To LS-8000 and LS-9000 users

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fernando
  • Start date Start date
F

Fernando

Hi,
I think I'll get the LS-9000 by this Spring.
I'll use it only for 120 scanning, from 6x4.5 to 6x9, both E6 slides
and BW negs. No 35mm, no Kodachromes, no colour negs.
I already have a 5400 (can't do 120) and a SS120 (quite tired, and no
ICE).

Some questions... :)

1) Film flatness and DOF.
I have many curled 120 film. Curled as in "tends to become a roll if
leaved alone", not as in "has bumps all over the place".
How good are LS-8000/9000 stock film carriers for 120 film in keeping
the film flat enough? Flat enough as in "within the DOF of the scanner
for good focus through the frame", not as in "perfectly focused grain
on every single millimeter of the frame". :)
I know about the optional glass carrier, but I'd prefer not spending
another Eur 400 on it: would rather save for the future purchase of
the Kami-compatible sealer carrier.

2) Vuescan compatibility.
I'll have to attach this scanner to a Linux box. So Vuescan is
mandatory.
I like Vuescan, but it has issues with my 5400 (yes, even the latest
8.1.26). How does it work with the LS-8000/9000?
Any issues? IR cleaning is OK? Shadows details? Noise? Strange
problems?

3) The strange unsharpness case...
Time ago, an LS-9000 user reported about scans becoming increasingly
soft after some uptime, maybe for heat accumulation or whatever. Any
other reports about that?

4) Frame margins.
How much of the frame get eaten by the film holders? On my SS120, the
120 holder eats about 1/2mm at each stripe edge (top and bottom edge,
I mean), plus about 1-1.5mm at the leftmost edge.

5) Firewire port.
Does it work with typical Firewire 6-pins "D" cables, or does it need
some exoteric high-performance cable?
Does it work with most Firewire controllers, or has it strange issues
and only works realibly with XYZ brand? Any experiences with Linux
boxes?

MANY many many many many thanks!! :D

Fernando

PS: Please, don't point me to Yahoo closed groups if possible. The
last time I signed in one of them, I was so flooded with spam I had to
drop that email address. I have no desire to set up fake addresses for
that. :(
Open groups (free read, no post) are OK for me.
 
Fernando said:
1) Film flatness and DOF.
Click to expand...

IMHO and experience, it's a bear.
I have many curled 120 film. Curled as in "tends to become a roll if
leaved alone", not as in "has bumps all over the place".
How good are LS-8000/9000 stock film carriers for 120 film in keeping
the film flat enough?
Click to expand...

Some people claim to be able to persuade the stock carrier to work. I can't.

I use the glass carrier with a mask holding the frame off the lower glass.
If the film curls, I have to place it on the mask so that it bulges upwards
and the (anti-Newton) top glass pushes it down to flat.
Flat enough as in "within the DOF of the scanner
for good focus through the frame", not as in "perfectly focused grain
on every single millimeter of the frame". :)
Click to expand...

Those are pretty much the same. The 8000 focus function reports a focus
position as an integer, usually with a value of 250 or so. If every point on
the film falls within a range of 20 focus values, then manually focusing at
the middle of that range delivers corner-to-corner sharpness. At 20 units
off, image sharpness deteriorates.
I know about the optional glass carrier, but I'd prefer not spending
another Eur 400 on it: would rather save for the future purchase of
the Kami-compatible sealer carrier.
Click to expand...

You'll need the glass carrier.
2) Vuescan compatibility.
I'll have to attach this scanner to a Linux box. So Vuescan is
mandatory.
I like Vuescan, but it has issues with my 5400 (yes, even the latest
8.1.26). How does it work with the LS-8000/9000?
Any issues? IR cleaning is OK? Shadows details? Noise? Strange
problems?
Click to expand...

It works fine, but I prefer NikonScan. The last I checked, Vuescan doesn't
support thumbnails, so you have to adjust the cropping manually.
3) The strange unsharpness case...
Time ago, an LS-9000 user reported about scans becoming increasingly
soft after some uptime, maybe for heat accumulation or whatever. Any
other reports about that?
Click to expand...

No problems like that with the 8000, although I rarely do long sessions,
usually running out of energy for scanning after 3 or 6 frames.
4) Frame margins.
How much of the frame get eaten by the film holders? On my SS120, the
120 holder eats about 1/2mm at each stripe edge (top and bottom edge,
I mean), plus about 1-1.5mm at the leftmost edge.
Click to expand...

The carrier openings are exactly 56mm wide, so you don't get more than the
official 120 frame. The longest frame you can scan at one go is 82mm or so.
5) Firewire port.
Does it work with typical Firewire 6-pins "D" cables, or does it need
some exoteric high-performance cable?
Click to expand...

It seems to use a generic Firewire cable.
Does it work with most Firewire controllers, or has it strange issues
and only works realibly with XYZ brand? Any experiences with Linux
boxes?
Click to expand...

Nope. I worked for AT&T's Unix group, though, and due to that experience
recommend Windows XP over anything Unix.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Hello David!

First of all, thanks for your reply, filled with precious infos!
You'll need the glass carrier.
Click to expand...

.... :'-(

Any problems with the glass carrier?
Newton rings, difficulty in keeping it dustless, flare, loss of
resolving power...?

Thank you!

Fernando
 
Fernando said:
Hello David!

First of all, thanks for your reply, filled with precious infos!


... :'-(

Any problems with the glass carrier?
Newton rings, difficulty in keeping it dustless, flare, loss of
resolving power...?
Click to expand...

Only Newton's rings*, which is why you use masks (provided, or cut your own
for multiple frames) to hold the film off the lower glass.

*: These don't always appear, but if they do, you have to rescan, so I
always use a mask.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
David J. Littleboy said:
Only Newton's rings*, which is why you use masks (provided, or cut your own
for multiple frames) to hold the film off the lower glass.

*: These don't always appear, but if they do, you have to rescan, so I
always use a mask.
Click to expand...

A little confused by your comments.

Which will work better for scanning: a carrier with Newton's ring glass,
or a carrier with non-Newton's ring glass?

If a scan has Newton's rings, will rescanning get rid of it? Why?

What is the purpose of using masks?

Some suggested removing one of the two pieces of glass in the carrier
will work better. If so, which piece should be removed: the one on the
emulsion side?

Thanks.
 
A little confused by your comments.

Which will work better for scanning: a carrier with Newton's ring glass,
or a carrier with non-Newton's ring glass?
Click to expand...

The glass carrier for the 8000 and 9000 has normal glass as the lower glass
and anti-Newton glass as the upper glass. Anti-Newton glass would degrade
the image, so non-anti-Newton glass has to be used in the side closer to the
lens + CCD.
If a scan has Newton's rings, will rescanning get rid of it? Why?
Click to expand...

Newton's rings occur (sometimes) when the negative touches the lower glass.
Rescanning _with the negative raised off the glass_ will prevent Newton's
rings from occurring.
What is the purpose of using masks?
Click to expand...

Rasing the negative off the glass to prevent Newton's rings.
Some suggested removing one of the two pieces of glass in the carrier
will work better. If so, which piece should be removed: the one on the
emulsion side?
Click to expand...

I don't see how either could be removed...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
What is the purpose of using masks?
Rasing the negative off the glass to prevent Newton's rings.
Click to expand...

The scanner's autoexposure will produce a skewed reading unless extraneous
light is blocked from the image area. It's like including the sun in the
frame when trying to set the exposure with a camera. In addition, masks
prevent flare, which would degrade image contrast. If you want quality
results on the LS-8000/9000, meticulous masking (for glass and glassless
holders) is a requirement not an option.

Dane
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/
 
David J. Littleboy said:
The glass carrier for the 8000 and 9000 has normal glass as the lower glass
and anti-Newton glass as the upper glass. Anti-Newton glass would degrade
the image, so non-anti-Newton glass has to be used in the side closer to the
lens + CCD.


Newton's rings occur (sometimes) when the negative touches the lower glass.
Rescanning _with the negative raised off the glass_ will prevent Newton's
rings from occurring.


Rasing the negative off the glass to prevent Newton's rings.


I don't see how either could be removed...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanations. My questions are actually for Gepe 35mm
slide mounts, and NOT LS-8000 or LS-9000 specific (ok, the Subject says
otherwise). Based on your answers, it seems like a Gepe mount with
normal glass is the way to go? In such a mount, the lower piece of glass
can be removed. The top piece will keep the film flat, and there is no
glass touching the film's emulsion. No masking is needed.
 
Eastside said:
The scanner's autoexposure will produce a skewed reading unless extraneous
light is blocked from the image area. It's like including the sun in the
frame when trying to set the exposure with a camera. In addition, masks
prevent flare, which would degrade image contrast. If you want quality
results on the LS-8000/9000, meticulous masking (for glass and glassless
holders) is a requirement not an option.

Dane
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/
Click to expand...

Agreed that masking is needed to block off extraneous light, but as
explained by Littelboy, his mask is for a different purpose.
 
Thanks for the explanations. My questions are actually for Gepe 35mm
slide mounts, and NOT LS-8000 or LS-9000 specific (ok, the Subject says
otherwise). Based on your answers, it seems like a Gepe mount with
normal glass is the way to go? In such a mount, the lower piece of glass
can be removed. The top piece will keep the film flat, and there is no
glass touching the film's emulsion. No masking is needed.
Click to expand...

A Gepe mount used to hold a frame for scanning is better than a cardboard
mount for scanning, but probably not as good as a holder specifically
designed for glass mounting. For the Gepe the order of materials (from
bottom up): glass, mask spacer, film, mask spacer, and glass. For the Nikon
glass mount: glass, mask, film, and AN glass. It's the second spacer in the
Gepe mount that's the problem. It's thin but thick enough to allow the film
to bulge into the space, and you can't remove the spacers because they hold
the glass plates in place. Also I'm not certain the glass is AN. If it
isn't, you may get rings. The top piece of glass must press against the
film to hold it flat.

Dane
 
Eastside said:
The scanner's autoexposure will produce a skewed reading unless extraneous
light is blocked from the image area. It's like including the sun in the
frame when trying to set the exposure with a camera. In addition, masks
prevent flare, which would degrade image contrast. If you want quality
results on the LS-8000/9000, meticulous masking (for glass and glassless
holders) is a requirement not an option.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up: I mostly shoot/scan slide films, so hadn't figured
that out yet...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Back
Top