«

I was at my fav camera store today buying Canon L-glass 17-
40mm and 24-70mm lenses. I knew he carried Nikon scanners, so
we talked about them as well.

He has both sold and personally used the Coolscan V ED, 5000
ED, and 9000 ED. In my first post I asked the more general
question of what people recommended with the main criteria
being able to bulk scan. I thank everyone who replied. I
learned a great deal. I learned even more from my local store
manager.

First, he says that since I'm in no hurry, I should wait until
after PMA to see what's new, with some likelihood of current
models dropping in price.

I asked him what he thought I needed, since he knows quite
well what I do and my level of expertise. He /strongly/
advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to optional
bulk tray. He says that nearly 100% of what he sold last year
came back, one 3 times. The buyers eventually kept the
scanner, which worked flawlessly with the built-in f-slide
holder, and returned the larger tray. The alleged problem was
continual jams loading new slides, in some case with very
difficult extraction.

We also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. So, here's
some fresh questions to help people focus on what I think I
heard today, and offer their personal experience. As to Braun,
he knows about it, but can't get them. He predicted they would
also jam, but that's just supposition.

1) If anyone has the Braun SlideScan 4000, what has your
experience been with either of Braun's optional trays, the
straight one or the circular 100 job. I (now) understand that
I would have to swap slides from my Kodak Carousel trays to
anything I buy, which I can live with.

Is the Braun relatively jam-free in bulk mode?

2) Again to the Braun 4000, I would scan at 1800 DPI, not
3600. If my calculator is correct, that would give me about
approx. 2.4 mega pixels, which is plenty for me. Braun claims
a scan speed with ICE off at 60 seconds, but I'm skeptical of
that. What is your experience? And, how long does it take with
ICE turned on?

3) For any Nikon Coolscan, same questions basically"

a) What is your experience with the bulk loader? Work OK, work
sorta, or jam-city?

b) If I read the Nikon 500 specs right, the smallest image
size is in 12 mega pixel range, which is really overkill for
me. So, my question is, what is your experience with per-slide
scan times with ICE off and with ICE on?

5) What is your experience scanning Kodachrome slides with
Digital ICE turned on. Again, my local store manager says he
has had excellent results. The only thing he does is turn the
slide emulsion side up, so ICE doesn't mistake the emulsion 3-
D effect as dust, and do a 600 wet sandpaper job on it. He
says that his customers also report good success, but he was
more vague on that.

6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
software has masks for common negative film types, certainly
Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of negs and they're
all Kodak. If I assume right, is the Coolscan color rendition
sufficiently accurate?

Six new questions is a lot, I know. If it results in too much
length and confusion, I will wait a day or two and come back
with smaller bites.

Thank you all for any and all advice and recommendations on
what works and what doesn't. And, since I have only 35mm and
no medium format, I do go with my camera store manager that I
don't need the big Nikon.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Man, you are high maintenance, lol

"All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
news:Xns976CADBD1893DReplyID@216.196.97.131...

> 6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
> software has masks for common negative film types, certainly
> Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of negs and they're
> all Kodak. If I assume right, is the Coolscan color rendition
> sufficiently accurate?


NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
either chromes or C41.

SilverFast and Vuescan have "profiles" for
common C41 films. I don't use VueScan
much, and when I do, I don't use these
profiles.

As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard of
a single mention of the Braun scanners, in years
on various scanner lists.

Yes, I have heard of complaints with the Nikon
slide bulk feeders, but since I don't use one, I
never paid them much mind.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Today Battleax commented courteously on the subject at hand

> Man, you are high maintenance, lol
>
Yes, but what I really am is focused 150% when I'm trying to get
smart on a new issue. The time to ask questions is /before/ you
buy, as most stores won't let you return a scanner. And, while I
read specs and tests, I only give them about 10% weighting. I go
with just one or two data points from people who actually own
and use what I'm looking for. Besides the obvious, I can also
get opinions on ergomics and other "softer" criteria.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

>> 6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
>> software has masks for common negative film types,
>> certainly Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of
>> negs and they're all Kodak. If I assume right, is the
>> Coolscan color rendition sufficiently accurate?

> NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
> either chromes or C41.

Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?

> SilverFast and Vuescan have "profiles" for
> common C41 films. I don't use VueScan
> much, and when I do, I don't use these
> profiles.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard of
> a single mention of the Braun scanners, in years
> on various scanner lists.

Thanks. It isn't possible to prove a negative hypothesis by
examples, but it is possible to prove a positive one, meaning if
nobody knows, the thesis is disproved and I buy something else.

> Yes, I have heard of complaints with the Nikon
> slide bulk feeders, but since I don't use one, I
> never paid them much mind.

Maybe a bulk loader user will come along later. Thanks, rafe.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

In article <Xns976CADBD1893DReplyID@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <> wrote:

> Is the Braun relatively jam-free in bulk mode?

