Les, when I did a comparison of my V850 with a Howtek 8000 drum scanner with a 4x5 Tmax 100, I found that I was able to sharpen V850 scan of 2400 better than 4800. I don't know why that is so.Interesting, the 8200i review on the same site states it's resolution is 3250dpi as opposed to 3800dpi on the 8100? But you still have to scan at 7200dpi in order to get that.
Scan times per frame is 4 minutes without iSRD and almost 10 minutes with iSRD enabled.
That site also reviewed the Epson V800/850 and conclude that you need to scan at 4800dpi in order to achieve 2300dpi and that scanning at 6400dpi doesn't achieve any more detail.
Scan times for 35mm at 4800 is 1 minute 44 seconds without ICE and 3minutes 44 seconds with ICE.
So if as you said that your V850 is able to take absolutely all image quality the film has - except b&w, then why would you get the Plustek that takes considerably longer to make a scan and requires manual intervention to advance the filmholder for each frame? Couldn't you just apply more sharpening as needed?
I truly don't get the 'speed' argument against dedicated film scanners. Probably because I'm a poor photographer, I rarely scan all 36 frames in a roll. I only scan and archive the 'keepers', which are, if I'm lucky, 5-6 photos on a 36 frame roll.
Les, when I did a comparison of my V850 with a Howtek 8000 drum scanner with a 4x5 Tmax 100, I found that I was able to sharpen V850 scan of 2400 better than 4800. I don't know why that is so.
I shouldn't have mentioned the Howtek. That was coincidental to my point. I was responding to your earlier post about best setting for V850. I found I was able to sharpen V850 scan of a 4x5 BW at 2400 better than 4800. I don't know why that is so.Sorry but i don't know much about the Howtek really.
I shouldn't have mentioned the Howtek. That was coincidental to my point. I was responding to your earlier post about best setting for V850. I found I was able to sharpen V850 scan of a 4x5 BW at 2400 better than 4800. I don't know why that is so.
I shouldn't have mentioned the Howtek. That was coincidental to my point. I was responding to your earlier post about best setting for V850. I found I was able to sharpen V850 scan of a 4x5 BW at 2400 better than 4800. I don't know why that is so.
I appreciate your offer. But I'm going to keep it simple. SInce the 2400 V850 scans came close to the Howtek results, I don't want to complicate it and will continue to scan at 2400. The 4x5 BW's are already 265mb each in 16 bit grayscale Tiff. It will be three times larger when I start to scan Velvia color in 48 bit. Raising the scan to 4800 will make the files 4x larger, way over a GB, just is too much for probably marginal gain if at all. Plus I don't think Lightroom can handle them that large. Thanks again.Alan, many times we require several consecutive sharpening operations of different radius and % intensity. If you go this way you will get same good job independently of your dpi scanning.
In the Epson V850 the sensor outresolves the scanner's lens by a x2.2 factor if scanning 6400dpi, optimizing this may require a particular sharpening and %. But we do not only sharpen the scanning, we also may be sharpening the taking lens work, that requires a different radius and another %.
Consider this analogy. In a "perfect" digital image you apply a blur filter taking 2pix radius and 70% intensity. Later you apply another blur filter of (say) 7pix and 20% raidius. If you want to recover the image you will have to apply two consecutive sharpening actions, no single sharpening will work perfectly.
When optimizing an image sharpness you may have to perform more than one sharpening. In the case the scanner resolution matches the lens resolution then with a single sharpening you may get a good result.
So yes... you may obtain a better result from a single sharpening operation at some scanning dpi, but if you perform several cascaded sharpening operations you overcome overcome that problem and you perform always an smart job.
Additionally, you need more sharpening operations in the workflow, after you resize to the final size (from the larger edition size) you may sharpen again. And additionally you may make another sharpening that is calculated from the intended viewing distance, the print size and the pixel density in the print, this is to maximize acutance perceived by the eye while totally avoiding overshot.
