[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> I will leave this for those using this model to respond. There were reports with older models about banding, and Nikon's response at that time was to go to the super fine mode which used one CCD line only, at the cost of speed. Some people claimed the banding was rare or never occurred, others stated it only showed up in certain types of slides or subject matter, some returned the machine due to the banding unhappy with the result. <<< I've only heard about this problem with the 8000, not with any other Nikon scanner. Was it a problem on any of the 35mm scanners? I've not seen it with mine, but I only scan in slow mode since checking for it would take time. It turns out that the slow mode isn't any slower than fast mode for 1x scans with ICE (apparently ICE requires another exposure, defeating the speed-doubling effect for 1x (but not 2x to 8x scans)) so it's not a problem here. Multisampling scans are so slow that it doesn't matter if they're very slow: I have to go do something else anyway. The Nikon 8000 becomes grossly slow with a slower PC with less than 1GB of RAM. Several of the early adopters used older PCs with 256MB of RAM, and found the thing incredibly slow, so the fast mode not being faster really hurt them, and there were a lot of seriously unhappy campers. By the time I got mine (over 3 years ago), 1GB 1GHz machines were available. Moving to a 2GB 2GHz machine didn't speed up scanning 645 itself all that much. Getting a 6x7 camera slowed it down a lot, though. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
I will leave this for those using this model to respond. There were reports with older models about banding, and Nikon's response at that time was to go to the super fine mode which used one CCD line only, at the cost of speed. Some people claimed the banding was rare or never occurred, others stated it only showed up in certain types of slides or subject matter, some returned the machine due to the banding unhappy with the result. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I can see how banding would be a problem. So is the 5000 ED > significantly better than the Minolta 5400 II? The nikon is nearly twice > the cost and slides are 99% of what I scan, i.e. no problem with film > strips. > > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >>Speed. >> >>It can scan 2 or 3 scan lines at the same time, using the same lighting >>sequencing and same stepper motor position. The lines are not necessary >>right next to one another, in fact, they probably aren't. >> >>The only problem Nikon has run into with this technique is banding, >>since by doing several lines at once, spaced apart, by the time the >>adjacent line gets next ti it on one side, the dimensions or position >>might have changes due to thermal changes or other factors. This was a >>problem with earlier medium format models, but perhaps it was resolved. >> >>On those models Nikon suggested moving to ultra fine scanning mode which >>used only one CCD line, but also slowed the unit down by 1/3rd or so. >> >>Art >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Any ideas why Nikon would need multiline CCDs? The 5000 uses 2 lines, >>>and the 9000 uses 3 lines. >>> >>>Since Nikon doesn't use color masks, you would think a one line CCD >>>would be sufficient. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
I got a used scuba tank (steel), hose, regulator and nozzle for $80. The regulator (or maybe valve is a better word) was rebuilt, but who cares.It's not like my life depends on it. I never had any trouble getting a tank filled without a license, but I am obligated to meet all tank inspections. Just a guess, but I'd say a full tank of scuba air is about 10 cans of canned air. Scuba air is just compressed air, filtered and dried. The compressor uses a vegetable based oil so that if any oil gets into the air, it is not hazardous. There is a special nitrogen/oxygen mix used for deeper diving that does require diver certification. For just compressed air, I think there are more people playing paintball with the air than doing photography. One trick to remember is not to completely empty your scuba tank. That is, as the pressure gets low, you really need to get it refilled. If the tank is emptied, I believe they have to inspect the tank for leaks, which will cost. This is one project I don't suggest getting on ebay. Those scuba tanks are heavy, especially the cheap tanks. Better to get the gear used. Scuba is like any other hobby, that is, people want to upgrade. Vuescan costs more for the pro version with perpetual upgrades. Those of us who got the software when there was only one version (I think it was $45) got a free upgrade to the pro version., i.e. grandfathered in. Patrick M. Florer wrote : >If you aren't using Vuescan, I would highly recommend it - I don't know what >it costs now, but, at the time, it was a very good investment of $35. > >Regarding someone else's suggestion about using a scuba tank for compressed >air - I checked into this in Dallas at a local dive shop: 1) the least >expensive tank setup they had was about $250; and, 2) I would have needed a >certificate from a diving school in order to fill / re-fill the tank! I >didn't do it!. > >Patrick Florer > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Orton >Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:10 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED > >Did you find much detail loss with the dust detection settings or is it >possible to turn those settings off with the Nikon? I know it is time >consuming but for some images were optimum sharpness is key it would be nice >to have that choice. Do you find that you get more detail in the shadows >than with the Polaroid? You mentioned better quality, is that referring to >sharpness, contrast levels, colour accuracy? > >Perhaps the way to describe the waves from the Polaroid is that they are >closely spaced soft diagonal lines in the dark areas. > >Thanks >Mary > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Patrick M. Florer >Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:58 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED > > >Sorry about the $600! > >I had a similar situation, except that I didn't spend the $600 to try to fix >my SS4000. The SS4000 had developed bad pixels in the CCD sensor - Polaroid >wanted $400 just to look at it, and more $$$ to fix, so I just junked it >after 3 years, figuring that I had gotten plenty of value for what I paid. > >I bought a Nikon Supercoolscan 5000ED as a replacement, about a year ago, >and have scanned approximately 150 - 200 rolls of print negative and print >positive film. I have recently purchased a Digital SLR, and will be doing >most photography with that now, but I am glad to have the 5000ED and have no >plans to sell it. Including sales tax, I paid about $1,100 for the device. > >The scanner connects to a PC via USB, the scan speed is roughly 4x faster, >and the quality is better, too. Having IR dust detection and correction, >which I usually use on it's least intrusive setting, solved a major problem >I had with the Polaroid. My expenditures for canned air dropped to $0! If >you are careful with this feature, you won't lose much sharpness, but if you >overdo it, you will definitely see some loss of detail. > >Also, the Nikon doesn't use a carrier for strips of film - you just feed >anywhere from 2-6 frames on a strip right into the from of the machine, >which is a huge timesaver when compared to the SS4000 - I always had trouble >getting my film to lay flat enough to line it up correctly in the Polaroid >filmstrip carrier! The slide feeder takes only one mounted slide at a time, >which is kind of a pain if you have a lot of these to scan. You can buy >both a bulk filmstrip loader, which can process up to 40 images on a roll, >and a bulk slide loader, which holds 50 mounted slides. Each of these >options costs about $500. I have neither.
