Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
On Mar 21, 2004, at 01:29, Shel Belinkoff wrote: What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about the Minolta? To be honest I don't remember. The models he looked at would have been 4000ppi, available new maybe 6 months ago. I do remember that the Minolta has an optical grain diffuser built-in but how much difference this makes I don't know. I think it'd be better if you could judge them yourself... that way whatever you buy will meet your own criteria. I've got no problem with huge files the bigger the better, IMO, as long as I can make small files for cataloging or "proofs" as well. First thing I did after taking delivery of my new computer was to whack in an extra Gb of RAM :) - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi Mark ... I got another computer, lotsa memory, faster processor, two hard drives, and I replaced the mouse on the email machine. ;-)) I'll add a little more memory to the new machine, and I should be fine. shel Mark Dalal wrote: > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which > > Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about > > the Minolta? > > Shel, > > Each brand has its detractors and within each brand, a few junkers make it > out the door. It's safest to buy new so you can return if there's a problem. > The Nikon Coolscan V, 5000, and Minolta 5400 are all excellent scanners. > Unless things have changed since the last time I was over, I think you > should be worrying more about the computer. Did you ever get around to > replacing that mouse? ; ) > > Mark
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which > Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about > the Minolta? Shel, Each brand has its detractors and within each brand, a few junkers make it out the door. It's safest to buy new so you can return if there's a problem. The Nikon Coolscan V, 5000, and Minolta 5400 are all excellent scanners. Unless things have changed since the last time I was over, I think you should be worrying more about the computer. Did you ever get around to replacing that mouse? ; ) Mark
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi David What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about the Minolta? I've got no problem with huge files the bigger the better, IMO, as long as I can make small files for cataloging or "proofs" as well. shel David Mann wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2004, at 04:55, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > The money, while important, isn't the main issue, as > > whatever scanner I purchase will be a long term investment. > > Isn't the 5400ppi of the Minolta an interpreted resolution? > It is the optical resolution. I have a friend who has one - he tried > out both the Nikon and the Canon 4000ppi scanners and he wasn't happy > with them. He loves his Minolta despite the huge files he ends up > with. > > Cheers,
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
your memory is going. it's a Firewire-only scanner. older models were SCSI-only. Herb - Original Message - From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:02 PM Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner > The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2.
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Same way of rating by the french magazine "Chasseur d'Images" > I think the Nikon Coolscan V is the same price as the Minolta, although it's only > 4000ppi. It's rated better by Amateur Photographer in the UK. > > Nick > > -Original Message- > From: "Alan Chan"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 19/03/04 03:42:11 > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner > > If I am correct, Minolta 5400 is cheaper than Nikon 4000. However, you need > Vuescan to obtain good negatives scans. For E6 scans, the original Minolta > software will do. > > Regards, > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > > My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner > > I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've > > heard some questionable comments about other scanners. > > _ > MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months > FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > >
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I just Bought the LS 5000 with the slides loader. I am very happy, I can go to the cinema while scan process... ^_^ For the best price and quality, the LS V is good enought, but le LS 5000 allow me to be lazy, at last, it takes time to get less mess in all my slide... > The Firewire interface card came with my 4000ED when I bought it about a > year ago. > > Kenneth Waller > > - Original Message - > From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner > > > > The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface > card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and > Nikon 5000 are USB2. > > > > Nick >
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The Firewire interface card came with my 4000ED when I bought it about a year ago. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner > The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2. > > Nick
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your
system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Shel Belinkoff"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 19/03/04 15:57:44
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Thanks, Tiger ...
Ice is not that important to me, although I've seen it in
action on some color scans and it's a nice feature to have.
What's an "interface card?"
shel
Tiger Moses wrote:
>
> Shel,
>
> The two top brands for home users in my opinion are the Minolta Dimage
> series and the Nikons.
> I've owned both. They both have nice twain interfaces, and both have option
> that includes interface cards.
> You want something faster than USB 1.0, becuase a hi-res scan can produce
> 30+ megabyte files and that takes time to travel over your wire!
>
> I switched from Minolta to Nikon because I wanted medium format support and
> went to the LS-8000.
>
> I think Minoltas are a bit more affordable currently.
>
> Lastly, make sure your scanner you are considering is supported by the
> ScanVue software from Hamrick.
> Its probably the best scanner software out there, so you always want to have
> that as an option!
>
> Since you are mainly talking about older B&W film, don't get too impressed
> by Digital ICE and those addons, many aren't compatible with true
> B&W emulsions!
RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
If I am correct, Minolta 5400 is cheaper than Nikon 4000. However, you need Vuescan to obtain good negatives scans. For E6 scans, the original Minolta software will do. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner > Traditional B&W film. It should work with Chromogenic B&W. But then > Bill doesn't > like Chromogenic B&W. It works fine with chromogenics, which are, in reality, colour negative film. I actually quite like the Kodak chromogenics, although I have noted image stability problems in the past. I don't like XP-2 all that much for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the image quality of the film, which I think is fine. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Traditional B&W film. It should work with Chromogenic B&W. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic B&W. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Mike Ignatiev" Subject: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. Digital Ice doesn't work with black and white film. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 9:45:13 AM, Shel wrote: > I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of > B&W negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 > transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also > intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the > largest pixel count is important. > I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can > never recall the model number ). Why did those of you > who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those > who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? > My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner > I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've > heard some questionable comments about other scanners. I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED, which I think is the same as the one you're considering. I chose it because I wanted that resolution and this appeared to be the best option at the time I bought it. I found few if any negative comments about it while I was researching it. It was chosen by a lot of labs and other people who depended on it to generate money, which was a significant factor in my choice. I haven't used it as much as I expected to, largely because I'm lazy and I haven't fully got to grips with the technicalities of colour management. However, it is easy to use and produces results I'm satisfied with so far. One word of advice I can offer is to use lint-free gloves when you put a strip of film into the holder. It's rather a fiddly operation getting it lined up properly and you run the risk of getting paw-prints on the film unless you wear gloves. I have an IT-8 slide which I use to set up the scanner profile. It was difficult to find sensible information about how to do this with VueScan, but I found a web-page in French with the information. I intend to translate it into English and post it on my site sometime. If you're interested I could get on with that. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I have once scanned B&W with the nikon but not to very good effect. However the negative was very thin as I'd used some old chemicals to process it, something I don't do very often as I almost exclusively use Fuji Velvia or Sensia 200 slide film. Best get the answer to this one from someone more experienced. Nick -Original Message- From: "Shel Belinkoff"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Have you scanned B&W negs with either?
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The TWAIN driver for the Minolta refused to work so I had to use the supplied program
to scan to TIFF rather than import into Photoshop directly. The Minolta used a carrier
for slides and negatives which it moved during the scan rather than moving the LED
array which the Nikon does. I found it would never register the same on successive
scans, so that it would scan a different bit of the slide during preview and full
scan, or even between subsequent scans of the same slide. It was all a bit hit and
miss.
I was glad when I part exchanged it for the Nikon.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Shel Belinkoff"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 18/03/04 14:40:14
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta "rubbish?" Have
you scanned B&W negs with either?
Nick Clark wrote:
>
> I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would
definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), "upgraded" to a
Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's
easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides,
and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at
half the price.
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Shel, The two top brands for home users in my opinion are the Minolta Dimage series and the Nikons. I've owned both. They both have nice twain interfaces, and both have option that includes interface cards. You want something faster than USB 1.0, becuase a hi-res scan can produce 30+ megabyte files and that takes time to travel over your wire! I switched from Minolta to Nikon because I wanted medium format support and went to the LS-8000. I think Minoltas are a bit more affordable currently. Lastly, make sure your scanner you are considering is supported by the ScanVue software from Hamrick. Its probably the best scanner software out there, so you always want to have that as an option! Since you are mainly talking about older B&W film, don't get too impressed by Digital ICE and those addons, many aren't compatible with true B&W emulsions! At 01:45 AM 3/18/2004 -0800, you wrote: >I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of >B&W negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 >transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also >intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the >largest pixel count is important. > >I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can >never recall the model number ). Why did those of you >who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those >who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? > >My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner >I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've >heard some questionable comments about other scanners. > > > >shel > >
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta "rubbish?" Have you scanned B&W negs with either? Nick Clark wrote: > > I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely > recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), "upgraded" to a Minolta > Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to > use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and > I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at > half the price.
RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), "upgraded" to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price. Nick -Original Message- From: "Shel Belinkoff"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 18/03/04 09:45:13 To: "PDML"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of B&W negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number ). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. shel