Because of the cascaded operations required it's essential to work 16bits/ch, to not degradate the image.
___
So the shorter answer is that the scanning work requires a radius for the sharpening and the taking lens work (+ film result) requires a different one. It can happen that depending on the scanning dpi a single sharpening works better because the required raidus match for both situations, but you can always cascade several sharpenings of different radius for a perfect job.
___
If you want, send me the 2400 and 4800 original crops and the sharpened results, and I'll give you the sharpening operations at 4800 that matches or improves the 2400 workflow.
Conversely, I've put the time and effort in the shot and now all I want is for the scanner to give me the best representation from it consistently..
It's just that I'm extremely critical with my output and I like 5% of my shots.
But I'm going to keep it simple...
The version of Silverfast that came with my V750 cannot run under Windows 10.You may try it on your own, from the V750 serial you have a Silverfast license that includes iSRD dust removal, but you may need to upgrade the bundled version (around $50 if IIRC) if also multi-exposurewanting. The infrared dust detection is useful for color films because color dyes are transparent to the IR, so in the infrared image all dust is well detected. For BW the dust removal tool is iSRX in the Silverfast suite, the last version works pretty well.
See here min 20:32
The version of Silverfast that came with my V750 cannot run under Windows 10.
I’ve decided to not look for a Coolscan V/5000 anymore, because of the non-ideal performance from the SA-21 holder, and because in the end I’d much rather have a 9000 anyway. But now I’ve found a good deal on a Coolscan 8000.
This is NOT coming from direct experience. But, $1,500 for an old old scanner? Are you sure this is a sound investment? Unless this is one that was hardly ever used, comes with all holders and has some sort of at least 6 month guarantee, you may be asking to be disappointed. Holders are hard to come buy, and crazy expensive when they do show up (same for 9000). Check on banding problems, which I understand 8000 developed at some point in its age on a rather universal scale. Those who had used one for long enough might be able to counter this, but banding was one issue that put off from even considering one some 6-7 years ago. 8000 holds its value because of general feedback placing it not far behind 9000 in results department, but I think just like 9000 is artificially way over the top in current pricing , 8000 is even more so.I’ve decided to not look for a Coolscan V/5000 anymore, because of the non-ideal performance from the SA-21 holder, and because in the end I’d much rather have a 9000 anyway. But now I’ve found a good deal on a Coolscan 8000.
With customs, it will cost me under 1500 dollars, which certainly is within my budget. How does it compare to the 9000? I’ve read about problems with banding, can they be worked around? Is there any difference in the ICE? Since the price is about half what I would expect for a 9000, I’d like to know just how much better a 9000 is.
It is also recently serviced, which is a bonus.
I’ve decided to not look for a Coolscan V/5000 anymore, because of the non-ideal performance from the SA-21 holder, and because in the end I’d much rather have a 9000 anyway. But now I’ve found a good deal on a Coolscan 8000.
With customs, it will cost me under 1500 dollars, which certainly is within my budget. How does it compare to the 9000? I’ve read about problems with banding, can they be worked around? Is there any difference in the ICE? Since the price is about half what I would expect for a 9000, I’d like to know just how much better a 9000 is.
It is also recently serviced, which is a bonus.
Yes, but what are the alternatives? In terms of quality? There's only one scanner, though not yet on the market, that does both 35mm and MF and that is the Plustek 120 Pro, which release date has been delayed several times. I can only imagine it will cost a fortune, and compared to the 9000 probably won't hold up. If it ever is released.This is NOT coming from direct experience. But, $1,500 for an old old scanner? Are you sure this is a sound investment? but I think just like 9000 is artificially way over the top in current pricing , 8000 is even more so.
I did yesterday, though I haven't been admitted yet. It sounds great, especially if you can find a 9000 at a good price.You might want to join the facebook group 'Nikon Coolscan Users'.
