Any scanning services for 35mm 14-bit or better on Nikon 9000 or better $1.25/frame or better

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Mark F, Jun 25, 2012.

  1. Mark F

    Mark F Guest

    I'm looking for a scanning service that will do 35mm negatives
    and slides at 4000 DPI or better using a Nikon ED 9000 or better,
    scanning for 14-bits/channel/pixel or better for US$1.25 or better.

    I can get Nikon ED 5000 scans at 4000 DPI with 48-bit TIFF output
    and meeting the price requirement.

    I can also get Nikon ED 9000 scans at 4000 DPI scans meeting
    the price requirement, but they only do 8-bits/channel/pixel.
    They weren't even willing to quote for 2000 slides.

    By the way, for 3000 slides or 3000 negatives 4000 DPI for
    about US$0.40 each if you go 8-bits/pixel/channel. How much
    longer does scanning and outputting 16-bits/pixel/channel take
    compared to 8-bit/pixel/channel with a Nikon ED 9000?
    I don't see increased scan times on my flatbed scanners when I
    go to 48-bit scanning, but my scanners don't scan to 14 or
    16 bits/pixel/channel like the Nikon EDs, only 10 or 12.
     
    Mark F, Jun 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark F

    Alan Browne Guest

    If it's 35mm slides, you don't need the ED 9000. The 5000 will do and
    there is an automated feeder for it. Negatives have to be mounted on
    the tray. A little more time consuming but you can scan short strips
    (up to 5 frames, IIRC) at a time.
    I suspect they were quoting for medium format. Makes for very large
    files which are time consuming to manipulate. When I scan 6x6 I get
    TIF's just shy of 500 MB.
    None, really. The scanner sends full depth to the PC. The scanning s/w
    on the PC is where the data is log compressed (gamma) if selected. So
    scan time does not vary enough to notice. I suspect that the service
    you contacted just don't want to work with really large files.

    Silly in the sense of crippled data.
    Not many slides have more than about 12 bits of information in any case
    add a couple bits for noise and 14 is all you need (and it's still
    overkill).

    Setup times are what takes the most time.

    There is no autofeeder for the 9000.

    Scan times for deeper bits doesn't change.

    Using ICE does increase scan times significantly ( 2 - 10x depending on
    the computer attached to the scanner) - but often worth the time if
    there is a bit of dust or odd scratches.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 25, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark F

    Mark F Guest

    At least one of the services says that the ED 9000 works better:
    http://www.digmypics.com/Nikon9000vs5000.aspx
     
    Mark F, Jul 2, 2012
    #3
  4. Mark F

    Mark F Guest

    At least one of the services says that the ED 9000 works better:
    http://www.digmypics.com/Nikon9000vs5000.aspx

    I just checked with them by phone and they won't scan to full depth,
    even for 2000 slides - in fact, I couldn't even get to talk to
    a principal of the company. Maybe someone who wants 10000 slides
    could get a quote, or at least a discussion of why they can't do it.
    I specifically asked for 35mm, not 120 when I asked for the quote over
    the phone today. (I had done so before, but I didn't double check
    that they understood that I meant 35mm slides and negatives.)
    How many bits for negatives?

    Does anyone know a reliable dealer that I can buy a Nikon ED 9000
    from? (I would expect to pay US$2500 to US$4000, which is high enough
    so that I don't want to get involved in having to test the device
    and prove that it is broken before getting a replacement for free:
    I need for it to work out of the box.)
     
    Mark F, Jul 2, 2012
    #4
  5. Mark F

    Alan Browne Guest

    That depends what you mean by "works better". The 9000 is a "better"
    machine, but it is more labour intensive to run a lot of slides through it.

    That said, unless the slides in questions are superb, really, sharp,
    nice contrast, full DR, the difference between the 9000 and 5000 won't show.
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 3, 2012
    #5
  6. Mark F

    Noons Guest

    Mighty strange, what they state. The 5000ED does DIce4Quad, download
    its manual from nikonusa and you'll see it there. So does the 9000,
    of course. DIce level is not a hardware feature: if the scanner has
    an infra-red light, then the software can usually do DIce4 if it is so
    licensed: IOW, the difference between DIce 4 or any other DIce level
    is not one of hardware. You should therefore be able to use DIce4
    with the correct version of Nikonscan on a 5000. Note that both the
    9000 and the 5000 manuals warn that some Kodachrome images will scan
    badly no matter what. I do recall a web site that used to explain why
    but it escapes me at the moment, maybe someone else will recall?

    Having said that, I do have a 9000ED and a VED - which is very similar
    to the 5000. My 9000 has a home-modified tray with a brass frame that
    holds the film between strips of AN-glass from the Focalpoint folks.
    With that setup, I can take a sample focus point anywhere in a 35mm
    frame and the focus won't change across that same frame. With the VED
    - and the 5000 is the same - the film strip is not "sandwiched" flat,
    so focusing has to be a "find the average" process - or tediously
    inserting strips into an FH-3 holder: a much slower process overall.
    Very weird. Full depth will only increase the output file size, not
    the scan timing. At least not significantly, assuming one uses fast
    FW800 for the 9000 connection. More plausibly they don't like to
    handle very large files.
    Same as positives: 14. Don't use less. And keep your original raw
    scans at 16-bit colour per channel, on tiff files with ZIP
    compression. It is silly to use one of the best scanners in the
    market and not take advantage of the best it can do. You won't notice
    immediately the difference but once you start learning the intricacies
    of scanning, you'll appreciate the extra breathing room for colour
    editing and final balancing.

    Always use a 16-bit colour editor for post-processing. I use Picture
    Window Pro, it works incredibly well for scanned files and is so cheap
    compared to Photoshop it's not even funny. The interface is a bit
    quirky but once learned it actually grows on you. And it has a
    tremendous batch facility to treat a whole roll of film in one go. It
    can also be used to ZIP compress tiff files in one batch.

    Don't use GEM to get rid of grain, all it does is blur detail: use a
    dedicated noise software package such as Noise Ninja - or my preferred
    one: Neat Image. It has a batch facility and I have "test case" files
    for each of the film types I use that make the whole process as
    automated as it can get. Both of those packages will work incredibly
    well to remove residual grain or scan-alias grain -also sometimes
    called "pepper grain" - from scanned images. And neither is that
    expensive. If you want examples of the results NI produces, I can
    upload some for you.

    As well for final sharpening - you'll need that, no matter how much
    you work at focusing the scanner! - I do strongly recommend Focus
    Magic: it's only 32-bit, won't run on 64-bit. But it's so much better
    than USM and all the other traditional methods of sharpening it's not
    even fun to compare! Eventually they will make it multi-CPU aware and
    64-bit compatible and then it'll fly.

    Good luck in your endeavour!
     
    Noons, Jul 5, 2012
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.