Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Toni Nikkanen
I'm perhaps looking for a true medium format film scanner that I could
afford. It seems I just might able to buy a second-hand Minolta Scan
Multi Pro or Nikon Coolscan 8000 unit from eBay or elsewhere. I've
been trying to come up with a preference between these two units on
information I found on the web. Are there any updates to what I have
gathered here:
Minolta Scan Multi Pro:
+ Glass holder is included
+ I like Minolta Scan software (experience from my Scan Elite 5400 II)
+ Slide scanning quality is said to be damn good
- There are reports of problems scanning negatives: excessive grain
and clipped highlights. The "scanhancer" apparently solves the
first problem, what about the other? I scan B&W and color
negatives a lot, also slides.
- Digital ICE, which I intend to use a lot, causes artifacts in sharp edges
Nikon Coolscan 8000:
- Banding issue when not scanning at the slow setting
- Glass holder an expensive option
+ No reported problems with scanning negatives
+ No reported problems with ICE
+ For some reason I trust Nikon build quality more but have no
actual data to justify this opinion
Both have one common (potential) problem: Minolta doesn't make
scanners anymore at all. Nikon doesn't make the Coolscan 8000 anymore,
it's replaced by the Coolscan 9000. Will service be a problem? Will my
scanner turn into expensive junk when something breaks inside?
I'm coming from an Epson V700 + Scan Elite 5400 II combination, I plan
on selling both when I have acquired the true MF film scanner. My
"dream scanner" would be one that was as convenient and produces
as good results as the Scan Elite 5400 II, but for medium format.
This includes convenience of handling film with the scanner and
the magically wonderful way ICE is implemented on the 5400II.
David J. Littleboy
"Toni Nikkanen" <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
<SNIP>
My advice would be to save your pennies (put away US$100 a month plus
whatever you have now) and get a Nikon 9000 a year from now.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
JR
from Minolta....(Vuescan will work as well as a few other 3rd party
solutions)....that being said...the Minolta is an AMAZING scanner....I
used the 5400 for my 35mm and rented a Minolta Pro for my medium format
scans and they are VERY good....amazing in fact.
JR
Toni Nikkanen
Yes I'd expect amazing scans after my experiences with the 5400II, but
what about the issue with negative films? Is there a solution? Or does
the problem even exist?
JR
Toni Nikkanen <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
I would imagine it scans negatives great....I used all positove film
when I used it....rent one and see if it does what you want....
JR
Matt Clara
news:rlpps0x...@morgoth.tuug.fi...
Just get the Nikon--they have no real competitor in their price range...
MLIDDELL
I have had some neg films scanned on a coolscan 9000 and the grain was
a very serious issue.
For the Minolta look here: http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15.
I have never used this and am in no way affiliated by the company that
makes it!
Q.G. de Bakker
> I have had some neg films scanned on a coolscan 9000 and the grain was
> a very serious issue.
Uhm... The grain is in the film, right?
So not a scanner issue (except that the thing was good enough to show the
grain)?
;-)
Toni Nikkanen
> For the Minolta look here: http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15.
> I have never used this and am in no way affiliated by the company that
> makes it!
Yes, I understand the Scanhancer fixes the graininess issue but what
about the clipped shadows and highlights issue described here:
http://web.tiscali.it/saphoto/body_scanimages2.html
Also there is a vague reference here:
http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro.html
"[Update 26.06.02]
A group of Minolta Pro users are quite concerned about the problems with scanning negatives. They have made a site describing the problems:
? http://www.visicon.se/multipro/ "
...that link no longer works.
Now googling further I found some hints that "the negative problem"
may have been addressed in a newer Minolta scan software release and that
it was really only a software problem anyway, so using vuescan or silverfast
might be the complete solution:
http://www.photographical.net/silverfast_ai_6.html
..to summarize my ramblings, I will chalk this up as "there is no
negative problem" and I also found that the "ICE problem" doesn't happen
with Vuescan (at least).
While the original advice of buying a new Nikon 9000 when I have gathered
the money is probably the best choice (I could have the money tonight if I wanted
to; I have a mortgage :) it is also a question of just how much spending I can
justify for the silly obsession of scanning film :)
Toni Nikkanen
> Uhm... The grain is in the film, right?
> So not a scanner issue (except that the thing was good enough to show the
> grain)?
> ;-)
Actually "grain aliasing" can greatly exaggerate graininess on a film,
far beyond what a traditional wet print would show. So it can be a
scanner issue as well.
David J. Littleboy
"Toni Nikkanen" <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
>
> While the original advice of buying a new Nikon 9000 when I have gathered
> the money is probably the best choice (I could have the money tonight if I
> wanted
> to; I have a mortgage :) it is also a question of just how much spending I
> can
> justify for the silly obsession of scanning film :)
One of the reasons for my suggestion is that I'm a real wimp when it comes
to electronic equipment: your US$2,000 buys you a year of use (with optics
that start out clean), whereas you don't know when something in a used unit
is going to blow, at your expense (if even repairable, especially with the
Minolta, since the company doesn't even exist any more). I purchase at a
store that provides an extended limited 5 year guarantee (for 5% of the
purchase price), and they've fixed things that have died after one but less
than 5 years from time of purchase.
Sorry to be on your case here, but, IMHO, buying a used scanner is a bad
idea.
I'd stick with the V700. (Have you tried scanning at 6400 ppi, applying
light noise reduction, downsampling to, say, 2700 ppi? That might create a
very nice file that'll print nicely at 300 ppi, which is a 9x enlargement,
which is about all film is good for for quality prints anyway.)
One thing you might want to do is to take your sharpest slide and have it
drum scanned at 8000 ppi and see how much better that is than the V700,
although that will take a large bite out of your scanner fund.
DonS
I have been using the Nikon 8000 since the week it was introduced. I
have no experience with the Minolta scanners. What I can relay to you
is that I have scanned: 6mm negatives from very old disc cameras; 35mm
film in both negative and positive form; 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 Kodak and
Fuji Meduim Format negatives and 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 negatives
from the 1920's and 1930's. The only problem is that you cannot use
ICE on the very old BW film and some older color slides. I have
acheived very high quality scans from all media with no problems at
all. I generally do not scan at 8000dpi as I nearly never need a file
of that size for my prints. 4000dpi is my norm and I try not to do any
tweaking with grain removal, sharpenning, etc. The only adjustments I
make are in levels and exposure to get the histogram in proper shape.
I do all editing in photoshop.
I would invest in the glass holder as the one that comes with the unit
causes much frustration for everyone I know that uses the 8000.
One warning is that I cannot use my Nikon 8000 at present because I
was forced to get a new computer and there is no driver from Nikon for
the Nikon 8000 or 9000 for Windows Vista. They say that one *may* be
in the works, but nothing yet. I am an active member of the 'I hate
Vista' club :(
Cheers,
Don S.
hannine...@gmail.com
use 2700 euros for a new Nikon, or 1500 for used 8000. About 1000
euros could maybe some day be affordable :). At the moment I own Canon
8400F, which can scan medium format, but the result is nowhere near to
what I get out of 35mm frames with my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV.
I would like to know about the Minolta Multi Pro vs. Nikon.. The Dmax-
stuff? Does it have poorer, better or same ability to record
highlights and shadows? The given Dmax or D-range values of course do
not tell everything, but could give some help comparing these
scanners.
I think they both have enough resolution for most purposes, of course
would be nice if it really got every detail out of even 50 ASA slide
films. But the differences might be bigger or more important with the
dynamic?
Some comments on the earlier topics:
Grain problem: I really think at this level in equipment, the scanners
should be able to reproduce the REAL grain of film. My Scan Dual IV
at 3200 dpi can do that with most B&W negatives, at least with 100 ASA
or more. Some problems with Agfa 25 APX, because the grain is so
small. 8000 dpi should be fine to record the grain from any film, I
think.
This means, there should not be grain aliasing problem, if you use
high enough dpi when scanning. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I
think this problem exists only when the scanner cant record the real
grain, just the picture it produces.
If the frame has grain, I want it to scan it also. I wouldnt use any
grain removing filters, because it will change the look of the photo
(maybe by blurring it).
ICE: I think these filters only work with E-6 (etc.) slides and color
negatives, not B&W or Kodachrome films, because it work with Infra-Red
light. IR-light will not pass silver grains, that B&W negatives
(except C-41) and Kodachrome slides do have. I'm not sure if there is
some application, that does support also films with silver grain.
Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide
films. Slide films have way higher density level, than negatives.
Velvia 50 is said to have Dmax up to 3,8 or something. Ideal B&W
negatives usually have Dmax up to 1,3 or 1,5. This should mean the
scanners would be able to record all the shadows from negative, which
will be highlights in the picture. Of course also the Dmin is
important and some scanners might have problems there also, especially
with underexposed negatives. Problems with dynamic range should anyway
be greater with slide films than negatives, at least with the Dmax.
Neil Gould
> I do have the same problem with the money - I really wouldnt like to
> use 2700 euros for a new Nikon, or 1500 for used 8000. About 1000
> euros could maybe some day be affordable :). At the moment I own Canon
> 8400F, which can scan medium format, but the result is nowhere near to
> what I get out of 35mm frames with my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV.
>
> I would like to know about the Minolta Multi Pro vs. Nikon.. The Dmax-
> stuff? Does it have poorer, better or same ability to record
> highlights and shadows? The given Dmax or D-range values of course do
> not tell everything, but could give some help comparing these
> scanners.
> I think they both have enough resolution for most purposes, of course
> would be nice if it really got every detail out of even 50 ASA slide
> films. But the differences might be bigger or more important with the
> dynamic?
>
Frankly, I think you'll find more variation between users of these
scanners than between the scanners. The dynamic range of either is
suitable for capturing the image for most purposes. Keep in mind that
these are low mid-range units that will do a decent job on most images. If
you need to get beyond the capabilities of these scanners (and users), a
professional using a high-end drum scanner can do the job. I use those
kinds of services for about 5% or less of my work.
> Some comments on the earlier topics:
>
> Grain problem: I really think at this level in equipment, the scanners
> should be able to reproduce the REAL grain of film.
>
Well, no, they won't.
> My Scan Dual IV
> at 3200 dpi can do that with most B&W negatives, at least with 100 ASA
> or more. Some problems with Agfa 25 APX, because the grain is so
> small. 8000 dpi should be fine to record the grain from any film, I
> think.
> This means, there should not be grain aliasing problem, if you use
> high enough dpi when scanning. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I
> think this problem exists only when the scanner cant record the real
> grain, just the picture it produces.
>
Grain aliasing can even be an issue when drum scanning. To understand
more, it might be better to start a discussion in comp.periphs.scanners,
as there are some very knowledgeable folks in that group that can get very
specific about such issues. There are also very detailed discussions on
grain aliasing in the archives for that group.
> Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide
> films.
>
That hasn't been my experience. Keep in mind that most "pros" shooting
during the introduction of scanners (more than 25 years ago) were using
slide films to make editorial decisions easier, so the equipment was
optimized for that kind of film. Negative films were not designed to be
scanned, and therefore exhibit more artifacts than slide films.
> Slide films have way higher density level, than negatives.
> Velvia 50 is said to have Dmax up to 3,8 or something.
>
However, this level of scanner has Dmax capabilities of > 4, so that isn't
the problem one runs into.
Neil
Alan Browne
> Minolta Scan Multi Pro:
>
> Nikon Coolscan 8000:
I've had two Minolta film scanners (Dimage Scan Dual and 5400 (non -
II)) and now the Nikon 9000 ED. (I also have a Mustek flatbed that is a
bit long in the tooth).
The Minolta's were always great and reliable. I got $500 for the 5400
after well in excess of 5000 scans. Some slide film would only scan
well with the Minolta s/w; some negative film only with VueScan.
I'm no fan of the Nikon scan s/w, but slowly getting used to it.
The 8000 has a very good rep, but of course is improved in the 9000.
I have heard various horror stories about Nikon scanner service in the
US. Of course you don't here of the many likely good stories.
I reluctantly say: don't get the Minolta, but only because there is no
more Minolta in this business. Further, as OS' evolve it will be harder
and harder to assure support for the s/w.
As Littleboy says ... pinch a few pennies (who needs a girlfriend
anyway) and get the 9000 ED.
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Toni Nikkanen
I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
The decisive factors were: Nikon is still sort of making the software
(last release of Nikon Scan in 2006), I trust it's longevity a bit
more (LED lamps, some parts such as film carriers still available new
as they are the same ones as in the Coolscan 9000 model, Nikon is
still around), and, I got it for a price that seemed reasonable,
though, after customs and taxes and shipping it really isn't _cheap_
anymore.. I guess I can cover the cost by selling my two scanners and
some little-used camera/lens gear. I probably won't have use for
Silverfast AI Studio for Epson anymore, I wonder it the license
is resaleable...
An added bonus I didn't realize until after purchase: It can actually
scan 12 frames of 135 film at once, so actually my scanning of 135
film got a slight boost as well, even though improving medium format
was the primary goal here.
The glass film holder included with the price of Multi Pro would have
been very nice, though.
By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film
holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder?
Alan Browne
> By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film
> holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder?
The rotating holder allows a few degrees of rotation allow you to get
verticals or horizontals parallel to the frame before scanning.
Theoretically better than rotating in photoshop. This will hold
panoramic sized film up to 24 x 65mm (and of course 6x9 mf).
I bought the glass holder (FH-869G) which works better than the "all
air" one that comes with the scanner. But on curled film you will get
Newton's rings. (With the rotating holder as well).
Cheers,
Alan
Noons
> I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
> might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
> I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and
have never looked back even though it was hideously
expensive: bought it new, not from ebay.
I've also recently got one of the old Kodak rfs3600,
re-baged PIE scanners for my 35mm old stuff: using a
9000 for that is almost an overkill. the kodak rfs is very
sharp indeed and produces excellent scans, but it doesn't
use ICE and that can sometimes be a problem.
I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
there is no reason why one should not use software
corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of
Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the
scans and the results are absolutely stunning.
and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front!
David J. Littleboy
"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
>
>> I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
>> might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
>> I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
>
> Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and
> have never looked back even though it was hideously
> expensive: bought it new, not from ebay.
Yep. They're wonderful gismos.
> I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
there.
> there is no reason why one should not use software
> corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of
> Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the
> scans and the results are absolutely stunning.
But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to
clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as
long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say
this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less
sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your
opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
time.)
Matthew Winn
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> > piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> > GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> > Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
> there.
I tend to be suspicious of algorithms that I don't understand. With
ICE I know what's happening to the image, but without the knowledge of
what GEM and ROC actually do to the image data I'm reluctant to trust
them.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
Noons
>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
> there.
so what? just re-scan without them! :-)
It's not like the "raw" file is gone, is it?
Still: I prefer NI to what GEM does. But in
the absence of NI, GEM will do a good job.
Just don't use it full strength: setting of 1
works fine for me.
> But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to
> clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as
> long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say
> this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less
> sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your
> opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
> time.)
David: get an eval copy of FM and give it a try.
It works very well as a plug-in to Irfanview, for example.
It beats any other sharpening method I've tried with
the possible exception of some based on
high-pass filters. It leaves USM for dead, period.
Kid you not. It works particularly well with
digital raw images.
Toni Nikkanen
> I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
Indeed, getting working ICE for medium format was one of my
long-standing dreams. It's a marvel on the K-M 5400 II but nearly
useless on the Epson V700...
I've also used GEM (during scanning) to good effect on films that show
"sand" grain effects when scanned.
Too bad neither of these work for silver halide B&W film, though.
> there is no reason why one should not use software corrections on
> film scans. I'm currently using a mix of Neat Image and Focus Magic
> in the workflow after the scans and the results are absolutely
> stunning. and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front!
I've found the Kodak GEM photoshop plugin to be very good for
controlling grainy scans, I wonder why nobody ever mentions that.
Rosemary
> Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> > I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> > piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> > GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> > Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
>
> Indeed, getting working ICE for medium format was one of my
> long-standing dreams.
Well I just saw this. I finally got a Minolta Multi Pro second hand
from an small online dealer who gave me a return policy and took my
credit card. (I am totally leery of Ebay now.)
Anyway I just love the Multi Pro. It actually came with a scanhancer
in the box and the images I"ve scanned with it have really made me
happy.
Unfortunately I can't get any store to buy my Microtek Artixscan 120TF
(sans ICE). I suppose I could keep it as a backup?
Toni Nikkanen
> Unfortunately I can't get any store to buy my Microtek Artixscan 120TF
> (sans ICE). I suppose I could keep it as a backup?
Maybe you should put it up for sale on eBay, I think there is some
demand for those and you're likely to get more money selling it
yourself instead of getting a store to buy it from you. If you let it
sit around unused it'll just rot away along with its selling value..
Even though you're leery of eBay... as a seller you have less risk as
long as you don't send anything before you have the money.
Toni Nikkanen
Well, I have my scanner now and it seems to have a problem. To
describe it briefly: it made some very loud noises while it was moving
the carrier back and forth - I know film scanners make a lot of noise
but some of these noises seemed way out of place. The autofocus
function wouldn't work at all. I only managed to scan one frame and
even that was very badly misaligned; I got the latter half of the 6x7
frame I intended, plus a bit of the next one, and the rest of the
frame consisted of the same horizontal repeated again and again. The
next scan I tried was just the repeating horizontal line. After that,
I haven't managed to feed it with film at all; it just won't respond
when I insert a carrier (any carrier). Nikon Scan occasionally says
the scanner has reported a hardware malfunction - and sometimes it
just isn't detected at all.. I've tried Nikon Scan 3 and 4, Vuescan 8
on Windows XP and Nikon Scan 4 and Vuescan 8 on a Mac, with the same
results.
I'd just like to ask, what is the normal Power On Self Test (POST)
sequence like on a working unit? On mine, without the firewire cable
attached, it is:
1. Infrequent flashing of the green LED (about one per second)
2. A mechanical sound while the flashing continues
3. flashing continues for a moment but the sound stops
4. Another mechanical sound, flashing continues
5. Very rapid flashing, no sound
6. The green led is glowing continuously, no more sounds are emitted
I guess what I am going to do next is call the company who is responsible
for servicing Nikon equipment in Finland the first thing Monday morning, to
find out if I have any options for getting this to work. For some reason
I didn't have to pay customs or taxes on this one, which is a nice plus,
but it seems that savings is going into getting the thing serviced..
Apart from not working, the machine is very impressive. It looks like
it's built to last with no miniscular plastic piece of crap parts that
are so typical of today's consumer electronics. The stuff I managed to
scan looked exactly like the stuff I want to be able to achieve with
my scanner..
Noons
>
> 1. Infrequent flashing of the green LED (about one per second)
> 2. A mechanical sound while the flashing continues
> 3. flashing continues for a moment but the sound stops
> 4. Another mechanical sound, flashing continues
> 5. Very rapid flashing, no sound
> 6. The green led is glowing continuously, no more sounds are emitted
>
any chance of sending it back?
just doesn't look right to me.
the flashing is normal during the POST
but it should stop after a coupla minutes or so.
and I only hear a couple of rattles on start-up in
my 9000, nothing else.
-
Have you visited the Nikon 8000/9000 group at Yahoo Groups and read through
the archives? It seems like I have heard of some similar problems with the
8000 and there may be some good tips there on how to solve it. Lots of good
people there to help you troubleshoot things.
Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners
Toni Nikkanen
> Toni -
>
> Have you visited the Nikon 8000/9000 group at Yahoo Groups and read through
> the archives?
Thanks for the tip, I'll go and check it out right away.
Toni Nikkanen
I took it to the service company this morning and a few hours later
they already called me back, they had found the fault (a motor switch
was broken) and it will cost about 100 euros to fix it, they will need
one spare part which they have ordered and should arrive next week. So
it seems Coolscan 8000 is still being serviced. If this fixes it I'm
going to be happy after this is all over.
Toni Nikkanen
Just got my scanner back. Apparently they fixed it completely, as I have
performed several scans of absolutely stunning quality with no problems
whatsoever. And that's before even trying the glass carrier yet.