Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED


1

123

Where can I see Nikon Coolscan quality of scans
before I choose to buy one? Is there online place
or somewhere to see the results of a scanned film.

thanks
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

David J. Littleboy

123 said:
anyone? please
This page has a lot of sample scans. I'd think that the 5000 would be at
least as good as the 4000 or 8000. (Oops. Those are mostly 8000ED scans. But
they should be very similar. The 5000 is the same resolution as the
4000/8000, but a step up in electronics.)

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
1

123

David J. Littleboy said:
This page has a lot of sample scans. I'd think that the 5000 would be at
least as good as the 4000 or 8000. (Oops. Those are mostly 8000ED scans.
But
they should be very similar. The 5000 is the same resolution as the
4000/8000, but a step up in electronics.)
Thanks for the advice,
I am not so pleased with the results on that site :( and not sure if that
quality
satisfies me.

thanks again

Tom
Zagreb, Croatia
 
B

Bart van der Wolf

SNIP
I am not so pleased with the results on that site :( and not sure
if that quality satisfies me.
What is it that you find unpleasing?

Do realize that you're looking at tiny fragments of a much larger
image, further magnified by your monitor.

Bart
 
J

John DuBois

anyone? please
If you're looking for raw scans, I don't know.

Everything at http://www.armory.com/~images/ was scanned with various Coolscan
scanners. Those specifically scanned with the Coolscan 5000 ED:
http://www.armory.com/~images/?mincreate=2004-09
The only image set for which I've put up the full-size (but jpeg-compressed)
scans: http://www.armory.com/~images/?s=bm1998 (scanned with the 5000 ED).
Use the maximum-value size button under an image to get the full-size version.
The daytime pictures were taken with finer-grain film than the night pictures.
This probably doesn't show off the capabilities of the scanner to their best
effect, since I barely process the images before putting them up. For now I'm
concentrating on getting them scanned (and saving the raw files), since they're
molding :(

John
 
Ad

Advertisements

1

123

Bart van der Wolf said:
SNIP

What is it that you find unpleasing?

Do realize that you're looking at tiny fragments of a much larger
image, further magnified by your monitor.
thx, I saw that a little bit later than I wrote this reply
the quality seams good.

thanks again
 
1

123

John DuBois said:
If you're looking for raw scans, I don't know.

Everything at http://www.armory.com/~images/ was scanned with various
Coolscan
scanners. Those specifically scanned with the Coolscan 5000 ED:
http://www.armory.com/~images/?mincreate=2004-09
The only image set for which I've put up the full-size (but
jpeg-compressed)
scans: http://www.armory.com/~images/?s=bm1998 (scanned with the 5000 ED).
Use the maximum-value size button under an image to get the full-size
version.
The daytime pictures were taken with finer-grain film than the night
pictures.
This probably doesn't show off the capabilities of the scanner to their
best
effect, since I barely process the images before putting them up. For now
I'm
concentrating on getting them scanned (and saving the raw files), since
they're
molding :(

The quality seams good, and I think that I should be satisfied with the
results.
I have taken a preview of your photos, and the quality of them seams ok. I
am
thinking of buying that scanner or do you have some other models to
recommend?
thanks
Tom
 
1

123

John DuBois said:
If you're looking for raw scans, I don't know.

Everything at http://www.armory.com/~images/ was scanned with various
Coolscan
scanners. Those specifically scanned with the Coolscan 5000 ED:
http://www.armory.com/~images/?mincreate=2004-09
The only image set for which I've put up the full-size (but
jpeg-compressed)
scans: http://www.armory.com/~images/?s=bm1998 (scanned with the 5000 ED).
Use the maximum-value size button under an image to get the full-size
version.
The daytime pictures were taken with finer-grain film than the night
pictures.
This probably doesn't show off the capabilities of the scanner to their
best
effect, since I barely process the images before putting them up. For now
I'm
concentrating on getting them scanned (and saving the raw files), since
they're
molding :(
tell me is any of those pictures on your site scaned with NikonCoolscan
LS50ED ?
and what do you think of a quality of that scaner?
Thanks
 
J

John DuBois

The quality seams good, and I think that I should be satisfied with the
results.
I have taken a preview of your photos, and the quality of them seams ok. I
am
thinking of buying that scanner or do you have some other models to
recommend?
Depends on what you need. I selected it because the autofeeder was a strict
neccessity for me.
tell me is any of those pictures on your site scaned with NikonCoolscan
LS50ED ?
No.

and what do you think of a quality of that scaner?
Which one? The LS-5000? The scanner itself does a good enough job. It
doesn't come close to getting all of the information in the film (but I don't
think anything except a drum scanner would do that). The dynamic range in
particular leaves me wondering whether some day I'll scan the ones I most care
about in again with something better, at least those that haven't molded in the
intervening years. Also, there's a blooming effect or something along those
lines that shows up occasionally. But without the autofeeder, I wouldn't be
getting any significant number of them scanned at all. The autofeeder itself
has some glaring and much-commented-upon flaws, which can be overcome with
sufficient modification.

John
 
N

nrOne

John DuBois said:
Depends on what you need. I selected it because the autofeeder was a
strict
neccessity for me.


Which one? The LS-5000? The scanner itself does a good enough job. It
doesn't come close to getting all of the information in the film (but I
don't
think anything except a drum scanner would do that). The dynamic range in
particular leaves me wondering whether some day I'll scan the ones I most
care
about in again with something better, at least those that haven't molded
in the
intervening years. Also, there's a blooming effect or something along
those
lines that shows up occasionally. But without the autofeeder, I wouldn't
be
getting any significant number of them scanned at all. The autofeeder
itself
has some glaring and much-commented-upon flaws, which can be overcome with
sufficient modification.
No, this is much cheaper version Nikon Coolscan LS-50 ED.
We had a discussion abut LS-5000 in previous post, and the results seem
fine,
but I don't think you are much pleased with that scanner witch means that
this
cheaper version has very poor results?
Tom
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

John DuBois

No, this is much cheaper version Nikon Coolscan LS-50 ED. We had a discussion
abut LS-5000 in previous post, and the results seem fine, but I don't think
you are much pleased with that scanner witch means that this cheaper version
has very poor results?
It really depends on what sort of images you're scanning, and how picky you are
about the results. I haven't used the LS-50, so I can't give any direct
comparison. You might find that for your purposes it does a fine job.

John
 
N

nrOne

John DuBois said:
It really depends on what sort of images you're scanning, and how picky
you are
about the results. I haven't used the LS-50, so I can't give any direct
comparison. You might find that for your purposes it does a fine job.
Well I am very picky and that is why I want to think good before I buy
anything.
I have seen some scanned results of Coolscan 5000 and they seem fine, but
it is a lot of money for something that you are not so sure about. LS 50 has
very
similar preferences like 5000 and it cost a half of a Coolscan 5000 price.
You
are not so pleased with 5000? Why, if I may ask?
Tom
 
J

John DuBois

You are not so pleased with 5000? Why, if I may ask?
It doesn't have sufficient dynamic range to pick up (without excessive noise)
shadow details that are obvious to the eye, even with 16x sampling.

It appears to have a linear blooming problem, though I've only just begun to
notice it, so I'm not sure yet.

The mechanical problems with the slide autofeeder are absurd. I've seen four
different problems with it, all a result of the designer's ignorance or
disregarding of the existence of thin paper mounts. The SF-210 reportedly
addresses one of these problems (I haven't seen one).

But for all that, I think it is the best available solution for my purposes,
which specifically exclude dismounting all of my slides for drum scanning :)

John
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top