No service needed.
Over 20,000 frames scanned with the 5000 and scans exactly like it was brand new.
Just a few thousand frames on the 9000 and scans exactly like it was brand new.
A few dozen frames on the V and so far so good.
Many different questions about scanning
-
H
- Thread starter Vincent Boman
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale PENTAX SPOTMATIC SPII
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Trade For Trade, Nikon D750 DSLR for Leica lllf
- Started by dankapsner
Forum statistics
No service needed.
Over 20,000 frames scanned with the 5000 and scans exactly like it was brand new.
Just a few thousand frames on the 9000 and scans exactly like it was brand new.
A few dozen frames on the V and so far so good.
OP
OP
Do you have any experience of the Imacon/Flextight/Hasselblad scanners?
Working examples have been sold for less than 900 dollars here in Sweden, one of them was a Precision II model together with an Apple G4 computer.
Maybe these have been bargain prices and won't show up again for a while, but they're certainly well within my budget.
Working examples have been sold for less than 900 dollars here in Sweden, one of them was a Precision II model together with an Apple G4 computer.
Maybe these have been bargain prices and won't show up again for a while, but they're certainly well within my budget.
I've not used an Imacon only scanned results. With MF, the DPI drops down to 3200. I've seen the workflow of scanning with the Imacon and it will not be as simple as a Coolscan. I believe there is no ICE either.
OP
OP
How do you rate the Nikon film holders? Do you use the one with glass for MF?
I have all the holders but have nothing to compare them with. I suppose they are as good as they have to be. I have only scanned a few rolls of 6X9 and as typical no drama. I mostly shoot 35mm with the occasional MF.
Les this is comparison of V850 with Howtek. I used the 4x5 V850's film holders with ANR glass to keep the negative flat and adjusted the height of the holder for best focus.
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek
I own a Nikon Coolscan 9000 run with Vuescan. I agree that the factory 869S strip holder for 120 is not so great if you have any curl. So I rolled the dice and bought this custom tray and am super happy with the flatness and ease of dusting (vs using taping negatives to AN glass, etc):
Media Sync 3D printed scanner tray for Nikon Coolscan 9000/8000
The caveat is that you can only scan 1 frame at a time ala 869G type tray vs "batch" scanning. However, I feel the ease in clamping down on a frame, and dusting it without glass sandwiches has gotten me some really clean scans. I did get the extra magnets to mount AN glass and strips, but again, taping the negs to glass just to allow 3-4 scans in a pass doesn't seem to save me much time. I also use Vuescan's Light Infrared cleaning for color negs to little/no noticeable degradation of quality.
I also rent time on an Imacon 848 at the local lab for 4x5 and I must say that those are insanely easy to set and scan. I do have to manually dust my negs from the Imacon, but since there's no glass to deal with they're generally pretty clean. If I were to buy one, I would to opt for an 848 or X5, as if you get into 646 and X1 territory, you don't save much scan time vs the Nikon in "Fine" mode (which is slower, but required to prevent banding). Of course, an Imacon in that range is $8000+.
Media Sync 3D printed scanner tray for Nikon Coolscan 9000/8000
The caveat is that you can only scan 1 frame at a time ala 869G type tray vs "batch" scanning. However, I feel the ease in clamping down on a frame, and dusting it without glass sandwiches has gotten me some really clean scans. I did get the extra magnets to mount AN glass and strips, but again, taping the negs to glass just to allow 3-4 scans in a pass doesn't seem to save me much time. I also use Vuescan's Light Infrared cleaning for color negs to little/no noticeable degradation of quality.
I also rent time on an Imacon 848 at the local lab for 4x5 and I must say that those are insanely easy to set and scan. I do have to manually dust my negs from the Imacon, but since there's no glass to deal with they're generally pretty clean. If I were to buy one, I would to opt for an 848 or X5, as if you get into 646 and X1 territory, you don't save much scan time vs the Nikon in "Fine" mode (which is slower, but required to prevent banding). Of course, an Imacon in that range is $8000+.
The Coolscan 9000 is quite good, I was lucky enough to find one for $500 that wasn't working, and I fixed it by opening up the case and tightening all the cables. Loose connection from one of the sensors that detects the location of the film carrier was causing the problem. Most issues with these scanners can be fixed and there are several people who repair them: Gleb Shtengel in Virginia, Frank Philips in Maryland, I believe there are also people who work on them in the UK and in Germany. Stephan Sharf makes a very nice improved, if pricey, film holder for them. The big reliability issue is the firewire port. A few years ago, it was thought that this issue would eventually kill all Coolscan 8000 and 9000 scanners, but Gleb and Frank have figured out how to selectively replace the firewire chip on the circuit board, and they both do the repair for a really reasonable price. It is a well built, super nice industrial machines with a gorgeous Nikon industrial lens inside it. I see no reason mine won't still be running in 15 years. I am a proponent of DSLR scanning, and I think I have a pretty good workflow with it, but I have not yet managed to match or exceed the Coolscan 9000 in color or sharpness. But is the coolscan $2500 better than the DSLR scan? I would say probably not.
I've read about banding on the 8000 only and never with the 8000. I've never seen it on my 9000. Have you seen it on yours?
