New Scanner On its way.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another option is the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter - through the Nikon F-Mount - How to digitise your slides (and negatives). I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting and not too expensive.

 

Ricoh also recently showed a Pentax copy concept for digitizing various film formats using a dSLR.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

Yeah, I've daydreamed about somebody coming on Kickstarter and saying they have the facilities and manufacturing know-how to build a new (and even better) Coolscan. Or better yet, a billionaire Jim Jannard type who simply enjoys using film and decides to build an affordable state of the art film scanner without worrying about making profits (although it turned out pretty good in the end for Jannard )

 

My dream is that someone builds something like an Imacon X1 or X5 at a more affordable price. I've thought a few times of trading-in my Coolscan9000 for a used X1, but the difference in price is always just a bit too much as I actually scan so little, and the Imacons are way overkill for my quality needs. But I still stupidly want one. I think there are several reasons why Imacon don't reintroduce something in the 'medium' price bracket, and one of them is probably the comparatively high cost of product support vs initial profit.

 

I think a Kickstarter project would either take off like an Oculus Rift rocket (look at the amazing demand for affordable large-format film cameras - didn't see that coming), or it would be the usual damp squib, where all the people who've been moaning about the lack of a decent scanner would sit on their hands waiting to see how it all turns out.

 

How hard is the technology really?

[Stealth3kpl]

or it would be the usual damp squib, where all the people who've been moaning about the lack of a decent scanner would sit on their hands waiting to see how it all turns out.

 

This is part of my reasoning for purchasing the Plustek 120. If no one puts money up to help fund past and future development, where's the incentive for companies like Plustek?

Pete

Plustek 120

Plustek 8100

[AlanG]

I've been looking around for a Beseler Dual Mode or a Durst ChromaPro that's functioning and not overused and questionable in respect to the condition of the electronics/fan/light source, etc.. I'd use the D800E with a bellows and a good lens like a Rodenstock enlarging lens.

 

But the disadvantages are mounting negative film strips (tedious), and also the fact that you have to dedicate the camera set up unless you don't mind tearing it all down every time. It also takes up a lot of space. And of course there's no parts/service support to the duper itself.

 

If you dedicated the camera and the rest as a permanent solution, then the cost comes to the price of a used Coolscan 9000 (and of course which also has no support.)

 

I'd certainly resort to doing scans this way if it ever comes down to it. But I'm always hoping in an ideal solution. And that's a proper dedicated film scanner to be available on the market in the same vein as something like the Coolscan 9000.

 

(btw, I agree with Philipus; I'm also disappointed that the Plustek 120 doesn't have autofocus.)

 

I got a Bowens Illumitron slide copier some years ago with a Schneider copy lens, bellows and Nikon FE attached at a thrift shop for $75. It just takes a second to attach my Canon 5DIII to the bellows using an EOS to Nikon adapter. The rest of the unit stays assembled and doesn't take up much space on my shelf.

 

I can quickly copy slides with it and could also copy larger film. If I shoot tethered, they go strraight into the computer... just like scanning. I can instantly judge, sharpness, focus, exposure, color, etc.by using Capture One.

 

It is a simple matter to place an enlarger's negative carrier over the light source. Some time ago Beseler made 35mm and 120 carriers called "Negatrans." These quickly move a strip of film through them using a wheel so that one shoot a frame by frame very quickly. I still have a 4000dpi Polaroid 120 film scanner and it takes quite a while to preview and scan each image... even if they are on a film strip holder.

 

A big advantage with this approach is that by shooting raw and using average metering, you really don't have to spend a whole lot of time adjusting the images while shooting... unlike scanning. Some photographers I know have an assistant do this in "down" time. I find my raw software is much better and faster for adjusting the images than any scanning software I have used.

 

A friend of mine, Peter Krogh, has written about this and speaks about it in his Digital Assets Management workshops.

 

Camera Scanning | dpBestflow

 

As many gave other suggestions, there are numerous devices available to help copy film using a DSLR. And at least the DSLR and macro lens can also be used for taking photos, unlike a scanner.

[CalArts 99]

I still have a 4000dpi Polaroid 120 film scanner and it takes quite a while to preview and scan each image... even if they are on a film strip holder.

 

As many gave other suggestions, there are numerous devices available to help copy film using a DSLR. And at least the DSLR and macro lens can also be used for taking photos, unlike a scanner.

 

I've looked locally for a decent duper but haven't found anything yet. I prefer not to go the eBay route because of shipping costs on something that heavy/big, etc., and for something that old/used, etc.. But in the end, it's really not something I need currently. So I'm not looking that hard.

 

And anyway, my personal needs are different (as is anyone's.) I have access to an Aztek Premiere PMT scanner (I used to operate one in a commercial environment years ago.) So for the times when I put together exhibition scans (like once every two to three years or so), I'll use the Aztek (which is basically a re-designed Howtek Hi-Resolve 8000.) In the meantime, I'll use a consumer CCD scanner for proofing prints or making smaller yet very acceptable, 'non-exhibition' prints. And since I don't need to scan each and every frame, I only need to scan the single frames that I want scanned. Otherwise I just make contact sheets on a flatbed which is very quick and easy.

 

It comes out to the being same methodology as when we used to have enlarged proof sheets made by the lab, and picked the frames we wanted printed. Same workflow mentality, but just in a hybrid fashion.

 

But if my consumer scanner (Coolscan) bites the dust, then I'll look harder for a duper and set up a DSLR solution. But personally, I'd just rather prefer a dedicated film scanner when it comes down to it. And one with the characteristics that I had outlined earlier. Like everything else, it all comes down to personal preferences. But thanks for the info on alternative methods, I appreciate it.

[janki]

The only right thing is that Nikon realizes that they must create a new Super Coolscan 10 000 ED.

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is part of my reasoning for purchasing the Plustek 120. If no one puts money up to help fund past and future development, where's the incentive for companies like Plustek?

Pete

Plustek 120

Plustek 8100

 

I agree - I gave my money to Nikon... just before they shut down production.

 

But seriously - (providing I had the money at the time) I would totally back a Kickstarter that was proposing a new, good filmscanner. It'd need to do 120 for my needs. It would be awesome if it did bigger than that, but if it came out at least as good as a 9000 (and hopefully even better if it was built and funded by true enthusiasts), then we would all be obligated to back it.

 

The really strange thing is that people are apparently paying up to $8000 for used Nikons - but no-one is willing to risk making a decent $5000 scanner. I just don't understand it.

[james.liam]

I agree - I gave my money to Nikon... just before they shut down production.

 

But seriously - (providing I had the money at the time) I would totally back a Kickstarter that was proposing a new, good filmscanner. It'd need to do 120 for my needs. It would be awesome if it did bigger than that, but if it came out at least as good as a 9000 (and hopefully even better if it was built and funded by true enthusiasts), then we would all be obligated to back it.

 

The really strange thing is that people are apparently paying up to $8000 for used Nikons - but no-one is willing to risk making a decent $5000 scanner. I just don't understand it.

 

You would think Hasselblad, with all the Imacon technology in-house would do this, instead of re-badging Sony cameras and selling them for 10x price. Imagine a 10k DPI scanner for $3000-5000 with Imacon software.

[thebarnman]

I was thinking of getting the Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA Automatic 35mm Film & Slide Scanner. It will do rolls of uncut film up to 40 exposure. And I think it's the updated version of the Reflecta rPS 7200 Professional film scanner

 

I would think the PrimeFilm XA Automatic 35mm Film & Slide Scanner http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007388-REG/pacific_image_primefilm_xa_prime_film_xa_scanner.html would be good for making scans for prints about as good as the old Nikon scanners. Those Nikon scanners by the way at least from what I've read, only work on older computers or a newer one that can emulate older operating system software.

 

The only thing I think that needs to be updated is the USB connection from 2.0 to 3.0!

[sfage]

That plustek 120 looks pretty darned interesting.

[plasticman]

I would think the PrimeFilm XA Automatic 35mm Film & Slide Scanner Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative PRIMEFILM XA would be good for making scans for prints about as good as the old Nikon scanners. Those Nikon scanners by the way at least from what I've read, only work on older computers or a newer one that can emulate older operating system software.

 

 

Amendation: just noticed you were looking at another scanner here. That one does do batch-scanning!

 

When you say the Coolscans only work with 'older computers' I assume you mean the bundled Nikon software? No-one I know uses that software. I replaced mine with Vuescan straight away and it works flawlessly.

[Nick_S]

Amendation: just noticed you were looking at another scanner here. That one does do batch-scanning!

 

When you say the Coolscans only work with 'older computers' I assume you mean the bundled Nikon software? No-one I know uses that software. I replaced mine with Vuescan straight away and it works flawlessly.

 

It is only the software drivers which need updating for the Coolscans. The Nikon Scan software works as normal. Here is a link describing how to do the update:

Nikon Coolscan, Nikon Scan, Driver: 64 bit Windows Vista / Windows 7 / Windows 8

 

Nick

[MartinEB]

I am not a big user of scanning, but want to have the capability as needed. I wanted to continue to use my Nikon Coolscan with its original software. I did not want to switch to other software etc. - some options are pretty expensive - but also what I had met my requirements.

 

However, I needed to upgrade my Mac for using other programs. So the Nikon stopped working. My solution was to buy a low cost, secondhand Mac running Leopard OS and use it as a stand alone, off-line, dedicated system. It works for me.

 

Martin

[plasticman]

In my view - this is just my personal viewpoint after initially comparing the output from the bundled Nikon software, Vuescan and Silverfast - the Vuescan results were better across the board. The software is regularly updated and all modern systems are consistently supported, so my feeling is it's definitely worth buying the version that gives perpetual free upgrades for life.

 

IIRC the lifetime cost is $79, so I can't really envisage any alternative that includes buying and maintaining separate hardware as being more cost-effective.

 

Anyway, that's just my personal viewpoint. I've yet to see any scanner that matches the Coolscan9000 output together with Vuescan for less than the cost of an Imacon - though I'd buy the Plustek120 straight away if anything happened to the Nikon.

 

PS: the driver issue is only relevant for Windows computers.

[philipus]

My solution was to buy a low cost, secondhand Mac running Leopard OS and use it as a stand alone, off-line, dedicated system. It works for me.

 

That's a good way to do it, too.

 

I will instead install NikonScan on a separate volume with Snow Leopard (apparently the latest OS NikonScan runs on - if not I'll just install Leopard instead) to compare results with Vuescan.

 

I've been using Vuescan for several years - the price for the lifetime licence is a steal, imo. Though it has a quirky interface, it delivers great results when set up to one's liking.

While I am and will remain happy with Vuescan, though, I will try NikonScan again with my 9000 - when I look at old scans with that software (done with my Coolscan V) I do see slight differences so I just want to make up my mind.

 

Philip