Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2004-03-08 by Jack Paradise
I would like to hear experiences good or bad using the new Nikon Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such as TMX 100, Delta 100 and C41 b&w films. Please email me off-list as this is potentially off-topic. Cheers, Andre
2004-03-08 by Robbe Gibson
Come to think of it, I'd like to know, too! Robbe Gibson
-----Original Message----- From: Jack Paradise [mailto:am1000@...] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:24 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w films I would like to hear experiences good or bad using the new Nikon Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such as TMX 100, Delta 100 and C41 b&w films. Please email me off-list as this is potentially off-topic. Cheers, Andre
2004-03-08 by Tim Goodwin
I would also like to know. Tim Goodwin
>Come to think of it, I'd like to know, too! > >Robbe Gibson > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jack Paradise [mailto:am1000@...] >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:24 AM >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w films > >I would like to hear experiences good or bad using the new Nikon >Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such as TMX 100, Delta >100 and C41 b&w films. > >Please email me off-list as this is potentially off-topic. > >Cheers, >Andre >
2004-03-08 by Max Clark
I am getting very good results scanning T-Max 100 with my new Nikon Coolscan V, and printing with an Epson 1280 with MIS UT2 inks. Highly recommended. I have some shots posted on Photo.net, but that doesn't help much. The prints look great, I can tell you that much! --- Robbe Gibson <videocinema@...> wrote: > Come to think of it, I'd like to know, too! > > Robbe Gibson > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Paradise [mailto:am1000@...] > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:24 AM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w > films > > I would like to hear experiences good or bad using > the new Nikon > Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such > as TMX 100, Delta > 100 and C41 b&w films. > > Please email me off-list as this is potentially > off-topic. > > Cheers, > Andre > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you\ufffdre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
2004-03-08 by Max Clark
I should probably add this to my prior recommendation for the Coolscan V though: People have reported that the NikonScan software tends to clip the highlights a bit. After reading this, I started paying attention to my histograms in the NikonScan software. It does appear that there may be some slight clipping of the highlights, and I don't see a work around. That being said, the software appears to compress the levels very close to what I would probably do myself in PS anyway (with levels). Many people use the VueScan software which doesn't have this problem. However, the new NikonScan software is greatly improved over prior versions, and does include curves, so I personally don't think that VueScan has many advantages over NikonScan. --- Tim Goodwin <tgvoz@...> wrote: > I would also like to know. > > Tim Goodwin > > >Come to think of it, I'd like to know, too! > > > >Robbe Gibson > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jack Paradise [mailto:am1000@...] > >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:24 AM > >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w > films > > > >I would like to hear experiences good or bad using > the new Nikon > >Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such > as TMX 100, Delta > >100 and C41 b&w films. > > > >Please email me off-list as this is potentially > off-topic. > > > >Cheers, > >Andre > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you\ufffdre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
2004-03-08 by George Hartzell
Jack Paradise writes: > I would like to hear experiences good or bad using the new Nikon > Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such as TMX 100, Delta > 100 and C41 b&w films. > > Please email me off-list as this is potentially off-topic. I'm also interested in experiences with the 9000. I'd love to see follow-ups on the list, since it's one of my major stumbling blocks for my digital BW printing. Maybe if we keep it short and clean the moderator[s] won't mind.... g.
2004-03-08 by Ernst Dinkla
The results of an ISO 16067 test (new method) by the German magazines C't and Color Foto. I can add more results from slightly older models like the Nikon 4000 etc if there's an interest. The summary here was actually done for the Epsons and the Nikons are added to get real film scanner figures. But it can work the other way around too. The test methods in Color Foto are the same to the one of C't that I did cover some time ago. There are three tests in this February issue, Epson 4870, Nikon LS 50 and LS 5000, the Nikons are 35 mm film scanners as you will know. ISO 16067 test, which is a new test method not yet cleared when the C't test was done but now definitive. I add the 3200 results of C't test to the results of Color Foto. Dynamic range, Color/B&W: 3200-3.2, 4870-3.22/3.30, N50-3.18/2.44, N5000-3.08/2.28 Higher is better Dmax: 3200-3.6, 4870-3.91, N50-4.80, N5000-4.75 Higher is better Signal/Noise at 2.85 D: 3200-3.8, 4870-2.88, N50-1.91, N5000-1.73 Higher is better Color reproduction in deltaE: 3200-6.4, 4870-7.11, N50-6.20, N5000-6.05 Lower is better Lighting evenness: 3200-96%, 4870-98.14%, N50-98.62%, N5000-98.94% Higher is better DOF in mm: 3200-2.9, 4870-1.96, N50-0.26, N5000-0.26 Higher is better Length difference to original, fast/slow scan in %: 3200-no figure, 4870-0.00/0.06, N50-1.00/0.31, N5000-0.50/0.31 Lower is better Pixelshift in pixels: 3200-1.1, 4870-0.33, N50-0.16, N5000-0.20 Lower is better Resolution slow scan/fast scan: 3200-1200, 4870-1600/1700, N50-3600/3600, N5000-3600/3600 Higher is better There are several comments possible on the results. One is based on the fact that the Epsons have a fix focused lens system that asks for some adaption to get the best focus. There is quite a fluctuation in the focusing distances (at least with the 2450/3200 models), so one may wonder which part of the DOF is represented in the tests. Second is the internal reflections/optical path of the Epson flatbeds that can be improved in several ways. The Dynamic range and Dmax are already impressive though. However resolution and Dmax will be better with the adaptions. Epson inflates the resolution specs but it doesn't inflate the density figures. The signal/noise ratio at 2.85 D is a new approach in the ISO test. In the past the Dmax figure was related to the amount of acceptable noise at a given density. Too much noise meant a lower Dmax end result then. There are good arguments to do it that way but this new method is less subjective and makes it easier to compare results. For the older C't test with more scanners: http://members.chello.nl/e.dinkla/Verhaal.pdf Ernst
2004-03-08 by Richard
As it's screwed up the second hand price of my 4000 and I cannot afford to replace it - I don't want to know. Richard
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Goodwin [mailto:tgvoz@...] Sent: 08 March 2004 20:27 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w films I would also like to know. Tim Goodwin >Come to think of it, I'd like to know, too! > >Robbe Gibson > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jack Paradise [mailto:am1000@...] >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:24 AM >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w films > >I would like to hear experiences good or bad using the new Nikon >Coolscan 5000 and/or V scanners with b&w film such as TMX 100, Delta >100 and C41 b&w films. > >Please email me off-list as this is potentially off-topic. > >Cheers, >Andre > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. 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: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. Yahoo! Groups Links --- [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are currently using to read this email. ] --- [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are currently using to read this email. ]
2004-03-08 by Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Clark [mailto:bad2maxxx@...] Sent: 08 March 2004 21:03 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w films I am getting very good results scanning T-Max 100 with my new Nikon Coolscan V, and printing with an Epson 1280 with MIS UT2 inks. Highly recommended. I have some shots posted on Photo.net, but that doesn't help much. The prints look great, I can tell you that much! ----------------------------------------------------- You swine Richard --- [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are currently using to read this email. ]
2004-03-08 by Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Clark [mailto:bad2maxxx@...] Sent: 08 March 2004 21:08 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Nikon Coolscan 5000/V vs b&w films I should probably add this to my prior recommendation for the Coolscan V though: People have reported that the NikonScan software tends to clip the highlights a bit. After reading this, I started paying attention to my histograms in the NikonScan software. It does appear that there may be some slight clipping of the highlights, and I don't see a work around. That being said, the software appears to compress the levels very close to what I would probably do myself in PS anyway (with levels). Many people use the VueScan software which doesn't have this problem. However, the new NikonScan software is greatly improved over prior versions, and does include curves, so I personally don't think that VueScan has many advantages over NikonScan. ------------------------------------------------------ Silverfast V:6.0 is the one, and that's for sure - but I do hope you cannot afford the programme, that would be too, too much for me. By the way, would you like to purchase a second hand 4000 as a back up, just in case you know what happens. I mean to say there's a lot of voodoo going around these days. Richard --- [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are currently using to read this email. ]
