From: Noons on
On Dec 2, 1:31 am, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...(a)neo.rr.com> wrote:

> the fundamental issues, and, furthermore, I believe that anything that
> the LS-9000 has, the LS-5000 would also have.

The light source of the LS-9000 is quite different from the one in the
5000.
For example: the 5000's harsh "condenser-like" lighting is hopeless
with most b&w film, while the 9000 can be used on all b&w without any
major problems due to its much softer, almost "diffuser-like" light.
I am fully aware both use LEDs. Please read on the subject rather
than stating that they have same lighting. They don't.
Still: that has little to do with how well either handles D-Ice. Fact
is: I have access to both scanners and the 9000's D-Ice is so much
better with Kodachrome it's not even a contest. If that is due to a
ligthing difference or a different processing done by NikonScan, I
don't know. I do know there is no way I'll bother with Kodachrome and
the 5000 if I have access to the 9000.
From: coolscan on

I use the Coolscan 5000. Given you have thousands of slides to copy, and
you wish to develop a business scanning slides, this is the only
realistic choice. The flatbed will never scan slides or filmstrip as
well as the dedicated Nikon.

Together with the optional slide feeder, you will be able to get
through 50 slides at a time. It takes about 2 minutes for a full scan
running at 4,000 dpi. The TIFF image (you can choose other formats)
takes 2 minutes with ICE processing alone. Add a few seconds (depending
on how fast your computer is) to do more complex processing such as
correcting for colour fading). Yesterday, I timed an 8 bit scan using
ICE (dust removal, colour correction, and 4x multiscan to reduce CCD
noise) and it took about 2 minutes 10 seconds. A basic scan ran 2
minutes. The resulting file size was 65 megs.

Most of my processing has been for slides from the 1940s through to the
1980s. The Coolscan has done a remarkable job of it.

The Nikon has a lot of built in post - processing features too, which
are done at the time of the scan should you wish to use them.
Alternatively, you could simply leave the post processing until later if
you wish to use Lightroom or Photoshop Essentials to process each
image.

I have used flatbeds in the past. Never again. The effort to scan a
filmstrip drove me to distraction. It is very much a manual operation.
The time needed basically drove me away from the effort. With the
Coolscan, I can set it quickly, and walk away until the job is done. I
have rarely had a slide jam either.

All in all, I would only use a flat bed for its design purpose - to
scan in occasional positive prints etc. A flat bed is not really meant
for the job you are looking for.

So, in my experience, the main differences between the flatbed and the
dedicated scanner for slides or filmstrip are: the Nikon is far faster,
requires far less effort, and has a far higher output quality. I am glad
I chose a dedicated scanner.


Good luck.


From: Nigel Feltham on
Surfer! 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.
>

Exactly - There are enough good reviews of the cheap film scanners that
aren't really scanners (I'm sure you've all seen them - the USB powered
5mpixel camera and lightbox type that's often advertised in newspapers) to
prove you cannot trust many user scanner reviews.
Some reviews of these claiming how good they are even point to flickr pages
with their best scans, all of which have no detail in the shadows and burnt
out highlights worse than just photographing the film with a budget camera.

However if you're looking at PrimeFilm as a budget option you may also want
to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200, 7300 and 7400 models
are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true optical resolution of
7200dpi, again reviews are limited (and I've not tried one myself as I'm
happy with my old Nikon LS-30 and LS-2000 scanners). Similar prices to the
PrimeFilm models.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Plustek-OpticFilm-7200i-4248


From: Barry Watzman on
Re: "may also want to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200,
7300 and 7400 models are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true
optical resolution of 7200dpi"

Another indication of people's ignorance.

7200 dpi is not a benefit, it is a deficit. 2,700 DPI scans of a 35mm
image are 10 megapixels.

7200 dpi is more than 70 megapixels.

Even the optics are of that quality (they are not), there is just not
that much information present. In fact, 2,700 dpi is very nearly
optimal for the vast majority of 35mm images. You can, generally, see
film grain at 2,700 dpi (depends on the film and some other parameters,
of course, but usually it's visible). Once you are seeing film grain,
yet more resolution (which, in most cases, the optics won't really
support anyway) actually degrades the overall useable quality of the image.



Nigel Feltham wrote:
> Surfer! 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.
>>
>
> Exactly - There are enough good reviews of the cheap film scanners that
> aren't really scanners (I'm sure you've all seen them - the USB powered
> 5mpixel camera and lightbox type that's often advertised in newspapers) to
> prove you cannot trust many user scanner reviews.
> Some reviews of these claiming how good they are even point to flickr pages
> with their best scans, all of which have no detail in the shadows and burnt
> out highlights worse than just photographing the film with a budget camera.
>
> However if you're looking at PrimeFilm as a budget option you may also want
> to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200, 7300 and 7400 models
> are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true optical resolution of
> 7200dpi, again reviews are limited (and I've not tried one myself as I'm
> happy with my old Nikon LS-30 and LS-2000 scanners). Similar prices to the
> PrimeFilm models.
>
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Plustek-OpticFilm-7200i-4248
>
>
From: Nigel Feltham on
Barry Watzman wrote:

> Re: "may also want to consider Plustek Scanners as their Opticfilm 7200,
> 7300 and 7400 models are available with ICE and scan at a claimed true
> optical resolution of 7200dpi"
>
> Another indication of people's ignorance.
>
> 7200 dpi is not a benefit, it is a deficit. 2,700 DPI scans of a 35mm
> image are 10 megapixels.

True but then you don't need to use the full resolution of the scanner but
having a high resolution does give you the option to do higher resolution
test scans and find the best resolution for the type of film you want to
scan.

If you have a 2700dpi scanner you'll never know if you could be scanning
better at higher resolutions, if you get a budget model that goes higher
than that you can at least give it a shot then settle on 2700dpi when it
proves to be the best you can get out of your film stock - and at the price
of the Plustek or Primefilm scanners you may as well give it a go anyway as
they cost less new than a used Nikon/canon/minolta USB model.

> 7200 dpi is more than 70 megapixels.

Just because the scanner does high resolutions doesn't mean you have to scan
at the full resolution but it's at least there to try. I'm not completely
convinced by the 2700dpi being the highest you can get from film anyway,
there are enough reviews of the 4000dpi Nikons claiming they give more
detail than the 2700dpi models to give me at least some doubt, the article
on grain aliasing (where grain size looks bigger than it really is due to
aliasing between scanner and film) also sheds some doubt as well as I've
seen signs of this on my LS-2000 where previews can look more grainy than
the full 2700dpi scan (and what looks like grain can sometimes be CCD noise
that goes away when using multipass scanning).

> Even the optics are of that quality (they are not), there is just not
> that much information present. In fact, 2,700 dpi is very nearly
> optimal for the vast majority of 35mm images. You can, generally, see
> film grain at 2,700 dpi (depends on the film and some other parameters,
> of course, but usually it's visible). Once you are seeing film grain,
> yet more resolution (which, in most cases, the optics won't really
> support anyway) actually degrades the overall useable quality of the
> image.

I do know what you mean by the optics having a big effect having recently
upgraded my compact camera to a budget 8m pixels model (Polaroid i835) and
finding the images aren't really any more detailed than my old 4m model, if
anything they're fuzzier. Presumably this is the optics failing to keep up
with the sensor (seems similar to effect of using cheap film compacts or
disposables) as my Fuji S5700 bridge camera doesn't have the same fault.
Makes me wonder why compacts are now selling with 12m+ sensors if the lenses
can't even handle 8m.