mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Hi...
Mike here agian, and thanks for the swift response to earlier Thread on the K-M Scan Dual IV.
Some like the Nikons better; it is, however, a 14 bit machine. Does the 14 bit rating, lower than the Scan Dual IV's 16 bit... mean less quality? I've looked at a lot of reviews, and the Nikon V ED is fairly high up there for the money.
Let's hear & ciao,
mike
Mike here agian, and thanks for the swift response to earlier Thread on the K-M Scan Dual IV.
Some like the Nikons better; it is, however, a 14 bit machine. Does the 14 bit rating, lower than the Scan Dual IV's 16 bit... mean less quality? I've looked at a lot of reviews, and the Nikon V ED is fairly high up there for the money.
Let's hear & ciao,
mike
V
varjag
Guest
The Nikon is better in about every respect except price.
K-M had a questionable habit to publish "extrapolated" dynamic range. I don't think that many film scanners have true 16 bit channel depth, certainly not in sub-$1000 range.
K-M had a questionable habit to publish "extrapolated" dynamic range. I don't think that many film scanners have true 16 bit channel depth, certainly not in sub-$1000 range.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Re: Nikon Coolscan V ED
Hi Eugene,
Delighted to hear from you in Bergen, Norway.
I'm a member of rff for half a year, and at times I'm just overwhelmed [in a good way]... as to the lengths members go to to share info and help one another.
My son, a documentary filmaker, wants me to go for the Nikon. Tho' it's officially a 14 bit machine, it's likely to be the true rating. The Nikon lens would be better
as well.
Thanks & ciao,
mike
Hi Eugene,
Delighted to hear from you in Bergen, Norway.
I'm a member of rff for half a year, and at times I'm just overwhelmed [in a good way]... as to the lengths members go to to share info and help one another.
My son, a documentary filmaker, wants me to go for the Nikon. Tho' it's officially a 14 bit machine, it's likely to be the true rating. The Nikon lens would be better
as well.
Thanks & ciao,
mike
jano
Evil Bokeh
I struggled with this last year.. cs V or scan dual IV. I opted for the CS V for the following reasons:
- I wanted to scan both color and B&W, and everyone said ICE was magical for color
- higher resolution (4000 dpi vs 3200 or something like that)
- better build quality
- I could get it at well below street price (I had coupons to office depot
)
- faster scanning times
After a year of use, here's what I have to say:
- ICE takes way too long on my old computer, I can spot the dust faster using PS's spot healing brush tool (scratches takes a bit longer), so I find its use overrated.
- GEM feature in NikonScan to reduce the "grain" works extremly well
- b&w scanning is tricky, I eventually ended up using vuescan instead of the bundled software, and my results have been better in the department
I'm sure you've already done all the research and read up more than you wanted to on both scanners. You'll find that my comments do not vary from what others have said (except maybe for the ICE features).
That said, I would purchase the cs V again. What you'll find on the internet is that most will recommend the scan dual if you plan to scan mainly b&w, due to the different light method which will reduce the apparent "grain" stuff. It was also a cheaper priced scanner, not sure of its price now, since it hasn't been in stores for about a year.
Both will get you great results if you know what you are doing Just make a decision and don't look back!
- I wanted to scan both color and B&W, and everyone said ICE was magical for color
- higher resolution (4000 dpi vs 3200 or something like that)
- better build quality
- I could get it at well below street price (I had coupons to office depot
)- faster scanning times
After a year of use, here's what I have to say:
- ICE takes way too long on my old computer, I can spot the dust faster using PS's spot healing brush tool (scratches takes a bit longer), so I find its use overrated.
- GEM feature in NikonScan to reduce the "grain" works extremly well
- b&w scanning is tricky, I eventually ended up using vuescan instead of the bundled software, and my results have been better in the department
I'm sure you've already done all the research and read up more than you wanted to on both scanners. You'll find that my comments do not vary from what others have said (except maybe for the ICE features).
That said, I would purchase the cs V again. What you'll find on the internet is that most will recommend the scan dual if you plan to scan mainly b&w, due to the different light method which will reduce the apparent "grain" stuff. It was also a cheaper priced scanner, not sure of its price now, since it hasn't been in stores for about a year.
Both will get you great results if you know what you are doing
Just make a decision and don't look back!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Jano
You brought up an interesting point about the ICE feature taking a long time on your old PC. I was having long scan times with my Min 5400 until I when from 512 RAM to 2 gig Ram. It is still long, 10 to 12 mins for a scan at 5400 with ICE on, but not 1/2 hr as before. With no ICE it is about 1 min.. Anyone contemplating a film scanner of the type discussed here should also consider their PC setup to see if it is good enough to take full advantage of what these scanners can offer.
Bob
You brought up an interesting point about the ICE feature taking a long time on your old PC. I was having long scan times with my Min 5400 until I when from 512 RAM to 2 gig Ram. It is still long, 10 to 12 mins for a scan at 5400 with ICE on, but not 1/2 hr as before. With no ICE it is about 1 min.. Anyone contemplating a film scanner of the type discussed here should also consider their PC setup to see if it is good enough to take full advantage of what these scanners can offer.
Bob
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Ouch. I don't mean to brag, but I have the Coolscan 5000 (as I stated in his other thread), and when I set a scan with 8x multisample, and ICE (Fine) on, it takes about 3-4 minutes, sometimes it varies up to 5 minutes if I'm doing something else at the same time. I do, however have an AMD 64 3200+ CPU with 1.5 GBNikon Bob said:
I wonder if it'll take even less if I got a dual-core CPU.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Re: Nikon CS V ED & Vuescan
Hi jano,
Very detailed & sensible reply...
I'm studying Pshop 7 and will get to the dust spot brush soon.
I've heard that Digital Ice on ANY machine doesn't work well with B & W negs,
because it is IR technology and can't read the silver.
I'm also inclined to the CS V ED. It's a better built scanner.
Can you tell me a bit about Vuescan? I'm a semi-retired Photojournalist, and my scans will be mostly B & W negs.
Gracias & ciao,
mike
Hi jano,
Very detailed & sensible reply...
I'm studying Pshop 7 and will get to the dust spot brush soon.
I've heard that Digital Ice on ANY machine doesn't work well with B & W negs,
because it is IR technology and can't read the silver.
I'm also inclined to the CS V ED. It's a better built scanner.
Can you tell me a bit about Vuescan? I'm a semi-retired Photojournalist, and my scans will be mostly B & W negs.
Gracias & ciao,
mike
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
gabrielma said:
Yeah, the Min 5400 was noted to be slow and Nikons faster when using ICE. But the main point I think is that you have to have a very capable PC to work with these scanners with any speed. It is a link in the chain that is overlooked sometimes. The dual core idea sounds interesting for the next upgrade and there will always be another upgrade with PCs.
Bob
majid
Fazal Majid
mike goldberg said:
Yes. Dust is opaque to IR and dyes are transparent to IR, that's how ICE works. The silver grains in true B&W (as opposed to dye-based chromogenic black & white films) are opaque to IR, and thus ICE thinks all the image is covered in dust and goes haywire. The Nikon Coolscan 9000 has ICE4 Pro, which is supposedly compatible with Kodachrome, but that won't help you with B&W.
mike goldberg said:
I have the 5000, and paid through the nose for the privilege of using the batch roll film and mounted slide feeders. If you are scanning any significant volumes, these accessories are invaluable, hence Nikon's price gouging. If you have mostly cut strips and no slides, the V's standard SA-21 strip feeder will be sufficient (it can handle 6 frames, but not a full 36-frame reel).
On the Mac, Nikon Scan is a piece of junk that can't scan two frames without crashing. VueScan is much more reliable and gives you more control, e.g. the ability to specify frame start offsets in millimeters so you can scan two halves of a XPan frame with sufficient overlap. On Windows, Nikon Scan might actually be usable - it's not a bad piece of software, when it works, even if it is a CPU and memory hog.
14-bit vs. 16-bit or bogus Dmax specs are irrelevant marketing BS. What really matters is the sharpness of the scanner optics, the type of light source and the noise levels in the sensor. Nikon scanners have excellent optics and low-noise sensors (the best way to see this is by looking at shadow detail in dark slides). Unfortunately, the LED light source in Nikons is a point source, which harshly highlights dust and scratches. Minoltas use a more diffuse light source that is more tolerant of poorly conserved black and white negs.
majid
Fazal Majid
Nikon Scan isn't optimised to use multiple processors or cores, so you would be better served with a RAM upgrade. Two cores would allow you to run Photoshop at full speed while scanning in the background, however.Nikon Bob said:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
majid
Thanks for the info on dual core CPUs. They still might be a worthwhile upgrade for the reason you mentioned.
Bob
Thanks for the info on dual core CPUs. They still might be a worthwhile upgrade for the reason you mentioned.
Bob
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Hi, Mike here again, with part of majid's reply quoted below:
14-bit vs. 16-bit or bogus Dmax specs are irrelevant marketing BS. What really matters is the sharpness of the scanner optics, the type of light source and the noise levels in the sensor. Nikon scanners have excellent optics and low-noise sensors (the best way to see this is by looking at shadow detail in dark slides). Unfortunately, the LED light source in Nikons is a point source, which harshly highlights dust and scratches. Minoltas use a more diffuse light source that is more tolerant of poorly conserved black and white negs.
The Nikon V ED is the one I'm going for; like jano said, "Just make a decision, and don't look back." A diffuse light source may be preferable, however the Nikon optics & low noise sensor are most important.
Super thanks to all you guys; I've copy-pasted most of the replies.
Cheers,
mike
14-bit vs. 16-bit or bogus Dmax specs are irrelevant marketing BS. What really matters is the sharpness of the scanner optics, the type of light source and the noise levels in the sensor. Nikon scanners have excellent optics and low-noise sensors (the best way to see this is by looking at shadow detail in dark slides). Unfortunately, the LED light source in Nikons is a point source, which harshly highlights dust and scratches. Minoltas use a more diffuse light source that is more tolerant of poorly conserved black and white negs.
The Nikon V ED is the one I'm going for; like jano said, "Just make a decision, and don't look back." A diffuse light source may be preferable, however the Nikon optics & low noise sensor are most important.
Super thanks to all you guys; I've copy-pasted most of the replies.
Cheers,
mike
michael.panoff
Established
Memory folks.. as already mentioned, max out your machine. You better have USB 2 support as well. I've got an AMD something or other, 2600 I think, but with 2 gigs RAM. I can batch scan 6 frames with the Nikon software and do touch-up work at the same time, in photoshop. No dual cores needed (but would be nice).. just lots of memory.
I also have a couple Intel macs, I've avoided using them for photography work, until the universal version of photoshop is released. The Nikon software still hasn't been ported to universal.. not looking good for this happening either.
I also have a couple Intel macs, I've avoided using them for photography work, until the universal version of photoshop is released. The Nikon software still hasn't been ported to universal.. not looking good for this happening either.