Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "nick90290" <NickBrandt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:13 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 800 120 film holder


> I just bought a Nikon Coolscan 8000 yesterday, and am getting
very good
> scans from the outset, it seems, The only problem is the 120
format film
> holder.
>
> Aside from the fact  the clips holding the negative in place
seem to treat the
> negative very roughly in the way they clip hard into the neg
edges, my biggest
> problem is I that the scanner does not scan quite the full
width of the negative
> (and therefore edge/rebate as well) in the scan. It's cropping
the last albeit
> small part of the actual image on the left side of the image.
>
> Am I missing something here? Is there some way to increase the
dimensions/
> proportions of the area to be scanned somewhere? I tried
placing the chosen
> neg in the middle of the holder but the scanner still read the
image with the
> same cropping.
>
> Oh, and also, my zoom buttons in preview won't work, They're
grey, and so
> inoperative.
>
> Any solutions/explanations much appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Nick

The Nikon 8000 scans up to 83-4 mm length and 56 mm width and
with the rotatable glass holder even a bit wider I believe.
So it will not scan the 88 mm of a Voigtlander Bessa but it will
scan the 83 mm of a Kodak Monitor to mention a few old folders.
Sometimes it is easier to use the 6x7 setting for 6x6 frames.

If you have to scan negatives you better get Vuescan or
Silverfast as the scanning software because Nikonscan has a habit
of clipping the neg shadows. And Nikon hasn't done anything in
more than a year after a list with users that complained about
that has been sent to them.

Ernst

I haven't had any cropping problems.  I always get the entire image area in
the scan, for both transparencies and negatives.  I use the glass holder
now, but I had no problems with the standard holder, either.  This is for
6x6 images.

The scanner may cut one edge of the scan very closely, near the image area.
I believe this is because it looks for the image area in an attempt to know
just where to start the scan (in the direction of the film roll).  You can
adjust this position if you want.  Sometimes it doesn't pick it up at the
right spot, with images that don't have clear borders.  I look at the
previews and if it isn't covering the whole image, I adjust it, but it's a
rare issue.

  -- Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "nick90290" <NickBrandt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 21:13
Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 800 120 film holder


> I just bought a Nikon Coolscan 8000 yesterday, and am getting very good
> scans from the outset, it seems, The only problem is the 120 format film
> holder.
>
> Aside from the fact  the clips holding the negative in place seem to treat
the
> negative very roughly in the way they clip hard into the neg edges, my
biggest
> problem is I that the scanner does not scan quite the full width of the
negative
> (and therefore edge/rebate as well) in the scan. It's cropping the last
albeit
> small part of the actual image on the left side of the image.
>
> Am I missing something here? Is there some way to increase the dimensions/
> proportions of the area to be scanned somewhere? I tried placing the
chosen
> neg in the middle of the holder but the scanner still read the image with
the
> same cropping.
>
> Oh, and also, my zoom buttons in preview won't work, They're grey, and so
> inoperative.
>
> Any solutions/explanations much appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Nick
>
> .................................
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi Ernst

Thanks for the quick reply. Based on what you said, I should get the Silverfast 
software rather than use the Nikon software. Is that something I can download 
- I used Silverfast on my Epson 2450, always saving up important scans for 
Bowhaus' Crossfield Drum Scanner. But I liked the layout of the SIlverfast. 

I shoot 6x7, so anyone (ie Tom who also replied - thanks) using 6x6 wouldn't 
get the same cropping problem, I'm guessing. 

Oh, also, my first test scans were done in 8 bit and flew through. Now I'm 
doing the for-real 16 bit scans (14-bit??), and after the scan is done, the 
image seems to be taking forever (I'm still waiting after 30 minutes) for it to 
gradually appear onscreen in a series of blocks. Is this normal in 14/16 bit?


Thanks again

Nick

........................................

The scan speed is dependent on the number of the multi-pass's you have set, as well as if you use the superfine scan mode (normally you only need the superfine for rare instances).  The speed of the post processing portion of the scan is dependent on the options you have selected.  So, ICE, ROC, and GEM all add significantly to this process.  Also, the amount of memory on your system will affect this.  Remember, if you are scanning a 6x9 RGB image, you'll end up over 650 meg.  All of that has to be processed by the post scan processing.  I run on and AMD 2800+ w/1gig 128bit memory, and the Nikon scan software.  A full 6x9 scann with ICE, ROC, GEM and 16x pass will take an hour.  But, my results are very good.  
 
One thing I have discovered is to not overuse all of the tools available.  In some cases overuse not only doesn't improve your results, it will actually cause degradation. Also, check your 'preferences' carefully.  They have seperate setting for batch scan, single scan, preview, etc.  I found that some of those were not fitting into what I was trying to do, and I ended up with unpredictable results. 
 
Experiment and practice.  I've gotten to where I can depend toatlly on my results.
 
TB

nick90290 <NickBrandt@...> wrote:
Hi Ernst

Thanks for the quick reply. Based on what you said, I should get the Silverfast 
software rather than use the Nikon software. Is that something I can download 
- I used Silverfast on my Epson 2450, always saving up important scans for 
Bowhaus' Crossfield Drum Scanner. But I liked the layout of the SIlverfast. 

I shoot 6x7, so anyone (ie Tom who also replied - thanks) using 6x6 wouldn't 
get the same cropping problem, I'm guessing. 

