Hi all,

I'm planning to buy a scanner to scan a bunch of the
very old BW negatives. From what I read in different places
Super Coolscan 400 is probably a good match for this task
for a price. There is also a Coolscan V ED out there in
probably the same price range, but I could not find any
particularly useful review for it. Does anybody have experience
with V ED? How good is it compared to Super 4000? How good
is it for scanning dense or overexposed BW negatives?

Thanks,
Andy.

Essentially the same scanner, some enhancements for KC. Check the specs
on Nikon's web site. Don't count on using ICE for the BW.

Andy Salnikov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm planning to buy a scanner to scan a bunch of the very old BW
> negatives. From what I read in different places
> Super Coolscan 400 is probably a good match for this task
> for a price. There is also a Coolscan V ED out there in probably the
> same price range, but I could not find any
> particularly useful review for it. Does anybody have experience
> with V ED? How good is it compared to Super 4000? How good
> is it for scanning dense or overexposed BW negatives?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy.
>
>

In article <Ylybf.9817$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Essentially the same scanner, some enhancements for KC. Check the specs
> on Nikon's web site. Don't count on using ICE for the BW.
>
> Andy Salnikov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm planning to buy a scanner to scan a bunch of the very old BW
> > negatives. From what I read in different places
> > Super Coolscan 400 is probably a good match for this task
> > for a price. There is also a Coolscan V ED out there in probably the
> > same price range, but I could not find any
> > particularly useful review for it. Does anybody have experience
> > with V ED? How good is it compared to Super 4000? How good
> > is it for scanning dense or overexposed BW negatives?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy.
> >
> >
Does the Coolscan V have multi-sampling? (I *think* I read that it
doesn't but the Nikon 4000 does and that might be useful for those
overexposed dense B&W negs)

"Bruce Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <Ylybf.9817$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Essentially the same scanner, some enhancements for KC. Check the specs
>> on Nikon's web site. Don't count on using ICE for the BW.
>>
>> Andy Salnikov wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'm planning to buy a scanner to scan a bunch of the very old BW
>> > negatives. From what I read in different places
>> > Super Coolscan 400 is probably a good match for this task
>> > for a price. There is also a Coolscan V ED out there in probably the
>> > same price range, but I could not find any
>> > particularly useful review for it. Does anybody have experience
>> > with V ED? How good is it compared to Super 4000? How good
>> > is it for scanning dense or overexposed BW negatives?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andy.
>> >
>> >
> Does the Coolscan V have multi-sampling? (I *think* I read that it
> doesn't but the Nikon 4000 does and that might be useful for those
> overexposed dense B&W negs)

You're correct that Nikon Coolscan V ED ( I have one) does not have
multiscan in their NikonScan4 software, but the hardware is perfectly
capable of performing this function if you want to use a third party
software to drive it like Vuescan etc.

However, you do not really need multiscan for dense negatives. Nikonscan
does an amazing job IMHO of finding an image in a negatives that are so dark
that you cannot even guess what the subject is. Now to be sure, if your
negative is that badly exposed, you're not going to get an award winning
image from it, but the result will usually be viewable.

I cannot compare these results to the model 4000, as I have never owned or
used one.

Bon chance,
Fred

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:33:46 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>You're correct that Nikon Coolscan V ED ( I have one) does not have
>multiscan in their NikonScan4 software, but the hardware is perfectly
>capable of performing this function if you want to use a third party
>software to drive it like Vuescan etc.

That's not quite correct. Even though the Coolscan V hardware is
capable (in theory!) it requires firmware reprogramming. Vuescan does
*not* multiscan on Coolscan V like NikonScan does on the 4000. What
Vuescan does is not only very time consuming but utterly useless.

The process it employs is called multi-pass multi-scanning which means
the image is scanned, the scanner assembly goes back and the image is
scanned again, and again, and again... At this point all those scans
are *misaligned*! Vuescan then just merges them all blindly *without*
aligning resulting in a blurry mess. That's a monumental waste of
time!

By comparison, a far better (and considerably faster!) way is to scan
once and apply a small amount of Gaussian Blur to dark, noisy areas,
preferably incrementally.

Or, if one really wants to multi-pass multi-scan, it's much better to
do it manually, align the scans and then merge in an editor.

What 4000 does is called single-pass multi-scanning where the scanner
advances to a line, scans it several times, averages out the result
and then proceeds on to the next line. Since multiple scans are
performed while the scanner assembly is stationary, there's no
misalignment between individual scans used for averaging.

However, even that does not produce as good results as twin scanning
or high definition range images, but single-pass multi-scanning may do
in some cases. Multi-pass multi-scanning *with alignment* comes very
close but it takes more time and effort. But multi-pass multi-scanning
*without* alignment (the Vuescan "method") is a total waste of time.

Don.

"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:33:46 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>You're correct that Nikon Coolscan V ED ( I have one) does not have
>>multiscan in their NikonScan4 software, but the hardware is perfectly
>>capable of performing this function if you want to use a third party
>>software to drive it like Vuescan etc.
>
> That's not quite correct. Even though the Coolscan V hardware is
> capable (in theory!) it requires firmware reprogramming. Vuescan does
> *not* multiscan on Coolscan V like NikonScan does on the 4000. What
> Vuescan does is not only very time consuming but utterly useless.
>
> The process it employs is called multi-pass multi-scanning which means
> the image is scanned, the scanner assembly goes back and the image is
> scanned again, and again, and again... At this point all those scans
> are *misaligned*! Vuescan then just merges them all blindly *without*
> aligning resulting in a blurry mess. That's a monumental waste of
> time!
>
> By comparison, a far better (and considerably faster!) way is to scan
> once and apply a small amount of Gaussian Blur to dark, noisy areas,
> preferably incrementally.
>
> Or, if one really wants to multi-pass multi-scan, it's much better to
> do it manually, align the scans and then merge in an editor.
>
> What 4000 does is called single-pass multi-scanning where the scanner
> advances to a line, scans it several times, averages out the result
> and then proceeds on to the next line. Since multiple scans are
> performed while the scanner assembly is stationary, there's no
> misalignment between individual scans used for averaging.
>
> However, even that does not produce as good results as twin scanning
> or high definition range images, but single-pass multi-scanning may do
> in some cases. Multi-pass multi-scanning *with alignment* comes very
> close but it takes more time and effort. But multi-pass multi-scanning
> *without* alignment (the Vuescan "method") is a total waste of time.
>
> Don.

Don, I won't get into a ****ing contest with you. I've seen so many of your
anti-Vuescan posts... that I just delete anything with your name on it.
Whether YOU want to call what Vuescan does as multipass or not is
your business. Just because you have an opinion of what something
is or isn't, doesn't change what the rest of the world thinks one little
bit.

Sorry to be such a **** on our first exchange, but that's where I'm
coming from.

Otherwise, cheers,
Fred

Fred Toewe wrote:

>
> "Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:33:46 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Don, I won't get into a ****ing contest with you. I've seen so many of
> your anti-Vuescan posts... that I just delete anything with your name on
> it. Whether YOU want to call what Vuescan does as multipass or not is
> your business. Just because you have an opinion of what something
> is or isn't, doesn't change what the rest of the world thinks one little
> bit.
>
> Sorry to be such a **** on our first exchange, but that's where I'm
> coming from.

However, for what it's worth, I confirm that Don is completely right on
this.

He did give a valid explanation for his opinions: scanners' motors simply
move too much for a second pass to accurately match the first pass. All
you'll get is a blurry image, when all goes well.

There are (not too many) tools for automatic alignment of images, such as
ALE (but look for a list I posted some weeks ago), that I suggest trying
out to anybody who's interested in doing multi-scanning with a
non-hardware-multisampling scanner.


by LjL
(E-Mail Removed)

In article <KQHbf.53668$(E-Mail Removed)>, Fred Toewe
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>You're correct that Nikon Coolscan V ED ( I have one) does not have
>multiscan in their NikonScan4 software, but the hardware is perfectly
>capable of performing this function if you want to use a third party
>software to drive it like Vuescan etc.
>
No it isn't - multiscanning has been specifically disabled by Nikon in
the Coolscan V firmware and is NOT available as an intrinsic hardware
capability.

A workaround (or bodge) to this is multi-pass scanning, which is merely
an attempt to simulate true multiscanning, and is something that Vuescan
can apply to any scanner but which relies on the scanner mechanics being
accurately repeatable on multiple scans to the full resolution of the
scanner. Few scanner mechanics have this capability.

It is one thing making a step of 1/4000" per line with a certain error
in each position, but that tolerance tightens by more than three orders
of magnitude when the entire scan is repeated. Few scanners are capable
of this, and a direct comparison of multiscanning results on Vuescan
from an LS-4000 (single-pass) and an LS-V (multi-pass) show that the
Nikon mechanics simply is not up to the multi-pass job, though it may be
significantly better than most.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Lorenzo J. Lucchini wrote:
> Fred Toewe wrote:
>
>
>>"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:33:46 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>Don, I won't get into a ****ing contest with you. I've seen so many of
>>your anti-Vuescan posts... that I just delete anything with your name on
>>it. Whether YOU want to call what Vuescan does as multipass or not is
>>your business. Just because you have an opinion of what something
>>is or isn't, doesn't change what the rest of the world thinks one little
>>bit.
>>
>>Sorry to be such a **** on our first exchange, but that's where I'm
>>coming from.
>
>
> However, for what it's worth, I confirm that Don is completely right on
> this.

He is, where the Coolscan V is concerned. But don't misinterpret what he
claims as "the VueScan way of multiscanning is multi-pass
multi-scanning". This is not true because VueScan can do single-pass
multi-scans on scanners that support it through their hardware. There
are even scanners that have this feature disabled in the manufacturer's
software, but that can do single-pass multi-scanning with VueScan - for
instance the Minolta Scan Speed.

--

Wilfred van der Vegte.
e-mail: first five letters of my first name at gmx dot net

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:48:00 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Don, I won't get into a ****ing contest with you. I've seen so many of your
>anti-Vuescan posts... that I just delete anything with your name on it.

I will not state the obvious... (And there's more than one!)

>Whether YOU want to call what Vuescan does as multipass or not is
>your business.

There *is* a difference between MULTI-pass multiscanning and (true)
SINGLE-pass multiscanning as I clearly explained if you only bothered
to read before the red haze descended.

As you can see from all the other comments everybody else understood
that right away, but they did read it calmly.

That you would misinterpret such a widely known *neutral* fact as
"anti-Vuescan" and immediately lash out in a personal attack says it
all, both in terms of knowledge and temperament.

>Sorry to be such a (expletive deleted) on our first exchange, but that's where I'm
>coming from.

You're apparently coming from a very angry place, as is evident from
your unprovoked overreaction . But, then again, that's the natural
habitat of the rabid Vuescan lot (not to be confused with reasonable
Vuescan users).

Don.