roguewave Posted October 19, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been asked to shoot a project for a non-profit educational institution in Harlem. I will have to scan a tremendous amount of 35 mm B&W film. I need to purchase a used scanner, as the budget i so low I can't even believe it. I looked o Ebay & saw a variety of models: 2000, 4000, 5000, 8000, 9000. Can I get some advice about the relative merits & what the difference would be in quality & time? Thanks in advance. BTW, I also put this thread in the Digital Forum under PP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Hi roguewave, Take a look here Nikon CoolScan. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dpattinson Posted October 19, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 19, 2009 You've probably already considered it, but it might actually be cheaper (taking into account your time) to get the film bulk processed and machine scanned at the point of processing. If you go to a good lab, my experience is you get much cleaner scans that require less cleaning up in post, and they are plenty good enough for web publishing. Ilford is offering a mail in service in the UK where you can do this - I'm sure pro labs would offer a bulk discount if you got it done en-mass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 19, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 19, 2009 If you are going to scan whole rolls at a time, get a 5000 + adapter. Only select frames and want to save some money, get a V. If you want the big dog, that can scan 12 frames (I think) at a time + medium format, go for the 9000. You could also look for a Pakon F235 or F335. Those things willl chew threw a roll in a couple minutes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted October 19, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 19, 2009 If you're set on shooting film, consider getting C-41 films (b&w or color) processed and scanned to CD (no prints) at places like Walgreens, CVS, or Costco. At Walgreens in Texas, I can get processing plus scans to a CD for $3.99/roll. Then just import them into your digital photo editor for culling the take. Plenty of image scan size for online posting (they will scan them for 4x6 prints). If you're shooting color, just get a bunch of inexpensive Kodak Gold 100, 200, or 400 from WalMart. The minilabs are set up for this film and it will probably look the best. Depending upon the amount of film you shoot, it may be less expensive or JUST as expensive as a used scanner, but it will save you HUGE time...trust me on this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted October 19, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 19, 2009 I can see now that David Pattinson said basically the same thing. So, I second what he's saying. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 19, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 19, 2009 You've probably already considered it, but it might actually be cheaper (taking into account your time) to get the film bulk processed and machine scanned at the point of processing. If you go to a good lab, my experience is you get much cleaner scans that require less cleaning up in post, and they are plenty good enough for web publishing.Ilford is offering a mail in service in the UK where you can do this - I'm sure pro labs would offer a bulk discount if you got it done en-mass. I've been doing this recently, in fact my only reason for trying film ever again is that I can either despatch it Harman and have it processed and scanned to hi-res CD, or I have found a local lab which does it even cheaper and gives me TIFFs on CD(s). Expensive though (in the UK). LouisB Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdozier Posted October 19, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ben, I'm no expert but I have been doing similar research on the Nikons with the same intent. I've also spoken to 2 pros who's opinion I greatly respect and each presently use a Nikon. What I've found so far is that the 5000 has a software upgrade and apparently operates faster than it's predecessor the 4000. I can not confirm what differences there are in the glass and LED's whether the 5000 is significantly improved or if it's marketing. It seems the 9000 uses similar technology to the 5000 except it accepts medium formats as well. I presume the descriptive differences indicate that there may be additional improvements above the 5000 but I do not know. One of the pros uses the 9000 and absolutely recommended it to me if I needed the medium format otherwise he recommended the 5000. The other, who swears by his 4000 also said the 5000 is the way to go if I didn't need the medium format. As stated, you could get better feedback from actual owners or pros but since there wasn't much discussion so far, in reply to your op about the specific units I thought I'd share what I had picked up. FWIW I'm leaning to a used 4000 for about 1/2 the cost of the 5000's. Hope this wasn't wasted input. Good luck. Having just returned from NYC with some time in Harlem I'd love to see some of your results if possible. All the best, Matt Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photophile Posted October 19, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) Ben - the posts I recently put up in the people section were all scanned using my coolscan V. It can do 14 bit process - excellent quality for the price ( but does not compare to a drum scan ) - but it is painfully slow. I had my film c-41 processed and a " high res" jpeg cd made - it is very grainy and although great as a " contact sheet", hardly usable for print work larger than perhaps 5X7. In high res tiff, it is better, but still does not appraoch what I can do on the V, or without incurring much greater cost by farming it out. My 2 c worth.IIf you need more - email me or pm. Best. Coos ps - without an adapter will only do 6 pic strips at a time.... some colleagues use the epson v700 flatbed scanner , btw, with the film adapter, and are very happy with the results. saw a 1950's BW neg scanned from it, and printed 11X17 - just stunning. Edited October 19, 2009 by photophile Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 19, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 19, 2009 Depends what your time is worth Ben. Tall end nikons with the roll feed which is another separate fortune will save you tearing your hair out. Beneath that, for silver based I dont think it matters which one you use, your set up and prep time per scan run, and and number of passes are going to be your rate determining step rather than file size and processor time. And unless you are sitting at the desk and are religious about not getting side tracked you can eaily lose huge chunks of time with big scan jobs. For whatever reason you have obviously discounted C41, much less problematic, and the obvious digital solution for a near freebie job. How many rolls you expecting to shoot? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted October 20, 2009 Depends what your time is worth Ben.Tall end nikons with the roll feed which is another separate fortune will save you tearing your hair out. Beneath that, for silver based I dont think it matters which one you use, your set up and prep time per scan run, and and number of passes are going to be your rate determining step rather than file size and processor time. And unless you are sitting at the desk and are religious about not getting side tracked you can eaily lose huge chunks of time with big scan jobs. For whatever reason you have obviously discounted C41, much less problematic, and the obvious digital solution for a near freebie job. How many rolls you expecting to shoot? Rob, I'm leaning to the 8000 ED. It gets me both formats. This is a pilot program. If all goes well, I should burn 200-300 rolls of 35mm & about 100 of 120. The project requires film. I love film, so it's a marriage. Thanks for your sage advice & to all those that left their comments, thanks, I really appreciate it. All the best, Ben Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 20, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 20, 2009 The V and the 5000 are virtually indistinguishable in terms of quality. The 5000 is twice as fast and accepts the slide and roll feeder. The 9000 is of essentially the same quality and accepts medium format. It is a bit slower than the 5000 for 35mm, and is not as sharp as the V and 5000 since it has a more diffuse light source. From what I've seen, if all you are going to do is shoot 35mm, then the 5000 (or V) is the way to go, the 9000 will just be slower and a tiny less sharp. If you shoot medium format too, then get the 9000 with no worries. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_peter_m Posted October 20, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 20, 2009 Ben, Check out the specs on the 9000 I remember something about some different digital ice that works on silver film, might save a lot of time dusting in PS. The 5000 been working good for me. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 20, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 20, 2009 Fair chunk of work. You might also want to consider storage media. It isnt going to fit on your hard drive. Disks are somtimes a pain in the proverbial particularly when you consider a lot of the scanners have sweet spots at a bit over 30meg files, theres a wicked temptation to go large:o. Externals are probably the most convenient, but watch your file structure, you dont want to be opening external multi gig files to find one image. One thing for sure, when you finish the job you will be resident scanning guru. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlfoto Posted October 20, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 20, 2009 Also it is seem like Nikon Europe has discontinued the distribution of this scanner. I am interested in it (5000 ED) but I cannot find it even online... Any ideas? Alejandro Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petercs Posted October 20, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 20, 2009 Also it is seem like Nikon Europe has discontinued the distribution of this scanner. I am interested in it (5000 ED) but I cannot find it even online...Any ideas? Alejandro Still available at scandig.de but at very high price. I am happy to have mine and hope it does not break. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 20, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 20, 2009 ICE won't work on traditional silver film. The 9000 has an 'improved' ICE that is better on Kodachrome, but I've never seen any specifics on this, nor have I had any problems (with ICE at least) scanning Kodachrome on my V. Though the specs are 'better' on the 5000 compared to the V, they will give you the same scans. The 5000 has a 2-line CCD as opposed to a 1-line CCD so it scans twice as fast, and it can take the roll and slide adapters. If you are planning to scan whole rolls at full resolution, budget in at least 45 mins/roll with the roll adapter. I've found I rarely scan at full resolution - only the keepers. It's much faster to edit your roll on the light table, pick out the good 6 frames, scan them at lower resolution for sharing online/making 4x6s, and then scan the one keeper that you might blow up huge at full resolution. With this method, I can get through a roll in about 15 minutes. I use Vuescan. On the other hand, a Pakon F235/F335 will seriously go through a whole roll in about 5-10 minutes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted October 20, 2009 BTW, does anyone have experience using Vuescan with any of these models? I use it on my Epson V700 & like the scans, but that unit is just too slow for a project this size. Thanks, Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 20, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 20, 2009 Yeah I use Vuescan all the time with my V. Only for traditional B&W though. I find Nikonscan works better for color images. Also, from what I hear, if you want the roll adapter, you need to use Nikonscan too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share #19 Posted October 20, 2009 Yeah I use Vuescan all the time with my V. Only for traditional B&W though. I find Nikonscan works better for color images. Also, from what I hear, if you want the roll adapter, you need to use Nikonscan too.[/QUOT Thanks, so do I with my Epson V700. This is for B&W work. Is it easy to make profiles with the Nikon 4000 or 8000 ? It would be nice to make a profile for a roll of film & scan most of the negs & then return to tune up the strays. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlfoto Posted October 20, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 20, 2009 Still available at scandig.de but at very high price.I am happy to have mine and hope it does not break. Peter Any other option? According scandig.de, the coolscan V is around 1500 euros and comparint to nikon usa web page, you can find a Super coolscan 5000 for 1200 dollars... This is a huuuuuge difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.