Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon Super Coolscan - are any still in production?  (Read 10708 times)
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« on: August 12, 2010, 04:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Sadly the 5000 seems to be gone but I still see the 9000 listed as current. However, only one or two stores have any in stock and they are charging like a 50% premium over MSRP. A few stores list it as discontinued but other places, including some big ones, list it merely as out of stock, back ordered, etc. I read that someone ordered one and they did receive a new copy a month ago (after a six month wait).

So is the 9000, at least, still in production, even if at a very low and sporadic rate???
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2010, 03:24:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think so.
I bought one and the dealer had to telephone a bubnch of people to find one stored.
Don't pay more than about 3000 €! Thats what I paid.
Logged

WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2010, 04:02:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually it turns out B&H got a few copies in late yesterday evening ($2200US). I notice that they are sold out already!
So I guess the 9000 is still being made, just very sporadically and at a very low rate. Who knows when they will quit even that.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 04:05:04 PM by LarryBaum » Logged
andyptak
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2010, 10:01:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a 5000 if anyone's interested in it. Used for less than 100 scans.

Reply directly - andy@andrewptak.com, if interested. Thanks
Logged
Anthony R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2010, 08:25:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I think what is being sold new in stores is new old stock. I recently sold my used 9000 for what I paid for it, 5 years ago.
Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2010, 11:12:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I think what is being sold new in stores is new old stock. I recently sold my used 9000 for what I paid for it, 5 years ago.

perhaps, although I've seen a couple places go in and out of stock (mostly out). Maybe a big place like B&H gets some little place in the middle of nowhere to transfer them stock at near wholesale and then B&H sells it???
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2010, 03:25:45 AM »
ReplyReply

perhaps, although I've seen a couple places go in and out of stock (mostly out). Maybe a big place like B&H gets some little place in the middle of nowhere to transfer them stock at near wholesale and then B&H sells it???


Yup - thats how I got mine as they told me.
Logged

kpmedia
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57



« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2010, 09:57:05 PM »
ReplyReply

These always scanned negatives beautifully, especially with ICE on the color negs, but slide scans were always sort of lousy, even compared to a good flatbed. Did anybody else ever notice this? (Did you ever compare scans to other machines?)

Indeed, these have been gone for years now. I bought mine about 4-5 years ago, and it was old stock then.
Logged

Long time Nikon user. Currently using D200 + D3s for sports photography.
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2010, 09:52:08 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems that there might be quite a difference between how the 9000 and V (50) scan Kodachrome.

I read all sorts of arguments all over about V/5000 vs. 9000 for slides, some saying that the 9000 blurs things and is too soft while others insisting that the V/5000 with there direct, non-diffused, lighting emphasize grain/scratches/defects too much.

Anyway, I got to see a demonstration (using default settings and no great care taken on only a single slide, keep that in mind- with care and optimal settings or using alternate software supporting more control it might be closer) of V vs. 9000 for a Kodachrome slide.

It almost seemed like the V (and probably 5000 as well) maybe really does over-emphasize grain/scratches/odd defects. It's almost like the harsh direct light is glinting off everything at a 45 degree angle and making stuff show that maybe really shouldn't, at least not to that degree? I noticed that if you looked at the original slide from an angle right under a direct light you could see a lot more defects than if you looked straight through it head on.

It still may be that the 9000 merely blurs or misses things, but I'm leaning toward it being that it actually captures things in a more natural and true way. The V scan also showed a few weird signs of stair-stepping along dark skinny lines against brights that the 9000 scan was free of.

The V scan didn't seem to handle sharpening in photoshop very well without doing fancy NR first with grain, scratches, etc. quickly getting out of control. Once again do keep in mind it was not scanned in an optimal way though!

If you had large bright regions next to ultra deep shadows I could swear it almost seemed like a lens flare sort of contrast fade out swept over the dark areas with the V. I guess it was probably just due to lower contrast settings/poor default settings or something. Then again I did read some complaints about bright bleeding into black if they were right next to each other. However, I expect they were only talking about a pixel or two distance bleed over and not a wide flare effect. Anyway, whatever the reason, real and troublesome or nothing at all, I didn't see that on the 9000 scan.

The 9000 scan also showed a lot better shadow detail (if also some speckly noise not present with the V, an 8x multi-scan got rid of all the noise though and kept all the detail) and richer color with the default settings, however it also seemed to expose things a bit brighter so it might not have been a fair match. Plus software such as silverfast unlocks double exposure and multi-scanning options in the V which the nikonscan (which was used) locks off. I suspect that Silverfast double exposure might get it close to the 9000.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 09:59:20 PM by LarryBaum » Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2010, 01:57:22 AM »
ReplyReply

quick and dirty K64 scan from each, not a careful comparison, default, not optimal settings used, no processing,ICE was off

V:

9000:


V:

9000:


(again do note that no post-processing and simple default and non-optimal settings were used; using say silverfast with multisampling would surely improve the V, etc.)
Logged
degrub
Guest
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2010, 10:50:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure looks like an exposure boost on the V. Maybe that is part of the difference between the two by default ?

Frank
Logged
kpmedia
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57



« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2010, 06:17:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Your V scans look just like mine: AWFUL! To call V slide scans unusable is almost an understatement. The V is one of the most gorgeous negative scanners I've used to date, but a miserable slide scanner. I don't really understand it. I'm always relieved (though disappointed) to see others getting the same results. It means that my scanner's not broken.

How would that same slide compare in an Epson or Minolta, if you have access?

I'm thinking that slide scanning is just a Nikon scanner weakness in general.
Logged

Long time Nikon user. Currently using D200 + D3s for sports photography.
degrub
Guest
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2010, 09:18:18 PM »
ReplyReply

or is the light more diffuse ?
Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2010, 11:03:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Your V scans look just like mine: AWFUL! To call V slide scans unusable is almost an understatement. The V is one of the most gorgeous negative scanners I've used to date, but a miserable slide scanner. I don't really understand it. I'm always relieved (though disappointed) to see others getting the same results. It means that my scanner's not broken.

How would that same slide compare in an Epson or Minolta, if you have access?

I'm thinking that slide scanning is just a Nikon scanner weakness in general.


I'm suspicious that something about the angle of the lighting, very direct, makes the scanner see light glinting off 3D defects at weird angles and emphasizes edge boundaries of grains and bubbles and dirt sort of like how if you look something with the light hitting at the right angle you can suddenly see all sorts of scratches and little specular highlights and bumps that you don't notice looking straight on (and straight on is how we view slides). So maybe the 9000 with the much different and more diffused lighting system avoids that.

Also, perhaps something about the direct lighting of the V/5000 (and it needs to be strong to handle slides with their very high density) causes some lens flare or internal reflections inside the scanner's lens?? The 9000 slide had both brighter cloud highlights and yet deeper blacks near whites. Of course some of that may simply have been the default gave the 9000 more contrast, but even aside from that I could swear it seemed like super deep blacks near ultra bright whites looked a little faded on the V but not on the 9000. When I first looked at the scan from the V I was like wow I never realized how bad the lens flare had been on that 50mm 1.8 FD but then when I saw the 9000 scan and I was like ok now that looks more like what I expected.

I had been afraid that the 9000 was simply a blurrier technology missing all the finer details that the V/5000 could properly pick up and was less true to the original slides, but now I think it's the 9000 that handles the slides in a more true to life way.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 11:07:27 PM by LarryBaum » Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2010, 11:35:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Larry, your idea about direct versus diffused light has been around for many years.  A product, Scanhancer, has also been available for many years that some use for the Minolta Multi Pro scanner.  Scanhancer may not be of use to you, but perhaps you may be interested in their discussion of direct versus diffused light for film scanning.

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15

Dean Erger
Logged

Dean Erger
kpmedia
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57



« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2010, 04:53:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. Look deeper:
http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=40&men=10
http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=22&men=3

It shows how to modify for Nikon V.

But this appears to be more for grain reduction than the flare we see.
Logged

Long time Nikon user. Currently using D200 + D3s for sports photography.
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560


« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2010, 09:49:44 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, I have a 9000 which does a fine job with E6 film.  I've kept a Minolta 5400 DSE vI ( which came with a diffuse light source) for any Kodachrome scans I might need.  The DSE does a better job: the extra resolution is useful and the Nikon produces some strange tracks in the scans when ICE is used.  Here is a full resolution crop of the scans made with each scanner.  Note the weird "worm tracks in the Nikon scan. I attached the image, but it only appears if I am logged in to the site, apparently not to a guest.  I'll try this
 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 07:02:58 AM by tsjanik » Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2010, 04:33:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting. Look deeper:
http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=40&men=10
http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=22&men=3

It shows how to modify for Nikon V.

But this appears to be more for grain reduction than the flare we see.

I bet the third party wet mount kit for the 9000 is the best solution of all (no more blurry corners due to warp and the ultimate in combination of sharpness without exaggerating grain), but it seems like a pain in the neck.
Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2010, 05:05:17 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, I have a 9000 which does a fine job with E6 film.  I've kept a Minolta 5400 DSE vI ( which came with a diffuse light source) for any Kodachrome scans I might need.  The DSE does a better job: the extra resolution is useful and the Nikon produces some strange tracks in the scans when ICE is used.  Here is a full resolution crop of the scans made with each scanner.  Note the weird "worm tracks in the Nikon scan. I attached the image, but it only appears if I am logged in to the site, apparently not to a guest.  I'll try this


Which is which?

Surprisingly, I haven't found ICE causing any artifacts with 9000+K64 (although perhaps I haven't been looking in the right places). If there is something weird, the something weird is even more apparent when ICE is not used and it's clearly a piece of dust or dirt. Originally I thought I'd never use ICE. Since it saves so much time in post-processing and I haven't seen softening or artifacting, I've been using it.


Anyway here are some 9000+K64 100% crop samples (I guess the wet mounting kit would be better since it would further reduce grain over-emphasis which even the 9000 does, if not as badly as the 5000 and V and it sure is hard to get the corners and sometimes even edges crisp using any of these which the wet mounting would fix too):






« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 09:24:33 PM by LarryBaum » Logged
kpmedia
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57



« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2010, 07:43:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I often save scans as maximum quality JPEG, and then run them through Adobe Camera Raw. The color noise reduction can de-emphasize the grain. And then, of course, we always have NeatImage, which with a few custom settings, can further reduce grain without impact to the sharpness of the image. '

Just a thought. Smiley
Logged

Long time Nikon user. Currently using D200 + D3s for sports photography.
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad