Nikon 9000 and 35mm strip film holder

[Zonan]

Have a 9000 on the way, and in the past week I have happened across two references to the 35mm strip film holder being poorly constructed and apt to open inside the scanner and jam, requiring service by Nikon to fix. It sounds like the "catch" on the top holder isn't reliable, and can easily come undone. One review said the holder is only good for a few hundred uses before the catch is worn out.

Would appreciate any comments from Nikon 9000 users as to their experience using the 35mm strip film holder. Thanks.

 

[dcsang]

So far.. my Nikon 9000 has been going strong with the 35mm film holder. I'm just finishing off scanning about 9-10 rolls of 36x135.

I'm sure I've used it for more than a few hundred so far seeing as how I've had the scanner for about a year now. The film holder is not "poorly constructed" but it's not metal, it's simply high impact plastic. So, can you break it? Likely. If you're careful and you know what you're doing; don't think so.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've never had mine come open, but I will say it is made of such flimsy material that if the film is not PERFECTLY flat, it will cause the top frame to bow upward and the film will not be held flat. Completely useless. I use the glass rotating carrier for EVERYTHING, including 35mm. If you want SHARP scans from this scanner, a glass carrier is non-negotiable. If your 35mm films are PERFECTLY flat, the 35 carrier may work, but the 120 carrier it comes standard with is absolutely incapable of holding even the flattest film flat.

 

[gns]

If you have the 9000, take advantage of the glass holder option like Chris says. The strip holder will not hold your film as flat. And if it is like the strip holder for the 5000, it will also crop your frames slightly unless you file it out a bit.

Gary

 

[literiter]

I use the glass rotating carrier for EVERYTHING, including 35mm. If you want SHARP scans from this scanner, a glass carrier is non-negotiable.

This is absolutely correct. The FH-869GR glass rotating carrier IS the only way to get any real good results from a 9000. ( Yes, one measly frame at a time! ) The film strip holder will only give reasonable results if you want simple proofs.

The good news is; the FH-869GR will hold 35mm up to 120 films, and allow you to scan beautifully. I have scanned a friends 6x17 negs perfectly by scanning 1/2 in the 6x9 mask then turning over and scanning the other 1/2. Stitch together in Photoshop.

I can scan a Noblex 24 x 66 negative directly with the provided mask.

645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 negs and positives are fantastic.

This carrier should have been provided with the scanner, but it isn't. I bought mine for about $350.00. Yep $350.00 for a piece of plastic with some glass, but it is the only way to go.

 

[CorreCaminos]

I agree that the 35mm holder is poorly constructed, perhaps more accurately poorly designed, but I use it often for non-critical scans. If I want the maximum IQ, I use the glass carrier Chris and others mentioned.

I've probably used the 35mm holder more than 200 times and never had it jam in the scanner. The only problem I've experienced is when locking and unlocking the film. Some times you need to exert some force to get the plastic tabs to lock or unlock and I know it's only a matter of time before one of them breaks off.

 

[Jamie123]

The locking mechanism is not ideal but so far I've not run into any problems.

I guess if you don't trust the holder and are obsessing about flatness you could take off the lid and the get a couple of ANR glass inserts from Focal Point to lay over the film strips.

 

[Steve M.]

I had an 8000, which is very similar, and liked the glass holder a lot. It's a bit of a bug for dust, but you just have to be careful in that regard. Having said that, I'm not 100% sure it will produce noticeably sharper scans than the standard holder. I base this on using my old Epson 2450 flatbed scanner. When I slide a negative strip into it's film holder, if I'm at the end of the strip it warps the neg up considerably from where the middle part is. But every scan I've done is nice and sharp, even over at the end where it's trying to curl up! I have no idea why it isn't unsharp there, but it isn't. Go figure.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I had an 8000, which is very similar, and liked the glass holder a lot. It's a bit of a bug for dust, but you just have to be careful in that regard. Having said that, I'm not 100% sure it will produce noticeably sharper scans than the standard holder. I base this on using my old Epson 2450 flatbed scanner. When I slide a negative strip into it's film holder, if I'm at the end of the strip it warps the neg up considerably from where the middle part is. But every scan I've done is nice and sharp, even over at the end where it's trying to curl up! I have no idea why it isn't unsharp there, but it isn't. Go figure.

Your experience with the epson is completely irrelevant. The 8000, which I have, has NO depth of field. If the neg is not 100% COMPLETELY FLAT, it WILL be unsharp in some areas. The difference, as those of us who have used these scanners for years know, is night and day between the glass carrier and the standard ones. This is much different than the Epson, whose lens cannot focus, so it is designed with a smaller aperture for more depth of field to increase tolerance for differences in films

 

[Jamie123]

Your experience with the epson is completely irrelevant. The 8000, which I have, has NO depth of field. If the neg is not 100% COMPLETELY FLAT, it WILL be unsharp in some areas. The difference, as those of us who have used these scanners for years know, is night and day between the glass carrier and the standard ones. This is much different than the Epson, whose lens cannot focus, so it is designed with a smaller aperture for more depth of field to increase tolerance for differences in films

I think whether or not the difference is 'night and day' really depends on what you shoot. If you do a lot of portraits with shallow depth of field then the difference is much smaller as you can focus the scanner to the area on the neg where the eyes are. You might not get sharp grain resolution across the frame but it doesn't really matter that much for the out of focus areas.

The biggest argument for using a glass carrier IMO is not necessarily sharpness, it's that, if you have a curled neg, you essentially get a distorted image in the scan (even if it's not noticeable most of the time).

As for sharpness, if you really want to get most out of it you should consider wet mounting which, as the folliwing link shows, offers considerable improvements over the glass carrier:

http://www.weaved.net/wet.htm

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think whether or not the difference is 'night and day' really depends on what you shoot. If you do a lot of portraits with shallow depth of field then the difference is much smaller as you can focus the scanner to the area on the neg where the eyes are. You might not get sharp grain resolution across the frame but it doesn't really matter that much for the out of focus areas.

The biggest argument for using a glass carrier IMO is not necessarily sharpness, it's that, if you have a curled neg, you essentially get a distorted image in the scan (even if it's not noticeable most of the time).

As for sharpness, if you really want to get most out of it you should consider wet mounting which, as the folliwing link shows, offers considerable improvements over the glass carrier:

http://www.weaved.net/wet.htm

Jamie, have you ACTUALLY USED one of the glass carriers? I'm suspecting not. The difference is night and day between the glass and non-glass carriers. Much more than the difference between wet mount and glass dry mount shown in the link you posted. That link you posted is interesting because I see an accentuation of grain, but no real added detail (maybe there would be if he had used a finer grained film?), also the glass carrier scan he posted has lighter midtones than the wet-mount scan, which affects the appearance of detail in the skin. His results most interest me because the grain looks more defined in his wet scan than in the plain glass carrier version, and the other comparisons i have seen online showed finer grain with the wet mount...but those were with color film, not BWm so that may be the difference.

 

[sahe69]

The FH-869GR glass rotating carrier IS the only way to get any real good results from a 9000.

Well, don't forget that there's also the FH-869G holder (non-rotating), which basically does the same job but just doesn't rotate. With that you can scan several frames at a time, actual number depending on the format of course.

 

[Jamie123]

Jamie, have you ACTUALLY USED one of the glass carriers? I'm suspecting not. The difference is night and day between the glass and non-glass carriers. Much more than the difference between wet mount and glass dry mount shown in the link you posted. That link you posted is interesting because I see an accentuation of grain, but no real added detail (maybe there would be if he had used a finer grained film?), also the glass carrier scan he posted has lighter midtones than the wet-mount scan, which affects the appearance of detail in the skin. His results most interest me because the grain looks more defined in his wet scan than in the plain glass carrier version, and the other comparisons i have seen online showed finer grain with the wet mount...but those were with color film, not BWm so that may be the difference.

I currently use a home made glass carrier with glass pieces (both anr and plain) from Focal Point. My negs are completely flat and my results are as sharp as anything I've seen from original glass carriers. The loading of the film is probably a bit more cumbersome but I prefer this to spending several hundred bucks.

That being said, I know a photographer who has scanned his archive for a big solo show using the regular carrier and the prints are very big.

In the end I think the Nikon 9000 is a great sanner but in my book it's not top notch no matter what kind of carrier you use. The difference between a Flextight or a real drum scanner and a Nikon 9000 is night and day, IMO.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

So you are using a glass carrier? Why says its not needed when you do it yourself? Yeah, yours is homemade, but its still a glass carrier.

