Used Nikon 8000 ED

[gerry]

Hi, I have a chance to buy this scanner. Apparently, it's in very good
condition, but I want to find out more before I make a decision. Are there
any specific problems with this model, and how does it stack up against the
others in it's class - particularly the Minolta? Many thanks.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Hi, I have a chance to buy this scanner. Apparently, it's in very good
condition, but I want to find out more before I make a decision. Are there
any specific problems with this model,

The Nikon LS-8000ED is a very good scanner for all film formats, from
sub-miniature up to 6x9cm. It is, a firewire interfaced unit with
4000ppi resolution, 14-bit ADC and ICE3 hardware/software dust detection
and removal. It is essentially a large format version of the popular
LS-4000 scanner with two main differences:
1. It accepts a much wider range of film adapters for the various film
formats, but not the motorised film strip feeders. The scanner comes
with 3 adapters:
FH-835S 35mm unmounted strip holder for 2 strips of 6 frames (12 frames
in total).
FH-835M 35mm mounted slide holder for 6 mounted frames
FH-869S unmounted 120/220 film for 4 6x4.5cm frames, 3 6x6cm frames or 2
6x9cm frames.

2. Because of the much larger frame coverage, the scan times are
obviously slower. Nikon attempted to overcome this by introducing a new
3-line CCD which allowed a high speed scan by capturing 3 scan lines at
a time. However, in some/all of the LS-8000 units the mechanics simply
were not rigid enough to permit vibration to completely settle with the
larger steps between scan lines and consequently the high speed scan
mode resulted in a very unique type of banding structure parallel to the
CCD axis. When the high speed scan option is disabled, this problem
disappears.

As far as I am aware, this is the only major defect on the LS-8000.

and how does it stack up against the
others in it's class - particularly the Minolta? Many thanks.

I assume you are referring to the Minolta Scan Multi-Pro.
Similar film options and holders but with 16-bit ADC. Minolta are a
little deceptive on their specifications for their multiformat range,
with a bit of a smoke and mirrors coming into play. The resolution has
always been better on the 35mm frame sizes than on large format, so
guess which resolution takes the headlines? In the SMP this is a little
better than it has been in previous models and the difference is less
significant, bit significant nonetheless. For 35mm the Minolta SMP
scans a true 4800ppi scan, but for anything larger the scan is actually
4800x3200ppi and interpolated up to 4800ppi. Since interpolation always
results in loss of information, you will find the fixed 4000ppi of the
Nikon is almost always superior.

The other main difference is that the LS-8000, in common with other
Nikon scanners, uses a 4 colour (RGBI) LED illumination system with an
unfiltered single line (ignoring the high speed option) CCD. The
Minolta uses the more common fluorescent lamp illumination with an RGB
filtered 3-line CCD. Lamps are brighter than LEDs, so the scanner can
operate with a larger f/# lens, yielding greater depth of field, which
can be useful when scanning badly curled film. LEDs, however, are much
more reliable than fluorescent lamps, their colour purity is higher and
does not degrade with age. There have been reports of problems
obtaining replacement fluorescent lamps for some Minolta scanners
although I couldn't say if this was one of those reported.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

The other advantage of 4 LEDs is that all four channels are exposed without
moving the film, guaranteeing no "registration" problems between the
channels. I'm not sure if there's any real difference in practice, but being
that dependent on precision mechanical systems over that wide an area would
make me nervous.

The Minolta scanner exacerbates grain in color negative materials. However,
there is a third party difuser which solves the problem. (Minolta provides
the diffuser with the 5400, but not the Pro.)

It was interesting what you said about the light source on the Nikon. The
extra depth of field would save a lot of hassle/time in getting a good

scan.

Getting the film flat with the Nikon is a major hassle. You need the glass
carrier and you need to use masks to hold the film off the glass. The focus
tool works amazingly well: if you crop out a small section and AF on it and
then manually set the focus in 5 unit intervals from -30 to +30 units from
what the AF said, the position the AF said was in focus really will be the
best focus in the series.

At the right price I would consider the Nikon, but not if banding was going
to be a problem. If you say switching off the high speed function cures it,
then a (slight?) loss in speed is acceptable in order to get a good scan.

Using "super fine mode" works fine. Scanning a 645 frame 1x with ICE takes
under 5 minutes.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[gerry]

The Nikon LS-8000ED is a very good scanner for all film formats, from
sub-miniature up to 6x9cm. It is, a firewire interfaced unit with
4000ppi resolution, 14-bit ADC and ICE3 hardware/software dust detection
and removal. It is essentially a large format version of the popular
LS-4000 scanner with two main differences:
1. It accepts a much wider range of film adapters for the various film
formats, but not the motorised film strip feeders. The scanner comes
with 3 adapters:
FH-835S 35mm unmounted strip holder for 2 strips of 6 frames (12 frames
in total).
FH-835M 35mm mounted slide holder for 6 mounted frames
FH-869S unmounted 120/220 film for 4 6x4.5cm frames, 3 6x6cm frames or 2
6x9cm frames.

2. Because of the much larger frame coverage, the scan times are
obviously slower. Nikon attempted to overcome this by introducing a new
3-line CCD which allowed a high speed scan by capturing 3 scan lines at
a time. However, in some/all of the LS-8000 units the mechanics simply
were not rigid enough to permit vibration to completely settle with the
larger steps between scan lines and consequently the high speed scan
mode resulted in a very unique type of banding structure parallel to the
CCD axis. When the high speed scan option is disabled, this problem
disappears.

As far as I am aware, this is the only major defect on the LS-8000.


I assume you are referring to the Minolta Scan Multi-Pro.
Similar film options and holders but with 16-bit ADC. Minolta are a
little deceptive on their specifications for their multiformat range,
with a bit of a smoke and mirrors coming into play. The resolution has
always been better on the 35mm frame sizes than on large format, so
guess which resolution takes the headlines? In the SMP this is a little
better than it has been in previous models and the difference is less
significant, bit significant nonetheless. For 35mm the Minolta SMP
scans a true 4800ppi scan, but for anything larger the scan is actually
4800x3200ppi and interpolated up to 4800ppi. Since interpolation always
results in loss of information, you will find the fixed 4000ppi of the
Nikon is almost always superior.

The other main difference is that the LS-8000, in common with other
Nikon scanners, uses a 4 colour (RGBI) LED illumination system with an
unfiltered single line (ignoring the high speed option) CCD. The
Minolta uses the more common fluorescent lamp illumination with an RGB
filtered 3-line CCD. Lamps are brighter than LEDs, so the scanner can
operate with a larger f/# lens, yielding greater depth of field, which
can be useful when scanning badly curled film. LEDs, however, are much
more reliable than fluorescent lamps, their colour purity is higher and
does not degrade with age. There have been reports of problems
obtaining replacement fluorescent lamps for some Minolta scanners
although I couldn't say if this was one of those reported.

The Minolta looked good for the price. I'd made my mind up until I saw the
used 8000ED. I'm not bothered by the slight difference in resolution, which
only amounts to a fifth either way for 120 and 35mm, as it was good for my
needs. Most of my work is composite and uses both formats.

It was interesting what you said about the light source on the Nikon. The
extra depth of field would save a lot of hassle/time in getting a good scan.
At the right price I would consider the Nikon, but not if banding was going
to be a problem. If you say switching off the high speed function cures it,
then a (slight?) loss in speed is acceptable in order to get a good scan.

Decisions, decisions. Many thanks for the information.