Acros, latest Neopan and most of the chromogenic
b&w. Even Adox does it now, for CMS20.
2- true grain - or in the case of colour the replacement dye clouds - has become
a lot thinner and much more regular, allowing some of the Ice implementations to
reduce grain effects even more. While t-grain for example is much more regular,
once again allowing post-processing to kick-in more effectively. Another thing
was the complete elimination of the "bubbles" referred to in the LL reference:
they simply don't happen anymore. Case in point: scan modern Astia 100 with
Nikonscan on a 9000 or VED with Ice turned on at "fine" setting and you will
notice a marked reduction of aliased scanned grain in the result, with no
appreciable loss of detail. Once again: don't do this with old "freezer" film
on a 8000 or IV or an old Minolta clunker! There is a significant and marked
difference with those older models, which only shows up when scanning the latest
film.
3- in general, most low speed emulsions will exceed what a 4000dpi scanner can
resolve, with some of the b&w exotics like Adox CMS20 greatly doing so, to the
point where for example it is impossible to see any grain at 4k with CMS20
developed in Technidol. Even with a microscope, it's hard to see any
significant grain with mags of up to 30X. Some of the Rollei exotics will do
the same.
4- most modern amateur level scanners have the ability to keep constant lighting
and focusing characteristics. Older scanners simply did not, with the result
that scanning was at best inconsistent with wildly varying results. Modern
commercial scanners of course do a great job with some of the Frontiers way out
in front of anything else possible even 10 years ago.
5- post-processing software nowadays does a tremendous job of reducing any
remaining alias scanned grain effects. Commercial scanners get rid of most of
the remaining grain while things like Neat Image and Noise Ninja - latest
releases - can virtually eliminate any traces of scanned noise. Combined with
16-bit scanning and tools like Focus Magic, one can easily achieve results at
nearly 20MP effective resolution from normal 100ISO 35mm film.
Of course, to get such results one has to concentrate on optimizing all the
other aspects of the workflow: no way you'll get the top with a low quality or
long unserviced shutter on an old clunker, with an uncoated and poorly focused
lens, without a tripod and with a severely underexposed image! Similar applies
to dslrs with 35mm-sized sensors, btw!
An once again, I'll repeat: grain is NOT pixels! Take quality images with any
modern t-grain film, put it under a microscope and examine the resulting image
edges: they do not match any grain edges at all, clearly resolved inside each
individual flat grain. Do the same with any slide film and you get the same
result. Ditto for modern colour negative.
The important point to recall here is that the above are for *modern* film only!
The expired and long forgotten film rolls stashed away in the freezer that
most so-called film users claim are not like that, are *not* included in the
above and will show all the problems of the past!
The interesting thing of course is that most of the traditional "scanning
technique" sites still around used old film, with older scanners, and pretend
that this is the case forever and ever. Hence the claims of "film cannot do
more than 2700" and "increasing scan resolution is worse" that we hear around
the place.
Simply not true with latest scanning and film technology, using appropriate
post-processing. I have plenty of examples in my public gallery of film-based
images that easily match and exceed 20MP dslr resolution.
Of course: not at 12800ISO, which many seem to think is essential for modern
photography. Film to me cuts off at 800ISO with Fuji's 800Z as far as I'm
willing to go. Some very honorable exceptions in b&w at around 3200, but those
require extensive post-processing to get usable scans.
But I'm the first to say it very clearly: you simply cannot get that kind of
result without a total commitment across the *entire* workflow, from the lens to
the post-processing, starting with modern scanners and with new emulsions.
Simply scanning 25 year old P&S Kodak Gold 400 at higher rez is not the solution
and achieves nothing, as previously well pointed out by Barry!
All I'm disagreeing with is blanket statements claiming it is the case with all
film and all scanners. It's not.
Charlie Hoffpauir
wrote:
Noons,
Thanks for a very informative post!
I've shot 35mm B&W and color (negative and positive) since the 50's,
so I have a lot of old stuff still around. Your post confirms what
I've thought.... and greatly expanded on it. Unfortunately, I won't be
able to utilize the new information I've learned (about the newer
films) since I've not used film at all in the last 10 years. Still, I
really appreciate the new information.
Barry Watzman
are for *modern* film only!"), but which makes most of it irrelevant:
The primary use of scanners is for scanning OLD images. Not images
newly shot on old film, but images that were shot and processed into
slides or negatives decades ago.
I'm not saying that no one uses scanners to scan newer images on newer
film. But the primary use of scanners is to scan images that were taken
more than 15 years ago, and very often 30 to 60 years ago.
Noons
> One practical point that this mentions ("recall here is that the above
> are for *modern* film only!"), but which makes most of it irrelevant:
>
> The primary use of scanners is for scanning OLD images. Not images
> newly shot on old film, but images that were shot and processed into
> slides or negatives decades ago.
>
> I'm not saying that no one uses scanners to scan newer images on newer
> film. But the primary use of scanners is to scan images that were taken
> more than 15 years ago, and very often 30 to 60 years ago.
Very good point, Barry. And in that context, I agree 100% with the statements
so far. Then again, there are buggers like me and the APUG/hybridphoto forums
who do little else but film! ;)
I do disagree with some of the sites out there in the post-processing they do
when scanning old images. I've had tremendous success scanning old film, with a
modern post-process workflow. For example, this:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/Antipodeans-48682464
is a modern scan of an early 80s 35mm K25 slide duplicated to K64. Click to see
larger. I have blown this up to A3 print size at 500dpi and shown folks small
sections of it and it *still* looks as detailed as this one. In fact it beats
most medium format sample scan detail in the traditional scanning sites.
This one is from 87 and is Ekta 64:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/MtConnor-62888195
which of course is "noisy" and "never with detail above 2700" according to
scan-site wisdom...
What can I say, it works for me!
;)
Noons
>
> Thanks for a very informative post!
My pleasure.
> I've shot 35mm B&W and color (negative and positive) since the 50's,
> so I have a lot of old stuff still around. Your post confirms what
> I've thought.... and greatly expanded on it. Unfortunately, I won't be
> able to utilize the new information I've learned (about the newer
> films) since I've not used film at all in the last 10 years. Still, I
> really appreciate the new information.
As you can see in the examples I gave in my reply to Barry, it is possible to do
a lot even with old film. But it's not just a question of "scan-and-it's-done"!
Which is what most scanning sites recommend and show.
Unfortunately, IMHO.
There is a lot of excellent material out there that is being given only the
"2700dpi" treatment or simply thrown out, because of precisely a lack of
information of what is possible nowadays even with flatbed scanners.
Some of the stuff in Chris' blog I linked to previously far exceeds that sort of
detail extraction, with a relatively cheap flatbed scanner.
With a bit of additional Neat Image/Noise Ninja grain reduction and some care in
the sharpening department - I do recommend Focus Magic without hesitation, over
any USM - they can be made to look as good as anything anyone can make with a
modern 10MP digital.
If you ever feel inclined to squeeze a bit more out of some of your old images,
give either myself or Chris a ping and we'll be happy to provide you with our
workflow and the "why"s.
Jethro Pull
bit, ASUS P6T motherboard, and an Intel Core I7 processor (sorry for
bragging). The reinstall of drivers and apps was an "interesting" ordeal
and might even comprise a separate chapter in my autobiography. :-)
Anyway, I can't find my Nikon software disc that has that wonderful ICE
capability however, I'm using VueScan which allowed me to use my Nikon.
Does anyone know where I can dl the Nikon Scanning App that has ICE? I
really like VueScan but I'm not sure how it's going to perform when I
start to scan all those old dusty slides in my closet.
Thanks.
Alan Wrigley
> Does anyone know where I can dl the Nikon Scanning App that has ICE? I
> really like VueScan but I'm not sure how it's going to perform when I
> start to scan all those old dusty slides in my closet.
VueScan has a perfectly good dust removal option which does a very good job
on most makes of film. It doesn't work with Kodachrome but then neither does
ICE.
Alan
David
"Jethro Pull" <jp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4hXBn.161834$EE6....@newsfe23.iad...
> I have the Coolscan 5000 and love it! Built a new computer
> with Win7 64 bit, ASUS P6T motherboard, and an Intel Core
> I7 processor (sorry for bragging). The reinstall of
> drivers and apps was an "interesting" ordeal and might
> even comprise a separate chapter in my autobiography. :-)
>
> Anyway, I can't find my Nikon software disc that has that
> wonderful ICE capability however, I'm using VueScan which
> allowed me to use my Nikon. Does anyone know where I can
> dl the Nikon Scanning App that has ICE? I really like
> VueScan but I'm not sure how it's going to perform when I
> start to scan all those old dusty slides in my closet.
>
> Thanks.
(snip)
You can get the original Nikon-scan software on their Web
site, but they do not plan to support any 64 bit OS and
recommend using third party software like VuScan instead. If
you have a version of Win7 that supports virtual XP mode,
you can run the Nikon software within XP mode. I personally
think Nikon should at least spend a little money to release
a 64 bit version of their software rather just abandon their
user base.
David
Jethro Pull
I find that, after turning on the CoolScan 5000 and left clicking on the
Filter tab, an option called InfraRed Cleaning is available. Ed Hamrick
had answered this question long time ago in an E-mail where he stated
that this option was, in his opinion, better than ICE ... so there we
have it ... we don't need Nikon for this anymore.
I couldn't find any E-mails to help my faulty memory. :-)
Thanks for your help.
Randy Lane
>
> - Show quoted text -
VueScan makes far better use of the infrared data than ICE. ICE has
not been updated for several years (since Kodak bought the copyright I
beleive) whereas Ed has continually tweaked the VueScan code, and
continues to do so to this day. Just scan the release notes over the
years and notice the number of times "infrared cleaning" has been
"improved" or specifically made to work better with a particular
device. You won't get that from the overgrown Rochester N.Y. behemoth
that owns ICE now.
Interesting to me that LaserSoft (the company that markets SilverFast)
has now come out with an update that saves the raw scan data,
including the infrared layer, and then allows the user to process the
saved raw data and apply different corrections/tweaks without having
to rescan from the original source. Ed Hamrick has been touting
VueScan capability as the best and most productive methodology for
over 10 years (I used VueScan in this manner almost exclusively from
the day in the year 2000 I bought my first negative scanner, an HP S20
- piece of dogmeat IMHO BTW). I wonder if Ed copyrighted the
"methodology" and can sue LaserSoft for infringement.
Barry Watzman
scanner itself. Although the software has to turn it on or off.
Digital ICE is fully supported by VueScan. And the Nikon software is
available for download from the Nikon web site.
Barry Watzman
VueScan has the ability to turn on Digital ICE, which resides inside the
scanner itself, in HARDWARE, not the host software (but the host
software has to be able to turn it on and off).
David
> Alan Wrigley wrote:
>> Jethro Pull <jp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know where I can dl the Nikon Scanning App
>>> that has ICE? I really like VueScan but I'm not sure how
>>> it's going to perform when I start to scan all those old
>>> dusty slides in my closet.
>>
>> VueScan has a perfectly good dust removal option which
>> does a very good job
>> on most makes of film. It doesn't work with Kodachrome
>> but then neither does
>> ICE.
>>
>> Alan
"Barry Watzman" <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hra2h2$o27$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Not exactly correct. What would be more correct would be
> to say that VueScan has the ability to turn on Digital
> ICE, which resides inside the scanner itself, in HARDWARE,
> not the host software (but the host software has to be
> able to turn it on and off).
>
>
My understanding is that if the ICE feature in enabled, the
scanner hardware delivers R, G, B and an Infrared view of
the image to the software. It is the software that uses the
IR information to fill in the dirt detected in that image
and compose the final image into whatever format selected
for output. The hardware does not automatically remove the
dirt from the image.
David
Randy Lane
> > Alan Wrigley wrote:
> >> Jethro Pull <jp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Does anyone know where I can dl the Nikon Scanning App
> >>> that has ICE? I really like VueScan but I'm not sure how
> >>> it's going to perform when I start to scan all those old
> >>> dusty slides in my closet.
>
> >> VueScan has a perfectly good dust removal option which
> >> does a very good job
> >> on most makes of film. It doesn't work with Kodachrome
> >> but then neither does
> >> ICE.
>
> >> Alan
>
> news:hra2h2$o27$2...@news.eternal-september.org...> Not exactly correct. What would be more correct would be
> > to say that VueScan has the ability to turn on Digital
> > ICE, which resides inside the scanner itself, in HARDWARE,
> > not the host software (but the host software has to be
> > able to turn it on and off).
>
> My understanding is that if the ICE feature in enabled, the
> scanner hardware delivers R, G, B and an Infrared view of
> the image to the software. It is the software that uses the
> IR information to fill in the dirt detected in that image
> and compose the final image into whatever format selected
> for output. The hardware does not automatically remove the
> dirt from the image.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's exactly right.
And it is that second step, using the infrared data to "correct" the
digital image, where I believe VueScan is far superior to the Nikon
software, or any other I've used.
I do not know whether that final stpe is performed by the NikonScan
software using an API from Kodak or using proprietary code develop by/
for Nikon, but I highly suspect it is from Kodak (or the prior owner,
I think it was named Computer Science).