 

[Jamie123]

So you are using a glass carrier? Why says its not needed when you do it yourself? Yeah, yours is homemade, but its still a glass carrier.

I'm not at all saying that a glass carrier makes no difference. What I'm saying is that a) the scanner without glass carrier can still produce very good results and b) for me image distortion from a curled neg is a bigger issue than the loss in corner-to-corner sharpness.

I'm just a bit tired of hearing people say that the Nikon 9000 is utterly useless without the glass carrier which it is certainly not. Even without the carrier it's still better than your average flatbed. There are always ways to get more out of your scanner (as shown in the example of wet mounting). The question is just how time and money much that's worth to you.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm not at all saying that a glass carrier makes no difference. What I'm saying is that a) the scanner without glass carrier can still produce very good results and b) for me image distortion from a curled neg is a bigger issue than the loss in corner-to-corner sharpness.

I'm just a bit tired of hearing people say that the Nikon 9000 is utterly useless without the glass carrier which it is certainly not. Even without the carrier it's still better than your average flatbed. There are always ways to get more out of your scanner (as shown in the example of wet mounting). The question is just how time and money much that's worth to you.

The glass carrier was worth it. Hell, the scanner cost me $3000 when I bought it shortly after they came out. Another $350 to get usable scans was not an issue. To me the scans truly are worthless without it. The people who buy my work expect the prints to be flawless. There's really no getting past that. For amatuers who don't have patrons to please, then they are probably wasting money even buying such a costly scanner, even without factoring in the need to buy a different carrier.

 

[pevelg]

I currently use a home made glass carrier with glass pieces (both anr and plain) from Focal Point. My negs are completely flat and my results are as sharp as anything I've seen from original glass carriers. The loading of the film is probably a bit more cumbersome but I prefer this to spending several hundred bucks.

That being said, I know a photographer who has scanned his archive for a big solo show using the regular carrier and the prints are very big.

In the end I think the Nikon 9000 is a great sanner but in my book it's not top notch no matter what kind of carrier you use. The difference between a Flextight or a real drum scanner and a Nikon 9000 is night and day, IMO.

Glad to hear your homemade experiance works. I purchased glass from eBay and the clear glass causes some weird distortion in my images, making it unusable. Most of my film is pretty curled, so I get very poor results with my 8000 and MF.

I purchased ANR glass for my 35mm carrier and plan to use that when scanning. As the the OP's question, I have had no issues with the 35mm carrier opening inside the scanner. It IS extremely flimsy and yes, it does not hold film perfectly flat, but better than the MF holder. I am most likely going to get the official Nikon glass carrier.

Any major difference in quality of scans between the rotating and non rotating MF glass carriers?

 

[Jamie123]

Glad to hear your homemade experiance works. I purchased glass from eBay and the clear glass causes some weird distortion in my images, making it unusable. Most of my film is pretty curled, so I get very poor results with my 8000 and MF.

I got it from the above posted link and the clear glass is only 1mm. It doesn't cause any distortion for me. It works pretty well for me but I had to make a mask for my negs in order to avoid some weird flare.

 

[KenR]

More importantly - where did you find the scanner?

 

[pevelg]

I've had good luck with my Nikon 8000. I have the glass carrier for 120 film, and the strip holder for 35. I don't think a strip of 6 negs will fit in the glass holder. On the strip holder, on one side it has shorter thicker pieces that intrude into part of the frame. I wish it scanned faster. I use Nikon's software. I tried VueScan but it didn't work well, and I couldn't get any support or info from company, so that was $75 down the drain.

I used Vuescan when I had the Coolscan 5000 and scanning slides. Was able to setup automatic scanning every 10 seconds. So, while sitting at computer the scanner and software were working in background. As soon as the scanner stopped making noise, I popped out the slide and inserted new one. Scanner started again after 10 seconds with no input from me. Great program.

Now that I am using the 8000, I've had difficulty using Vuescan so I changed over to Silverfast which has been great.

I got it from the above posted link and the clear glass is only 1mm. It doesn't cause any distortion for me. It works pretty well for me but I had to make a mask for my negs in order to avoid some weird flare.

That might be my trouble. I noticed that the clear glass was much thicker than the ANR glass. Is it pretty easy making a mask? What material did you use and how? Maybe I can still salvage my current glass without ordering the 1mm version and or nikon glass carrier.