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
Hardly any detail loss with the minimum setting, and, yes, you can turn it off. There are four levels of IR correction, as I recall - off, light, medium, and heavy. With medium and heavy, you will notice some detail loss. And I agree about turning it off for some films / images. I shot several rolls of Velvia 50 last Thanksgiving, and scanned with IR = off. Used a lot of compressed air, though! I haven't ever compared the two scanners side by side for detail in shadows - according to the specs, there should be more with the Nikon. The overall image quality just seems to be better. On slide film, the colors are better. Again, better is subjective - depends a lot on film type, exposure, etc. - the normal stuff! Now that I have seen the images from a high end DSLR, though, I have to say that I have never produced a scan as good as the image that my Nikon D2X produces. So, unless it's B&W, Infrared, or a shot needing a really wide angle, when I use up my current batch of film, I don't expect to be shooting too much more film. I am not the one to talk about the hardware issues you have. On my SS4000, I started getting a dark line the full length of the scan, which almost certainly indicated defects in the CCD sensor. I am surprised that Polaroid won't take the scanner back and keep working on it, given the fact that they have already charged you for the repair. If you aren't using Vuescan, I would highly recommend it - I don't know what it costs now, but, at the time, it was a very good investment of $35. Regarding someone else's suggestion about using a scuba tank for compressed air - I checked into this in Dallas at a local dive shop: 1) the least expensive tank setup they had was about $250; and, 2) I would have needed a certificate from a diving school in order to fill / re-fill the tank! I didn't do it!. Patrick Florer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Orton Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED Did you find much detail loss with the dust detection settings or is it possible to turn those settings off with the Nikon? I know it is time consuming but for some images were optimum sharpness is key it would be nice to have that choice. Do you find that you get more detail in the shadows than with the Polaroid? You mentioned better quality, is that referring to sharpness, contrast levels, colour accuracy? Perhaps the way to describe the waves from the Polaroid is that they are closely spaced soft diagonal lines in the dark areas. Thanks Mary -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Patrick M. Florer Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED Sorry about the $600! I had a similar situation, except that I didn't spend the $600 to try to fix my SS4000. The SS4000 had developed bad pixels in the CCD sensor - Polaroid wanted $400 just to look at it, and more $$$ to fix, so I just junked it after 3 years, figuring that I had gotten plenty of value for what I paid. I bought a Nikon Supercoolscan 5000ED as a replacement, about a year ago, and have scanned approximately 150 - 200 rolls of print negative and print positive film. I have recently purchased a Digital SLR, and will be doing most photography with that now, but I am glad to have the 5000ED and have no plans to sell it. Including sales tax, I paid about $1,100 for the device. The scanner connects to a PC via USB, the scan speed is roughly 4x faster, and the quality is better, too. Having IR dust detection and correction, which I usually use on it's least intrusive setting, solved a major problem I had with the Polaroid. My expenditures for canned air dropped to $0! If you are careful with this feature, you won't lose much sharpness, but if you overdo it, you will definitely see some loss of detail. Also, the Nikon doesn't use a carrier for strips of film - you just feed anywhere from 2-6 frames on a strip right into the from of the machine, which is a huge timesaver when compared to the SS4000 - I always had trouble getting my film to lay flat enough to line it up correctly in the Polaroid filmstrip carrier! The slide feeder takes only one mounted slide at a time, which is kind of a pain if you have a lot of these to scan. You can buy both a bulk filmstrip loader, which can process up to 40 images on a roll, and a bulk slide loader, which holds 50 mounted slides. Each of these options costs about $500. I have neither. I was tempted to get the filmstrip loader, but then I realized that, after scanning the film the first time, I was going to cut it into strips of 6 images each to fit the storage sleeves I use, so what was the point! I still have 3-4,000 mounted slides inherited from parents to scan, so I may
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
I own a Nikon Coolscan V, which is quite close to 5000 in terms of the optics. I am very pleased with the results of the scans. I know that is a very subjective comment, so what info would you like to hear from me? I can perhaps send some raw scans for you to look at? -Navjot On 6/2/05, Mary Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has anyone had any experience with this slide scanner? Nikon Supercoolscan > 5000 ED > > My Polaroid SS 4000 is not working well (-fine waves in dark areas and > coloured lines ). We sent it to the Polaroid repair shop and it is virtually > the same upon return except we are 600 dollars poorer. As it has worked well > for us for 7 years we thought there must be something better out there by > now. > The Nikon specs sound good, but it is hard to find independent reviews. We > don't do high volumes but do need top quality. > Thanks for any help > Mary /Michael Orton > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
the only thing I'd caution re: using compressed air is to be careful that the compressed air doesn't come out at such a speed as to cause cooling and condensate of the area being blown. Been there, done that with a neg and took a while to get rid of the little water droplet spots afterwards. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
I scan mostly slides, but if I had to scan strips of film, the SS4000 (and the Artixscan version) film strip carrier would drive me nuts. I remember on the old Leben scanner list that Nikon has some pricey repairs on their scanners, so Polaroid isn't alone. Unless the repair is minor, you are almost always better off upgrading the hardware since you get newer technology. [Of course, if you had an Immacon or some other high end scanner, this may not be the case.] Regarding canned air, going to a scuba tank is a bit more cost effective. I haven't tried using a welding tank, but that might be even cheaper since scuba tanks need frequent inspections even if you are not diving with the tank. The stream from the scuba tank is quite powerful, and there is no refrigerant issue like you have with canned air. I do find it annoying that the local scuba shops are going out of business due to the poor economy. making it hard to get the tank filled. I don't think you can ever get to "zero" on canned air expenses since you should be blowing the dust off the film before putting it back in the sleeve. Patrick M. Florer wrote: >Sorry about the $600! > >I had a similar situation, except that I didn't spend the $600 to try to fix >my SS4000. The SS4000 had developed bad pixels in the CCD sensor - Polaroid >wanted $400 just to look at it, and more $$$ to fix, so I just junked it >after 3 years, figuring that I had gotten plenty of value for what I paid. > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
Sorry about the $600! I had a similar situation, except that I didn't spend the $600 to try to fix my SS4000. The SS4000 had developed bad pixels in the CCD sensor - Polaroid wanted $400 just to look at it, and more $$$ to fix, so I just junked it after 3 years, figuring that I had gotten plenty of value for what I paid. I bought a Nikon Supercoolscan 5000ED as a replacement, about a year ago, and have scanned approximately 150 - 200 rolls of print negative and print positive film. I have recently purchased a Digital SLR, and will be doing most photography with that now, but I am glad to have the 5000ED and have no plans to sell it. Including sales tax, I paid about $1,100 for the device. The scanner connects to a PC via USB, the scan speed is roughly 4x faster, and the quality is better, too. Having IR dust detection and correction, which I usually use on it's least intrusive setting, solved a major problem I had with the Polaroid. My expenditures for canned air dropped to $0! If you are careful with this feature, you won't lose much sharpness, but if you overdo it, you will definitely see some loss of detail. Also, the Nikon doesn't use a carrier for strips of film - you just feed anywhere from 2-6 frames on a strip right into the from of the machine, which is a huge timesaver when compared to the SS4000 - I always had trouble getting my film to lay flat enough to line it up correctly in the Polaroid filmstrip carrier! The slide feeder takes only one mounted slide at a time, which is kind of a pain if you have a lot of these to scan. You can buy both a bulk filmstrip loader, which can process up to 40 images on a roll, and a bulk slide loader, which holds 50 mounted slides. Each of these options costs about $500. I have neither. I was tempted to get the filmstrip loader, but then I realized that, after scanning the film the first time, I was going to cut it into strips of 6 images each to fit the storage sleeves I use, so what was the point! I still have 3-4,000 mounted slides inherited from parents to scan, so I may still purchase the slide loader. I don't use the Nikon software much, preferring Vuescan as easier to use and faster, with no loss of functionality. I have had no software or hardware issues, either. My PC is fairly new and very capable with fast processor and 2 gb of memory and Windows XP Pro. I do computing for a living and run a pretty "tight ship", so this may be an important reason why I have had no problems. Hope this helps. Patrick Florer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Orton Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED Has anyone had any experience with this slide scanner? Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED My Polaroid SS 4000 is not working well (-fine waves in dark areas and coloured lines ). We sent it to the Polaroid repair shop and it is virtually the same upon return except we are 600 dollars poorer. As it has worked well for us for 7 years we thought there must be something better out there by now. The Nikon specs sound good, but it is hard to find independent reviews. We don't do high volumes but do need top quality. Thanks for any help Mary /Michael Orton Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