OP
OP
DSLR scanning is not for me. From what I've read, you need a light table, a film holder, the whole contraption to hold the DSLR: plus of course the DSLR, and the macro lens.
Everything that involves the set-up is one thing. But to do research for a good camera+lens, just to use that camera for taking photos of photos, is ridiculous. Not to mention the lack of ICE.
And what will all that cost you? It's not like I would be saving any money. Not time either, considering all the research to get a functioning set-up.
Everything that involves the set-up is one thing. But to do research for a good camera+lens, just to use that camera for taking photos of photos, is ridiculous. Not to mention the lack of ICE.
And what will all that cost you? It's not like I would be saving any money. Not time either, considering all the research to get a functioning set-up.
Yes, there's banding on the 9000 if Fine mode is not activated. If I forget to check the box I think to myself, "Why did that scan so fast....DOH!" I always scan in 4000dpi, so I don't know if that banding alleviates at resolutions under that.
Also, the "Media Sync" tray I have is indeed Stephen's version 2ish? I don't know what to officially identify the brand as he's changed the channel name and email a few times since. The video above is his latest iteration with improved positioning slots and drop-in ID plates.
As opposed to seeing actual banding on the scan?
That's unfortunate. Did you buy it new and they couldn't remedy it?
I didn't buy the scanner new, but it was privately owned and lightly used. The banding is certainly present on the final scan file if Fine Mode isn't used. Maybe it's unique only to me. Note: I have only used it with Vuescan.
It's at least as good as the Nikon optically (seems more consistent between X & Y resolution than the Nikon) & the film is held flatter. With a little expenditure of effort (shift and stitch) you can get 6300ppi scans off 120. That said, 3200ppi is often a good compromise of file size and resolution. How often do you need a bigger than 60cm print at 300ppi? If you practice good cleanliness & have CS5 or newer Photoshop, you should not take more than a couple of minutes to get rid of dust etc. Imacon/ Hasselblad scanners are pretty easy to operate in general & deliver good results.
I have the autobellows so it's very convenient for me to dslr scan 35mm. You certainly gain a scanning speed advantage but post work can take much longer especially with color negatives and dust and scratch removal. Of course having the Coolscans really cuts down the motivation to do it.
OP
OP
But they're much more expensive in general, right? I have no idea how many models there are, or under what names. Do you know anything about the Precision II model?
OP
OP
I see why DSLR scanning would be interesting for someone who already owns one. But I'm not interested in DSLRs at all, so reading up on it seems like a complete bore to me.
And it's not automatic, either. While a 9000 batch scans, you can go do something else.
It's got an earlier sensor (3x 6000ppi, not 3x 8000ppi) and is SCSI, not Firewire (not that it makes much difference, even the X1 and X5 effectively have space for SCSI, just blanked off) - I think the bigger problem is that the Precisions can't be used with the newer Flexcolor software - which is still 32-bit.
Generally, yes Flextights are much more expensive, but a look under the cover will tell you why - leadscrew focus, better design with no mirrors in the optical path & an overall build vastly better than the Coolscans.
I hesitate to recommend the Imacons as back in early 2000 a professional photog said that his 3MP D30 dslr outresolves an Imacon scanned Fuji Provia 100 -> https://luminous-landscape.com/d30-vs-film/
Not really as I've shot and scanned many films and know what it would take to degrade film so badly as to make a 3MP dslr outresolve it . . .
Not really as I've shot and scanned many films and know what it would take to degrade film so badly as to make a 3MP dslr outresolve it . . .
OP
OP
I know that there are comparisons online between the Flextights and Nikons. I have to admit I don't know much about ppi or dpi, but all I want personally is to be able to scan my images at the highest resolution the scanner allows me to, and work on the image afterwards to feel that I have a finished image that I can then print.
At that point, is there such a difference in the image from a Nikon and a Flextight that merits the price difference?
Yes. Especially if you print.
OP
OP
In what aspects? And what is a reasonable quality level? I don't know anything about printing.
Exhibition printing. The Flextight & other high end scanners seem to give more to work with, if competently operated.
OP
OP
Do you have any experience of the Precision II model? How would it compare to a Coolscan 9000? I'm somehow feeling cheated by seeing that listing of a Precision II model together with an old Mac for less than 900 dollars, wondering if something like that will ever show up here in Stockholm again. I wasn't looking for a scanner then, and of course now that I am, it's a desert.
None directly of the Precision II, lots on several of the later 3x8000 sensor models. And quite a bit of time spent re-scanning work initially scanned on Coolscans that hadn't been very well done. Bear in mind that resolution numbers alone are very poor indicators of overall scan performance & that the software can make or break the output - you want to get the un-inverted file into Photoshop and work from there, not let the scanner software apply its often strange understanding of colour. Coolscans tend to break much more readily than Flextights. In both cases parts and repairs can be expensive. If I had to choose, I'd go with the Flextight, but realistically I'd go with camera scanning if possible. The other point to consider is that the Flextight can handle anything up to 4x5 including panoramic formats - and do a better job than most scanners short of a handful of big heavy old flatbeds or a good drum scanner.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |