Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon Coolscan 8000 advice  (Read 2986 times)
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 466


« on: February 06, 2014, 09:21:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello all:
I just purchased a used Nikon Coolscan 8000 film scanner. The previous owner ran it with Vuescan on a Mac. I have a PC with Windows 7 64 bit, and the latest Vuescan. Vuescan says it cannot find a scanner. I changed the Firewire cable, and no help. I run my Epson V700 with Vuescan, and it works fine. Any suggestions? I have priceless family negatives from 1935 to 1940 that my Dad made, before dying at age 29 when I was three. The negs were lost for 72 years and just recovered....really important I get the scanner up and running. I started the project with my Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, but it died.
Thanks in advance
Dave Gurtcheff
Beach Haven, NJ
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2014, 09:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you gotten in touch with Ed Hamrick to ask for advice? If in the final analysis you cannot work it with Vuescan, I recommend you download a demo version of SilverFast 8 for the Nikon 8000 and see whether that helps.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 842



« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2014, 09:52:13 PM »
ReplyReply

The last time I tried Windows7 does not support Firewire.

Rich

  I apologise, that was Vista that didn't support firewire. Time flies and I'm gettng senile.

 I agree wth Mark's suggestion to contact Ed Hamrick.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 10:58:07 PM by Richowens » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7418


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2014, 12:18:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I recommend that you mail Ed Hamrick, he used to be very helpful.

I helped him with testing the drivers for the Minolta Simage Scan Multi Pro and it was a great experience. Ed Hamrick is a very nice guy to work with.

http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/nikon_coolscan_8000_ed.html

Best regards
Erik


Hello all:
I just purchased a used Nikon Coolscan 8000 film scanner. The previous owner ran it with Vuescan on a Mac. I have a PC with Windows 7 64 bit, and the latest Vuescan. Vuescan says it cannot find a scanner. I changed the Firewire cable, and no help. I run my Epson V700 with Vuescan, and it works fine. Any suggestions? I have priceless family negatives from 1935 to 1940 that my Dad made, before dying at age 29 when I was three. The negs were lost for 72 years and just recovered....really important I get the scanner up and running. I started the project with my Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, but it died.
Thanks in advance
Dave Gurtcheff
Beach Haven, NJ
Logged

b2martin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2014, 07:54:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't have any experience with Vuescan, but do have a Nikon 9000 film scanner working on a Windows 7 64 bit computer using Nikon Scan software. The problem using the Nikon software with Windows 7 64 bit software is Nikon did not supply a 64 bit driver for Windows 7. I followed directions on this site to get it working.

http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/44994-getting-your-nikon-coolscan-work-w7-x64.html

I purchased the scanner new, and it came with a Firewire port to install in the computer. I understand the scanner does not work with all Firewire ports, so this may be your problem. I used this firewire board in my Windows XP computer, but when I built a new computer and installed Windows 7 64 bit Professional the Firewire port on the new compute worked with the 9000 scanner.
Logged
JayWPage
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2014, 09:13:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED which which I bought new several years ago. It came with a "High-speed IEEE 1394 interface card" (port) which I have never used since my Mac Pro and Vuescan work fine with the Firewire connection. I would explore all the software solutions first, but if you think that the card might might be useful to you, PM me and I will post it in the For Sale forum for some nominal amount.
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2014, 11:57:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I recommend viewscan as very good software. The only time I would prefer silverfast is if there is a very difficult color cast on the film. The color wheel adjustment interface is a great idea, one I tried to get raw therapee to copy.
Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 466


« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2014, 02:16:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks all: I down loaded Silverfast Demo, and it, too, cannot find the scanner. I am beginning to suspect the firewire card, so I am going to replace it, even though Device Manager seems to think it is working properly. This Coolscan 8000 is in beautiful condition, complete with a glass roll film carrier, in addition to the glassless carriers. I really want to get this baby up and running.
Thanks again
Dave
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2014, 03:14:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Dave, I suggest you get in touch with SilverFast tech support and discuss the problem with them. They may know how to resolve it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JayWPage
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2014, 03:15:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Several years ago I carried out extensive tests between Vuescan and Silverfast, trying to decide which was best. I concluded that Silverfast has a very slight edge in capturing fine detail in the mid-tones. It's also much easier software to calibrate for certain types of scanning, such as scanning Kodachrome slides. Neither had much in the way of user-friendly documentation. Problem is you never know if there is some small amount of default sharpening being applied, so you're never completely sure if you are really comparing apples to apples.

