Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?

"Toni Nikkanen" <toni.TakeThisOut@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
<SNIP>

My advice would be to save your pennies (put away US$100 a month plus
whatever you have now) and get a Nikon 9000 a year from now.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

"Toni Nikkanen" <toni.RemoveThis@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote in message
news:rlpps0xdz0z.fsf@morgoth.tuug.fi...
>
> I'm perhaps looking for a true medium format film scanner that I could
> afford. It seems I just might able to buy a second-hand Minolta Scan
> Multi Pro or Nikon Coolscan 8000 unit from eBay or elsewhere. I've
> been trying to come up with a preference between these two units on
> information I found on the web. Are there any updates to what I have
> gathered here:
>
> Minolta Scan Multi Pro:
> + Glass holder is included
> + I like Minolta Scan software (experience from my Scan Elite 5400
> II)
> + Slide scanning quality is said to be damn good
> - There are reports of problems scanning negatives: excessive grain
> and clipped highlights. The "scanhancer" apparently solves the
> first problem, what about the other? I scan B&W and color
> negatives a lot, also slides.
> - Digital ICE, which I intend to use a lot, causes artifacts in
> sharp edges
>
> Nikon Coolscan 8000:
> - Banding issue when not scanning at the slow setting
> - Glass holder an expensive option
> + No reported problems with scanning negatives
> + No reported problems with ICE
> + For some reason I trust Nikon build quality more but have no
> actual data to justify this opinion
>
>
> Both have one common (potential) problem: Minolta doesn't make
> scanners anymore at all. Nikon doesn't make the Coolscan 8000 anymore,
> it's replaced by the Coolscan 9000. Will service be a problem? Will my
> scanner turn into expensive junk when something breaks inside?
>
> I'm coming from an Epson V700 + Scan Elite 5400 II combination, I plan
> on selling both when I have acquired the true MF film scanner. My
> "dream scanner" would be one that was as convenient and produces
> as good results as the Scan Elite 5400 II, but for medium format.
> This includes convenience of handling film with the scanner and
> the magically wonderful way ICE is implemented on the 5400II.
>
>
>
>

Just get the Nikon--they have no real competitor in their price range...

--
www.mattclara.com
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

JR <jrhone.DeleteThis@mac.com.invalid> writes:

> Be careful with the Minolta as new software wont be readily available
> from Minolta....(Vuescan will work as well as a few other 3rd party
> solutions)....that being said...the Minolta is an AMAZING scanner....I
> used the 5400 for my 35mm and rented a Minolta Pro for my medium format
> scans and they are VERY good....amazing in fact.

Yes I'd expect amazing scans after my experiences with the 5400II, but
what about the issue with negative films? Is there a solution? Or does
the problem even exist?
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

In article <rlplkbket13.fsf.RemoveThis@morgoth.tuug.fi>,
Toni Nikkanen <toni.RemoveThis@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:

> JR <jrhone.RemoveThis@mac.com.invalid> writes:
>
> > Be careful with the Minolta as new software wont be readily available
> > from Minolta....(Vuescan will work as well as a few other 3rd party
> > solutions)....that being said...the Minolta is an AMAZING scanner....I
> > used the 5400 for my 35mm and rented a Minolta Pro for my medium format
> > scans and they are VERY good....amazing in fact.
>
> Yes I'd expect amazing scans after my experiences with the 5400II, but
> what about the issue with negative films? Is there a solution? Or does
> the problem even exist?

I would imagine it scans negatives great....I used all positove film
when I used it....rent one and see if it does what you want....

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

On Sep 5, 9:50 pm, Toni Nikkanen <t....TakeThisOut@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> JR <jrh....TakeThisOut@mac.com.invalid> writes:
> > Be careful with the Minolta as new software wont be readily available
> > from Minolta....(Vuescan will work as well as a few other 3rd party
> > solutions)....that being said...the Minolta is an AMAZING scanner....I
> > used the 5400 for my 35mm and rented a Minolta Pro for my medium format
> > scans and they are VERY good....amazing in fact.
>
> Yes I'd expect amazing scans after my experiences with the 5400II, but
> what about the issue with negative films? Is there a solution? Or does
> the problem even exist?

I have had some neg films scanned on a coolscan 9000 and the grain was
a very serious issue.

For the Minolta look here: http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15.
I have never used this and am in no way affiliated by the company that
makes it!
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

MLIDDELL wrote:

> I have had some neg films scanned on a coolscan 9000 and the grain was
> a very serious issue.

Uhm... The grain is in the film, right?
So not a scanner issue (except that the thing was good enough to show the
grain)?

 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

MLIDDELL <marko.liddell.DeleteThis@gmail.com> writes:

> For the Minolta look here: http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15.
> I have never used this and am in no way affiliated by the company that
> makes it!

Yes, I understand the Scanhancer fixes the graininess issue but what
about the clipped shadows and highlights issue described here:
http://web.tiscali.it/saphoto/body_scanimages2.html

Also there is a vague reference here:
http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro.html

"[Update 26.06.02]
A group of Minolta Pro users are quite concerned about the problems with scanning negatives. They have made a site describing the problems:
? http://www.visicon.se/multipro/ "

....that link no longer works.


Now googling further I found some hints that "the negative problem"
may have been addressed in a newer Minolta scan software release and that
it was really only a software problem anyway, so using vuescan or silverfast
might be the complete solution:
http://www.photographical.net/silverfast_ai_6.html




...to summarize my ramblings, I will chalk this up as "there is no
negative problem" and I also found that the "ICE problem" doesn't happen
with Vuescan (at least).

While the original advice of buying a new Nikon 9000 when I have gathered
the money is probably the best choice (I could have the money tonight if I wanted
to; I have a mortgage it is also a question of just how much spending I can
justify for the silly obsession of scanning film
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

"Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu.TakeThisOut@tiscali.nl> writes:

> Uhm... The grain is in the film, right?
> So not a scanner issue (except that the thing was good enough to show the
> grain)?
>

Actually "grain aliasing" can greatly exaggerate graininess on a film,
far beyond what a traditional wet print would show. So it can be a
scanner issue as well.
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

"Toni Nikkanen" <toni.RemoveThis@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
>
> While the original advice of buying a new Nikon 9000 when I have gathered
> the money is probably the best choice (I could have the money tonight if I
> wanted
> to; I have a mortgage it is also a question of just how much spending I
> can
> justify for the silly obsession of scanning film

One of the reasons for my suggestion is that I'm a real wimp when it comes
to electronic equipment: your US$2,000 buys you a year of use (with optics
that start out clean), whereas you don't know when something in a used unit
is going to blow, at your expense (if even repairable, especially with the
Minolta, since the company doesn't even exist any more). I purchase at a
store that provides an extended limited 5 year guarantee (for 5% of the
purchase price), and they've fixed things that have died after one but less
than 5 years from time of purchase.

Sorry to be on your case here, but, IMHO, buying a used scanner is a bad
idea.

I'd stick with the V700. (Have you tried scanning at 6400 ppi, applying
light noise reduction, downsampling to, say, 2700 ppi? That might create a
very nice file that'll print nicely at 300 ppi, which is a 9x enlargement,
which is about all film is good for for quality prints anyway.)

One thing you might want to do is to take your sharpest slide and have it
drum scanned at 8000 ppi and see how much better that is than the V700,
although that will take a large bite out of your scanner fund.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

On Sep 5, 9:26 am, Toni Nikkanen <t....RemoveThis@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> I'm perhaps looking for a true medium format film scanner that I could
> afford. It seems I just might able to buy a second-hand Minolta Scan
> Multi Pro or Nikon Coolscan 8000 unit from eBay or elsewhere. I've
> been trying to come up with a preference between these two units on
> information I found on the web. Are there any updates to what I have
> gathered here:
>
> Minolta Scan Multi Pro:
> + Glass holder is included
> + I like Minolta Scan software (experience from my Scan Elite 5400 II)
> + Slide scanning quality is said to be damn good
> - There are reports of problems scanning negatives: excessive grain
> and clipped highlights. The "scanhancer" apparently solves the
> first problem, what about the other? I scan B&W and color
> negatives a lot, also slides.
> - Digital ICE, which I intend to use a lot, causes artifacts in sharp edges
>
> Nikon Coolscan 8000:
> - Banding issue when not scanning at the slow setting
> - Glass holder an expensive option
> + No reported problems with scanning negatives
> + No reported problems with ICE
> + For some reason I trust Nikon build quality more but have no
> actual data to justify this opinion
>
> Both have one common (potential) problem: Minolta doesn't make
> scanners anymore at all. Nikon doesn't make the Coolscan 8000 anymore,
> it's replaced by the Coolscan 9000. Will service be a problem? Will my
> scanner turn into expensive junk when something breaks inside?
>
> I'm coming from an Epson V700 + Scan Elite 5400 II combination, I plan
> on selling both when I have acquired the true MF film scanner. My
> "dream scanner" would be one that was as convenient and produces
> as good results as the Scan Elite 5400 II, but for medium format.
> This includes convenience of handling film with the scanner and
> the magically wonderful way ICE is implemented on the 5400II.

I have been using the Nikon 8000 since the week it was introduced. I
have no experience with the Minolta scanners. What I can relay to you
is that I have scanned: 6mm negatives from very old disc cameras; 35mm
film in both negative and positive form; 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 Kodak and
Fuji Meduim Format negatives and 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 negatives
from the 1920's and 1930's. The only problem is that you cannot use
ICE on the very old BW film and some older color slides. I have
acheived very high quality scans from all media with no problems at
all. I generally do not scan at 8000dpi as I nearly never need a file
of that size for my prints. 4000dpi is my norm and I try not to do any
tweaking with grain removal, sharpenning, etc. The only adjustments I
make are in levels and exposure to get the histogram in proper shape.
I do all editing in photoshop.

I would invest in the glass holder as the one that comes with the unit
causes much frustration for everyone I know that uses the 8000.

One warning is that I cannot use my Nikon 8000 at present because I
was forced to get a new computer and there is no driver from Nikon for
the Nikon 8000 or 9000 for Windows Vista. They say that one *may* be
in the works, but nothing yet. I am an active member of the 'I hate
Vista' club

Cheers,

Don S.
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

I do have the same problem with the money - I really wouldnt like to
use 2700 euros for a new Nikon, or 1500 for used 8000. About 1000
euros could maybe some day be affordable . At the moment I own Canon
8400F, which can scan medium format, but the result is nowhere near to
what I get out of 35mm frames with my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV.

I would like to know about the Minolta Multi Pro vs. Nikon.. The Dmax-
stuff? Does it have poorer, better or same ability to record
highlights and shadows? The given Dmax or D-range values of course do
not tell everything, but could give some help comparing these
scanners.
I think they both have enough resolution for most purposes, of course
would be nice if it really got every detail out of even 50 ASA slide
films. But the differences might be bigger or more important with the
dynamic?


Some comments on the earlier topics:

Grain problem: I really think at this level in equipment, the scanners
should be able to reproduce the REAL grain of film. My Scan Dual IV
at 3200 dpi can do that with most B&W negatives, at least with 100 ASA
or more. Some problems with Agfa 25 APX, because the grain is so
small. 8000 dpi should be fine to record the grain from any film, I
think.
This means, there should not be grain aliasing problem, if you use
high enough dpi when scanning. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I
think this problem exists only when the scanner cant record the real
grain, just the picture it produces.

If the frame has grain, I want it to scan it also. I wouldnt use any
grain removing filters, because it will change the look of the photo
(maybe by blurring it).

ICE: I think these filters only work with E-6 (etc.) slides and color
negatives, not B&W or Kodachrome films, because it work with Infra-Red
light. IR-light will not pass silver grains, that B&W negatives
(except C-41) and Kodachrome slides do have. I'm not sure if there is
some application, that does support also films with silver grain.

Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide
films. Slide films have way higher density level, than negatives.
Velvia 50 is said to have Dmax up to 3,8 or something. Ideal B&W
negatives usually have Dmax up to 1,3 or 1,5. This should mean the
scanners would be able to record all the shadows from negative, which
will be highlights in the picture. Of course also the Dmin is
important and some scanners might have problems there also, especially
with underexposed negatives. Problems with dynamic range should anyway
be greater with slide films than negatives, at least with the Dmax.
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

Recently, hanninen.antti.DeleteThis@gmail.com <hanninen.antti.DeleteThis@gmail.com> posted:

> I do have the same problem with the money - I really wouldnt like to
> use 2700 euros for a new Nikon, or 1500 for used 8000. About 1000
> euros could maybe some day be affordable . At the moment I own Canon
> 8400F, which can scan medium format, but the result is nowhere near to
> what I get out of 35mm frames with my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV.
>
> I would like to know about the Minolta Multi Pro vs. Nikon.. The Dmax-
> stuff? Does it have poorer, better or same ability to record
> highlights and shadows? The given Dmax or D-range values of course do
> not tell everything, but could give some help comparing these
> scanners.
> I think they both have enough resolution for most purposes, of course
> would be nice if it really got every detail out of even 50 ASA slide
> films. But the differences might be bigger or more important with the
> dynamic?
>
Frankly, I think you'll find more variation between users of these
scanners than between the scanners. The dynamic range of either is
suitable for capturing the image for most purposes. Keep in mind that
these are low mid-range units that will do a decent job on most images. If
you need to get beyond the capabilities of these scanners (and users), a
professional using a high-end drum scanner can do the job. I use those
kinds of services for about 5% or less of my work.

> Some comments on the earlier topics:
>
> Grain problem: I really think at this level in equipment, the scanners
> should be able to reproduce the REAL grain of film.
>
Well, no, they won't.

> My Scan Dual IV
> at 3200 dpi can do that with most B&W negatives, at least with 100 ASA
> or more. Some problems with Agfa 25 APX, because the grain is so
> small. 8000 dpi should be fine to record the grain from any film, I
> think.
> This means, there should not be grain aliasing problem, if you use
> high enough dpi when scanning. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I
> think this problem exists only when the scanner cant record the real
> grain, just the picture it produces.
>
Grain aliasing can even be an issue when drum scanning. To understand
more, it might be better to start a discussion in comp.periphs.scanners,
as there are some very knowledgeable folks in that group that can get very
specific about such issues. There are also very detailed discussions on
grain aliasing in the archives for that group.

> Generally I would say, negative films are easier to scan, than slide
> films.
>
That hasn't been my experience. Keep in mind that most "pros" shooting
during the introduction of scanners (more than 25 years ago) were using
slide films to make editorial decisions easier, so the equipment was
optimized for that kind of film. Negative films were not designed to be
scanned, and therefore exhibit more artifacts than slide films.

> Slide films have way higher density level, than negatives.
> Velvia 50 is said to have Dmax up to 3,8 or something.
>
However, this level of scanner has Dmax capabilities of > 4, so that isn't
the problem one runs into.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000? 

Toni Nikkanen wrote:

> Minolta Scan Multi Pro:
>
> Nikon Coolscan 8000:

I've had two Minolta film scanners (Dimage Scan Dual and 5400 (non -
II)) and now the Nikon 9000 ED. (I also have a Mustek flatbed that is a
bit long in the tooth).

The Minolta's were always great and reliable. I got $500 for the 5400
after well in excess of 5000 scans. Some slide film would only scan
well with the Minolta s/w; some negative film only with VueScan.

I'm no fan of the Nikon scan s/w, but slowly getting used to it.

The 8000 has a very good rep, but of course is improved in the 9000.

I have heard various horror stories about Nikon scanner service in the
US. Of course you don't here of the many likely good stories.

I reluctantly say: don't get the Minolta, but only because there is no
more Minolta in this business. Further, as OS' evolve it will be harder
and harder to assure support for the s/w.

As Littleboy says ... pinch a few pennies (who needs a girlfriend
anyway) and get the 9000 ED.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?