This isn't an issue as the Braun does not use a stack loader. It uses
the same slide trays that Braun slide projectors have used for decades
and has the same anti-jamming feature as their projectors.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article <Xns976CADBD1893DReplyID@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <> wrote:

> And, how long does it take

Again that depends on computer speed, ram, 8 or 16 bit as well as the
chosen res.

I scan in less then 2 minutes with the equipment I noted earlier.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:33 -0600, All Things Mopar
<> wrote:

>Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

>> NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
>> either chromes or C41.
>
>Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
>expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
>forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?


It can be done without any steenking
profiles. I do it all the time. Most
of the images on my website are from
C41 film.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> All Things Mopar <> wrote:
>
>>Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>>> NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
>>> either chromes or C41.
>>
>>Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
>>expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
>>forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?
>
> It can be done without any steenking
> profiles. I do it all the time. Most
> of the images on my website are from
> C41 film.

Besides, profiles really only make sense if you (a) have even lighting (e.g.
no open shadows in an outdoor shot), (b) actually measure the color
temperature of your light source, (c) use the correct color correction
filters on your lens when you take the shot, and (d) actually want color
correct images as opposed to something that makes sense perceptually.

None of those apply in most of my photography, and each image needs
individual color correction.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

All Things Mopar <> writes:

> First, he says that since I'm in no hurry, I should wait until
> after PMA to see what's new, with some likelihood of current
> models dropping in price.

Not a bad concept. I'm guessing consumer scanners are nearing
end-of-life, myself, as people who care about old pictures mostly get
them taken care of; but waiting until after PMA *might* pay off, and
doesn't seem to hurt you any (this project doesn't sound urgent).

> I asked him what he thought I needed, since he knows quite
> well what I do and my level of expertise. He /strongly/
> advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to optional
> bulk tray. He says that nearly 100% of what he sold last year
> came back, one 3 times. The buyers eventually kept the
> scanner, which worked flawlessly with the built-in f-slide
> holder, and returned the larger tray. The alleged problem was
> continual jams loading new slides, in some case with very
> difficult extraction.

And those were the SF-210, the new one? I believe last year they
should have been, but just to be sure. Because that doesn't fit the
general reputation as I found it on the web, or my personal
experience.

> We also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. So, here's
> some fresh questions to help people focus on what I think I
> heard today, and offer their personal experience. As to Braun,
> he knows about it, but can't get them. He predicted they would
> also jam, but that's just supposition.

This is starting to make me suspicious. Feeding from trays is *far*
easier than handling a stack of slides, in my experience projecting
slides over the last 30-some years. I'm starting to think this
camera-store guy may be talking beyond his actual knowledge (a failing
I've noted throughout the years in camera-store guys). If you have
experience with him and can rate his reliability, then that's useful.

[snip]

> 3) For any Nikon Coolscan, same questions basically"
>
> a) What is your experience with the bulk loader? Work OK, work
> sorta, or jam-city?

Already answered elsewhere, where you'll probably find it.

> b) If I read the Nikon 500 specs right, the smallest image
> size is in 12 mega pixel range, which is really overkill for
> me. So, my question is, what is your experience with per-slide
> scan times with ICE off and with ICE on?

There is no Nikon 500; there is a "Super Coolscan 5000 ED" (which is
what I have and have mostly called just the "5000 ED") and a "Coolscan
V ED".

I believe the current Nikon scanners all use the same software. I
haven't used the Coolscan V, but I have used the even older 1000 and
the somewhat older Coolscan LS-2000, and of course my current 5000,
and all of them let you adjust the resolution/pixel dimensions
throughout a very wide range, and down to much smaller than 12MP. I
would therefore be very surprised if the Coolscan V had such a
limitation. But I cannot say from direct personal experience for
sure.

> 5) What is your experience scanning Kodachrome slides with
> Digital ICE turned on. Again, my local store manager says he
> has had excellent results. The only thing he does is turn the
> slide emulsion side up, so ICE doesn't mistake the emulsion 3-
> D effect as dust, and do a 600 wet sandpaper job on it. He
> says that his customers also report good success, but he was
> more vague on that.

Again I see reason to be suspicious of this store manager; so far as I
can see turning the Kodachrome slide over will have no effect. ICE
works by having a fourth scan step, using infrared illumination and
sensor straight through the slide. Which side was up would make no
difference to how the infrared went through the slide. I also haven't
seen this -- I'm tempted to call it an urban legend -- in any previous
discussion.

I've already told you about my good results. I was going to give you
pointers to my examples on the web, but it's hard enough to find the
film type (buried in the raw IPTC info as "supplemental information")
and many of the originals were badly enough exposed and hence are
fairly drastic rescue jobs that they could easily be interpreted
against the scanner; whereas *I* think the fair interpretation is
against me as a photographer in 1972-1974 instead . Okay, having
said that,
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1971-72/09000-lacon/> and
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1974/08300-Discon-II/> are two batches with quite a lot of Kodachrome in them. Also most of the color images in <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1957/> from 1957 (my mother's slides, my scans on the LS-2000).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd->, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>