Nikon Coolscan V ED - how to mitigate Callier Effect?

Arjay

Arjay

Time Traveller
Local time
6:47 PM
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
794
Location
Munich, Germany
View My Gallery
I'm scanning my 35mm negatives using a Nikon Coolscan V ED film scanner.

While I like the scanner's native resolution of 4000dpi and its wide density range, I am frequently irritated by the unit's tendency to emphasize film grain structure due to its collimated LED illumination (Callier effect).

Is there a cure for this problem, e.g. like some accessory such as e.g. a frosted glass insert for the scanner, so that the light source is diffused a little?

Has anybody seen such an accessory, or can anyone suggest another solution to suppress the Callier effect in this scanner?
 
What sort of negatives? I assume from Roger's suggestion that he knows you use traditional B&W.

The original Minolta 5400 has a diffusion device to counter this effect, but that's not much help to you. I can't explain why, but I find that Vuescan's infrared cleaning filter reduces the false grain effect (I'm not talking about the grain reduction filter). I'm using a different scanner and type of light source, and you may be using B&W film, but might be worth a play around. Otherwise, try noise reduction software.
 
There is a grain reduction tool in the Nikon scanning software—GEM (grain equalization and management). Have you tried that adjustment?

A pro printer explained to me that even an Imacon scan of a negative will be 'grainier' than a wet print of that same negative, so maybe a bit of enhanced grain is inevitable in the scanning process.
 
Last edited:
Could be Callier Effect + Nyquist, at 4000dpi you might come close to the grain size with the resolution and thus produce "optical noise". A slightly lower scan resolution (can be set very fine in Vuescan) should help.
 
I've noticed that certain films scan more easily than others, so Roger's suggestion is valid. I think that films with thicker bases, like HP5+ and colour negative films, scatter the Coolscan's rays and create noise. Thinner films, like colour slides and Acros 100, scan with much less apparant graininess or noise.
 
Glenn, thank you for the link! I had some very faint memory that there existed something like this (I believe I saw this several years ago).

lawrence said:
I can't see any evidence of this on their web site -- can you point me in the right direction?
Click to expand...

I think Glenn was referring to this and to that. Has anyone any experience with a Nikon SA-21 modified in this way? I guess there might be some limitations with self-calibration and/or frame detection.
 
Last edited:
Let me begin by saying I'm no expert here.. but there is software around (I don't recall the name) that will round the edges of the grain in a film scan. You can vary the amount of cut-off. It will remove the sharp corners. Maybe this could help. And maybe some one who knows more than I can help you with the name or source. It's not an Adobe product, as I recall. p.
 
Last edited:
With the Nikon 4000 and 9000 using Vuescan 4000 dpi scans with GEM set to 1, Ive never had a problem either way, Callier, Nyquist or noticeable softness with traditional B&Ws. The grain is still there but not as something that stands out.
 
Roger Hicks said:
XP2 is the best answer, but not much use for existing negs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info - I've never used XP2, just Kodak BW 400 CN, and whereas that film certainly doesn't pose a grain problem, it has the tendency to clip dark shadows (it doesn't seem to offer much toe), even at EI 200. Does XP2 behave differently in that respect?
 
Last edited:
I had a V ED for years and can sympathize w/ what you're seeing. I'm pretty sure it's just the scanner doing it's job, as it didn't happen w/ low speed, tight grained films. Blow a teeny tiny 35mm neg up to 12x18 and you enlarge everything, grain included. The solution is to start w/ a low grain film for your shots, or a fake B&W film that is dye based and not silver grained. Overexposure of the negs will cause graininess, so exposure is critical too. If needed afterwards, I used a free noise removal bit of software called Noiseware (community edition ver 2.6) that's just fantastic. Really makes a difference w/ those Tri-X shots.

In the end I gave up and bought an enlarger, and mostly shoot medium format now. Grainy films like Tri-X look butter smooth in 120.
 
Arjay said:
Thanks for the info - I've never used XP2, just Kodak BW 400 CN, and whereas that film certainly doesn't pose a grain problem, it has the tendency to clip dark shadows (it doesn't seem to offer much toe), even at EI 200. Does XP2 behave differently in that respect?
Click to expand...

It's about 1/3 stop faster (there's arguably no ISO standard for chromogenic mono) and tames the highlights better (better curve shape).

Sorry for the delay: been busy. And away tomorrow.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom