adan Posted March 22, 2010 Share #21 Posted March 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Howtek drum scanner simply blows everything into the dust Oh, please - about 5% better than the 9000ED (if that). That's a nice comparison page, though. Makes me really glad I grabbed the 9000ED I ran across while looking for an Epson 700/750. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Hi adan, Take a look here Epson V700 vs. Nikon Coolscan V vs. Coolscan 8000. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Julian Thompson Posted March 22, 2010 Share #22 Posted March 22, 2010 No way Adan - I just don't see that at all to be honest. On my monitor the Coolscan 9000ED is vastly inferior to the Howtek scanner. Anyone else care to shed an opinion on that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted March 22, 2010 Share #23 Posted March 22, 2010 Minolta Official Scanhancer Site Epson V750 epson Epson 4990 Eirik Holmøyvik : photographer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 22, 2010 Share #24 Posted March 22, 2010 Anyone else care to shed an opinion on that? I have the Epson V750 and a Coolscan V ED myself. I have used a Coolscan 5000 several times and I also once rented an Imacon 343 because I was curious. I'm almost exclusively using traditional black-and-white films, mostly Tri-X, so I can't say much about C41 scans. Nor can I say anything about slides, I don't even have any. My opinion: The Epson is very nice, especially given its price. It has a few minor flaws (I've commented about this scanner a couple of times on this forum), but it works fine for the majority of cases. I bought the IV ED used because I wanted to do A3 prints. The Epson is fine up to A5, and even for A4 I probably wouldn't have bothered to get another scanner. For A3, the Nikon certainly makes a difference. The Nikon has its flaws, too, tough. For example, it emphasizes grain a bit too much for my taste, I have more problems with dust than with the Epson, and I don't really like the way the SA-21 works - nor do I like the plasticky FH-3. Also, the Nikon software is a bit unstable on my Mac (OS X 10.4.11) while Epson's software is rock-solid. Having said all that, I'm happy I bought the Coolscan for the reasons mentioned above. The Imacon is a whole different story. I liked it a lot more than the Epson and all Coolscans I've used so far. The software is better, the handling is better, and most importantly the results are simply great. Although the "lowly" 343 (which is a pretty small and old model compared to the X1 and X5 Hasselblad is offering now) nominally has a lower resolution than the 5000 (or the V ED FWIW), the scans are simply better. I guess this is due to their very clever "virtual drum" technology and due to the lenses (Rodenstock?) they use. Don't let pixel-peep crops fool you, try it out yourself if you have the chance. The only drawback of the Imacon scanners is that the new ones are simply much too expensive for me and used ones are very hard to find. And even the used ones aren't exactly cheap. If I'll find a good used Imacon one day, I'll be sure to grab it. Until then, the Coolscan will do the job. Hope that helps. (And I'm sure others will have other opinions.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 23, 2010 Share #25 Posted March 23, 2010 How compare the scanners in operation speed and handling film strips (V7xx | Coolscan | Imacon 343)? I have pretty much streamlined my scanning with a EPSON flatbed and run one roll through in around 1/2 hour, while doing other work on the computer (15MB tiff, B&W, 8bit). The work with the EPSON flatbed is very comfortable, as dusting is very easy on the frame holders and the scanner itself (blower bulb/ brush). One reason for me, to surely grab a CS9000 would be the roll feeder, to scan the film completely before cutting - is it worth it? I never saw an Imacon/ Hasselblad in operation/ opened - any images, to give me an idea on its principle? As for others, the Imacon scans, I have seen compared to flatbed scans really blow minds - the costs though are strongly prohibitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 23, 2010 Share #26 Posted March 23, 2010 How compare the scanners in operation speed and handling film strips (V7xx | Coolscan | Imacon 343)? I have pretty much streamlined my scanning with a EPSON flatbed and run one roll through in around 1/2 hour, while doing other work on the computer (15MB tiff, B&W, 8bit). The work with the EPSON flatbed is very comfortable, as dusting is very easy on the frame holders and the scanner itself (blower bulb/ brush). One reason for me, to surely grab a CS9000 would be the roll feeder, to scan the film completely before cutting - is it worth it? I never cared too much about the speed difference. I also used to scan 24 frames in a batch in the beginning, but I've given up on that. I now use the Epson to create a contact sheet (something you can only do with a flatbed, of course) and then scan the two or three frames per film I really care about with the Coolscan. My conclusion was that I need to spend time with a specific frame to really get the best possible scan out of it and that I don't get that with bulk scanning. That's why I don't care for a roll feeder. Plus, I've never seen one, but I wouldn't trust it to leave the film unharmed. I never saw an Imacon/ Hasselblad in operation/ opened - any images, to give me an idea on its principle? This movie demonstrates the principle very well and makes clear why it's called "virtual drum" (and why it trumps non-drum film scanners): Flextight Movie The most expensive Imacon (X5) is supposed to have some kind of bulk loading facility (I've never seen it, though). But if speed is your main concern, you're probably better off with a Nikon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 23, 2010 Share #27 Posted March 23, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I bought the IV ED used. Correction: That should be V ED, not IV ED. (I once also had the IV ED some years ago. At least in terms of resolution it ain't that far away from the Epson.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted March 23, 2010 Share #28 Posted March 23, 2010 The most expensive Imacon (X5) is supposed to have some kind of bulk loading facility (I've never seen it, though). But if speed is your main concern, you're probably better off with a Nikon I think the X5 has an optional (£4000) feeder that you can't use with the X1 as far as I know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted March 23, 2010 Share #29 Posted March 23, 2010 I now use the Epson to create a contact sheet (something you can only do with a flatbed, of course) Thank you - this is the clincher for me. I'm going to get a V750 for this job as it's pretty cheap. Then I might just scan a few good shots and send a couple of negs to David Summerfield at Hasselblad to scan on an X1 for me to truly 'sell' the image quality of the Flextight as a proper comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 23, 2010 Share #30 Posted March 23, 2010 I think the X5 has an optional (£4000) feeder that you can't use with the X1 as far as I know. 4,000 Pounds? Oh, boy... BTW, the movie I linked to above also shows the two available feeders. There are two separate small movies for them available on the right - something I only noticed today. Note that you'll need several original holders in order for the batch feeder to make sense. I think you should be able to get the Epson for the price of two or three Flextight holders... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mod2001 Posted March 23, 2010 Share #31 Posted March 23, 2010 Thank you - this is the clincher for me. I'm going to get a V750 for this job as it's pretty cheap. Then I might just scan a few good shots and send a couple of negs to David Summerfield at Hasselblad to scan on an X1 for me to truly 'sell' the image quality of the Flextight as a proper comparison. Hi Julian, think, you get the right decision. That's my way too. Yogi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 23, 2010 Share #32 Posted March 23, 2010 Thanks for pointing to the movie nhabedi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drums1977 Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share #33 Posted March 24, 2010 I have the Epson V750 and a Coolscan V ED myself. I have used a Coolscan 5000 several times and I also once rented an Imacon 343 because I was curious. I'm almost exclusively using traditional black-and-white films, mostly Tri-X, so I can't say much about C41 scans. Nor can I say anything about slides, I don't even have any. My opinion: The Epson is very nice, especially given its price. It has a few minor flaws (I've commented about this scanner a couple of times on this forum), but it works fine for the majority of cases. I bought the IV ED used because I wanted to do A3 prints. The Epson is fine up to A5, and even for A4 I probably wouldn't have bothered to get another scanner. For A3, the Nikon certainly makes a difference. The Nikon has its flaws, too, tough. For example, it emphasizes grain a bit too much for my taste, I have more problems with dust than with the Epson, and I don't really like the way the SA-21 works - nor do I like the plasticky FH-3. Also, the Nikon software is a bit unstable on my Mac (OS X 10.4.11) while Epson's software is rock-solid. Having said all that, I'm happy I bought the Coolscan for the reasons mentioned above. The Imacon is a whole different story. I liked it a lot more than the Epson and all Coolscans I've used so far. The software is better, the handling is better, and most importantly the results are simply great. Although the "lowly" 343 (which is a pretty small and old model compared to the X1 and X5 Hasselblad is offering now) nominally has a lower resolution than the 5000 (or the V ED FWIW), the scans are simply better. I guess this is due to their very clever "virtual drum" technology and due to the lenses (Rodenstock?) they use. Don't let pixel-peep crops fool you, try it out yourself if you have the chance. The only drawback of the Imacon scanners is that the new ones are simply much too expensive for me and used ones are very hard to find. And even the used ones aren't exactly cheap. If I'll find a good used Imacon one day, I'll be sure to grab it. Until then, the Coolscan will do the job. Hope that helps. (And I'm sure others will have other opinions.) Thanks Nhabedi, I think your post was most helpful for most of us. I've decided to keep the V700 for medium format and 35mm contact sheets (I'll get the betterscanning medium format holders), and a Coolscan V I've come across at a fair price for 35mm "final" scanning. By the way, I've read you use Nikon software, while Vuescan is widely recommended, Is there any reason why you chose that? Thanks again to all of you, J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 24, 2010 Share #34 Posted March 24, 2010 By the way, I've read you use Nikon software, while Vuescan is widely recommended, Is there any reason why you chose that? I bought VueScan for my Epson (and thus, due to its liberal license I can also use it for the Nikon as opposed to, say, SilverFast). With the Epson, I had problems with the position of the scan being slightly off which couldn't be solved by its author so far, so I ended up not using it much. Generally, I think that VueScan is a fine piece of software and I think it's great that you can get it for such a good price. It's also kind of a "life insurance" for your scanner in case its vendor (like Nikon) decides not to release updates anymore. Having said that, I personally think that VueScan is a bit counter-intuitive in some respects and I'm more comfortable using other software. I'm sure people who use VueScan every day won't agree with what I say, but if I were to evaluate the scanner software that I've used so far (not the hardware), the Hasselblad/Imacon software would come first, followed by Epson's, followed by Nikon's (minus the stability issues), with VueScan being a distant fourth. SilverFast I also don't really like. Some things it does better than VueScan, some worse. Mind you, this is not about the quality of the scans the different software packages provide but rather about their user interface. It has been my experience that for Tri-X and similar films the scanner makes the difference, not the software. I've heard that the software plays a much more important role for color slides and SilverFast seems to be the king there, but I can't say anything about this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 25, 2010 Share #35 Posted March 25, 2010 I bought VueScan for my Epson (and thus, due to its liberal license I can also use it for the Nikon as opposed to, say, SilverFast). With the Epson, I had problems with the position of the scan being slightly off which couldn't be solved by its author so far, so I ended up not using it much. Generally, I think that VueScan is a fine piece of software and I think it's great that you can get it for such a good price. It's also kind of a "life insurance" for your scanner in case its vendor (like Nikon) decides not to release updates anymore. Having said that, I personally think that VueScan is a bit counter-intuitive in some respects and I'm more comfortable using other software. I'm sure people who use VueScan every day won't agree with what I say, but if I were to evaluate the scanner software that I've used so far (not the hardware), the Hasselblad/Imacon software would come first, followed by Epson's, followed by Nikon's (minus the stability issues), with VueScan being a distant fourth. SilverFast I also don't really like. Some things it does better than VueScan, some worse. Mind you, this is not about the quality of the scans the different software packages provide but rather about their user interface. It has been my experience that for Tri-X and similar films the scanner makes the difference, not the software. I've heard that the software plays a much more important role for color slides and SilverFast seems to be the king there, but I can't say anything about this. Exactly my experience with Vuescan. I bought a full version for Mac, when I got a EPSON flatbed for scanning B&W negatives. I did a few with EPSON Scan and planned to set up Vuescan with the perfect settings for repeatability and timesaving during scanning through the rolls. I wanted to scan without any altering of the scan files, but resulting in "raw files", I could use for Photoshop and Lightroom. So far was the theory. Vuescan was the most unstable software, I experienced so far on Mac - crashing randomly and freezing up, when attempting to scan at any resolution above 2500 ppi. Service was great and a lot of effort from the developer went into finding a solution. After a few weeks of experimenting though I gave up on Vuescan and use EPSON Scan entirely. EPSON Scan gives less freedom and forces you, to do some repeating settings every time, something changes in your workflow. Nevertheless, it crashed or froze not once, behaves absolutely reliable and gives me the files, I want. Silverfast was not for me. After a few days of experimenting, I was fed up with the most user unfriendly UI, I have ever seen so far, right next after the olden days of MS DOS. I can fully recommend Vuescan, if one makes sure, it does run on the particular setup, you use without investing the license fee first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted March 25, 2010 Share #36 Posted March 25, 2010 I just got a 9000 coolscan and I think I bit off more then I can chew. This scanning stuff is far from "idiot proof." I have thousands and thousands of 35mm negatives, and even if I limit it to the few hundred that are actually really good, it seems like a mountain of work. Sorry for all the cliche's. I suppose if it was easy it wouldn't be so enjoyable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted March 25, 2010 Share #37 Posted March 25, 2010 :-) My Epson V750 arrived today and I scanned in a roll or two to see what it would be like. Using Epson Scan software I'm reasonably pleased with the results but far from blown away. Black and white is much more convincing than the colour but then I guess this was predictable. I think the idea of having something like the Epson as well is a good idea Steve - you can load 24 images very quickly and then look to see which shots you want to really go to town on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 26, 2010 Share #38 Posted March 26, 2010 :-) Earlier you said : On my monitor the Coolscan 9000ED is vastly inferior to the Howtek scanner. Then : Using Epson Scan software I'm reasonably pleased with the results but far from blown away. Black and white is much more convincing than the colour but then I guess this was predictable. Interested if the Epson is vastly inferior, on the same scale, to the Nikon ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted March 26, 2010 Share #39 Posted March 26, 2010 So far I'm not sure. I have some files to look at this weekend that I have scanned today on various settings. Will report back! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 26, 2010 Share #40 Posted March 26, 2010 Julian, thanks for that. Away for a couple of weeks, lots of film packed so please post but I will not read until my return unless I find time to log on somewhere;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.