Oh, also, my first test scans were done in 8 bit and flew through. Now I'm 
doing the for-real 16 bit scans (14-bit??), and after the scan is done, the 
image seems to be taking forever (I'm still waiting after 30 minutes) for it to 
gradually appear onscreen in a series of blocks. Is this normal in 14/16 bit?


Thanks again

Nick

........................................


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Any problems with banding with the Coolscan 8000?  I was in the 
market for one last year, but found a lot of posts about problems 
with banding at high resolution scans.

I've had zero banding problems.  The comments you were hearing may have been from the first release of their software.
 
TB


somax711 <bprichard@...> wrote:
Any problems with banding with the Coolscan 8000?  I was in the 
market for one last year, but found a lot of posts about problems 
with banding at high resolution scans.


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The 8000 has two scanning speeds that have been named in an unfortunate way.
In what Nikon calls a "normal" scan, the film is scanned at high speed,
thanks to 3 linear CCDs--unique among Nikon's scanners as far as I know.  In
Nikon's "superfine" mode, only one CCD is used, but the scan takes three
times longer (this is how their other scanners normally work).  Banding only
occurs in the high-speed mode and only in scans where there are transitions
between nearly clear film and nearly opaque film (as on a Velvia slide of a
contrasty subject in direct sunlight, for example).  Only a small fraction
of my scans have shown enough banding to justify a rescan in low-speed mode
(there is never any banding in the slow or "superfine" mode).

It's unfortunate that Nikon calls these modes normal and superfine, because
they are really fast and slow modes.  The fast mode is fast, but you do run
the risk of banding in some cases because the CCDs are never perfectly equal
in their signals.  The slow mode is slow, but since only one CCD is used,
banding is not possible.  The slow mode does not produce finer scans than
the fast mode, at least not in the sense of resolution or anything; it just
prevents banding.

In other Nikon scanners, the "slow" or "superfine" mode is the only mode,
since there is only one CCD.  So actually the "superfine" mode should be
considered "normal," and the "normal" mode should be considered "fast."  By
naming them incorrectly and chosing the wrong defaults, Nikon created the
impression that the scanner has an overall problem with banding, which is
not the case.  In fact, banding is only an issue with high-speed (three CCD)
scans, and even then it is rarely perceptible (in my experience).

The banding in the high-speed mode is the result of unequal calibration of
the three CCDs.  I'm not sure why Nikon doesn't have a better way of
calibrating them internally so they always match perfectly.  In any case,
high-speed scans are entirely satisfactory the great majority of the time,
even on Velvia.  (I don't recall ever seeing banding on negative scans, with
their relatively tame density, although I suppose it's theoretically
possible.)

----- Original Message -----

From: "somax711" <bprichard@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 00:46
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 800 120 film holder


> Any problems with banding with the Coolscan 8000?  I was in the
> market for one last year, but found a lot of posts about problems
> with banding at high resolution scans.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "nick90290" <NickBrandt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 800 120 film holder


> Hi Ernst
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. Based on what you said, I should
get the Silverfast
> software rather than use the Nikon software. Is that something
I can download
> - I used Silverfast on my Epson 2450, always saving up
important scans for
> Bowhaus' Crossfield Drum Scanner. But I liked the layout of the
SIlverfast.
>
> I shoot 6x7, so anyone (ie Tom who also replied - thanks) using
6x6 wouldn't
> get the same cropping problem, I'm guessing.
>
> Oh, also, my first test scans were done in 8 bit and flew
through. Now I'm
> doing the for-real 16 bit scans (14-bit??), and after the scan
is done, the
> image seems to be taking forever (I'm still waiting after 30
minutes) for it to
> gradually appear onscreen in a series of blocks. Is this normal
in 14/16 bit?
>
>
> Thanks again
>
> Nick

Nick,

I have used Vuescan, Nikonscan and Silverfast and my taste is
Vuescan followed by Nikonscan. If Nikon solved that shadow
clipping problem and allowed custom profiling then I would
certainly use Nikonscan the most. It has a very nice GUI and the
rest of the software is superb.
Vuescan has some problems with frame selection as well so now I
have separate options I can load for scanning the first frame and
the second frame. Part of that problem are the mediocre
filmtransports of some cameras that I use.
Vuescan uses one sensor only (=Nikonscans Fine Mode) and that
decreases the scan speed a lot. I have never measured a 6x9 scan
in 48 bits but it takes an awful lot of time. It's done on
another system so I don't mind that much. If it has to be fast
then Nikonscan is used with ICE but nothing else.
Two times sampling for slides is used but never for colour
negatives.
Banding is sometimes seen with Nikonscan but most of the time not
or it isn't seen in the print. In my opinion that could be taken
out with new software too as it is related to the resolution at
how many pixels it repeats. Of course it would have been better
if Nikon calibrated the three sensors from the start. I find it
strange that the Epson scanners don't show it while they have
multiple sensors as well.

There's a Coolscan8000 list at yahoo.

Ernst

Hi Ernst,

I'll try the Vuescan with the 8000, but 2 final quick questions -

1) Do you see much image quality difference between regular and fine scan 
when using Nikon scan?, and

2) Do you use the glass holder you have buy seperately, or just the regular 
holder that comes with the scanner?

Thanks 

Nick

............................