Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
The decisive factors were: Nikon is still sort of making the software
(last release of Nikon Scan in 2006), I trust it's longevity a bit
more (LED lamps, some parts such as film carriers still available new
as they are the same ones as in the Coolscan 9000 model, Nikon is
still around), and, I got it for a price that seemed reasonable,
though, after customs and taxes and shipping it really isn't _cheap_
anymore.. I guess I can cover the cost by selling my two scanners and
some little-used camera/lens gear. I probably won't have use for
Silverfast AI Studio for Epson anymore, I wonder it the license
is resaleable...
An added bonus I didn't realize until after purchase: It can actually
scan 12 frames of 135 film at once, so actually my scanning of 135
film got a slight boost as well, even though improving medium format
was the primary goal here.
The glass film holder included with the price of Multi Pro would have
been very nice, though.
By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film
holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder?
I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
The decisive factors were: Nikon is still sort of making the software
(last release of Nikon Scan in 2006), I trust it's longevity a bit
more (LED lamps, some parts such as film carriers still available new
as they are the same ones as in the Coolscan 9000 model, Nikon is
still around), and, I got it for a price that seemed reasonable,
though, after customs and taxes and shipping it really isn't _cheap_
anymore.. I guess I can cover the cost by selling my two scanners and
some little-used camera/lens gear. I probably won't have use for
Silverfast AI Studio for Epson anymore, I wonder it the license
is resaleable...
An added bonus I didn't realize until after purchase: It can actually
scan 12 frames of 135 film at once, so actually my scanning of 135
film got a slight boost as well, even though improving medium format
was the primary goal here.
The glass film holder included with the price of Multi Pro would have
been very nice, though.
By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film
holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder?
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
> By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film
> holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder?
The rotating holder allows a few degrees of rotation allow you to get
verticals or horizontals parallel to the frame before scanning.
Theoretically better than rotating in photoshop. This will hold
panoramic sized film up to 24 x 65mm (and of course 6x9 mf).
I bought the glass holder (FH-869G) which works better than the "all
air" one that comes with the scanner. But on curled film you will get
Newton's rings. (With the rotating holder as well).
Cheers,
Alan
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
> By the way. What is the difference between the glass 120/220 film
> holder and the rotating glass 120/220 film holder?
The rotating holder allows a few degrees of rotation allow you to get
verticals or horizontals parallel to the frame before scanning.
Theoretically better than rotating in photoshop. This will hold
panoramic sized film up to 24 x 65mm (and of course 6x9 mf).
I bought the glass holder (FH-869G) which works better than the "all
air" one that comes with the scanner. But on curled film you will get
Newton's rings. (With the rotating holder as well).
Cheers,
Alan
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
> might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
> I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and
have never looked back even though it was hideously
expensive: bought it new, not from ebay.
I've also recently got one of the old Kodak rfs3600,
re-baged PIE scanners for my 35mm old stuff: using a
9000 for that is almost an overkill. the kodak rfs is very
sharp indeed and produces excellent scans, but it doesn't
use ICE and that can sometimes be a problem.
I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
there is no reason why one should not use software
corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of
Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the
scans and the results are absolutely stunning.
and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front!
On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
> might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
> I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and
have never looked back even though it was hideously
expensive: bought it new, not from ebay.
I've also recently got one of the old Kodak rfs3600,
re-baged PIE scanners for my 35mm old stuff: using a
9000 for that is almost an overkill. the kodak rfs is very
sharp indeed and produces excellent scans, but it doesn't
use ICE and that can sometimes be a problem.
I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
there is no reason why one should not use software
corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of
Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the
scans and the results are absolutely stunning.
and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front!
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo,com .au> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
>
>> I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
>> might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
>> I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
>
> Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and
> have never looked back even though it was hideously
> expensive: bought it new, not from ebay.
Yep. They're wonderful gismos.
> I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
there.
> there is no reason why one should not use software
> corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of
> Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the
> scans and the results are absolutely stunning.
