Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Well, it looks bad - and it's going to have to be a new MF scanner.
Does anyone have anything bad to say about the Nikon 9000? It's the only dedicated MF scanner currently made. I was thinking about the Dimage Multi Scan Pro, but at this point whatever I buy has to be able to be covered by a long-term service contract - so that means new.
I'm scanning 6x4.5, 6x9, and 6x12. I know the glass carrier is going to be a must for some of this. Is there any issue with batch scanning? Is it capable of discriminating frames on 120 film? Or should I change over my Silverfast license for my old scanner?
Thanks!
Dante
Does anyone have anything bad to say about the Nikon 9000? It's the only dedicated MF scanner currently made. I was thinking about the Dimage Multi Scan Pro, but at this point whatever I buy has to be able to be covered by a long-term service contract - so that means new.
I'm scanning 6x4.5, 6x9, and 6x12. I know the glass carrier is going to be a must for some of this. Is there any issue with batch scanning? Is it capable of discriminating frames on 120 film? Or should I change over my Silverfast license for my old scanner?
Thanks!
Dante
v3cron
Well-known
I owned one for about three years. The bad: The glass carrier is necessary for all film sizes, including 35mm. I could not get grain sharpness using the regular 35mm holder. Also, it is not a good scanner for color neg - extremely noisy shadows. It stopped working after three years, which is unacceptable considering the price. Software is useless - you'll need to buy at least Vuescan.
I live in NYC, so I have rental access to Imacons. Given the speed difference, I would not go back to the Nikon. Three full quality scans an hour versus 30. Plus the Imacon gives noticeably better quality. $50/hour is worth it to me for the time savings, even though it may cost more in the very long run.
A friend of mine has the Minolta, and I've used it a couple of times. I prefer it over the Nikon, but your point about buying new is valid. Computerized gadget crap is too overpriced and fragile to not have some kind of insurance.
I live in NYC, so I have rental access to Imacons. Given the speed difference, I would not go back to the Nikon. Three full quality scans an hour versus 30. Plus the Imacon gives noticeably better quality. $50/hour is worth it to me for the time savings, even though it may cost more in the very long run.
A friend of mine has the Minolta, and I've used it a couple of times. I prefer it over the Nikon, but your point about buying new is valid. Computerized gadget crap is too overpriced and fragile to not have some kind of insurance.
JRG
Well-known
"Does anyone have anything bad to say about the Nikon 9000?"
Well, it's sorta pricey ... . But better grab one before Nikon discontinues it as they just did the LS-5000.
Well, it's sorta pricey ... . But better grab one before Nikon discontinues it as they just did the LS-5000.
mfogiel
Veteran
Well, I do not think you can scan 6x12 in one go, so you will have to scan it in 2 bits and merge afterwards. I use CS 9000 with Vuescan, and frankly I would not think of batch scanning, because if you really want quality, you have to set the frames precisely, so that it does not contain the black edge, nor should it have any blank, non film clear part. This way the scanner can zoom in on appropriate exposure, and this is where you get the better Dmax from. I cannot say much about the shadow noise, but if you care so much for this, you can use a multipass method. I do not know where the 3 scans per hour came from - perhaps cbphoto was scanning 6x9 colour with something like 4 o 6 x multipass - in my experience 2x multipass should get you 95% of the improvement. As to the film flatness, using the glass carrier for MF is a must, while with 35mm a sllight problem arises with Tri X, so I tend to keep it under some heavy board for a few days before scanning, but if you want a critically sharp scan, you should indeed use the glass carrier for this one too. So to sum up, it is not all roses, but the next better scanner costs 10x as much... so there you are.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The 9000ED is competitive with the Imacon 343. The 343 may be ahead by a hair, but you're going to have to look real close to see it. I don't feel that it is quite as good, as the high-end IMACON/Hasselblad units, but these machines cost many times more so it's really not a fair comparison.
That said, the 9000ED is hardly junk. The scans are very, very good. I've owned the 9000 for about 3 years now. Short of an Imacon, drum scanner or ultra high-end flatbed you are not going to find a better unit for $2000-3000. Also take a look at a used Imacon.
You have to get the glass carrier. It's not cheap, but without it you will never see the full potential of this scanner. I would also suggest looking at Silverfast software with the multi-pass capability, which will extend the dynamic range and reduce noise in the shadows.
You really need the glass carrier
That said, the 9000ED is hardly junk. The scans are very, very good. I've owned the 9000 for about 3 years now. Short of an Imacon, drum scanner or ultra high-end flatbed you are not going to find a better unit for $2000-3000. Also take a look at a used Imacon.
You have to get the glass carrier. It's not cheap, but without it you will never see the full potential of this scanner. I would also suggest looking at Silverfast software with the multi-pass capability, which will extend the dynamic range and reduce noise in the shadows.
You really need the glass carrier
v3cron
Well-known
At 16x, 16-bit, and with a little analog gain, a 35mm frame can take at least 20 minutes. Given the noise tendencies, especially on 35mm, 16x is not really terrible overkill, but 8x can work fine and give you faster scans.
Nikon vs 343: never tried it. I use an X5, which is much better.
I think it's really sad that these manufacturers stopped bothering with film scanner technology. I guess they don't want to compete with their own digicams. Can you imagine how beautiful the world would be if PMT technology would have been brought down in price and put in an affordable desktop scanner?
Nikon vs 343: never tried it. I use an X5, which is much better.
I think it's really sad that these manufacturers stopped bothering with film scanner technology. I guess they don't want to compete with their own digicams. Can you imagine how beautiful the world would be if PMT technology would have been brought down in price and put in an affordable desktop scanner?
twopointeight
Well-known
A friend just sent me a 24X36 inch print, scanned on the 9000, printed on an Epson 24" wide printer, a sample from an exhibit he was printing. A 35mm color neg, 400 asa, low light, some grain, and it looks great. He knows his workflow very well. In fact, he used the 9000 to scan over 100 images for his book on globalization in China. So, the 9000 is very capable if you get good at it. (He uses the Epson software).
MXP
Established
I have used my 9000 a lot and I am very happy with it. I use the glass carrier for 120 film and the normal holder for 35mm. Sometimes it help to let the stripes sit an hour or so to get flat. You have to ensure the stripes a flat before scanning. Else it is better to mount in slide frames. The frames with only one AN glass are good. I played with the multiple sampling but I always use x1 now. I can't see the x8, x16 gives me better noise performance. What I see is less sharp scans. My theory is that the film gets heated a bit during the very long scan time so focus is not 100% during the scanning when using multi sampling.
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello:
Costly, but worth it IMHO. I found it the only available upgrade from a cranky Minolta Dual IV - Yes, the glass carrier is a necessity.
yours
FPJ
Costly, but worth it IMHO. I found it the only available upgrade from a cranky Minolta Dual IV - Yes, the glass carrier is a necessity.
yours
FPJ
urban_alchemist
Well-known
Still very much in the early learning stages - I did like you and jumped when I heard they were going out of production (and my local XPan scanning lab went belly-up).
If you don't mind me hijacking the thread a bit - to all those who use it, what are your settings with Vuescan? The film profiles are rather limited... what setting do you usually use?
If you don't mind me hijacking the thread a bit - to all those who use it, what are your settings with Vuescan? The film profiles are rather limited... what setting do you usually use?
v3cron
Well-known
i usually scanned raw and tweaked in photoshop. it helps to have an it8 target so you can make a custom profile.
gdi
Veteran
I know everyone loves to hate NikonScan - but I tried Vuescan and that simply is the worst user interface of have seen in 10 years.
NikonScan works very well when you get used to it. It behaves oddly when batch scanning - there is a specific procedure to get the settings to apply to the whole batch. ICE, especially with Kodachrome is excellent. The speed doesn't bother me that much, but it can be pretty slow.
I usually dont have a problem with shadow noise and I rarely use more than 4x. It is like most scanners you really need to learn it. I have excellent 20x24 Epson prints from 35mm C-41, but it took a bit of experimentation.
I would recommend getting an extended warranty - mine crapped out after a year and had to be fixed. My only complaint now is that it doesn't do 4x5! I may have to trade it for an Imacon for that reason, if I take to LF like I think I might.
Good luck
NikonScan works very well when you get used to it. It behaves oddly when batch scanning - there is a specific procedure to get the settings to apply to the whole batch. ICE, especially with Kodachrome is excellent. The speed doesn't bother me that much, but it can be pretty slow.
I usually dont have a problem with shadow noise and I rarely use more than 4x. It is like most scanners you really need to learn it. I have excellent 20x24 Epson prints from 35mm C-41, but it took a bit of experimentation.
I would recommend getting an extended warranty - mine crapped out after a year and had to be fixed. My only complaint now is that it doesn't do 4x5! I may have to trade it for an Imacon for that reason, if I take to LF like I think I might.
Good luck
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Thanks for the clarification that the Nikon is not a $10K quasi-drum scanner! 
I live in the photographic third world, and when it's time to do serious scanning, I'll hop a $99 flight to Manhattan to rent out at Photovillage or somewhere similar.
My program is batch scanning b/w 120 negs raw at 4000 dpi, processing them into small files I can sort and cull on Lightroom, and then re-processing them as needed. The biggest output is 8x12 on a dye sub printer (or films for cyanotypes).
With my old Sprintscan 120, I was getting a 6x9 scan (16-bit greyscale, 4000dpi) every 10 minutes, which was not bad. The glassless Sprintscan MF carriers were easy to load and did a decent job keeping film flat. And the scans were decent from Vuescan.
The problem is that I have had three catastrophic transport failures with two different examples while using Vuescan to batch scan (more on this in a separate thread). This has put me out about a grand total in the past 4 years of use. And now, the minimum to fix that is $600 and the longest is guaranteed is 90 days. And although I would really be inclined to buy a Microtek 120tf and just solider on, Microtek is out of business in the U.S. and I'm sure the Vuescan transport control routine for that scanner is the same.
Dante
I live in the photographic third world, and when it's time to do serious scanning, I'll hop a $99 flight to Manhattan to rent out at Photovillage or somewhere similar.My program is batch scanning b/w 120 negs raw at 4000 dpi, processing them into small files I can sort and cull on Lightroom, and then re-processing them as needed. The biggest output is 8x12 on a dye sub printer (or films for cyanotypes).
With my old Sprintscan 120, I was getting a 6x9 scan (16-bit greyscale, 4000dpi) every 10 minutes, which was not bad. The glassless Sprintscan MF carriers were easy to load and did a decent job keeping film flat. And the scans were decent from Vuescan.
The problem is that I have had three catastrophic transport failures with two different examples while using Vuescan to batch scan (more on this in a separate thread). This has put me out about a grand total in the past 4 years of use. And now, the minimum to fix that is $600 and the longest is guaranteed is 90 days. And although I would really be inclined to buy a Microtek 120tf and just solider on, Microtek is out of business in the U.S. and I'm sure the Vuescan transport control routine for that scanner is the same.
Dante
historicist
Well-known
The software is good but only when and if it works, and as mentioned without glass holders it really isn't especially good. My experience with reliability (s/h Coolscan 8000) has also not been the best, it needed servicing to get the scan area aligned with the film area, but I don't know how common that is.
But it's the only choice out there anyway...
How can you use the Epson software to run a Coolscan?
But it's the only choice out there anyway...
How can you use the Epson software to run a Coolscan?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Flattening 35mm film ...
Flattening 35mm film ...
Sorry for being slightly off-topic but ... It really helps what a member here at RFF suggested: (Unfortunately I forgot his name but credit for the idea goes to him !)
Just keep the dried negs for a minimum of 24 hours rolled opposite to the natural curling of the film (that is rolling the film with the emulsion facing outside). After that the film is plane flat, no tendency to curl and also bending tendencies (often with Tri-X) are gone. I use this procedure since some time now, no more need for the ANR glass-inserts for my V700 and also very good results with my LS4000ED. It might be a solution for the 8000/9000, too.
Flattening 35mm film ...
Sorry for being slightly off-topic but ... It really helps what a member here at RFF suggested: (Unfortunately I forgot his name but credit for the idea goes to him !)
Just keep the dried negs for a minimum of 24 hours rolled opposite to the natural curling of the film (that is rolling the film with the emulsion facing outside). After that the film is plane flat, no tendency to curl and also bending tendencies (often with Tri-X) are gone. I use this procedure since some time now, no more need for the ANR glass-inserts for my V700 and also very good results with my LS4000ED. It might be a solution for the 8000/9000, too.
jke
Well-known
I've used the 9000, batch scanning with the Nikon software (ver. 4.2) works fine. I use it with whatever the most recent version of OS X is. Occasionally I will get a blip and the scanner will lose its brain, but then I restart the scanner and the software and it works again. I think the amnesia has to do with disk access. Nikon Scan likes to be the only thing using your computer. Or at least, the only thing using the disk onto which it wants to put your scanned images.
Problem one: after scanning 35mm film very well for about a year or so, the film holder now has difficulty holding film flat. I think they wear. The clips that snap the holder together to hold the film seem like a real weak point. I will probably try a new one before I go to the glass holder, though that's probably just asking for an eventual repeat performance.
Problem two: light images, say one with a very light open area like a sky, will sometimes show banding. This does not show up in the mids or shadows or in other types of photos. Just in expanses of light featureless area. I forget the setting, but it is something like switching from multi-scan to single scan (the hint is in the Nikon software's help files) usually resolves this issue.
There are directions online for making your own glass holder out of the stock holders. I haven't tried that, but it looks interesting. Seemed to me that the results might mean an experiment or two might make sense.
10 minutes per scan for 6x9 sounds a little long for the Nikon, but I actually don't precisely remember how long it takes. I tend to set it up, press scan and go read a book or sort paperclips. I actually think the 9000 does medium format film better than it does 35mm film. And the ICE function works very well.
But I also gree with the above, if you want the best, get an Imacon. They are great. But the Nikon is the next best thing. Not perfect, but next best.
Problem one: after scanning 35mm film very well for about a year or so, the film holder now has difficulty holding film flat. I think they wear. The clips that snap the holder together to hold the film seem like a real weak point. I will probably try a new one before I go to the glass holder, though that's probably just asking for an eventual repeat performance.
Problem two: light images, say one with a very light open area like a sky, will sometimes show banding. This does not show up in the mids or shadows or in other types of photos. Just in expanses of light featureless area. I forget the setting, but it is something like switching from multi-scan to single scan (the hint is in the Nikon software's help files) usually resolves this issue.
There are directions online for making your own glass holder out of the stock holders. I haven't tried that, but it looks interesting. Seemed to me that the results might mean an experiment or two might make sense.
10 minutes per scan for 6x9 sounds a little long for the Nikon, but I actually don't precisely remember how long it takes. I tend to set it up, press scan and go read a book or sort paperclips. I actually think the 9000 does medium format film better than it does 35mm film. And the ICE function works very well.
But I also gree with the above, if you want the best, get an Imacon. They are great. But the Nikon is the next best thing. Not perfect, but next best.