Honestly, if I were in the market for MF dedicated scanner I'd start digging at Minolta Scan Multi Pro as that was a sure competitor to Nikon 8000/9000 in final scan results. I believe there are fewer offered than any Nikon at any point in time, but you never know if you can get luckier with Minolta (price wise), as all the talk in town is Nikon and nothing else. Minolta gave Nikon run for its money in scanners until they sadly left the field. I have Minolta's Scan Elite II (for 35 mm only). This was their top 35 mm scanner until 5400 showed up, although having seen results from both, I don't think I've missed much, in spite of evidenced difference in real resolution.Yes, but what are the alternatives? In terms of quality? There's only one scanner, though not yet on the market, that does both 35mm and MF and that is the Plustek 120 Pro, which release date has been delayed several times. I can only imagine it will cost a fortune, and compared to the 9000 probably won't hold up. If it ever is released.
Considering the 9000 is still sold in a fully functional state by people who have had it in a dust cover, it's not like buying a pig in a poke.
I did yesterday, though I haven't been admitted yet. It sounds great, especially if you can find a 9000 at a good price.
For the moment, I will focus on a 9000, since it is arguably the best scanner that also includes ICE. Though on Monday I'll ask the people at my local lab exactly what they charge for Imacon scans, and what model Imacon they have. They have been on vacation for the past three weeks, so haven't been able to ask.Honestly, if I were in the market for MF dedicated scanner I'd start digging at Minolta Scan Multi Pro as that was a sure competitor to Nikon 8000/9000 in final scan results. I believe there are fewer offered than any Nikon at any point in time, but you never know if you can get luckier with Minolta (price wise), as all the talk in town is Nikon and nothing else. Minolta gave Nikon run for its money in scanners until they sadly left the field. I have Minolta's Scan Elite II (for 35 mm only). This was their top 35 mm scanner until 5400 showed up, although having seen results from both, I don't think I've missed much, in spite of evidenced difference in real resolution.
A few months ago I rebuilt my desktop computer. I switched from an Intel P9/X79 ASUS motherboard to an AMD X570 motherboard with AMD 3900X CPU, new RAM and NMVe SSD. I'm holding off until nVidia announces their new 3000 cards before upgrading the vid card. Windows 10 did a seamless migration from the old Intel setup to the new AMD setup. No BSODs, not even one!Interesting discussion.
Right now I'm researching film scanners (35mm) myself. With advances in software tools, some of my old and less-than-stellar negatives -- there are more than I care to admit -- might be worth a second look. However, I don't have $3K to drop on a film scanner, mainly because it's just not worth that kind of money to me for what I want to accomplish. YMMV. Besides, I'm building myself a new computer and the (hopefully) soon-to-be-released Ryzen Zen 3 CPU, Nvidia Ampere graphics card w/water cooling, X570 motherboard and 32" 4K monitor all need funding. And yes, I truly will need these components for my, uh, work computer.
Are you sure about that Windows support date? MS releases major updates twice a year now, and those updates lose support on a fairly aggressive schedule, by historical standards.If you do end up investing $$$ in an older Nikon scanner, be aware Windows 10 Mainstream support ends October 13, 2020. Windows 10 Extended support ends 5 years after that (October 14, 2025). You might consider purchasing a retail (or OEM, but that license isn't transferrable) copy of Windows 10 before 2025 rolls around, just in case your computer dies. Or worse, you buy a new PC and the new MS OS (Windows 11? Core OS? Polaris? Tik Tok OS?) causes problems. Sometimes, it's better not having to re-invent the wheel (e.g., making things work under a new OS) when you already have a setup that has proven itself.
Yes. I have read that there are people who specialize in maintaining old Nikon scanners. However, I have not found anyone who can upgrade a Nikon scanner to USB 3. It's not critical but it would be nice.Good luck in your quest for a Nikon 9000 scanner.
...
However, I have not found anyone who can upgrade a Nikon scanner to USB 3. It's not critical but it would be nice.
Phil
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?