But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to
clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as
long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say
this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less
sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your
opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
time.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo,com .au> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:06 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
>
>> I thank you and everyone else for the good suggestions, but I, ah,
>> might have just purchased a Nikon 8000 and hope it will arrive soon so
>> I can find out if this was a good decision or not.
>
> Congratulations! I've gone with a 9000 last year and
> have never looked back even though it was hideously
> expensive: bought it new, not from ebay.
Yep. They're wonderful gismos.
> I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
there.
> there is no reason why one should not use software
> corrections on film scans. I'm currently using a mix of
> Neat Image and Focus Magic in the workflow after the
> scans and the results are absolutely stunning.
But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to
clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as
long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say
this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less
sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your
opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
time.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:27:45 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol,com > wrote:
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo,com .au> wrote:
> > I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> > piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> > GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> > Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
> there.
I tend to be suspicious of algorithms that I don't understand. With
ICE I know what's happening to the image, but without the knowledge of
what GEM and ROC actually do to the image data I'm reluctant to trust
them.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:27:45 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol,com > wrote:
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo,com .au> wrote:
> > I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> > piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> > GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> > Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
> there.
I tend to be suspicious of algorithms that I don't understand. With
ICE I know what's happening to the image, but without the knowledge of
what GEM and ROC actually do to the image data I'm reluctant to trust
them.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sep 15, 10:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol,com > wrote:
>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
> there.
so what? just re-scan without them! :-)
It's not like the "raw" file is gone, is it?
Still: I prefer NI to what GEM does. But in
the absence of NI, GEM will do a good job.
Just don't use it full strength: setting of 1
works fine for me.
> But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to
> clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as
> long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say
> this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less
> sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your
> opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
> time.)
David: get an eval copy of FM and give it a try.
It works very well as a plug-in to Irfanview, for example.
It beats any other sharpening method I've tried with
the possible exception of some based on
high-pass filters. It leaves USM for dead, period.
Kid you not. It works particularly well with
digital raw images.
On Sep 15, 10:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol,com > wrote:
>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working from
> there.
so what? just re-scan without them! :-)
It's not like the "raw" file is gone, is it?
Still: I prefer NI to what GEM does. But in
the absence of NI, GEM will do a good job.
Just don't use it full strength: setting of 1
works fine for me.
> But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image to
> clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but as
> long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I say
> this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and less
> sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and your
> opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
> time.)
David: get an eval copy of FM and give it a try.
It works very well as a plug-in to Irfanview, for example.
It beats any other sharpening method I've tried with
the possible exception of some based on
high-pass filters. It leaves USM for dead, period.
Kid you not. It works particularly well with
digital raw images.
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo,com .au> writes:
> I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
Indeed, getting working ICE for medium format was one of my
long-standing dreams. It's a marvel on the K-M 5400 II but nearly
useless on the Epson V700...
I've also used GEM (during scanning) to good effect on films that show
"sand" grain effects when scanned.
Too bad neither of these work for silver halide B&W film, though.
> there is no reason why one should not use software corrections on
> film scans. I'm currently using a mix of Neat Image and Focus Magic
> in the workflow after the scans and the results are absolutely
> stunning. and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front!
I've found the Kodak GEM photoshop plugin to be very good for
controlling grainy scans, I wonder why nobody ever mentions that.
Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo,com .au> writes:
> I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
Indeed, getting working ICE for medium format was one of my
long-standing dreams. It's a marvel on the K-M 5400 II but nearly
useless on the Epson V700...
I've also used GEM (during scanning) to good effect on films that show
"sand" grain effects when scanned.
Too bad neither of these work for silver halide B&W film, though.
> there is no reason why one should not use software corrections on
> film scans. I'm currently using a mix of Neat Image and Focus Magic
> in the workflow after the scans and the results are absolutely
> stunning. and of course, MF film has an advantage right up front!
I've found the Kodak GEM photoshop plugin to be very good for
controlling grainy scans, I wonder why nobody ever mentions that.
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
On Sep 17, 7:33 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> Noons <wizofo...@yahoo,com .au> writes:
> > I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> > piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> > GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> > Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
>
> Indeed, getting working ICE for medium format was one of my
> long-standing dreams.
Well I just saw this. I finally got a Minolta Multi Pro second hand
from an small online dealer who gave me a return policy and took my
credit card. (I am totally leery of Ebay now.)
Anyway I just love the Multi Pro. It actually came with a scanhancer
in the box and the images I"ve scanned with it have really made me
happy.
Unfortunately I can't get any store to buy my Microtek Artixscan 120TF
(sans ICE). I suppose I could keep it as a backup?
On Sep 17, 7:33 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> Noons <wizofo...@yahoo,com .au> writes:
> > I'm sure you will enjoy your 8000 a lot. It's an amazing
> > piece of machinery. One hint: never be afraid of using
> > GEM/ICE/other software paraphernalia that comes with
> > Nikonscan. and get the latest versions.
>
> Indeed, getting working ICE for medium format was one of my
> long-standing dreams.
Well I just saw this. I finally got a Minolta Multi Pro second hand
from an small online dealer who gave me a return policy and took my
credit card. (I am totally leery of Ebay now.)
Anyway I just love the Multi Pro. It actually came with a scanhancer
in the box and the images I"ve scanned with it have really made me
happy.
Unfortunately I can't get any store to buy my Microtek Artixscan 120TF
(sans ICE). I suppose I could keep it as a backup?
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Rosemary <small-web@earthlink,net > writes:
> Unfortunately I can't get any store to buy my Microtek Artixscan 120TF
> (sans ICE). I suppose I could keep it as a backup?
Maybe you should put it up for sale on eBay, I think there is some
demand for those and you're likely to get more money selling it
yourself instead of getting a store to buy it from you. If you let it
sit around unused it'll just rot away along with its selling value..
Even though you're leery of eBay... as a seller you have less risk as
long as you don't send anything before you have the money.
Rosemary <small-web@earthlink,net > writes:
> Unfortunately I can't get any store to buy my Microtek Artixscan 120TF
> (sans ICE). I suppose I could keep it as a backup?
Maybe you should put it up for sale on eBay, I think there is some
demand for those and you're likely to get more money selling it
yourself instead of getting a store to buy it from you. If you let it
sit around unused it'll just rot away along with its selling value..
Even though you're leery of eBay... as a seller you have less risk as
long as you don't send anything before you have the money.
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Well, I have my scanner now and it seems to have a problem. To
describe it briefly: it made some very loud noises while it was moving
the carrier back and forth - I know film scanners make a lot of noise
but some of these noises seemed way out of place. The autofocus
function wouldn't work at all. I only managed to scan one frame and
even that was very badly misaligned; I got the latter half of the 6x7
frame I intended, plus a bit of the next one, and the rest of the
frame consisted of the same horizontal repeated again and again. The
next scan I tried was just the repeating horizontal line. After that,
I haven't managed to feed it with film at all; it just won't respond
when I insert a carrier (any carrier). Nikon Scan occasionally says
the scanner has reported a hardware malfunction - and sometimes it
just isn't detected at all.. I've tried Nikon Scan 3 and 4, Vuescan 8
on Windows XP and Nikon Scan 4 and Vuescan 8 on a Mac, with the same
results.
I'd just like to ask, what is the normal Power On Self Test (POST)
sequence like on a working unit? On mine, without the firewire cable
attached, it is:
1. Infrequent flashing of the green LED (about one per second)
2. A mechanical sound while the flashing continues
3. flashing continues for a moment but the sound stops
4. Another mechanical sound, flashing continues
5. Very rapid flashing, no sound
6. The green led is glowing continuously, no more sounds are emitted
I guess what I am going to do next is call the company who is responsible
for servicing Nikon equipment in Finland the first thing Monday morning, to
find out if I have any options for getting this to work. For some reason
I didn't have to pay customs or taxes on this one, which is a nice plus,
but it seems that savings is going into getting the thing serviced..
