Espon V-700 vs. Nikon Coolscan LS-9000 Film Scanner

Something is clearly not right. They should NOT be so obviously soft. The following information may help-
Which particular holder are you using ? The Variable height ones may require testing at different heights. Also, don't mean to offend, but are the negatives quite sharp ? Was there a lot opf warp to the negatives ?
I have used both, the v700, and the Nikon 9000. The latter is better, but not by much. In a few minutes, I can scan and post something from my V700, if that will help.
Subhash
 
I just saw an article comparing a scanned file from a Bronica vs a Canon 5D. The operator used unsharp mask at 350 ,1,0 (amount, radius, threshold) for the film.

That was after scanning with a Nikon 9000.
 
Last edited:
Higher resolution won't help sharpness. You have to sharpen any negative after scanning, the denser the neg the more sharpening. Slides are the worst, and flatbeds have the hardest time.

Higher resolution will also require a greater radius setting.

Your RD1 will sharpen the file automatically-so it isn't like you're cheating!
 
rogue_designer said:
Most scans will require some degree of sharpening. Also, I found my results varied wildly depending on what software I was using to run the scanner. With the 3200 vuescan gave me better results, but with the v700 I was testing, I had better luck with Silverfast. Either one was better than Epson's scan software - YMMV

Did you get the adjustable height better scanning tray?

I think you will see a huge difference between the v700 and the 9000 though - and not as big a difference between the 9000 and the 343 - not enough to justify the cost anyway. Now the 848 - now theres a scanner... sheesh.
Click to expand...

I have tested negatives that are known as very sharp taken with a 645af and a rb67 with strobes. I have the adjustable height tray and I have tried raising it from no height to almost full at 1/2 turn increments. I have also tried it with the glass and without. My best scans have come from the factory tray. I am not knocking his product but I feel that I am putting in way to much time trying to get this right and I want something that I can focus on the negs rather than try to guess the focus by cranking these stupid trays up and down. All of them just look fuzzy and I become highly irritated especially after seeing coolscan V scans of a 35mm on another thread. Those scans KILL the scans I have been getting.

BTW I have been shooting mainly Astia 100F and Velvia 100 as well as Fuji Pro 160s. My best scans have been from the 100F under strobes.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you got a bum scanner?

What software are you using to drive the scanner? Silverfast?

FWIW - if you're only doing negs, it always makes sense to me to get a scanner dedicated to the task.
 
At the time I bought this I didn't understand the benefits of the dedicated scanner. I do archive old prints so its not a total waste. So is the Nikon 9k the best thing out there right now if I can't land a used 343?
 
espressogeek,
If you want to send me a negative, I'll scan it with a 9000 and you can see if it's good enough for you. If it means anything, I rarely sharpen the medium format scans from it.
Cheers,
Mike
 
i am looking forward to picking up my v700 tomorrow after work. i have saved up for it, and so i am looking forward to scanning some negatives this weekend. i know it isn't the best scanner, but it is the best i can afford and the most versatile for my needs.
 
Thanks for everyone's feedback. I didn't mean to hijack this thread but it is very near and dear to me. Below is a link to a simple picture of one of my dogs. I took this with a strobe fired through a 12" octagon softbox high right ( i think ). The camera was a 645AF with Astia 100F. I think this is a very sharp negative and I manged to get a good scan with some sharpening. But this is a rare even as the other 300 or so sharp negatives I have never seem to come out that way. Some do, some don't, and I hate the endless twiddling. I don't mind tweaking levels and such but scanning over and over again just makes me crazy.

What I consider a good v700 scan,
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1828576087&size=l
 
I have continued to tinker with this v700 today. I have bottomed out the betterscanning.com carrier on the glass and started from there. The first scans looked better than yesterdays. I then moved up one half a turn on all screws. That scan does not look much different than the first one. I am using the AN glass behind the negs to keep them nice and flat. Where is everyone finding their sweet spot with the betterscanning.com carrier?
On a related note silverfast has gotten much better on the mac since it went to a Universal Binary. I have the limited copy that came with the scanner so maybe they would give me a deal on AI? Anyway it has been making evaluations much much easier. Multiscan crashes silverfast which is a real bummer though :-(.
 
Last edited:
Good work - please keep reporting your progress.

I have the Epson 4490 with the Betterscanning MF film holder and ANR glass (which I'm fairly happy with for MF), but need to upgrade to a scanner that can handle 4x5 negatives. Does anyone know if the Betterscanning MF holder and ANR glass for the Epson 4490 can be used with the V700?
 
SilverFast & V 700

SilverFast & V 700

espressogeek said:
... On a related note silverfast has gotten much better on the mac since it went to a Universal Binary. [...] Anyway it has been making evaluations much much easier. Multiscan crashes silverfast which is a real bummer though :-(.
Click to expand...

... and there has been a lot of further developement in the meantime ...

As to the initial post and question:
The quality of a scan is not only hardware depending. A second crucial influencing factor is the software used (and its correct adjustement).

I'm sure the v700 is able to produce very satisfying scans using a later version of SilverFast (SEPlus or Ai Studio). The multiscan mentioned above for example, (which surely does'nt crash anymore,) is a very commendable quality improving feature. It scans the original multiple times with different exposure times. This method is able to increase the scanner's effective dynamic range, resulting in more details in the light and shadow areas. It's called Multi-Exposure and it's also reducing image noise.

Read on: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Multi-Exposure

Before spending around $1500 for a Nikon device, try test the scanner you have with an up-to-date version of SilverFast. (Demo versions are free.)
 
Knarxx said:
... and there has been a lot of further developement in the meantime ...

As to the initial post and question:
The quality of a scan is not only hardware depending. A second crucial influencing factor is the software used (and its correct adjustement).

I'm sure the v700 is able to produce very satisfying scans using a later version of SilverFast (SEPlus or Ai Studio). The multiscan mentioned above for example, (which surely does'nt crash anymore,) is a very commendable quality improving feature. It scans the original multiple times with different exposure times. This method is able to increase the scanner's effective dynamic range, resulting in more details in the light and shadow areas. It's called Multi-Exposure and it's also reducing image noise.

Read on: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Multi-Exposure

Before spending around $1500 for a Nikon device, try test the scanner you have with an up-to-date version of SilverFast. (Demo versions are free.)
Click to expand...

I'm sure that in the two years since the OP posted this he has made up his mind on the matter.

All your posts are about Silverfast. You don't accidentally work for Lasersoft, do you?
 
Last edited:
Your restimates of the cost of an LS-9000 are low. They are popping up at about $2,200 if you can find them. The glass carriers are also difficult to find. All told, you're probably at $2,500 or more. Plus the effective cost of your free time.

I would buy a used LS-8000 for about half that, since you're not going to gain much in the LS-9000. Unless you think you need 16-bit and not 14-bit scanning for conventional b/w. Consider also a Sprintscan 120 or its twin Artixscan 120tf. These use cold-light source that is way more forgiving on b/w negs than the LED in the Coolscan series is. The SS120/120TF carriers are also a lot easier to load. The downside on the latter two is no digital ICE, but if your emphasis is silver b/w, Paris is well worth a Mass. I use both the LS-8000 and a Sprintscan 120, the former for chromogenic films and the latter for conventional.

But really, if your primary focus is DSLR, and you're not sitting on more than, say, a couple thousand frames of 120 film, you might as well send all your negs to India, where someone else will pay for, maintain and use an LS-9000 to do it. A lot of the services let you throw frames out - reducing your costs. Typically, it's about a buck a frame for what you keep. Use your V700 to scan any future 120 excercises.

The nice thing about having both scanners will be using them at the same time (albeit with different host programs).

Dante


bherman said:
All;

I'm sorry if this has been posted already, but I've been trying to get down into the weeds and possibly justify a major expenditure.

I already own an Epson V-700 and have purchased Doug Fisher's (betterscanning.com) improved 120 inserts as well and the ANR Glass option.

While I don't shoot professionally anymore, I am perhaps more critical than most and see this is an 'affliction' of sorts, especially when it comes to large expenditures such as this.

I shoot promarily with a DSLR, but also shoot a few rolls of 120/220 a month with my Fuji RFs. I shoot Color negative as well as C-41 B+W. When I scan my 6x7 or 6x9 negatives, I would classify the results as 'pretty good'. Not great and not as good as a direct 'wet-print' off of the negative.

I've been told that a negative scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan ED LS-9000 will yield results that will "blow you away". While I'm inclined to believe that it's true, the scanner is approx. $1800.00, plus $200.00-$300.00 additional if you wan the upgraded negative carriers with the ANR Glass inserts.

Has anybody really compared these? I mean, someone who has the V-700 or V-750 flatbed and actually copmpared it to the Nikon LS-9000?

Quite a bit of $$ is on the line here, and I'm interested in real comparisons that might translate into a justification for a possible purchase.

Thanks;

Brad
Click to expand...
 
Scanners are definitely one of those photography items where you get what you pay for. I used to have a Nikon 8000 ED w/ the glass film holder (which you should get for the 9000 if you decide to go that route), and the results were really good. The scans were certainly what I would call professional and I was very satisfied. The only way to get a better scan is to go to a drum or Imacon scan. You might want to go w/ an 8000 and save some money.

I sold mine because I wanted to try wet prints w/ my MF work and after doing that would not go back to scanning and ink jet printing. Quite a bit of difference. You may wish to send out one of your keeper negs to The Black and White Lab in Az or A&I Photo in L.A. and get a good fiber darkroom print made at a decent size before you go the scanner route, at least for B&W. If you mainly shoot color then the Nikon scanner would be fine.
 
This question has gone round and round for years on various on line discussion groups.

Invariably the answers are either:

1) I have a V700 or V750 and I think the scans are so close to what others get from a real film scanner that it works for me. Therefore save the money and get a flatbed, or

2) I have a dedicated film scanner and have seen the results from the new flatbeds but they just don't cut it for me. For real quality, spend the money and get a real film scanner.

There is almost no one who has one and thinks the other is the way to go, even considering the cost.

Personally, if my $2,000 MF film scanner (Minolta MultiPro) went up in smoke tonight, I would spend the money for another one and not settle for a flatbed. But I have seen good scans from V700's and V750's. They are acceptable to those who have them.

bherman said:
All;

I'm sorry if this has been posted already, but I've been trying to get down into the weeds and possibly justify a major expenditure.

I already own an Epson V-700 and have purchased Doug Fisher's (betterscanning.com) improved 120 inserts as well and the ANR Glass option.

While I don't shoot professionally anymore, I am perhaps more critical than most and see this is an 'affliction' of sorts, especially when it comes to large expenditures such as this.

I shoot promarily with a DSLR, but also shoot a few rolls of 120/220 a month with my Fuji RFs. I shoot Color negative as well as C-41 B+W. When I scan my 6x7 or 6x9 negatives, I would classify the results as 'pretty good'. Not great and not as good as a direct 'wet-print' off of the negative.

I've been told that a negative scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan ED LS-9000 will yield results that will "blow you away". While I'm inclined to believe that it's true, the scanner is approx. $1800.00, plus $200.00-$300.00 additional if you wan the upgraded negative carriers with the ANR Glass inserts.

Has anybody really compared these? I mean, someone who has the V-700 or V-750 flatbed and actually copmpared it to the Nikon LS-9000?

Quite a bit of $$ is on the line here, and I'm interested in real comparisons that might translate into a justification for a possible purchase.

Thanks;

Brad
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Using a Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED versus a digital camera w/VALOI easy35 (or other similar alternatives).
Replies
7
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
gavinlg
Plustek 8100 vs CoolScan 9000 comparison
Replies
16
Views
3K
albireo
A
Y
HELP!! The sky has just fallen (not really, but I just broke the ribbon flexible cable in Coolscan 9000).
Replies
7
Views
2K
yossi
Y
Chriscrawfordphoto
Why I'm Shooting Film Again
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
9K
wlewisiii
W
ColSebastianMoran
Adapt Scanner Lens for Camera-Scanning??
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
x-ray
x-ray
Back
Top Bottom