MPerson Posted January 13, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I recently got the 5000 and also went for Vuescan, since I wasn't very happy with Nikonscan. I'm still trying to arrive at consistent scans, I've spent many sleepless nights and I'm still not satisfied. But I'm sure that must be a very common problem when choosing the "shoot film and scan" approach. I have found this works consistently. Just do it once for each roll of film: Vuescan - Lock film base I couldn't get Nikonscan 4.02 to work on my new iMacs (10.5) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Hi MPerson, Take a look here Nikon V versus the 5000 film scanner?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
phovsho Posted January 13, 2009 Share #22 Posted January 13, 2009 Interesting thread. I'm also tossing up between 9000 and 5000. Tending towards the 9000. Do folks think my MacBook Pro (plus adding an external monitor) have sufficient horse power to run one of these scanners, as well as associated editing? The MB Pro is configured with 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo + 2GB 667 MHz DDR2. I'm trying to avoid having to buy a G5. Thanks M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phovsho Posted January 13, 2009 Share #23 Posted January 13, 2009 One reason I'm tending towards the 9000 is because of the new Bessa III, due for release in a few months. Like the idea of this camera plus an M as standard arsenal. You can read more about it here: Voigtlaender - Bessa III I have no relationship with Voigtlaender - just a camera fan! M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted January 15, 2009 Share #24 Posted January 15, 2009 Yes a Macbook pro is plenty. I ran my coolscan V with a Powerbook G4 1.25 Ghz for awhile and now run it with a Macbook. You might want to get extra ram though - it never hurts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted January 15, 2009 Share #25 Posted January 15, 2009 Me too - Powerbook G4 1.33Ghz and 1.25Gb RAM and it ran fine. Things will slow down a bit if you are scanning to large files. I keep mine to a max of 2,400 scanning resolution (under 20Mb) and 16 bit TIFF format and it is fast enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted January 15, 2009 Share #26 Posted January 15, 2009 One thing that has helped me keep my sanity scanning is to scan most images at 1333 dpi. This is enough for a 4x6 print (1800x1200) which is perfect for a quick printout or uploading to the web (flickr for me). Scanning is quick at this resolution, and photoshop dust/scratch removal barely has to be done, so I can really crank through a roll this way. The actual good photos I scan at 4000 dpi, but there's usually only a couple of them. And if you ever really want a high res scan, you can always just go back to the negative. The only real downfall of this method is that grain is a bit emphasized at lower dpi settings... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfoo Posted January 17, 2009 Share #27 Posted January 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The biggest difference is availability I cannot find the V in stock anywhere in North America, and the prices for used ones on ebay are ridiculous. The 5000 ED is available at lots of locations. I ordered one on Friday I currently have a v700 and hope to see a big step up for 35mm film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted January 17, 2009 Share #28 Posted January 17, 2009 A few months ago on another forum their was a discussion that Nikon were slowly withdrawing from the scanner market. The V Ed is no longer in production and not shown on these sites. Nikon Nikon Cameras USA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.ant Posted January 19, 2009 Share #29 Posted January 19, 2009 I use a Polaroid Sprintscan 35+ and am quite satisfied (b/w-only). Probably not as good as Nikon but way better than the Epson Perfection and costs only a fraction of the Nikon. I figured that with the money saved I could always get those few pictures I'd really like to have in great quality professionally scanned, but so far I never felt the need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryharwood Posted January 21, 2009 Share #30 Posted January 21, 2009 Hi, I still use an old Ls1000 scanner- it is still very functional, and I use it with Silverfast version 6. I think that if you persevere with silverfast, it does the job perfectly well. I would love to have an LS9000, for my 120 work, but it is very expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don'tknowmuch Posted January 21, 2009 Share #31 Posted January 21, 2009 Hello all. One thing I'm never sure about is how significant this sort of talk is when looking at an actual print. It is quite easy to see differences in scans on a computer when zoomed right in to 100%, but when prints are made the differences are hard to see. Does anyone else share this opinion, or am I just a cheapskate looking for some back-up? Please say I'm not (though I know I am). Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryharwood Posted January 28, 2009 Share #32 Posted January 28, 2009 I feel a little outweighed here ! i have a venerable LS1000, using Silverfast software; I feel comfortable with silverfast, as I have always used it. The upgrades you get from germany always make the most sense out of using my old scanner, which I bought new in '94. I don't scan negs, as i found it a bit iffy. But for trannies, there is never a problem- it has all the bells and whistles, ICe and all. multiple scans- no problem- I even have the old plastic slide carrier, which is getting a bit dodgy now, but it works ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.