Apart from not working, the machine is very impressive. It looks like
it's built to last with no miniscular plastic piece of crap parts that
are so typical of today's consumer electronics. The stuff I managed to
scan looked exactly like the stuff I want to be able to achieve with
my scanner..
Well, I have my scanner now and it seems to have a problem. To
describe it briefly: it made some very loud noises while it was moving
the carrier back and forth - I know film scanners make a lot of noise
but some of these noises seemed way out of place. The autofocus
function wouldn't work at all. I only managed to scan one frame and
even that was very badly misaligned; I got the latter half of the 6x7
frame I intended, plus a bit of the next one, and the rest of the
frame consisted of the same horizontal repeated again and again. The
next scan I tried was just the repeating horizontal line. After that,
I haven't managed to feed it with film at all; it just won't respond
when I insert a carrier (any carrier). Nikon Scan occasionally says
the scanner has reported a hardware malfunction - and sometimes it
just isn't detected at all.. I've tried Nikon Scan 3 and 4, Vuescan 8
on Windows XP and Nikon Scan 4 and Vuescan 8 on a Mac, with the same
results.
I'd just like to ask, what is the normal Power On Self Test (POST)
sequence like on a working unit? On mine, without the firewire cable
attached, it is:
1. Infrequent flashing of the green LED (about one per second)
2. A mechanical sound while the flashing continues
3. flashing continues for a moment but the sound stops
4. Another mechanical sound, flashing continues
5. Very rapid flashing, no sound
6. The green led is glowing continuously, no more sounds are emitted
I guess what I am going to do next is call the company who is responsible
for servicing Nikon equipment in Finland the first thing Monday morning, to
find out if I have any options for getting this to work. For some reason
I didn't have to pay customs or taxes on this one, which is a nice plus,
but it seems that savings is going into getting the thing serviced..
Apart from not working, the machine is very impressive. It looks like
it's built to last with no miniscular plastic piece of crap parts that
are so typical of today's consumer electronics. The stuff I managed to
scan looked exactly like the stuff I want to be able to achieve with
my scanner..
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
Toni -
Have you visited the Nikon 8000/9000 group at Yahoo Groups and read through
the archives? It seems like I have heard of some similar problems with the
8000 and there may be some good tips there on how to solve it. Lots of good
people there to help you troubleshoot things.
Doug
--
www .BetterScanning,com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners
Toni -
Have you visited the Nikon 8000/9000 group at Yahoo Groups and read through
the archives? It seems like I have heard of some similar problems with the
8000 and there may be some good tips there on how to solve it. Lots of good
people there to help you troubleshoot things.
Doug
--
www .BetterScanning,com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
" -" <xvvvz@hotmail,com > writes:
> Toni -
>
> Have you visited the Nikon 8000/9000 group at Yahoo Groups and read through
> the archives?
Thanks for the tip, I'll go and check it out right away.
" -" <xvvvz@hotmail,com > writes:
> Toni -
>
> Have you visited the Nikon 8000/9000 group at Yahoo Groups and read through
> the archives?
Thanks for the tip, I'll go and check it out right away.
Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?
I took it to the service company this morning and a few hours later
they already called me back, they had found the fault (a motor switch
was broken) and it will cost about 100 euros to fix it, they will need
one spare part which they have ordered and should arrive next week. So
it seems Coolscan 8000 is still being serviced. If this fixes it I'm
going to be happy after this is all over.
I took it to the service company this morning and a few hours later
they already called me back, they had found the fault (a motor switch
was broken) and it will cost about 100 euros to fix it, they will need
one spare part which they have ordered and should arrive next week. So
it seems Coolscan 8000 is still being serviced. If this fixes it I'm
going to be happy after this is all over.
