Does Nikon apply noise reduction to their CoolScan scanners?

[Shakedown St.]

I am looking for a good film scanner to capture 120 negatives, and I notice a host of used CoolScans I would love to pick up for the right price.

I read it has something called digital ICE, can that be turned off in particular on the 9000ED.

 

[Ysarex]

I am looking for a good film scanner to capture 120 negatives, and I notice a host of used CoolScans I would love to pick up for the right price.

I read it has something called digital ICE, can that be turned off in particular on the 9000ED.

Yes ICE is optional. The 9000ED is a great scanner if you can get it to work on a modern computer.

Joe

 

[dxqcanada]

Joe's got a point ... "if you can get it to work" ... many of these old scanners ran up to Windows XP using old SCSI or USB drivers.
There are many discussion groups dealing with this issue on modern OS's

 

[Ysarex]

Joe's got a point ... "if you can get it to work" ... many of these old scanners ran up to Windows XP using old SCSI or USB drivers.
There are many discussion groups dealing with this issue on modern OS's

It get's worse the 9000ED is old firewire interface and all of the old Nikon drivers crash every modern computer both MAC and Windows. I know I have one in the closet. So to use it on a modern computer you'll need to install a firewire interface card and then hope you can get something like VueScan to run it.

Joe

 

[Shakedown St.]

Joe's got a point ... "if you can get it to work" ... many of these old scanners ran up to Windows XP using old SCSI or USB drivers.
There are many discussion groups dealing with this issue on modern OS's

It get's worse the 9000ED is old firewire interface and all of the old Nikon drivers crash every modern computer both MAC and Windows. I know I have one in the closet. So to use it on a modern computer you'll need to install a firewire interface card and then hope you can get something like VueScan to run it.

Joe

On that note I was also looking at the Epson V700 line, and heard you can get as good of results by wetscanning.

Has anyone had any success with those Epsons, compared to these older Nikon scanners?

 

[Ysarex]

Joe's got a point ... "if you can get it to work" ... many of these old scanners ran up to Windows XP using old SCSI or USB drivers.
There are many discussion groups dealing with this issue on modern OS's

It get's worse the 9000ED is old firewire interface and all of the old Nikon drivers crash every modern computer both MAC and Windows. I know I have one in the closet. So to use it on a modern computer you'll need to install a firewire interface card and then hope you can get something like VueScan to run it.

Joe

On that note, I was also looking at the Epson V700's and heard you can get as good of results by wetscanning. Is there anything special about those Nikon scanners over more modern equipment?

Yep, they're better. Dedicate film scanners produce a sharper more detailed scan. I have an Epson V600, V700, and V850, wet-scan or not the Nikon scanner is better. The Epson scan isn't bad and for most applications it'll do. For 120 film it works quite well, the trick is to never look at a scan from a 9000ED and you'll be happy with the Epson. Braun still makes a new 120 film scanner that will work with modern computers.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Joe's got a point ... "if you can get it to work" ... many of these old scanners ran up to Windows XP using old SCSI or USB drivers.
There are many discussion groups dealing with this issue on modern OS's

It get's worse the 9000ED is old firewire interface and all of the old Nikon drivers crash every modern computer both MAC and Windows. I know I have one in the closet. So to use it on a modern computer you'll need to install a firewire interface card and then hope you can get something like VueScan to run it.

Joe

Cough,cough...that's why Derrel runs his aged Minolta film scanner on a 1999 Power Mac G4/450...IOW, on very OLD hardware and pretty OLD software...yet it writes perfectly usable 16-bit .TIF files!!! Embarassing to say it, but I have the two of these G4/450 models! I own my **original*** G4/450, the one that I payed $2,999.95 for at CompUSA (remember them!?), and one I bought at a yard sale for $15 in 2011...same basic computer model...

 

[AlanKlein]

Yep, they're better. Dedicate film scanners produce a sharper more detailed scan. I have an Epson V600, V700, and V850, wet-scan or not the Nikon scanner is better. The Epson scan isn't bad and for most applications it'll do. For 120 film it works quite well, the trick is to never look at a scan from a 9000ED and you'll be happy with the Epson. Braun still makes a new 120 film scanner that will work with modern computers.

Joe

How do the V600, V700 and V850 compare?

 

[Ysarex]

Yep, they're better. Dedicate film scanners produce a sharper more detailed scan. I have an Epson V600, V700, and V850, wet-scan or not the Nikon scanner is better. The Epson scan isn't bad and for most applications it'll do. For 120 film it works quite well, the trick is to never look at a scan from a 9000ED and you'll be happy with the Epson. Braun still makes a new 120 film scanner that will work with modern computers.

Joe

How do the V600, V700 and V850 compare?

Do you mean one to the other or compare to other scanners? One to the other they're all really the same scanner in that they deliver basically the same result. The differences are feature variations as opposed to hardware guts. For example the 600 doesn't have a full size backlight lid and so only scans 120 roll and smaller whereas the 700 and 850 will scan sheet size film.

Compared to other flatbed scanners with film adapters they compare very well. I'd call the V600 the best bargain scanner available to do acceptable 120 roll scans. The OP noted doing a wet scan. One weakness of all the Epson scanners is their film holders. Another weakness is Epson's consumer oriented stupidity. Their film scanning instructions tell users to position the film emulsion up in the scanner and so to scan through the film base -- stupid is the only word for that. But if you flip the film and scan it correctly you'll get a reversed scan which you have to flip in software. Epson could build that into their scan software but...... stupid. You can buy better film holders including glass film holders from other vendors.

A dedicated film scanner is still going to be better but in the 120 roll size on up the Epsons are very serviceable especially if you ignore their instructions.

Where the Epsons start to hurt is with 35mm film. Here the dedicated film scanners are going to do a better job.

I wasn't clear when I said I have all those scanners -- I have access to them. But this get's to one of the points here: On one of the campuses where I teach the student photo lab has both a V700 and V850 available for the students to use. The V700 given where they have it set up does most of the work. Locked away in the closet are a Nikon 9000ED which hasn't been used in a decade and various 35mm Nikon Coolscans which all outperform the Epsons for 35mm film. There are iMacs in the student lab and the faculty have Windows computers on their office desks. No one on that campus can use the Nikon scanners. I carry a laptop with me to campus and I'm the only one who has taken the trouble to get VueScan set up on my laptop to run the 4000 series Coolscans which only get used when I'm there and I take pity on one of the advanced students who needs a better scan from 35mm film. The faculty rely on the IT staff for hardware support and the IT staff look at those Nikon scanners and just say, "no drivers, obsolete, why haven't you surplussed these out, bye."

Joe

 

[AlanKlein]

Joe, Sorry, I did mean the V600, V700 V800 series compared to each other. The reason I ask is I've been using a V600. It's kind of old and it might be working less effectively than before. I use it mainly for the web. I'm not printing currently. If I did print, I would probably try sending out picture to be done with a drum for large prints. So my question is if I was to replace the V600 with a new scanner for just MF (I don;t shoot 35mm any more and don't plan on large format), what replacement scanner would you suggest? It doesn't have to be an Epson.

Also, please clarify. Should I scan my film reversed from what Epson instructions state for better scans?

Also, do you have any suggestions for better scans? I scan flat 48 color 2400bps and do all my adjustments post scan in Lightroom or Elements. Sometimes I will close up the black and white points during the scan, but that's it. I shoot mainly Velvia 50 chromes in color and Tmax 100 BW negatives.

PS I agree that 35mm is poor and MF is better but even MF needs an awful amount of sharpening. You can see both type scans on my link below, negative, BW and chromes. The 35mm scans were all adjusted in the scanner which I think accounts for a lot of the burning (clipping). That's why I switched to adjusting in post.

 

[Ysarex]

Joe, Sorry, I did mean the V600, V700 V800 series compared to each other. The reason I ask is I've been using a V600. It's kind of old and it might be working less effectively than before. I use it mainly for the web. I'm not printing currently. If I did print, I would probably try sending out picture to be done with a drum for large prints. So my question is if I was to replace the V600 with a new scanner for just MF (I don;t shoot 35mm any more and don't plan on large format), what replacement scanner would you suggest? It doesn't have to be an Epson.

Also, please clarify. Should I scan my film reversed from what Epson instructions state for better scans?

Also, do you have any suggestions for better scans? I scan flat 48 color 2400bps and do all my adjustments post scan in Lightroom or Elements. Sometimes I will close up the black and white points during the scan, but that's it. I shoot mainly Velvia 50 chromes in color and Tmax 100 BW negatives.

PS I agree that 35mm is poor and MF is better but even MF needs an awful amount of sharpening. You can see both type scans on my link below, negative, BW and chromes. The 35mm scans were all adjusted in the scanner which I think accounts for a lot of the burning (clipping). That's why I switched to adjusting in post.

Got to run out with wife and do errands -- I'll get back later.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Joe, Sorry, I did mean the V600, V700 V800 series compared to each other. The reason I ask is I've been using a V600. It's kind of old and it might be working less effectively than before. I use it mainly for the web. I'm not printing currently. If I did print, I would probably try sending out picture to be done with a drum for large prints. So my question is if I was to replace the V600 with a new scanner for just MF (I don;t shoot 35mm any more and don't plan on large format), what replacement scanner would you suggest? It doesn't have to be an Epson.

Also, please clarify. Should I scan my film reversed from what Epson instructions state for better scans?

Also, do you have any suggestions for better scans? I scan flat 48 color 2400bps and do all my adjustments post scan in Lightroom or Elements. Sometimes I will close up the black and white points during the scan, but that's it. I shoot mainly Velvia 50 chromes in color and Tmax 100 BW negatives.

PS I agree that 35mm is poor and MF is better but even MF needs an awful amount of sharpening. You can see both type scans on my link below, negative, BW and chromes. The 35mm scans were all adjusted in the scanner which I think accounts for a lot of the burning (clipping). That's why I switched to adjusting in post.

You can't improve on the scan quality of the V600 by moving up to a 700 or 800 series -- scan hardware is the same, so if you don't need the larger film size stick with the 600.

Clarify: Put the film in the scanner with the emulsion facing down -- scan the image (emulsion) directly and don't scan through the film base. The acetate film will diffuse the image slightly. When you make a print in the darkroom you put the neg in the enlarger emulsion facing the lens -- same here. You post processing the images anyway so no big deal to flip them once in PS.

I agree you have to post process the images. I do the same: a flat 48 bit scan and then off to Photoshop. If using the Epson software what I'll do is click the auto exposure icon and then open the Levels dialog. Set the output highlight to 255 and then make sure the histogram falls inside the two input (black, white) sliders. Then I'll open the Curves dialog and do a rough adjustment for exposure planning to pick up in PS. Turn the scanner sharpening off and then overscan the res. I'll typically scan 120 negs at 3200 ppi with the intention of down sampling and sharpening as I go.

This is a 120 transparency scanned with an Epson V600: paintbrush

Joe

 

[benhasajeep]

Silverfast sells a much better software package for the Nikon supercool scans than the old Nikon software with ICE. This software also works on modern computers. I have a Super Coolscan 5000. And run SilverFast AI 8.8. Was $450 for the software. But a whole lot better than trying to keep an xp laptop alive (it finally died, burned through power connector on mother board). I also have an Epson 4990 that I used for my 120 and 4x5's. The Nikon's output was much better (running even the Nikon software). I don't have enough 120 left to scan to warrant buying the newer Epson scanners. The SilverFast works better than Nikons original with ICE.

As for the 9000, firewire cards can still be purchased that I know at least work up to windows 8.1. I just quickly checked Amazon. I thought about picking up a 9000 but as the longer I waited the pricier their actually got. And the less I needed 120 scans. If I could get one for a cheap price I would probably buy one. But I am talking $1k or less. And that's not going to happen since the last time I looked on ebay.