Frank Petronio
Well-known
That pretty much sums it up. I know the Nikon is a more robust scanner, but from a quality standpoint, using VueScan, what do you think the differences will be?
Meakin
Established
Depending really on what your final product will be..
Web image ? - not much
Depending on the size that you want to print, then there could be some difference.
Also depends on your technic with regards to your workflow.
Another option could be the minolta 5400 - if you have a good look around, you may find them below the 500 Usd of the coolscan.
Cheers,
Meakin
Web image ? - not much
Depending on the size that you want to print, then there could be some difference.
Also depends on your technic with regards to your workflow.
Another option could be the minolta 5400 - if you have a good look around, you may find them below the 500 Usd of the coolscan.
Cheers,
Meakin
xvvvz
Established
Some people complain that the Nikon is too sharp/does ugly things with the grain of BW film. Others say it is just a matter of being able to control the software to get the results you want. If money isn't an issue, I would probably go with the Nikon but the Dual Scan is an excellent scanner for that price.
Doug
Doug
kevin m
Veteran
Frank, I have a Scan Dual III and a Coolscan 5000 and the difference in scan quality isn't near what the specs would suggest.
photophorous
Registered User
I have a Coolscan V and use it for slide film and my home processed b&w. I've always used the Nikon Scan software. The grain with this combo does seem kind of exagerated, especially with grainy films. This goes for color negative too. Slides are no problem. I suppose I should try Vuescan or Silverfast, but I haven't gotten around to it. Instead, I have altered my developing techniques to get smoother grain in my negatives. Instead of using D76 1:1, I'll use it straight, and recently I started using Ilfotec DD-X which produces smooth grain like straight D76. I'm pretty happy with the way this works. The 3 most recent shots on my flickr page are TriX in DD-X, scanned with the Coolscan, although I know you can't tell much from those small sizes.
Before I had the Coolscan I was using a Canoscan 8400f flatbed and the Nikon is worlds better. The grain looked much softer with the Canon, but then so did everything else.
Paul
Before I had the Coolscan I was using a Canoscan 8400f flatbed and the Nikon is worlds better. The grain looked much softer with the Canon, but then so did everything else.
Paul
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I've learned that less post processing of an image after scanning produces less apparent grain. The biggest culprits are excessive curves/contrast boosting and sharpening. Creating a good scan starts with setting the black point accurately. If the negative is properly exposed and developed, then very little post processing will be required regardless of the scanner used. My best negs require only levels adjustment and profiling. As a result, there's hardly any apparent grain. As in all things photographic, buy the best you can afford. Then get good at using it.
Glenn2
Well-known
Frank, you might find this page of interest if you go with the Minolta... http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15
Scanhancer is a diffuser that helps subdue excessive grain. Guess it's a bit like condenser versus diffusion enlargers. Unfortunately it's not yet perfected for Nikon scanners like the 5000.
This site gives some information on grain aliasing which plays a role in the scanner grain problem... http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
Glenn
Scanhancer is a diffuser that helps subdue excessive grain. Guess it's a bit like condenser versus diffusion enlargers. Unfortunately it's not yet perfected for Nikon scanners like the 5000.
This site gives some information on grain aliasing which plays a role in the scanner grain problem... http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
Glenn
photophorous
Registered User
That photoscientia site has an interesting explanation. The examples look a lot like what I see with my Coolscan.
At the bottom he mentions GEM grain reduction as a possible solution, but I thought that only worked on color film? That's included with Nikon Scan. Has anyone tried it on B&W? I never thought to.
GEM works reasonably well with grainy color negative film, but it does soften detail.
Paul
amateriat
We're all light!
Speaking of the Minolta 5400, someone has one for sale at just a bit over your projected price for the Nikon.
One thing to point out in favor of either Minolta, in this case, is the light source: both use a fluorescent tube, as opposed to the Nikon's LED light source. Think of it as the difference between, respectively, diffusion- and condenser-type light sources in enlargers: the former is, for lack of a better term, "softer" then the latter, and offers potentially greater ease with contrasty/grainy negs (and slides, for that matter). The theoretical downside is that an LED light source, like a condenser-type enlarger, can supposedly dig more detail out of a given piece of film than a fluorescent-tube light source, but I've yet to see that consistently substantiated. A bonus of the Minolta 5400 is the Grain Dissolver function, which can further tame issues with grain (and, occasionally, ornery contrast).
By the way: here's that 5400 for sale here. I love mine!
- Barrett
One thing to point out in favor of either Minolta, in this case, is the light source: both use a fluorescent tube, as opposed to the Nikon's LED light source. Think of it as the difference between, respectively, diffusion- and condenser-type light sources in enlargers: the former is, for lack of a better term, "softer" then the latter, and offers potentially greater ease with contrasty/grainy negs (and slides, for that matter). The theoretical downside is that an LED light source, like a condenser-type enlarger, can supposedly dig more detail out of a given piece of film than a fluorescent-tube light source, but I've yet to see that consistently substantiated. A bonus of the Minolta 5400 is the Grain Dissolver function, which can further tame issues with grain (and, occasionally, ornery contrast).
By the way: here's that 5400 for sale here. I love mine!
- Barrett
Last edited:
Mackinaw
Think Different
I didn't have the chance to read the full article, but this is how I reduce grain with silver-based B&W films using a Coolscan V using the Nikon software. Specifically, go to the Digital Ice 4 Advanced pane, drag the "button" for the digital ROM tab and move to the far left while moving the digital GEM button to the far right. Then press the scan button. These steps will add some time to the post-processing, but will reduce the grain for any fast B&W film. Some folks complain of "mushiness" but this can easily be compensated for by dialing in a bit of sharpness using the "unsharp" mask. I've gotten excellent results with pushed Tri-x and Neopan 1600.
Jim B.
photophorous
Registered User
astroman
-
Were can you still find a dualscan IV