BLKRCAT
75% Film
I've heard people compare it to the imacon on multiple occasions.
moodlover
Established
Whoa, love your scans. So sharp and well done! Just to clarify, because Ive heard the 8000 results are worse than the 9000, are you sure the 8000 and 9000 spit out similar results?
I cant find any affordable glass carrier so I will just buy a ANR glass and fit it into the regular holder. Will check out your flickr now!
moodlover
Established
Next time you do, please take a picture showing how. Id love to get the rebate!
brbo
Well-known
Yes, that works. Until you scan an overexposed negative (like the OP wants to do to get the "Frontier" look). You leave more than a few millimeters of uncovered rebate and light from border will bleed into the image area. This is a story about Nikon Coolscan V, but 8000 is no better.
moodlover
Established
I don't plan to cut anything out just yet, the rebate edge can wait. How do you suggest one achieves the airy Frontier look with a 8000?
Here are examples. When I have a picture with all the highlight and shadow info saved, the dynamic range is all in there but the picture is flat. When applying a serious S curve, it starts to look overworked and not as smooth:
https://carmencitafilmlab.com/noemi-jariod/
I don't know what kind of magic this is
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Its not the scanner, its the software running it that gives the Frontier machines the results they give. Keep in mind that the Nikon scanner cost $3000 new, and the Frontier and its software is about $100,000 new. You'll never duplicate that look exactly.
That said, the images in your link look like overexposed negs that have been scanned, then had the dark tones pulled down by a levels adjustment, rather than using an s-curve.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hey Chris, Not sure what your Coolscan 8000 cost new, but my Coolscan 9000 was only $1999 back in 2009. I got one of the last ones left, and they had jacked up the price to $2100 because they had a number of buyers for the two they had left in stock.
I find the quality I can get from it to be incredible, for the cost.
Also was calculating today, with a 6x7 negative, you're getting a 11023 x 9450 pixel scan, which is some un-godly high megapixel count (as a reference, 50 MP is 8688 x 5792). And having had two other Nikon film scanners over the years (LC-30 & Coolscan 5000), I find the Coolscan 9000 treats the negatives more like a diffusion enlarger, as opposed to the LC-30 & 5000, which treats the negatives more like a condenser enlarger. So, for B&W film, the tonal gradations are much finer.
Best,
-Tim
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I told you what it cost new. It was $3000. I still have the receipt.
The 9000 was only $2000 new, Nikon lowered the price of the 9000 compared to the 8000. Ironic now, since the 9000 sells for much more than the 8000 used.
moodlover
Established
Well let's forget the price stuff, and get back to actual experiences and sharing scans from the 8000 
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Do it. Do it now.
moodlover
Established
Did it!!! Pulled the trigger, but I still want to see everyones scans with the 8000!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've not seen that to be the case with mine. I have done it rather frequently with excellent results.
I've scanned everything from Minox to 6x9 in the SCS9000. This is one of my recent favorite (a couple of years ago now) Hasselblad images scanned in it:
Hasselblad 500 SWC
Ilford Delta 3200
scanned with Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED
I also scanned a batch of about 250 mounted slides, oodles of 35mm, etc. I also have a Coolscan V for 35mm: the SCS9000 files have a slightly different look because of the light source. The Coolscan V seems to boost contrast a little bit where the SCS9000 seems to have a little longer tonal scale.
G
moodlover
Established
Hey all,
So I got the scanner and its running fine, except it sounds like someone is beating a small drum inside the scanner when its scanning anything. Sounds like a really fast heartbeat after someone runs. Is that normal or should I be concerned?
Also the FH-869S medium format film holder is a mega pain! My film is flat but when I clamp down the latches, pull the bottom latch down to tighten, then release, it buckles my film so its not fully straight? Any ideas how to fix that? Could it have to do with the screw on the lock?
So I got the scanner and its running fine, except it sounds like someone is beating a small drum inside the scanner when its scanning anything. Sounds like a really fast heartbeat after someone runs. Is that normal or should I be concerned?
Also the FH-869S medium format film holder is a mega pain! My film is flat but when I clamp down the latches, pull the bottom latch down to tighten, then release, it buckles my film so its not fully straight? Any ideas how to fix that? Could it have to do with the screw on the lock?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Hey all,
So I got the scanner and its running fine, except it sounds like someone is beating a small drum inside the scanner when its scanning anything. Sounds like a really fast heartbeat after someone runs. Is that normal or should I be concerned?
Also the FH-869S medium format film holder is a mega pain! My film is flat but when I clamp down the latches, pull the bottom latch down to tighten, then release, it buckles my film so its not fully straight? Any ideas how to fix that? Could it have to do with the screw on the lock?
UPDATE: just finished the first 4000 dpi scan on 'fine mode' what seemed to take 20-30 minutes but the detail, is, INSANE! So much sharper and more detailed than the Epson v800 holy ****! Id post the photo here but Vuescan trial pastes 1000 watermarks over the photo
The noise is normal.
The film holder sucks, and what you're experiencing is the reason why I told you that the glass carrier is not optional for good scans.
I found with the 120 holder that I could usually get it so that one frame at a time was sharp on a strip of film but never all of them.
moodlover
Established
Yeah but the glass carrier is like $800 and theres no way I can justify that right now. What are my other options?
Also I think I have a major issue. I put in a strip containing two 6x7 frames into the holder but only one shows up in both VueScan and NikonScan, whichever is closest to the film stoppers (the side of the arrow). Is this a major scanner flaw??? I thought I could at least see both when previewing
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I did recommend that you not buy the scanner if it did not include the glass carrier. Now, you see why! There is a company selling glass that can be adapted into the regular 120 carrier. I have not tried it, and I don't know how well it works.
About scanning multiple frames: In Nikon scan, you should see a sidebar with thumbnails of all the frames on the strip. I haven't used Nikon Scan in a decade, so my memory is foggy about how to make it show though. If you don't have the instructions for your scanner, let me know and I'll dig out mine and find the answer for you.
In Vuescan, look on the INPUT tab. If you're only wanting to scan one of the frames, look for the FRAME NUMBER box and put in 1 or 2, depending on the frame you want. Then, do the prescan.
If you want to scan both, look at the BATCH SCAN pull-down menu on the INPUT tab and change it to ALL. Then do the prescan. To look at each individual frame for cropping, after you do the prescans, change the frame number in the Frame Number box to the frame you want to look at. After setting the crop and other settings for both frames, do the final scans.
I've done a new tutorial on Slide Film Scanning with Vuescan that might be useful to you as well:
http://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/slide-scanning.php
k__43
Registered Film User
I was lucky to get a cheap new MF glassles holder because the one that came with the scanner was broken.
I have no issue with it in 4 out of 5 rolls of C41. But sometimes the film just don't want to lay down flat in 1 or 2 frames. Here is what that looks like in the scan:
Untitled by Kay K, on Flickr
What I want to do is to get a fitting piece of ANR glass for the broken holder where I removed the clamps. One glass on top is actually enough I think because the film mostly bends in one direction only.
I have to find a source locally since getting it from focal point is very expensive with import tax and all.
I have no issue with it in 4 out of 5 rolls of C41. But sometimes the film just don't want to lay down flat in 1 or 2 frames. Here is what that looks like in the scan:
Untitled by Kay K, on FlickrWhat I want to do is to get a fitting piece of ANR glass for the broken holder where I removed the clamps. One glass on top is actually enough I think because the film mostly bends in one direction only.
I have to find a source locally since getting it from focal point is very expensive with import tax and all.
brbo
Well-known
Focal Point is not the cheapest (even before you add import/VAT tax if you are from EU), but their glass is very good. I used two ANR sheets with my Microtek 120tf (slim beneath and regular on top of the negative since I got Newton rings even on the emulsion side with regular glass) and there were no visible side effects from using two ANR sheets.
When I "upgraded" (what a disappointment) to Nikon CS8000 I was looking for a cheaper option for ANR glass and came upon www.scanassist.org (from Poland). This was in 2014 and their quote on custom size ANR glass was very reasonable, but this domain is no longer active. You can try www.skanowanie.org, thought. This site (still active) was the other link in the mail I got from them so I guess they are the same people. I never actually purchased ANR glass from them so I can't offer any opinion on the quality of their glass...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It depends a lot on what your goals are.
- Once you figure out a good copy setup—what stand, what film holding jig and mask, what lens to use, etc—the capture part is very quick.
- You're limited to the pixel resolution of your capture camera at the outside ... with medium format, a 4000 dpi film scanner is going to outstrip that instantly, but if it's enough, it's enough. (A 4000 dpi film scanner will net just shy of the same pixel count as a full frame 24 Mpixel camera with 35mm format.)
- Then there's the rendering work: Capturing positives is a piece of cake but capturing negatives and rendering them takes some learning and insight to get the best results. I created customized inversion camera calibration profiles for my B&W and color negs; they speed up the job but it still takes some fussing.
- With scanner, it's a matter of learning the capture software to get a good master original capture. The scanning itself takes some time, but if you've got VueScan or equivalent setup correctly, it shortens the rendering work time.
- How much and how often you need the setup is a consideration: Something like the Nikon 9000 is a very large thing. Unless you have the space and are going to use it all the time, setting it up and then putting it away are a bit time consuming. It's also heavy and fragile so this is a big consideration. A film copy setup can be quite compact and sets up very quickly.
- Cost is a matter of what you have already with the copy setup. I already had the SL, the lenses, and the light box; the*Leica BEOON copy setup cost me a couple hundred dollars. Nikon 9000s are running $2000 and up in good condition with original packaging (which you really want...!).
- The scanner is probably the most consistent and repeatable setup, but if you're only doing the job now and then, consistency isn't so important.
So ... lots to think about.
G