Pherdinand
the snow must go on
u can't post the best of your scan since it would mean a very high rezolution file.
If you crop it, you don't show the real potential, you can say 100% crop or whatever but the image piece is out of the context and difficult to judge on quality.
Of course, if you only want to scan for viewing on a monitor, then it's possible to show the result. But then, at such low rezolution any scanner will be quite good.
If you crop it, you don't show the real potential, you can say 100% crop or whatever but the image piece is out of the context and difficult to judge on quality.
Of course, if you only want to scan for viewing on a monitor, then it's possible to show the result. But then, at such low rezolution any scanner will be quite good.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
2 vs. 3 line does not really matter - the number of lines is a performance rather than quality feature. For slow high quality scanning, the software switches back to single line in either case, and the 5000 with two scan lines is faster than the 9000 with three, having a smaller area by more than a 2:3 ratio...
The 9000 srguably has a later ICE generation, the only one that can handle Kodachrome - but then, ICE is usually disabled for highest quality scans. And when it comes to bulk scanning, where ICE would be desirable (most Kodachromes scanned today will be 35mm framed slide scanned for archival purposes), the 9000 does not fit the Nikon bulk loaders, which are even more desirable. I suppose the Kodachrome feature on the 9000 is rather lost on the world...
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Sadly so. I'd say the scanning of 120 film is the "killer application" for the 9000 while the ability to scan a whole roll (with appropriate adaptor or modification) is the "killer application" for the 5000. That's why I went with the latter, which I get far greater use from. In a world where I had more money, I'd have both - but reality rather intrudes.
...Mike
kakinchan
Member
I found even the results I found in the forums, although they are resized and compressed, are much better than I tried on my HP. It could because of the lightsource and precision in focusing on the film.
kakinchan
Member
Please, can someone also tell me the difference between a Coolscan V and a 5000 ED. Seems the only variation is the light source, and their prices!?
rbsinto
Well-known
I also use a Minolta Dualscan Dimage IV scanner.
Works very well and very quickly when used in conjunction with Vuescan software that is available at www.hamrick.com which allows the scanner to be used with Operating Systems like Vista for which no drivers for the scanner currently exist.
There are any number of these scanners currently available for a few hundreds of dollars on ebay.
Works very well and very quickly when used in conjunction with Vuescan software that is available at www.hamrick.com which allows the scanner to be used with Operating Systems like Vista for which no drivers for the scanner currently exist.
There are any number of these scanners currently available for a few hundreds of dollars on ebay.
dfoo
Well-known
5000 ED can handle a full roll, the V cannot. The 5000 is also 16 bit vs 14 bit for the V. I doubt that makes any difference, however.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I find that a very important - actually key - difference in terms of usability and workflow.
It makes a substantial difference if you've really messed up your exposure. Not so much (read: no practical difference) with a well-exposed negative. I mostly try to avoid the former but, sometimes, well...
...Mike
Last edited:
JohnTF
Veteran
Agree, it is just that versatility to handle up to 6x9, and Xpan, if you need it, plus the bulk feeders can quickly cost the same as the scanners, and are not as commonly available as they once were, though you can modify the strip feeder cheaply. I should sell my slide feeder, as I will probably not scan any more of my slides.
If I could find an 8000 at a low enough price, I would set it up, next to the 4000. ;-)
Regards, John
Last edited:
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
I'm still looking for a Coolscan V ed, after a RFF member contacted me, but then did not want to sell it anymore (I don't know how much tax/customs I'll have to pay if the seller is outside the EU 
)
)
JohnTF
Veteran
I'm still looking for a Coolscan V ed, after a RFF member contacted me, but then did not want to sell it anymore (I don't know how much tax/customs I'll have to pay if the seller is outside the EU
If the V does not take full rolls, I would recommend the 4000 or 5000.
As I recall a full tilt scan with the 4000/5000 gives a 64mb tif, and I got a firmware and software upgrade off the Nikon site.
Regards, John
gdi
Veteran
Of course you are right there is no bulk capabilities but Ice is still desirable for a lot of people still shooting Kodachrome, so it is not lost on the world - at least till late next year at the earliest. The usefulness will continue to dwindle.
I have never used a 5000 so I can't say if the light source makes a difference in scans, but I am sure that the only reason to spend extra for the 9000 is for MF.
lawrence
Veteran
I have a Coolscan IV ED but prefer the Epson V750 for scans from b&w negatives since I consider the diffused light source of the Epson preferable to the Nikon's LEDs. Obviously difficult to show how good the quality can be online but here's a scan that gives a taste.
kakinchan
Member
Thanks everyone for the advices and images.
One more query. Does the Nikon 5000 or V support Window Vista?
One more query. Does the Nikon 5000 or V support Window Vista?
