Coolscan4000/5000 SA-21/30 and uneven frames

k__43

k__43

Registered Film User
Local time
5:53 AM
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Messages
963
I'm thinking about getting a coolscan in the moment cos I need more time doing other things than sitting in front of my computer scanning. I own a Plustek 8200 in the moment and while this thing gives me satisfying scans, it also makes me slow. The single frame scanning has to stop.

I was planning to buy a Coolscan V but my understanding is that the 4000 would give me the advantage to scan whole films instead of just 6 frame strips, right?

Now my worry is that it can't cope with the output of my M2 which often has uneven frame spacing depending on the film I'm using (sometimes even adds a sprocket within the border of two frames with very thin films).

How does Vuescan or Nikon Scan handle this?
 
I've recently scanned half a dozen rolls with very uneven spacing (shot with a Rollei 35SE and Rollei 35T) on my Coolscan 5000 (with SA-30) using Nikon Scan. Sometimes 4 to 5 mm between frames, sometimes 1 mm, and sometimes they overlap slightly. The spacing really is all over the place. For the most part, my scanner did fine. I think the scanner may have cropped two or three frames but not drastically. Not enough that I wanted to rescan those frames.
 
jonmanjiro said:
I've recently scanned half a dozen rolls with very uneven spacing (shot with a Rollei 35SE and Rollei 35T) on my Coolscan 5000 (with SA-30) using Nikon Scan. Sometimes 4 to 5 mm between frames, sometimes 1 mm, and sometimes they overlap slightly. The spacing really is all over the place. For the most part, my scanner did fine. I think the scanner may have cropped two or three frames but not drastically. Not enough that I wanted to rescan those frames.
Click to expand...

sounds good!
 
Ansel said:
I used the Nikon 5000 before buying the Plustek 8100. I find the plustek to offer better scans.
Click to expand...


is that for b/w or for all scans? and why? I've read that the Nikon offers better efficiency because of the good lens and focus system.
according to filmscanner.info the effective resolution is better with a nikon. The dynamic range is supposed to be better with the Nikon too. Even if they have the same quality, I just do not have the time to scan with the plustek anymore. The coolscan V should speed things up around 4-6 times (since my effective scan time is actually based on the intervals of me going to the computer and start the next scan process)
 
I use for colour and B&W. Don't know why its better, just seems to produce better results. Neither compare to proper darkroom printing though, which is miles ahead!
 
Ansel said:
Its fine. You just adjust manually. I never scan an entire film. Usually just pick out a few that look promising from a roll.
Click to expand...

Well with b/w at least I have to scan them all, since i have no way of making a contact sheet at home.
With color I like to scan them all cos I change my mind about what I like after a while. funny: I find that easier with b/w.
also I have a hoarder problem, I get an itch when I do not scan THEM ALL :D
 
I have had experience of Nikon Coolscan IV, Canon FS4000US and Epson V750. The first two are dedicated film scanners and the reason I switched from the Nikon to the Canon is that all Nikons (except the 9000) use a direct LED light source. The LED light source is not entirely suitable for scanning conventional b&w negative film due to the fact that it is collimated (like a condenser enlarger); this tends to emphasise grain and surface defects and cannot cope with very contrasty negatives. My experience with the Nikon scanners is supported by Sascha Steinhoff in The Vuescan Bible.

I don't know anything about the Plustek scanners but I guess it's possible that the light source is less contrasty than the Nikon, consequently traditional b&w film may scan better with that scanner.

Hope this helps.
 
lawrence said:
I have had experience of Nikon Coolscan IV, Canon FS4000US and Epson V750. The first two are dedicated film scanners and the reason I switched from the Nikon to the Canon is that all Nikons (except the 9000) use a direct LED light source. The LED light source is not entirely suitable for scanning conventional b&w negative film due to the fact that it is collimated (like a condenser enlarger); this tends to emphasise grain and surface defects and cannot cope with very contrasty negatives. My experience with the Nikon scanners is supported by Sascha Steinhoff in The Vuescan Bible.

I don't know anything about the Plustek scanners but I guess it's possible that the light source is less contrasty than the Nikon, consequently traditional b&w film may scan better with that scanner.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

great info!
btw: it says LED light source for the 8200 on the plustek website. I find my b/w scans good enough. so if the Nikons are like that I'm ok.
 