I found Vuescan difficult to calibrate, in fact often I suspected that the calibration was accomplishing nothing at all. A month after I had finished a big scanning project, Vuescan came out with a bug fix relating to the calibration...

I haven't gone back and tried to rescan some of the 1000+ slides that I did to see if the new versions of Vuescan have improved, although there is an instruction manual now that you can buy.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 03:20:51 PM by JayWPage » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2014, 03:18:05 PM »
ReplyReply

With SilverFast 8 you have complete control over whether or not it will apply any sharpening.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2014, 09:50:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks all: I down loaded Silverfast Demo, and it, too, cannot find the scanner. I am beginning to suspect the firewire card, so I am going to replace it, even though Device Manager seems to think it is working properly. This Coolscan 8000 is in beautiful condition, complete with a glass roll film carrier, in addition to the glassless carriers. I really want to get this baby up and running.
Thanks again
Dave

Dave,
I'm not sure if what follows is relevant. I'm successfully using a Nikon 8000 ED on a Win 7 system for the first time. Fortunately, the computer just happened to have a Firewire connection. I didn't attempt to install any Nikon software or drivers before switching on the scanner for the first time.

When I first switched the scanner on, I was expecting to see some message at the foot of the monitor screen to the effect that no driver could be found. I was surprised instead to see the scanner go through its own initialization procedure with an initial noise, and a green light blinking continuously top left. After some time, maybe half a minute, the green light stops blinking and shines continuously, suggesting that the scanner is ready for use.

In fact, at this stage one doesn't even need to have the computer switched on for the scanner to accept a film holder and draw it in, accompanied by various noises.

When I downloaded the trial version of Silverfast that claimed to have a driver for the Nikon 8000 ED, I was a bit puzzled that the program took so long to open, until I realised that it was waiting for this initialization process to complete, after switching on the scanner.

Does your scanner behave like this?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2014, 09:54:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Normally to use SilverFast with a scanner it is necessary to switch on the scanner before launching SilverFast. Once the scanner initializes, you can open SilverFast, select the scanner on the SilverFast launch page if it is not already automatically selected and the SilverFast application will then open fully and work with it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2014, 01:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Normally to use SilverFast with a scanner it is necessary to switch on the scanner before launching SilverFast. Once the scanner initializes, you can open SilverFast, select the scanner on the SilverFast launch page if it is not already automatically selected and the SilverFast application will then open fully and work with it.

That's what I've found, Mark. However, Vuescan seems to operates slightly differently. Whilst the scanner has to be switched on before the software will recognise the scanner, that initialization process does not have to be complete. One gets the same message, "Your scanner isn't ready to scan yet. You need to insert film into the scanner before scanning" whether or not the initialization process is complete.

Of course, one can't insert the film till that process is complete.

Another anomaly I found, after using the trial version of Silverfast for a couple of weeks, is that after I installed Vuescan, which I subscribed to some years ago, the Silverfast trial ceased to recognise my scanner. This was not because the trial had expired, as far as I'm aware. I was therefore unable to make direct comparison between Slverfast and Vuescan with the 8000 ED.

However, that's no big deal for me. I upgraded the Silverfast software that came with my Epson V700 flatbed, and I find after appropriate sharpening of the V700 scan that the 8000 ED scan, at 4000 dpi, is only very marginally better than the Epson flatbed at 6400 dpi.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2014, 08:03:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray, I also have Vuescan on my computer but I only use it very occasionally for comparison purposes, so I can't speak with authority about it. Hence I don't understand how your SilverFast demo would be affected by Vuescan. Sounds perhaps like a driver conflict? I would suggest discussing this matter with SilverFast tech support.

As for scanner resolution and sharpness, the two of course are completely different concepts operating differently on the image. For starters, the effective resolution of your scanner has nothing to do with the self-rated resolution published by scanner manufacturers. It could well be that their CCDs are capable of rendering the stated resolution, but nothing else in these consumer-grade scanners usually can. Moat of them are optically more limited, or limited by other design and performance factors reducing effective resolution relative to rated resolution. The only way to evaluate this is to run resolution tests using a standard resolution target, as I have done on a number of scanners. In my experience, the Nikon 5000 comes closest to its rated resolution from amongst the Epson, Nikon, Minolta and Plustek models I've tested.

Sharpening is another matter altogether. This is purely a software function of altering edge contrast at the pixel level, changing the visual perception of acuity. Sharpness also very much depends on the content of the original media and its apparent graininess. Normally I do not perform any grain mitigation or sharpening in a scan, because these are non-reversible without rescanning the media. I send a completed scan to applications such as Neat Image or Topaz de-Noise or Noiseware or Noise Ninja (all good) for grain mitigation and Photokit Sharpener 2 for sharpening. This provides much more detailed control over these functions than available in any scanning software. Alternatively, the noise reduction (I know noise and grain are different) and sharpening tools in Lightroom have become so good that post-processing these scans in Lightroom is often all I need for these two purposes.

Bottom line: forget about the rated resolution of your scanner. Scan at the highest resolution your scanner allows if you think you'll need that resolution (usually for printing enlarged images) later in time, and then use the best techniques for grain mitigation and sharpening available (unless for some reason you wish to preserve the graininess rendered by the scanner/film combination).
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2014, 08:41:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Good advice, Mark. I also find that programs such as ICE, iSRD and GANE can sometimes make a botched repair job on significant marks on the film.

The Healing Brush and Spot Healing Brush in Photoshop can sometimes do a better job, with a bit of patience and skill.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2014, 08:47:21 AM »
ReplyReply

iSRD is normally very good, but of course should be used with some care, and is not workable with B&W media. I find it usually beats manual retouching by country-miles in terms of time saving and quality. But periodically manual intervention is necessary. I'd always begin clean-ups of colour media with iSRD. ICE is not as refined or controllable an application.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2014, 09:26:17 AM »
ReplyReply

iSRD is normally very good, but of course should be used with some care, and is not workable with B&W media. I find it usually beats manual retouching by country-miles in terms of time saving and quality. But periodically manual intervention is necessary. I'd always begin clean-ups of colour media with iSRD. ICE is not as refined or controllable an application.

This is the effect I'm talking about, Mark. I'm beginning to think that for best results I should not use any adjustments in the scanner software, apart from general color, contrast and hue adjustments.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6934


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2014, 10:02:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray, I see - iSRD is not really meant for or particularly good at repairing the kind of large-scale degradation you show there. It is meant for finer scratches, dust and dirt. What you are showing cannot be fixed in any scanner software I'm familiar with. It requires some pretty careful retouching work in an application such as Photoshop.

As for where to do what, not to toot my own horn here, but as a matter of fact, my SilverFast book deals with that extensively. In a nutshell, I think it very useful to begin with a scan that is properly colour-managed - there are options for doing this. Colour balance, hue and tone adjustments can be performed either in the scanner software or in post-scan applications - Lightroom being my hands-down favorite if I am going beyond the scan software. Each application, scanner or otherwise, has its relative merits at different tasks as one discovers by experimenting with optional workflows. The main thing to be mindful of in the scan software is to at least normalize the histogram so that you do not produce a scan with blocked-up shadows and highlights, because that is pretty-well unrecoverable without rescanning. Normally it's a good idea to avoid excessively contrasty scans.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2014, 11:28:23 AM »
ReplyReply



As for scanner resolution and sharpness, the two of course are completely different concepts operating differently on the image. For starters, the effective resolution of your scanner has nothing to do with the self-rated resolution published by scanner manufacturers. It could well be that their CCDs are capable of rendering the stated resolution, but nothing else in these consumer-grade scanners usually can. Moat of them are optically more limited, or limited by other design and performance factors reducing effective resolution relative to rated resolution. The only way to evaluate this is to run resolution tests using a standard resolution target, as I have done on a number of scanners. In my experience, the Nikon 5000 comes closest to its rated resolution from amongst the Epson, Nikon, Minolta and Plustek models I've tested.


I would bet the Minolta 5400 II is the best scanner made short of an imacon or drum. The only difference between the I and II is the II had a white diffuser to even the luminance in the corners with the center. They stopped making these way too early.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad