35mm slide scanner

FYI: Not all flatbed scanners are created equal.

This is a scan from a Microtek 6700 flatbed scanner. It will scan film -- says so on the box -- but I don't think the results are acceptable even for Web viewing.

Incidentally, I haven't tried scanning this slide with the Epson Perfection 4990, but I know from scanning other slides with it that the result wouldn't be as appalling. So, if you go the flatbed route, make sure the scanner really does deliver the goods.

Joe

Same slide, but scanned with the Coolscan V.

Joe

It's a done deal! After some head scratching I decided to avoid the Minolta 5400 on reliability grounds (so many Internet comments must be worth paying attention to!) and the Nikon should be on it's way soonish.

Will try and post some follow up scans later...

... and if they turn out crap, Master Petrik should prepare himself for more questions

iD,

I doubt you'll be disappointed with the Coolscan V, but keep in mind that scanning is both an art and science. Fortunately, Nikon has done a lot of the science for you so scans straight out of the V are good, but be warned that it takes a shitload of experience to get the most out of them. Don't be afraid to experiment with the scanner's software and post-processing in Photoshop to get the artsy part right.

Joe

Make sure you get a spare "bulb", so to speak. Some of the Nikon units as shipped have had substandard elements mounted, which subsequently needed replacement.

This makes a huge difference in performance and is well worth fiddling with.

Davey D,

quote:

Make sure you get a spare "bulb", so to speak. Some of the Nikon units as shipped have had substandard elements mounted, which subsequently needed replacement.

Is the Nikon's LED user replaceable?

Joe

Here's one of the first scans... pray it's small enough for the site limit!!!

iDunno what Count.D was on about but I'm suitably impressed with this thing, so much so that any plans to wait for an affordable full-frame Canon have been shelved for the forseeable future!

This is a peachy scanner

It loses some saturation compared to the originals but it's still much better than anything I was hoping for. All scans are straight out of the box, no other adjustments apart from resizing and setting a compression level sufficient for the site.

Seems to do a good job on skies, very smooth with no banding

Here's another

Getting shadow detail is going to take more experimentation methinks...

more...

My only gripes so far are that uncut film sticks out of the slot when scanning the first couple of pics on a section of 4-6, and it makes some irritating mechanical noises when feeding film and generally doing it's stuff.

Otherwise it is reassuringly hefty in terms of build and miraculously easy to use, and I'm glad I opted for an ICE unit because I can see how dust would otherwise drive you nuts! - this sucker is great in that respect! Frankly I have no regrets about avoiding the higher spec Minolta, it's hard to see how it can get much better unless you're especially fussy about such stuff.

Thanks for the help chaps! I am a happy bunny!

quote:

Originally posted by iDunno:
iDunno what Count.D was on about but I'm suitably impressed with this thing, so much so that any plans to wait for an affordable full-frame Canon have been shelved for the forseeable future!

Some great pics there ID. I'm glad the Counts comments didn't put you off and there is no need to spend £1000's to get good results.

Thanks Rackkit.

The results are SO good that frankly I would find it hard to even justify thinking about a drum scanner. I've seen a couple of comparisons and they all lead me to believe that there is a difference, but not a big enough one to justify coughing up 10 times the money.

I reckon this will keep me in film for a good few years yet. Should know by then whether I'll be looking at MF and an upgrade to the 9000!

Those pictures are superb - Glad your sorted

I've been contemplating this for too long and was considering the Coolscan V. What is the average file size?

iDunno
very nice pictures

Thanks again chaps! Though I think I still have some way to go before approaching Vuk and his impeccable taste in subject matter

Bosh, a full-rez 8bit scan which is just under 4000*6000pixels comes in at 69,089kb. A 14bit one comes in at 137,978kb.

The pics posted were 8bit jobbies. Frankly I can't see much of a difference on-screen, it makes no discernable difference for web use, though it may be more pronounced when I start printing a few off. At the moment I haven't done enough testing, Photoshop seems to down sample it anyway...

Also, I have yet to calibrate my monitor, so I may yet change my tune once this is done.

After getting used to the supplied software I must say it's all very comprehensive stuff. Once you've done an initial scan you can use the software to preview any mods before doing the final run. It allows you to adjust all the regular brightness, contrast and colour settings as well as very flexible curves, and adjustment for the darker bits of the pics (something I'm still playing with).

So far I've managed to do everything with the supplied stuff with no additional touching up in Photoshop. The workflow has been a lot easier than I had been led to believe. This alone is worth the cost of entry over a cheaper unit IMO.

Basically you can't go wrong with this scanner!

Pretty memory hungry then, at 8 bit thats 14 images/Gb or 68/DVD-r.

How are you storing / archiving your images?

quote:

Originally posted by Bosh:
Pretty memory hungry then, at 8 bit thats 14 images/Gb or 68/DVD-r.

How are you storing / archiving your images?

It's looking that way!

To be honest I hadn't given this a lot of thought. At present I'm simply dumping them on my pooter with it's 80gb HD. This will certainly be an issue in the short term since I have a Shuttle XPC and it doesn't have much in the way of expansion.

Reckon I will probably get an external 400gb hard disc to start with then look into getting another computer with a pair of removable 500gb data discs, for disc to disc backups (storing one at work). DVDs will work out cheaper but frankly I find such things too much hassle in terms of labelling and loading them up.

Since I only have around 100 rolls of film I should be able to get it all on one 500gb disc.

Hi Tim,

if you still have the scanner, give me a call on 050 551 3496 here in Dubai

cheers

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Collins:
After rereading the post, iDunno, you may find that the film scanner is way above your requirements - to print at A4, you can get a half decent flatbed scanner for half the cost of the film scanner. As someone pointed out earlier, the max resolution of a film scanner is equivalent to a 22 megapixel camera - I have produced excellent results on A4 with a 3MP camera....

Rgds,
Tim