Doesn't the Plustek scanner have film holders with black vertical posts that physically define each frame? Like the OP one of my cameras (M3) has very uneven framing, and moreover the frame spacing amongst the different cameras I have is not consistent. There is no way you are going to avoid cropping (maybe severe) with a film holder like that. Must have been designed by an engineer who does not actually use film cameras.

For that reason I got a Canon 9000, which will do 12 frames at a time. I think the Epson has an even bigger holder (also without the restrictive framing) that will do even more.

I guess both me and the OP are nuts - this is a fundamental question that I don't see discussed here.

Randy
 
zauhar said:
..Must have been designed by an engineer who does not actually use film cameras. ..
Click to expand...

:D but it also presses the film down so you have sharper scans. the only way around this is to scan a frame take the holder out again, move the film for the next frame and so on.

I also own a V500 and had a canon 8800f before, and in no way I feel good using such a scanner for 35mm again. (maybe for some sort of digital contact sheet)
 
One of the (many) reasons I bought a 9000 was that it will scan exactly the whole frame. I also have a V which I have used since the early 00s and I could never get it to scan the full frame of every image on a 6-frame strip. It's a great scanner though.

I'm not exactly sure what the 5000s go for these days but the 8000 could be an option for not too much more. I know a place in Europe that has two in stock at the moment if you're interested.
 
philipus said:
One of the (many) reasons I bought a 9000 was that it will scan exactly the whole frame. I also have a V which I have used since the early 00s and I could never get it to scan the full frame of every image on a 6-frame strip. It's a great scanner though.

I'm not exactly sure what the 5000s go for these days but the 8000 could be an option for not too much more. I know a place in Europe that has two in stock at the moment if you're interested.
Click to expand...

I do not quite understand this .. every 35mm scanner seems to have this issue. The all seem to cover a scan area of 36mm plus a tiny bit. I do not get why no engineer said "hey lets just scan 40mm to be extra save, cos our transport mechanism isn't perfect."
Even with the manual advance of a plustek I often have to preview more than once to get the alignment correct.

Yeah sure PM me that info pls !
 
I see scanning as a two aspect operation:
1- I need fast, automated, low res scans of all my films
2- I need the occasional high quality one-frame scan.

The 5000 is good on both aspects (not perfect. very unforgiving to defects, not "full frame") if you have a full roll to feed

Once you have a roll cut into 6 frames strips, the V700 speed is much better (24 frames batch)

If you are happy with the final quality of the Plustek, I would take the V700 for auto, fast scanning, and keep the Plustek for high qual scans.

Just my devaluated 2c
 
sanmich said:
I see scanning as a two aspect operation:
1- I need fast, automated, low res scans of all my films
2- I need the occasional high quality one-frame scan.

The 5000 is good on both aspects (not perfect. very unforgiving to defects, not "full frame") if you have a full roll to feed

Once you have a roll cut into 6 frames strips, the V700 speed is much better (24 frames batch)

If you are happy with the final quality of the Plustek, I would take the V700 for auto, fast scanning, and keep the Plustek for high qual scans.

Just my devaluated 2c
Click to expand...

I've been there - I own a V500 and planned to work that way and maybe even upgrade to a V700 like you suggested. I also tried to get a lab scan (Fuji Frontier 2MP scans) and skip the digital "contact sheet" part.

After a while I came to the conclusion that this doesn't cut it for me. Simply because I do not know right away what I like. I got used to have access to high res scans when I want to use the photo without the need of handling the negs again. I am a lazy guy and bad in editing my stuff. And my laziness wants me to throw money at the problem :D

Another option would be the Reflecta RPS 7200 .. but from all I've read I do not trust it's film transport at all.
 
k__43 said:
without the need of handling the negs again.
Click to expand...

It's all here...
for me, scanning 100% of my images at high res only not to re-scan the occasional 1% of good frames doesn't make sense: too slow, and too heavy.
Also, I often clean much more carefully the keepers, and adjust the scan more carefully. I can't do this for all images.
But that's only because I have a low keeper rate, I'm sure the milage of others will vastly vary ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom