New Coolscans when?

[Jeff McLean]

Hello Scanners--

Anyone got an idea of when the Coolscan 5000 might be updated? I've read
that Nikon typically refreshes their lines every two years or so. I've
also read
some rumors that Nikon will be "getting out of the scanner business". I'm in
that group who still have a "few thousand slides to scan" so am very mostly
interested in scanning with a bulk loader. A friend and I are planning on
buying
the thing within the next few months, and don't want to miss some new improved
version by a couple of weeks!

Amazing how the value of Coolscan plus bulk loader used-on-ebay approximates
the value of brand spanking new gear.

Thanks for any news!

 

[Noons]

also read
some rumors that Nikon will be "getting out of the scanner business". I'm in

Judging by how long it's taking them to deliver my 9K, they
must already have done so and not told anyone!
Then again, their entire distro chain in Australia has
been so screwed up by their agent I'm surprised they
still bother selling here...

 

[jameshamilton777]

I am in the exact same position as you. I've been waiting for a 6 years
to scan my 35mm negs! I have about 5000 so want to scan them once, so
have been waiting for the technology to get perfect.

Coolscan 5000 seemed to be good but I decided to wait for the next
generation hoping it would be 5000 DPI. Now I've been waiting 3 years
and nothing. I suspect that there will be no more. In these days of
instant communication, I'm sure there would have been at least a rumour
if there was a new line coming?

Anyway, I am going to wait another year and see what happens...

 

[Charlie]

I am in the exact same position as you. I've been waiting for a 6 years
to scan my 35mm negs! I have about 5000 so want to scan them once, so
have been waiting for the technology to get perfect.

"get perfect"? Get real!

Coolscan 5000 seemed to be good but I decided to wait for the next
generation hoping it would be 5000 DPI. Now I've been waiting 3 years
and nothing. I suspect that there will be no more. In these days of
instant communication, I'm sure there would have been at least a rumour
if there was a new line coming?

Anyway, I am going to wait another year and see what happens...

You DON'T need 5000 ppi to scan 35 mm negatives or slides! Only very
"good" photographers ever get an image on 35mm film that needs 5000
ppi.... and those are ussually taken with a tripod and very controlled
lighting.... not the stuff of "normal" 35mm photography, which is
basically hand-held and available light.

Wait as long as you like, but the "technology" isn't going to improve
any faster than those negative deteriorate.

 

[Roger S.]

I'd follow their advice and buy a LS-5000 which is more than good
enough and commercially available. You can wait for perfect and end up
with nothing. If you really want higher resolution and higher quality
than you can get with 4000dpi scans of 35mm, you need a larger film
format, not a better scanner.

Roger

 

[Noons]

Anyway, I am going to wait another year and see what happens...

Dude, I wouldn't wait. Seriously. You'd need a lot more than
5000 rez to get rid of grain aliasing. It won't happen unless you fork

out big moolah for an ICG drum scanner or something along
those lines.

Stick with the ls-5000 and go for it now. 4000 rez will be
plenty enough for 99.9% of your images. The rest you
can send out to a drum scanner. Invest in a good scanner
program like vuescan or Silverfast, a copy of Neat Image
Pro standalone - or similar, a good dvd/cd burner and heaps
of disk and memory.

Spend some serious time working out a reasonable workflow
and get cracking: life is too short and film doesn't last forever.
Make sure you sleeve it for archival at the end, though: you
never know if a good drum scanner at a good price ins't in
your future.

Believe me, got tired of waiting and I'm into fishing: I know patience!
Got a flatbed Epson 4990 to get the hang of all the things
that can be done. Been at it for a while, now I'm upgrading
to the best I can get without having to sell the house.
And that'll have to do.

But I'm gonna have a lot of fun with this thing. Instead
of waiting.

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Coolscan 5000 seemed to be good but I decided to wait for the next
generation hoping it would be 5000 DPI.

I'd be quite surprised if Nikon (or anyone else, for that matter) ever
came up with a successor to their current film scanner line.

If you really think you need more than 4000 dpi then get a second-hand
Minolta 5400. But be warned there's a lot of buggy units around. Mine
works fine - as long as I put it upside down.

Ralf

 

[David Blanchard]

I'd be quite surprised if Nikon (or anyone else, for that matter) ever
came up with a successor to their current film scanner line.

If you really think you need more than 4000 dpi then get a second-hand
Minolta 5400. But be warned there's a lot of buggy units around. Mine
works fine - as long as I put it upside down.

Or get an Imacon scanner. Much higher priced than Nikon or Minolta
scanners but almost certainly do a better job, too. Current prices
range from US$5,000 to US$20,000 for the various models.

http://www.imacon.dk/

I just recently purchased the Nikon 5000 ED to replace my LS-2000 and
am very pleased with the results.

-db-

 

[Roger (K8RI)]

I am in the exact same position as you. I've been waiting for a 6 years
to scan my 35mm negs! I have about 5000 so want to scan them once, so
have been waiting for the technology to get perfect.

Coolscan 5000 seemed to be good but I decided to wait for the next
generation hoping it would be 5000 DPI. Now I've been waiting 3 years

Are you sure you want 5000 dpi?
The LS5000ED is capable of bringing out the grain in all but the
finest grain films which are very slow. Images scanned at 4000 dpi
and 16 bit color depth are 128 Megs. (give or take about 10). That is
640 Gigs. That is over 147 DVDs full for back up. At 5000 dpi you are
getting close to 160 Megs per image, or approaching 180 DVDs for back
up.

IMO At 4000 dpi you are reaching the limits of most film and lens
combinations and the capabilities of most photographers. Only images
shot from a tripod using slow, very fine grain film would benefit from
scanning at a higher resolution than 4000 dpi.

and nothing. I suspect that there will be no more. In these days of
instant communication, I'm sure there would have been at least a rumour
if there was a new line coming?

Now if they'd come out with a jam proof bulk feeder... I could go for
that.

BTW, I've gone through about 30,000 slides and negatives since getting
the LS5000-ED. I do have the SF-210 bulk feeder which works quite well
until the second you turn your back on it.<)

Anyway, I am going to wait another year and see what happens...

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Noons]

IMO At 4000 dpi you are reaching the limits of most film and lens
combinations and the capabilities of most photographers. Only images
shot from a tripod using slow, very fine grain film would benefit from
scanning at a higher resolution than 4000 dpi.

And yet, there is a guy called Nyquist who canme up with
some fancy maths that say if you want to avoid aliasing
noise with detail that is 4000, you MUST scan at a much
higher rez. And fine grain certainly is around 4000ppi rez.
But then again: no one cares about these details, so there!
;-)

BTW, I've gone through about 30,000 slides and negatives since getting
the LS5000-ED. I do have the SF-210 bulk feeder which works quite well
until the second you turn your back on it.<)

Fun, eh?

 

[Roger (K8RI)]

And yet, there is a guy called Nyquist who canme up with
some fancy maths that say if you want to avoid aliasing
noise with detail that is 4000, you MUST scan at a much
higher rez. And fine grain certainly is around 4000ppi rez.
But then again: no one cares about these details, so there!
;-)

Those theoretical details don't seem to be causing a problem<)

Fun, eh?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Noons]

Those theoretical details don't seem to be causing a problem<)

Oh, they are! But most of us call it "grain"and leave
it at that. It is not, though.

 

[Raphael Bustin]

Those theoretical details don't seem to be causing a problem<)

There could be a number of reasons for that observation...

1. "folded" high-frequency components become
low-frequency components. They appear as false
detail. But in a landscape photo, it can be hard
to distinguish between "real" and "false" detail.

2. If there are no high-frequency components in
the image itself -- there's no problem. Ie., the
image itself is band-limited.

3. Lack of focus or a poor lens may have done
all the anti-aliasing that's needed.

I don't really know or understand the math or
theory behind "grain aliasing." Since noise
is wideband, it's not clear to me what happens
when its spectrum is "folded" through aliasing.

Personally I think the case for "grain aliasing"
is overstated. At least with 4000 dpi scanners.

I have comparative scans between 4000
dpi Nikon-scanned and 5000 dpi drum-
scanned film. The drum scan (if well done)
is better, but not radically so.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Philip Homburg]

I have comparative scans between 4000
dpi Nikon-scanned and 5000 dpi drum-
scanned film. The drum scan (if well done)
is better, but not radically so.

I think you need much higher resolutions to see a difference.
Some time ago I put some Ektar 25 under a microscope, and that image
was completely different from what my scanner delivers. The microscope
showed the individual dye clouds that my scanner cannot resolve.

However, I very much doubt that those differences matter much in a print.

There is unually not enough high frequency detail in a film frame that
you can print big enough to require more than 4000 dpi to resolve
the grain.

 

[CSM1]

I think you need much higher resolutions to see a difference.
Some time ago I put some Ektar 25 under a microscope, and that image
was completely different from what my scanner delivers. The microscope
showed the individual dye clouds that my scanner cannot resolve.

A 25 power microscope is what was used in the darkroom to focus on the grain
in the film when printing a negative. You can always see the dye or the
silver clumps in a 25 power microscope.

4000 ppi is enough resolution to resolve the grain in most ISO 100 and above
films.

 

[Scott W]

There could be a number of reasons for that observation...

1. "folded" high-frequency components become
low-frequency components. They appear as false
detail. But in a landscape photo, it can be hard
to distinguish between "real" and "false" detail.

Yes but they only become low frequency components if they are close to
twice the Nyquist limit. For frequencies just above Nyquist the folded
frequencies are still high and so not real noticeable. This kind of
aliasing is what we see often with the Sigma cameras where it looks
like they are resolving a fence but when you count the fence post they
are missing some. The real bad aliasing is when you fold all the way
down to zero or close to zero, this is when you get moiré patterns.

FWIW I have only seen one 4000 ppi scan where I believe there was
enough detail for there to be a significant amount of aliasing, a
sample is on your web site.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg

There are two things I see in this scan, one is there is really no way
to be this sharp on a pixel level and not have some aliasing. The
other is I believe the exaggerated texture of the trees in the
background is in part from a bit of aliasing.

Mostly 4000 ppi scans are so soft that this is not an issue for the
detail that is in the image. But it does say that a really sharp
scanner can over resolve and perhaps see a bit of grain aliasing. A
test for whether you are getting grain aliasing is pretty easy, move
the film just a bit and rescan, if the gain looks the same then you are
not getting aliasing, if the grain pattern changes you are.

Scott

 

[Philip Homburg]

A 25 power microscope is what was used in the darkroom to focus on the grain
in the film when printing a negative. You can always see the dye or the
silver clumps in a 25 power microscope.

Maybe you saw some dye or silver clumps, but not the smallest ones.

4000 ppi is enough resolution to resolve the grain in most ISO 100 and above
films.

That is not what I saw. There are many details in Ektar 25 that are a
lot smaller than what my scanner can handle.

 

[CSM1]

Maybe you saw some dye or silver clumps, but not the smallest ones.


That is not what I saw. There are many details in Ektar 25 that are a
lot smaller than what my scanner can handle.

Notice, I said ISO 100 and faster( above). Extar 25 is ISO 25 and has very
fine grain(dye clumps)

You can see the grain in ISO 25 film with a 25 power microscope.
Why would you want to see the grain in ISO 25 film on a film scanner?

It takes sharp focus on the film scanner to get the sharpest image. Don't
rely on automatic focus to be the sharpest.

What you want is the sharpest and cleanest scan of the image you can get.
That means you clean the film before scanning and keep the film in as dust
free storage as you can.

If you have not heard of it, there is a film cleaner called PEC-12, it is
about the best film cleaner available. It comes in 4 oz spray bottles, 4 oz
is enough to clean hundreds of film. You use PEC-12 with PEC*PAD
Non-Abrasive Wipes.
http://www.photosol.com/

 

[Philip Homburg]

Notice, I said ISO 100 and faster( above). Extar 25 is ISO 25 and has very
fine grain(dye clumps)

I had no reason to study any ISO 100 film under a microscope. But I doubt
that it would be different.

You can see the grain in ISO 25 film with a 25 power microscope.
Why would you want to see the grain in ISO 25 film on a film scanner?

You don't want to see grain. But the grain is there. If you do large
format, you can probably limit yourself to low enough magnification
factors that you don't have to deal with grain. In smaller formats,
you usually have to deal with grain.

The problem starts when you want to show detail at resolutions close
to the resolution of the scanner.

The easy way out is to make sure that the scanner works at a much higher
resolution than you need.

It takes sharp focus on the film scanner to get the sharpest image. Don't
rely on automatic focus to be the sharpest.

For grain that is much smaller than the size of a pixel, there is no
point in trying to focus better.

What you want is the sharpest and cleanest scan of the image you can get.
That means you clean the film before scanning and keep the film in as dust
free storage as you can.

I don't see what cleaning has to do with it. Without ICE, every small
scratch will be visible on a Nikon scanner.

With ICE, a small amount of dust will be made invisible without
significantly affecting the image.

 

[Noons]

Hello Scanners--

Anyone got an idea of when the Coolscan 5000 might be updated? I've read
that Nikon typically refreshes their lines every two years or so. I've
also read
some rumors that Nikon will be "getting out of the scanner business". I'm in
that group who still have a "few thousand slides to scan" so am very mostly
interested in scanning with a bulk loader. A friend and I are planning on
buying
the thing within the next few months, and don't want to miss some new improved
version by a couple of weeks!

Outside of the Nikon range, you also got:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1161706453.html
and
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=2453
(keep tuned, not sure if the HP ones are out, Microtk will
release them in February)

might be worth a look?