Oddity in Vuescan with Nikon LS900

[calico]

So I'm getting used to using Vuescan, after using Nikon Scan for many years. Use Nikon LS9000.

Noticed something weird. It's not a big problem, but I'm wondering what's going on.

When I do preview scan of a frame from Hasselblad negatives, Vuescan shows faint image outside of the black border. (I like to include black border of neg in my scans. I adjust buffer setting in Vuescan, so border doesn't affect exposure.)

It's kind of a ghost image. There obviously is no image there on the negatives. It's the vertical side of negs. Even if it were the top or bottom of image, the next image would be much farther away.

What is Vuescan doing? Is it happening because of some setting in Vuescan which I should change?

It's not a big deal. I can crop it out before I make the scan or afterwards in Photoshop. But I'm wondering what's going on.

Attached is sample. It might be a little hard to see, but if you look closely on the right side, you will see a faint version of the lines of the clapboard on the house to the right of the black border. Toward the bottom, the faint image doesn't mirror what is next to it in the image, so that's confusing, too.

Anyone else notice this when using Vuescan?

Thanks.

 

[koraks]

Attached is sample. It might be a little hard to see, but if you look closely on the right side, you will see a faint version of the lines of the clapboard on the house to the right of the black border. Toward the bottom, the faint image doesn't mirror what is next to it in the image, so that's confusing, too.

On the left margin, there's something similar going on, but that also doesn't echo the image content of the left side of the actual frame. It seems to have more to do with the right-hand side.

You mention VueScan in particular; I'm not sure if it's technically feasible with your setup, but have you tried other software? Does it produce the same effect?

Like you said, I wouldn't worry too much about it since it's outside the area you realistically need (even if you want to include the frame edges).

 

[calico]

On the left margin, there's something similar going on, but that also doesn't echo the image content of the left side of the actual frame. It seems to have more to do with the right-hand side.

You mention VueScan in particular; I'm not sure if it's technically feasible with your setup, but have you tried other software? Does it produce the same effect?

Like you said, I wouldn't worry too much about it since it's outside the area you realistically need (even if you want to include the frame edges).

Hi Koraks,

Thanks for taking the time to look at my sample image.

I can indeed use Nikon Scan currently, and the oddity does not happen there. Area outside of the black border is just pure white (which makes sense, it's unscanned area, where the film holder is).

BTW, I had to switch to Vuescan when my 2010 Macpro died in early 2023, and I bought a Mac Studio which can't run Nikon Scan. I recently bought a 2010 Mac Mini on which I got Nikon Scan going. When I did comparison scans, I decided I liked the ones from Vuescan better, which surprised me. So, even though I don't like the Vuescan interface, I've been using it.

Anyway, all of that is peripheral to what I posted about : )

As you say, the oddity in Vuescan scans can just be cropped out. I was just curious about what was happening and if I needed to change some setting. It has to be some software thing that is causing the image outside black border.

Thanks again.

 

[brbo]

Does it also appear in Vuescan if you lock exposure at 1?

 

[calico]

Does it also appear in Vuescan if you lock exposure at 1?

Do you mean have "Neutral red," "Neutral green," and "Neutral blue" all at 1 in Color tab?

I always leave those at 1.

I do adjust "Curve low" and "Curve high." For b&w negs, I use 0 (Vuescan makes it 0.001). For color negs, I usually use 1 (Vuescan makes it 0.999). Have sometimes used 0.5 or 0.75 for color negs.

I do a "Preview" scan, move focus point and have scanner refocus, adjust crop, then hit "Scan".

In Vuescan, I'm just trying to get exposure basically right. I make adjustments in Photoshop.

Thanks.

 

[albireo]

Anyone else notice this when using Vuescan?

Thanks.

Which Vuescan version are you on? I'm using v.9.6.47 and cannot reproduce the issue with my Coolscan.

 

[calico]

Which Vuescan version are you on? I'm using v.9.6.47 and cannot reproduce the issue with my Coolscan.

I'm using Vuescan 9.8.26.01 with Mac OS 13.1 on Mac Studio.

So maybe an issue with later versions of Vuescan? Are you scanning 120 film? LS900?

I see Vuescan up to 9.8.44 currently. I haven't updated for fear of creating problems more serious than what is under discussion.

Thanks for your input.

 

[albireo]

I'm using Vuescan 9.8.26.01 with Mac OS 13.1 on Mac Studio.

So maybe an issue with later versions of Vuescan? Are you scanning 120 film? LS900?

I see Vuescan up to 9.8.44 currently. I haven't updated for fear of creating problems more serious than what is under discussion.

Thanks for your input.

Sorry - just noticed you wrote 9000. I'm using an 8000. So probably not relevant. Yep 120 film

Also Windows 10 64bit, Vuescan is the 64 bit release too if it helps.

 

[brbo]

Do you mean have "Neutral red," "Neutral green," and "Neutral blue" all at 1 in Color tab?

I always leave those at 1.

No, that doesn't control hardware exposure.

I'm pretty sure you noticed that faint image outside the frame is not random but is a ghost image of the scene in the negative frame.

Nikon CS8000 and CS9000 (less so) are infamous for reflections. So nothing new here. The question is why Nikon Scan apparently doesn't exhibit the problem. So to make Vuescan behave similarly to Nikon scan in terms of exposure (more exposure more reflections) I propose to change some settings and then compare scans.

In 'Input' tab enable Lock Exposure and set RGB Exposure (and same for R, G, B and IR) to 1. I 'Input' tab I would also set the 'Media' to 'Slide film' or 'Image', since 'Color negative film' will automatically increase exposure of G and B channel (even though you lock it at 1) and in 'Color' tab set 'Color balance' to 'None', Curve low' and 'Curve high to 0.25 and 0.75. Inverting the scan manually would then be a better comparison to Nikon Scan.

 

[calico]

No, that doesn't control hardware exposure.

I'm pretty sure you noticed that faint image outside the frame is not random but is a ghost image of the scene in the negative frame.

View attachment 389764

Nikon CS8000 and CS9000 (less so) are infamous for reflections. So nothing new here. The question is why Nikon Scan apparently doesn't exhibit the problem. So to make Vuescan behave similarly to Nikon scan in terms of exposure (more exposure more reflections) I propose to change some settings and then compare scans.

In 'Input' tab enable Lock Exposure and set RGB Exposure (and same for R, G, B and IR) to 1. I 'Input' tab I would also set the 'Media' to 'Slide film' or 'Image', since 'Color negative film' will automatically increase exposure of G and B channel (even though you lock it at 1) and in 'Color' tab set 'Color balance' to 'None', Curve low' and 'Curve high to 0.25 and 0.75. Inverting the scan manually would then be a better comparison to Nikon Scan.

Interesting info re reflections.

But re the ghost image: Yes, as I had mentioned in original post, the clapboard lines in house seem to be mirrored outside the black border on top part. But if you look down toward the bottom, what is outside the black border does not mirror what is next to it in image.

When you say CS8000 and 9000, I guess you mean LS, not CS?

Thanks for your input.

 

[brbo]

But if you look down toward the bottom, what is outside the black border does not mirror what is next to it in image.

The bottom of the image is apparently all very thin on negative, so more light bouncing at the bottom and as a result the entire right edge is light grey instead of pure white.

When you say CS8000 and 9000, I guess you mean LS, not CS?

CS was for CoolScan. Nikon Super CoolScan LS-9000 ED. Rolls right off the tongue...

 

[calico]

The bottom of the image is apparently all very thin on negative, so more light bouncing at the bottom and as a result the entire right edge is light grey instead of pure white.

The area to the right of the black border on bottom part is not solid grey. There is image in there, but not the grass that is in the image on other side of border. There are horizontal, greyish stripes instead.

I'll just crop out the areas outside black borders. I was just curious about what was going on.

 

[albireo]

The area to the right of the black border on bottom part is not solid grey. There is image in there, but not the grass that is in the image on other side of border. There are horizontal, greyish stripes instead.

I'll just crop out the areas outside black borders. I was just curious about what was going on.

For the record, which film holder are you using (you can find the code on the holder itself)

 

[calico]

For the record, which film holder are you using (you can find the code on the holder itself)

The one that came with the LS9000 with the glass.

For color negs, to avoid Newton's rings, I put a small piece of the masking material which came with the scanner between the glass and the negative strip at top of strip and at bottom of strip, which has avoided Newton's rings, so far.

 

[brbo]

The area to the right of the black border on bottom part is not solid grey. There is image in there, but not the grass that is in the image on other side of border. There are horizontal, greyish stripes instead.

I'm talking about this:

When there is higher density in the negative there is less light light bouncing around and therefore you don't see density in the parts of the scan that should be completely white. Less density (grass in your negative), more light leaking. Minimum density in the negative (rebate), the most light leaking.

As said it is normal for CCD scanners, but Nikon CoolScan scanners are very prone to that (9000 being the least affected; on some Nikon scanners people even resorted to the removal of the CCD cover glass (very risky, ask me how I know this), because even with perfectly cleaned mirror, lens and CCD cover, plus additional shielding of the light path, there was still a lot of reflections). Problem becomes more visible if exposure times are increased (in Nikon Scan manual there is a warning that increasing exposure could lead to "smearing", so Nikon was well aware of the problem).

Vuescan always increases exposure time for G and B channel when you select 'Color negative film' on scanners with individual exposure controls and further increases master (RGB) exposure based on individual negative (unless you tell it not to do that (as I explained in post #9)). The reasoning seems to be that densest part of the negative will get enough exposure for cleaner scans. I don't think it should be like this by default, but good luck telling anything to Mr. Hamrick (I'm still gathering courage to tell him that the autofocus on Microtek 4000tf doesn't work (at all!!!) in Vuescan).

 

[albireo]

The one that came with the LS9000 with the glass.

Thanks. I'd recommend you join the 'Nikon Coolscan' facebook group. On there, you will find a lot of first-hand info on these devices by people who refurbish or have refurbished thousands of them as their main job - look mainly for 'Gleb Schlengtel' and 'Frank Phillips'. Drop one of either a private message or post your example+issue description above in the group, if anyone has encountered this first hand you'll find out.

On this forum, almost nobody owns or uses a Coolscan or a dedicated film scanner for that matter, so what you end up getting is mostly old rehashed photo.net-era lore with unclear and unproven generalizability.

 

[calico]

I'm talking about this:

View attachment 389783

When there is higher density in the negative there is less light light bouncing around and therefore you don't see density in the parts of the scan that should be completely white. Less density (grass in your negative), more light leaking. Minimum density in the negative (rebate), the most light leaking.

As said it is normal for CCD scanners, but Nikon CoolScan scanners are very prone to that (9000 being the least affected; on some Nikon scanners people even resorted to the removal of the CCD cover glass (very risky, ask me how I know this), because even with perfectly cleaned mirror, lens and CCD cover, plus additional shielding of the light path, there was still a lot of reflections). Problem becomes more visible if exposure times are increased (in Nikon Scan manual there is a warning that increasing exposure could lead to "smearing", so Nikon was well aware of the problem).

Vuescan always increases exposure time for G and B channel when you select 'Color negative film' on scanners with individual exposure controls and further increases master (RGB) exposure based on individual negative (unless you tell it not to do that (as I explained in post #9)). The reasoning seems to be that densest part of the negative will get enough exposure for cleaner scans. I don't think it should be like this by default, but good luck telling anything to Mr. Hamrick (I'm still gathering courage to tell him that the autofocus on Microtek 4000tf doesn't work (at all!!!) in Vuescan).

Yes, we were talking about same area to right of black border. I thought you were saying it was solid grey. I was simply saying there was image of some kind in there.

Interesting info about what Vuescan is doing re exposure of G and B channels. Thanks for taking the time to give me all of that information.

 

[calico]

Thanks. I'd recommend you join the 'Nikon Coolscan' facebook group. On there, you will find a lot of first-hand info on these devices by people who refurbish or have refurbished thousands of them as their main job - look mainly for 'Gleb Schlengtel' and 'Frank Phillips'. Drop one of either a private message or post your example+issue description above in the group, if anyone has encountered this first hand you'll find out.

On this forum, almost nobody owns or uses a Coolscan or a dedicated film scanner for that matter, so what you end up getting is mostly old rehashed photo.net-era lore with unclear and unproven generalizability.

I am actually in that group! I posted here because I thought my question might be too involved for a Facebook post.

But I will post there, as you suggest. Gleb Shtengel repaired my LS900 some years ago. I wasn't on Facebook then, don't remember how I found him. But I was sure glad I did.

Maybe he or Phillips will comment on my scanning oddity.

Thanks.

 

[koraks]

The one that came with the LS9000 with the glass.

Sounds like you're getting reflections against the edge of the glass.

 

[250swb]

Are they some sort of left over calibration artefact if you are multisampling or something similar?

 

[Archiloque]

some Nikon scanners people even resorted to the removal of the CCD cover glass (very risky, ask me how I know this)

Tell me more about that, I've been eying the possibility of removing mine
I've seen that a company in Germany is specialized in doing it and I've been hesitating in sending one of my CCDs.

 

[brbo]

Tell me more about that, I've been eying the possibility of removing mine
I've seen that a company in Germany is specialized in doing it and I've been hesitating in sending one of my CCDs.

All I can tell you is that you maybe don't want to do it yourself

If I remember correctly, I've tried contacting a company in Germany (might as well been the same) and got no reply. I'll see if I can find whom I contacted back then...


edit: According to my mails I got one positive response from EURECA Messtechnik GmbH 10 years ago and their quote was (in hindsight) more than reasonable (125 EUR (VAT included)). My "problem" stemmed from the fact that I thought that doing it myself will be money and time saved easyily. I tested the procedure on a CCD sensor from Canon 9000F flatbed that I had no use for and the cover peeled right off in a second. Encouraged by that...

 

[albireo]

Sounds like you're getting reflections against the edge of the glass.

You're as usual very close to what I think is the real issue here. @calico do you have other holders you can test?

Personally I'm using the custom made, magnetic 3D printed holders made by Stephen Scharf in Germany (also on the facebook group).They are beyond wonderful. All of the advantages of the glass holder with none of the disadvantages. My 6x9 negatives are critically sharp corner to corner.

With these holders, I have scanned thousands of 120 positives and negatives with my 8000 and I've never once seen a reflection like this.

But I'm sure If I look hard enough, magnify the top right border 1200%, scan my grandma's woollen underpants with 16X multisampling, and do a night of digging through photo.net threads circa 2005, I will finally realise something is off with my scanner.

 

[calico]

Are they some sort of left over calibration artefact if you are multisampling or something similar?

Not multi-sampling. (Will post below about what Frank Phillips, Coolscan repair person said on Facebook.)

 

[calico]

You're as usual very close to what I think is the real issue here. @calico do you have other holders you can test?

Personally I'm using the custom made, magnetic 3D printed holders made by Stephen Scharf in Germany (also on the facebook group).They are beyond wonderful. All of the advantages of the glass holder with none of the disadvantages. My 6x9 negatives are critically sharp corner to corner.

With these holders, I have scanned thousands of 120 positives and negatives with my 8000 and I've never once seen a reflection like this.

But I'm sure If I look hard enough, magnify the top right border 1200%, scan my grandma's woollen underpants with 16X multisampling, and do a night of digging through photo.net threads circa 2005, I will finally realise something is off with my scanner.

Hi albireo,

I posted to the Facebook group, as you suggested, last night. Maybe you saw the post.

Frank Phillips replied that what I'm seeing is caused by dirty mirror. Also said amount of contrast in image can affect what he called this "bleeding" of image outside black border. When I told him it's been seven years since Gleb Shtengel repaired and cleaned my LS9000, he felt sure mirror was dirty.

Then I went to Gleb's site where he had posted instructions for cleaning mirror. He mentioned that if your scanner has over 10,000 scans, you need to clean mirror. Also, focusing problems or degraded scans are symptoms of dirty mirror.

There is no way I've come anywhere near that many scans since Gleb repaired and cleaned my scanner in 2018. I've probably scanned less than 1,000 images since then. And I always keep the scanner enclosed in plastic when not in use. I have not had focusing problems or degraded scans.

Stephen Scharf also suggested dirty mirror. Also said to mask out edges of neg around image, which I don't want to do, as I like having the black border around images.

This morning I posed a question to them: If the ghost image is from a hardware problem such as dirty mirror, why doesn't this happen in scans from Nikon Scan? Only happens in Vuescan. Maybe it's some interaction between the hardware and the Vuescan software. Maybe Vuescan reacts differently to the reflections on the glass.

I do have the holder without the glass which I could try in Vuescan.

As I mentioned, the ghost image isn't really important -- I can just crop out. I thought maybe I needed to do something in the Vuescan software (which seems rather baroque compared to Nikon Scan) which might be affecting something else.

I'm certainly not going to take my scanner apart to try to clean a mirror which probably isn't even very dirty.

Interesting to hear about your experience with the Scharf film holders. I was in touch with him about them some months ago (heard about them via the FB group). I may buy when budget allows. I thought they had glass in them -- sounds like you're saying they don't? Maybe some do, some don't. It was some months ago that I watched his video demonstration of them.

Thanks.