Coolscan 5000 prices - what is going on?

[rbrooks]

The 9000 is arguably better. Apart from the obvious fact that it can also do medium format the diffuse lighting is the preferred method of scanning. This helps reduce dust and even grain aliasing. Retouching is a simpler process.

The Minolta 5400 also has this with the grain diffuser. However it's quite a bit slower. And more importantly doesn't have an easy glass carrier solution.

My preferred workflow (currently) is on the 9000 with the glass carrier. I scan a full frame 35mm negative including rebates in Vuescan. I only use 1 pass and fine mode. I've found multiple passes doesn't bring much at least with the black and white negs I'm scanning. Also I've found the multi-exposure doesn't add anything either. I do try and lock exposure on the rebate or empty frame so I know where to clip/not clip my shadows.

In short, I follow a very simple, standard workflow in Vuescan and let the scanner do the rest.

In an ideal world I'd like to see a glass carrier for the Minolta 5400. The Minolta does pick up to just past the edge of a 35mm negative, i.e. black borders, if you jury rig / glass sandwich a negative into the slide holder.
However, I dont want to cut my negative strips (5 or 6 frames) into single frames.
Having said that I can imagine someone with a 3D printer could craft a glass carrier for the Minolta and we'd be close to ideal.

Until that time I have to lean towards the 9000 unless you really need the batch scanning of the 5000. However, the time you save with batch you'll just lose with retouching that you won't need as a result of the 9000's diffuse lighting.

 

[rbrooks]

Oh, and I think the whole digital ICE4 and Kodachrome voodoo for which the 9000 is touted is all down to the diffuse lighting. You don't need ICE4 or NikonScan software. You get it as a matter of course of having diffuse light, i.e. the Minolta 5400 with grain diffuser also benefits from this.

BTW, Kodachrome can still artefacts. It's just less than it would be with a direct condenser-like lighting.

 

[majid]

Vuescan doesn't handle Digital ICE4 PRO AFAIK, that's why I dedicated an old MacBook Pro to be a Windows XP machine just to drive the scanner (NikonScan for Mac is horribly unstable, and Mac virtualization programs don't support Firewire).

 

[rbrooks]

My point is that the secret sauce to digital ICE4 is the diffuse light source. That on the 9000 together with Vuescan's infrared dust removal function does the trick.

It might even be better than ICE4 as the algorithm has been refined over the years.

 

[sanmich]

The only replacement for a 5000 in terms of both batch capabilities and scan quality would be having a V700 AND a drum scanner.

One of my best decisions ever was to buy one new, even if it was not cheap in the first place.

Since then I have bought a backup SA-21 when my unit was repaired, and I intend to keep both (both are hacked of course)

 

[Zonan]

Vuescan doesn't handle Digital ICE4 PRO AFAIK, that's why I dedicated an old MacBook Pro to be a Windows XP machine just to drive the scanner (NikonScan for Mac is horribly unstable, and Mac virtualization programs don't support Firewire).

Does your Nikon scanner have USB? Mine (9000) is Firewire only, and, AFAIK, none of the virtual machine software can handle Firewire. Or is there another way around this?

Rick

 

[majid]

My point is that the secret sauce to digital ICE4 is the diffuse light source. That on the 9000 together with Vuescan's infrared dust removal function does the trick.

My point is that since VueScan does not support ICE4 PRO, you can't know what you are missing or be sure, unless you worked for ASF or Kodak.

Regular ICE4 does not work with Kodachrome because the Kodachrome dyes are opaque to infrared, so there is no way a diffuse light source would make a difference there. A diffuse light source certainly makes for less obtrusive scratches, but it also won't help with soiling on old slides. ASF/Kodak never revealed what exactly is the difference between ICE4 and ICE4 PRO, but there is specific support for it in Nikon's scanner SDK.

AFAIK the Coolscan 9000 is the only scanner ever made with ICE4 PRO, which is why I got it, more than the MF capability (which does not stretch to 6x17 in any case). Nikon's mounted slide holders are usable, at least, unlike their non-glass negative holders (if horrendously slow to use with Nikon Scan compared to the LS-5000 with SF-210).

It might even be better than ICE4 as the algorithm has been refined over the years.

No algorithm can make up for data it is not getting because it is not activating the ICE4 Pro hardware when communicating with the scanner. I believe Silverfast added support for ICE4 Pro on the LS-9000, but I already have VueScan and Nikon Scan and would rather not spend an extra $400 for Silverfast, not to mention their objectionable nickel-and-dime licensing policies:
http://forum.silverfast.com/post15275.html

Since then I have bought a backup SA-21 when my unit was repaired, and I intend to keep both (both are hacked of course)

I ask for my negatives to be uncut and scan the entire strip using a SA-30 adapter. Nikon Scan would usually crash halfway through the strip, but VueScan is quite reliable. I take it your hack is to get the same functionality using a much cheaper SA-21.

Does your Nikon scanner have USB? Mine (9000) is Firewire only, and, AFAIK, none of the virtual machine software can handle Firewire. Or is there another way around this?

No. it's Firewire only, which is why I had to dedicate a computer to running the combination of obsolete OS (Windows XP) and Nikon Scan software (not supported on Snow Leopard, Lion or Mountain Lion) required for it.