Nikon Coolscan vs. Epson Perfection scanners - recommendations?
in [Scanners]
|
From: Charlie Hoffpauir on 30 Nov 2009 14:00 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:39:21 +0000, Surfer! <surfer(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: >In message <6ut7h5lf9a3gvhinngv0l29scf6c8vrk41(a)4ax.com>, Charlie >Hoffpauir <invalid(a)invalid.com> writes >>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:14:01 -0500, Local Girl <anon(a)anon.com> wrote: >> >>>Thank you to all for your knowledgeable comments. >>> >>>What about PrimeFilm Film scanners? I found this page: >>>http://ssl.adgrafix.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?scanace1STORE >>>:CKIE:home+ >>> >>>These devices are dedicated film/slide scanners ranging from $100 to >>>$800, offering Digital ICE with units starting at $250. Any comments? >>> >> >>I have no personal knowledge about PrimeFilm scanners.... but >>considering the prices, I'd say they must be more cheaply made than >>either the Nikons or the Epsons. I'd recommend you check a few >>comments from past users. Usually you can find users comments on sites >>that retail the products.... check Amazon first , and if they don't >>handle them. do a goggle search for sites that sell the PrimeFilm. > > >User's comments about products are often not very useful, unlike their >comments about suppliers. They don't have anything to compare the >product with, and are not measuring it's performance objectively. Still, I tend to worry about a product for which the user has this to say: By FourDees "Dee" (Glendale, CA) - This scanner is a piece of junk. Support tech was good at first, responding quickly by email when I had trouble with the basic operation of the unit. After scanning several slides and coming up with hideous colors, I finally simply asked them if this was a case of "you get what you pay for"--from that point on dead silence. This scanner has two colors--dark and red. An extremely well-lit slide scans very dark and quite red. Out of 61 slides that I have scanned so far, only two came up basically true to their colors. If you take the time to try to tweek the colors for each slide, the colors still stink! I am very sorry I bought this. If there was less than a one-star rating, that would be my choice. On the other hand, another user said this: By Ernest B. Bell - (REAL NAME) This little machine is simply great.. almost a plug and play. I have tried larger scanners.. what a mess.. Pacific Image is best. All you can do is find as much information as possible, then make a choice.
From: Noons on 30 Nov 2009 21:59 On Dec 1, 5:09 am, Alan Wrigley <spamha...(a)keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote: > > It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a better/more advanced > > version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson scanners, etc., that is > > programmed to better handle the characteristics of Kodachrome. I have never > > seen any published tests in regard to how much better it works but there are > > people who say they have had good success with it. > > Would be interesting to hear from one of them if reading this group. Spotting > Kodachromes after scanning is the most time-consuming (and probably > health-destroying) part of my life. The 9000 ED works perfectly with Kodachrome and Ice. It's one of its best features.
From: David on 30 Nov 2009 22:12 "Noons" <wizofoz2k(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:582f5735-5abd-4a65-be43-2c16d9be6d2e(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 1, 5:09 am, Alan Wrigley > <spamha...(a)keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote: > >> > It is true that the Nikon 9000 is supposed to have a >> > better/more advanced >> > version of ICE compared to the version used in Epson >> > scanners, etc., that is >> > programmed to better handle the characteristics of >> > Kodachrome. I have never >> > seen any published tests in regard to how much better >> > it works but there are >> > people who say they have had good success with it. >> >> Would be interesting to hear from one of them if reading >> this group. Spotting >> Kodachromes after scanning is the most time-consuming >> (and probably >> health-destroying) part of my life. > > The 9000 ED works perfectly with Kodachrome and Ice. It's > one of its > best features. I have a Nikon Coolscan V and other than having to clean it once because of dirt collecting on the first surface mirror. My biggest disappointment is that Nikon never released a version of Nikonscan for 64 bit Vista/Windows 7. David
From: Barry Watzman on 1 Dec 2009 09:31 I don't believe it's true. Understand what is going on with Kodachrome. Digital ICE works by scanning the image with infrared (IR) light. There have been more than 12 different formulations of film sold under the "Kodachrome" name over a period of more than 50 years. Many of these are opaque to IR light. For those formulations, Digital ICE won't work. There is no really good complete fix for this; you can't scan IR opaque films with IR light and get meaningful results. Digital ICE has been tweeked to work better with some of the formulations of film that are dense but not totally opaque, and these tweaks are present in the later scanners. But they don't fully resolve the fundamental issues, and, furthermore, I believe that anything that the LS-9000 has, the LS-5000 would also have. Alan Wrigley wrote: > Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: > >> You don't need the LS-9000, unless you have some medium >> or large format negatives to scan. It offers no benefit for 35mm slides. > > I've been told that the 9000 is better for Kodachrome because ICE works properly > with that film - can anyone confirm this? > > Alan
From: Barry Watzman on 1 Dec 2009 09:32
There have been more than a dozen different films sold as "Kodachrome" over a period of more than 50 years. The issue with Digital ICE is that many of these are either very dense or completely opaque to infrared light. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. [also, some other, non-Kodachrome films are also IR opaque] Charlie Hoffpauir wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:23:13 +0000, Alan Wrigley > <spamhater(a)keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote: > >> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> You don't need the LS-9000, unless you have some medium >>> or large format negatives to scan. It offers no benefit for 35mm slides. >> I've been told that the 9000 is better for Kodachrome because ICE works properly >> with that film - can anyone confirm this? >> >> Alan > > That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Kodachrome is Kodachrome > whether 35 mm or large format, and ICE doesn't work well (or at all) > with Kodachrome, just as it doesn't work with silver-based black & > white. |