2004-03-09 by Andre
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Max Clark <bad2maxxx@y...> wrote: > I am getting very good results scanning T-Max 100 with > my new Nikon Coolscan V, and printing with an Epson > 1280 with MIS UT2 inks. Because of tis light source, the Coolscan are known to show the "structure" of the film, which result in a pepper effect. Have you noticed this with T-Max 100 ? TIA Andre
2004-03-09 by Max Clark
Yes, I would have to say that I do notice this *slightly* when viewing the scan at "actual pixels". However, if I use the Grain Desolver (Digital GEM and ROC), any and all signs of the "pepper effect" or grain is completely removed. I don't know if using this feature can result in softening of the image, but I haven't noticed it. Then again, I haven't done any specific tests on it either. I can say that the prints that use the grain desolver show no signs of grain whatsoever, while those prints from scans where I didn't use that feature do show very slight signs of grain in smooth areas such as sky (but not in a bad way). --- Andre <am1000@...> wrote: > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, > Max Clark > <bad2maxxx@y...> wrote: > > I am getting very good results scanning T-Max 100 > with > > my new Nikon Coolscan V, and printing with an > Epson > > 1280 with MIS UT2 inks. > > Because of tis light source, the Coolscan are known > to show > the "structure" of the film, which result in a > pepper effect. Have > you noticed this with T-Max 100 ? > TIA > Andre > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you\ufffdre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
2004-03-09 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Max Clark wrote: >Many people use the VueScan software which doesn't >have this problem. However, the new NikonScan >software is greatly improved over prior versions, and >does include curves, so I personally don't think that >VueScan has many advantages over NikonScan. > > > Except for the fact that Nikon has ALWAYS taken forever to do software upgrades, while Ed Hamrick literally makes improvements to VueScan on a weekly basis. Keith Krebs "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/ and the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User Community at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"
2004-03-09 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Ernst Dinkla wrote: >The results of an ISO 16067 test (new method) by the German >magazines C't and Color Foto. I can add more results from >slightly older models like the Nikon 4000 > You have data for the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (or the Microtek ArtixScan 4000_? Since I'm (still) running two of them, it would give me a benchmark of sorts. Keith Krebs "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/ and the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User Community at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"
2004-03-09 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
I'd love to see comparative numbers for the Nikon 4000 too. ;-) Keith Krebs "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/ and the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User Community at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"
2004-03-09 by Ernst Dinkla
The results of ISO 16067 tests (new method) by the German magazines C't and Color Foto. Flatbed/filmscanners: Canon 9900F, Microtek Artixscan 1800F, Epson 3200, Epson 4870, Filmscanners: Microtek Filmscan 3600 Silver, Microtek Artixscan 4000 TF, Nikon LS 50, Nikon LS 5000, Nikon LS 40, Nikon LS 4000, Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III, Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. ----------------------------------------- Dynamic range, Color/B&W, Higher is better: C9900F-2.6, Mtk1800F-3.2, E3200-3.2, E4870-3.22/3.30, Mtk3600S-2.2, Mtk4000TF-3.2, N50-3.18/2.44, N5000-3.08/2.28, N40-3.3, N4000-3.2, MinDSDIII-2.9, MinDMP-3.2, The shift between Color/B&W results with the Nikons 5 could be the Nikonscan software. Negatives are clipped in that software though that may have changed in the last version. It is likely that for color they used slides and for B&W negatives. The tests are done with the carriers and software provided. Dmax, Higher is better: C9900F-3.6, Mtk1800F-3.8, E3200-3.6, E4870-3.91, Mtk3600S-2.3, Mtk4000TF-4.4, N50-4.80, N5000-4.75, N40-4.8, N4000-4.7, MinDSDIII-3.0, MinDMP-4.3, Signal/Noise at 2.85 D, Higher is better: C9900F-0.8, Mtk1800F-5.80, E3200-3.8, E4870-2.88, Mtk3600S-0.20, Mtk4000TF-2.0, N50-1.91, N5000-1.73, N40-4.7, N4000-2.9, MinDSDIII-1.2, MinDMP-2.4, The signal/noise ratio at 2.85 D is a new approach in the ISO test. In the past the Dmax figure was related to the amount of acceptable noise at a given density. Too much noise meant a lower Dmax end result then. There are good arguments to do it that way but this new method is less subjective and makes it easier to compare results. But at 1.0 and below means unacceptable as the noise is as much as the signal, 2.85D and above isn't usable then. For the Mtk3600S with 0.2 at 2.85D the Dmax isn't higher than 2.3 anyway. For the C9900F with 0.8 at 2.85D and a Dmax of 3.6 it is different. The dynamic range of 2.6 indicates it already and multi-sampling + longer exposure scans will not help to reduce noise in that case. That's better with the Epsons. DOF in mm, Higher is better: C9900F-2.5, Mtk1800F-1.6, E3200-2.9, E4870-1.96, Mtk3600S-0.9, Mtk4000TF-0.8, N50-0.26, N5000-0.26, N40-0.5, N4000-0.5, MinDSDIII-1.7, MinDMP-0.9, Color reproduction in deltaE, Lower is better: C9900F-11.8, Mtk1800F-9.4, E3200-6.4, E4870-7.11, Mtk3600S-9.1, Mtk4000TF-8.2, N50-6.20, N5000-6.05, N40-6.7, N4000-6.9, MinDSDIII-10.9, MinDMP-9.4 Lighting evenness in %, Higher is better: C9900F-97, Mtk1800F-99, E3200-96, E4870-98.14, Mtk3600S-98, Mtk4000TF-95, N50-98.62, N5000-98.94, N40-98, N4000-98, MinDSDIII-98, MinDMP-98, The change in the Epson 4870 transparency lighting works. Length difference to original, fast/slow scan in %, Lower is better: E4870-0.00/0.06, N50-1.00/0.31, N5000-0.50/0.31, No figures for the other ones. Pixelshift in pixels, Lower is better: C9900F-1.5, Mtk1800F-0.7, E3200-1.1, E4870-0.33, Mtk3600S-1.0, Mtk4000TF-1.3, N50-0.16, N5000-0.20, N40-0.9, N4000-1.3, MinDSDIII-1.6, MinDMP-0.6, Resolution, Higher is better: C9900F-1140, Mtk1800F-1320, E3200-1200, E4870-1650, Mtk3600S-1950, Mtk4000TF-3180, N50-3600, N5000-3600, N40-2900, N4000-3850, MinDSDIII-2880, MinDMP-2840x4960 Middled the slow/fast scan + the two direction resolution results if they didn't differ significantly. The Mtk3600S had a focusing problem hence the low result. Without format choice counted my selection on quality would now be in this order: S/N, Dmax, Resolution, Lighting evenness, Dynamic range and then the rest. Ernst
2004-03-09 by Andre
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote: > > > The results of ISO 16067 tests (new method) by the German > magazines C't and Color Foto. > > Flatbed/filmscanners: > Canon 9900F, Microtek Artixscan 1800F, > Epson 3200, Epson 4870, > > Filmscanners: > Microtek Filmscan 3600 Silver, Microtek Artixscan 4000 TF, > Nikon LS 50, Nikon LS 5000, Nikon LS 40, Nikon LS 4000, > Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III, Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. > > ----------------------------------------- Ernst, Forgive me to ask some more scanner result, but was there anything about the Minolta 5400 in those test and if so, what where the results TIA Andre
2004-03-09 by Ernst Dinkla
No 5400 tested with ISO 160067 methods as far as I know. But I may have missed a test in Color Foto or C't. The test method is however just defined and not yet published so one can not expect much test results yet. See http://www.image-engineering.de/de/ for the test methods and http://www.heise.de/ct/ http://www.colorfoto.de/d/1480 for any tests in the issues that I've missed. Oh, wait a minute: I found something however with google: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005CLy looks like they tested in Color Foto with similar methods more than a year ago, the tester Dietmar Wueller takes part in creating this new ISO method. I see that I have also missed the january 2004 issue with much more tests. Ernst quote: Christian Suwato , dec 16, 2003; 09:52 p.m. For the friends of scanner tests here some pieces of information: Scanner test in Color Foto, January 2004: ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Microtek 120 tf: iso dynamic range: 3,67 (colour)/2,87 (b+w) iso scanner Dmax: 3,75 signal/noise at D= 2,85: 5,14 S/Nx resolution slow scan (= direction of movement): 2880 ppi resolution fast scan (= along scan row): 3400 ppi colour reproduction: 6.80 Delta E uniformity of illumination: 97,48% depth of field: 0,78 mm deviation from the scale of the picture: fast scan/slow scan: 0,00%/0,00% pixel shift: 1,49 pixel The Microtek Scan Wizard likes to crash if preview is left out before scanning in high resolution Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400: 3,22/2,80 4,23 4,22 S/Nx 4000/5000 ppi 8,47 Delta E 97,79% 0,39 mm 0,00/0,31% ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Scanner test in Color Foto, February 2002: [93 points:] Polaroid Sprintscan 120: Dmax: 3,9 ca. 4000 ppi [92/90 points:] Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED: Dmax >3,6 (colour)/2,3 (b+w) ca. 4000 ppi [84 points:]Minolta Dimage Scan Multi: Dmax 2,9 ca. almost 4000 ppi (35mm), 3200 ppi [84 points:]Microtek ArtixcScan 4500: Dmax 3,3 ? ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Conclusion in Foto Magazin, January 2004: 74 points = very good: Microtek ArtixScan 120tf 70 points = good: Microtek ArtixScan 4500t 89 points = good: Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED 68,5 points = good: Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro