Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Norman & Nancy Perry, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. I am considering purchasing a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED scanner and optional
    slide feeder. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions concerning
    this scanner? Thanks.
     
    Norman & Nancy Perry, Feb 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It sounds good enough for me.
    I was going to order one last week, but put it off till Wednesday
    night. I didn't find one of the big supply houses that had one in
    stock. Some just didn't say if they had them or not.
    There are a number listed on e-bay, but I've never dealt with any of
    the dealers I saw listed.

    I'm looking at one with the roll film feeder and the slide feeder, but
    I've found old slides that have been viewed much are pretty much a
    one-at-a-time thing. No way do any of the "clean up" programs work
    that well. They work well for a little dirt, but I find the vast
    majority of my time on old slides is spent cleaning them.
    New slides right out-of-the-box and fresh films strips are *great*.

    Maybe something is coming up at the PMA show?

    Either way, it looks like I wait

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Feb 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. So we conclude from the above that you do not have one and that
    everything which follows is guesswork - it is important that the Perry's
    understand that your comments are NOT based on experience of using the
    scanner they are interested in and hence deviate significantly from the
    experience of those who have used it or earlier versions.
    That is what the SF-210 adapter is for - bulk scanning slides 50 at a
    time. In fact, as long as you keep feeding slides into the hopper, the
    capacity for bulk scanning is limited only by the disk space available
    on the machine hosting the LS-5000.
    I assume you are referring to programs which operate after the image has
    been scanned, in which case I have to agree. However your time would be
    saved considerably by using the ICE facility on the LS-5000 scanner,
    which cleans the image at the scanning stage and works extremely well.
    So well that you will kick yourself for wasting weeks, months or years
    of your life spotting things manually when you could have just bought a
    scanner with this facility, like the CS-5000ED in the first place.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 7, 2004
    #3
  4. No, you shouldn't.
    Assumptions are rarely safe. <:)) Although it is true I do not own
    either of the scanners mentioned I have enough experience using the
    5000 that it was pretty much a toss up between the Minolta 5400 and
    the 5000 as far as quality. However the 5000, even though slightly
    lower resolution has some distinct advantages over the 5400 such as
    the ability to directly take film strips without the adapter, plus the
    bulk feeders (slide and roll film) At least I've not seen bulk
    feeders available for the 5400. The one for the 5000 is simple to
    use. Both have more resolution than is normally needed for the
    average photographer.
    The specific comments on old slides, bulk feeding, and cleaning slides
    are based on many hundreds of hours of scanning slides and pertain to
    any film scanner. One of the reasons I am getting a new Nikon 5000
    which will have Digital ICE and both bulk feeders. (I develop my own
    slides and negatives)

    No, I do not *currently* have any film, or negative scanner.
    I have been lucky enough to have been able to use a number of scanners
    over the past few years to get a good comparison.
    In a bit over two years I've scanned in *about* 20,000 slides and it
    appears I'm not half way through. I originally estimated there were
    about 20,000 slides and it looks like the total is going to be over
    40,000.

    Although not in the same class as either of the above scanners the
    little HP-S20 was a nice scanner that would meet most amateur needs
    when working well. Unfortunately it was a bear (politely put) to keep
    the prisms clean and you had to carefully monitor the results which
    could easily slip by.

    A good example of the type of dust faults on the S-20 is seen in the
    aircraft photos on http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm
    and particularly on the "Over Lake" shot. Single dust spots create
    linear artifacts. These are some of the first that are going to be
    redone as they look like crap on the web page. I do wish I'd had the
    use of the other scanners long enough to complete the project instead
    of just a few weeks, but you can use some one else's equipment just so
    long.

    This is one very important point.
    Scanning "old slides" is a lot of work due to the cleaning required
    and I've yet to see any software that allows me to skip this stage.
    Maybe I've just been lucky to get the really, dirty slides, but I'd
    assume that most any slides that have been viewed a lot are just as
    big a problem.
    And how clean the slides.
    The bulk feeder is great for fresh slides and even relatively clean
    slides.
    You can bet the old slides are going to get a normal cleaning, run
    through the hopper and then reviewed. Hopefully a good percentage
    will be acceptable using Digital ICE. That way I only have to really
    work on the bad ones. it's just I haven't found ICE to do nearly as
    well as I keep hearing people say it works.
    Yes, in my experience, the post processing does not work at all well
    and hand retouching is... tedious (to say the least) and very time
    consuming. I have easily spent over half an hour just *fixing* a
    single slide.

    I do have one set of slides which consists of eight 36 exposure rolls
    on which I did not get the chance to try using ICE. They came back
    from Kodak with bacteria on them. It can not be removed without
    destroying the emulsion. They look like some one threw pepper at them
    and it is part of the emulsion. These are worse than the "old" slides
    I was using for comparison and on which I have used ICE. OTOH the
    "imperfections" are of a different nature and I *hope* ICE will be
    able to help salvage them.
    I already know that<sigh> I really should have gone ahead and
    purchased the older version of the scanner a year and a half back, but
    hat was not an option as it was also about the time the stock market
    tanked.
    It works very well, but I did not find it sufficient to handle many of
    those "old slides" that had been though some ones projector along with
    having been handled many times. I would not get another scanner
    without it. And as I noted at the beginning, I am getting one.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Feb 8, 2004
    #4
  5. I strongly dispute that. It certainly pertains to scanners which do not
    have any IR image cleaning facility or to those which do but are unable
    to handle the residual silver content of Kodachrome, if that is the
    emulsion you are using. I am not suggesting that you shouldn't clean
    your slides before scanning, just because you have ICE, but the normal
    operation with a blower brush or compressed air can should be adequate
    for even relatively poorly stored slides.
    That is due to a fundamental design flaw on that low end scanner, which
    is little more than a small frame flatbed scanner, with all of the
    limitations that entails. The problem occurs because the optical design
    includes a surface, on which dust can settle, at or near a focal plane.
    A good film scanner design specifically avoids that and it is not an
    issue with any of the Nikon range - the only surfaces which exist at, or
    close, to a focal plane are the film and the CCD (which is sealed behind
    an optical window that is well away from a focal plane). So the
    problems you have experienced with a bottom range, I hesitate to use the
    term entry level, film scanner are not relevant in this context.
    Roger, your slides must be in extremely bad condition if ICE is not able
    to do a good job. When I bought my first ICE scanner one of the first
    things I tried was to test just how good ICE was - after all, the images
    used to advertise it seemed pretty filthy before processing, so I was
    less than convinced as to how well it would work. I used a waste frame
    (the first blank from a roll of film, the just happened to have a
    reasonable, if uncomposed image on it) dropped it onto the kitchen floor
    and wiped my shoe on it. This was then wiped down to remove loose
    particles and scanned to test the effect of ICE. With ICE on normal,
    the image did not need any further work and looked perfect - from a far
    worse original than anything used in the ASF advertising.

    You seem to be indicating that your slides are in a worse state than the
    film I wiped my shoe across!
    I have images that are more than 40 years old and none require more than
    a short blast of compressed air to clean them sufficiently for scanning.
    Whether you classify these as being "relatively clean" is something I
    cannot quantify, but they are certainly old and bulk feed and clean with
    ICE extremely well.
    What emulsion are you using it on? Original ICE implementations in
    Nikon scanners performed very poorly with Kodachrome. More recent
    implementations are better, but still not perfect with Kodachrome
    although all implementations are very good with all conventional
    chromogenic emulsions.

    How are you using it? ICE on normal setting works extremely well except
    on very large dust/dirt particles. Even on those, the artefact left by
    an ICE failure in the middle of the large blob is so significant that it
    is easily visible at preview and is easy to find and clone. ICE on fine
    setting only works with certain emulsions, and probably not with any
    emulsions over a couple of years old, which suffered from a base defect
    called pepper noise - microscopic bubbles in emulsion itself. An image
    of these on Kodak Ektachrome 64, taken by Roger Smith, is at:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/film-bubbles-3.jpg
    Some films are worse than others, but Roger has found this on almost all
    types.
    Which is the USP of ICE - at worst, except in your case apparently,
    hours of fixing and manual spotting and cloning are reduced to one or
    two spotting/cloning operations whilst normally they are eliminated
    entirely.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 8, 2004
    #5
  6. I think the answer to this is probably down near the bottom so other
    than a quick comment on the S-20 I'm going to jump to the end.
    That is basically what I was trying to point out, but keep my note to
    a manageable size. <:))
    No argument at all.

    Some may be. They go back to early Argus C-3 days (probably early
    50s) and were regularly viewed over the years by various members of
    the family. In later years quite a few older/elderly members of the
    family looking at days gone by. Some even suffer from heat damage
    from being in the projector too long. So, some of that dirt is baked
    in.
    Kodachrome 25. Probably 90% of the slides are Kodachrome 25. All of
    the old ones. It was basically the only film my folks used. There are
    some from aunts and uncles but those have not held up well physically.
    The only Ektachrome and C41 negatives are the ones I shot in recent
    years (over the last 30) which went quite well except for the ones on
    the cheap scanner. Welll even most of those were acceptable
    (acceptable for CRT display), but not for prints.

    I don't know which implementation of Digital ICE he had installed. I
    was new to using a film scanner at that time, so inexperience could
    well have played a part. He moved, but I might be able to find out
    what implementation he had.

    With all the work I came away with a lasting impression that the
    slides had to be relatively clean, but I'm not sure how to quantify
    that.
    As I said, I was new to scanning, but if memory serves correctly it
    was on the normal setting.
    Thanks, Even with all the photography I've done I was not aware those
    existed and had never seen them before. I have never worked at a
    resolution where those bubbles would be a problem. <:))
    I do remember that ICE did a great job or removing fingerprints.
    If I can find one of the Ektachrome slides with the bacteria (or what
    ever it is) I'll put it up for you to take a look. Although it may be
    a while until I can scan them again, or find one of the old ones some
    where on CD. (I never throw any thing away) I'd really like to do a
    before and after, One of the old scans compared to the new scans as
    well as some of the old Ektachrome 25s that didn't do so well.

    That batch of slides was shot at the big fly in at Oshkosh Wisconsin.
    It was of the 50th anniversary of D day and they had more WW-II
    aircraft flying in formation at one time than since WW II. Those
    slides can not be replaced so you can imagine my disappointment when I
    saw all the spots. These are the blotches you mentioned that require
    cloning.

    Thanks for the additional information.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Feb 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Even so, I would expect ICE to work wit these. However, it is apparent
    from your more recent comments that your earlier statements about the
    capabilities of "clean-up programs" owe more to your unique situation
    with lots of badly damaged or dirty slides than it does to the actual
    capabilities of ICE.
    You will probably find a significant number of these just will not work
    at all with ICE. It depends on the film and processing batch used by
    Kodak at the time. You will also find much more colour variation
    between the image on the slide and the scan with KC than with other
    emulsions for similar reasons, combined with the LED sources used in
    Nikon scanners.

    Despite Kodachrome being regarded as a long lasting emulsion, ironically
    it only achieves that longevity if it is kept in the dark and not
    displayed. Henry Wilhelm did some tests which showed that even though
    Ektachrome is generally a more fugitive emulsion, losing yellows even if
    stored in the dark, Kodachrome actually fades faster if it is projected
    for a couple of hours per year. So you will probably find the old
    Kodachromes vary in colour quite a lot.

    ROC, available on the LS-5000, will help with both of these effects.
    ICE should have no trouble at all with these emulsions.
    It changed with Nikon hardware implementation. LS-2000 was pretty poor
    with Kodachrome and ICE generally didn't work at all with that emulsion.
    LS-4000 had a new version and, as if by magic, all my previously ICE
    rejected Kodachromes worked fine on that.
    Err, if you have used an LS-5000, or even its predecessor the LS-4000,
    then you have - whether you realised it or not. It was only when this
    scanner came to the market that the problem with the film base became
    widely recognised, because they cause single pixel spots over
    highlights. Even working at lower resolutions with these scanners you
    will see them, because they are aliased. Fortunately ICE picks them all
    up and clears them, but they are so common that some overall image
    sharpness is lost.
    Out of interest, how do you know it was bacterial damage as opposed to
    chemical damage? Did Kodak enclose a damage a notice, which they have
    been known to do.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 8, 2004
    #7
  8. That could very well be so.
    The old Pink Kodachrome! <:))

    Fortunately the color variation has been easy to fix with many of the
    current image programs having an automated (click here) type of fix
    that in general works very well. It, or they also take care of the
    color balance from fluorescent lighting...or tungsten when using the
    wrong film.
    Very much so and as I mentioned, this have been viewed a lot.
    I'm looking forward to using it on the C41 and Ektachrome. There is a
    lot of grain and grain clumping showing in the ASA 400 Ektachrome and
    I think the new programs will smooth that out.
    As the slides were so dirty we used Digital ice on virtually all so
    these bubbles were probably masked.
    I'm pretty sure based on all the processing, using Formaldehyde and
    thorough washing to prevent bacteria, or mold in the college classes
    and they appear just as described in the classes. That said, they are
    the first I've seen in the real world, so no guarantees.

    I was surprised that as bad as most of the slides were, there was no
    notice from Kodak or any mention of the problem. "As I recall" they
    used to send a notice even if the leader section with no images was
    longer than normal, or if the roll ended short.

    Having made the decision to purchase the latest Nikon 5000, I find
    that virtually everyone is "out of stock", except for some of the
    sellers on e-bay with whom I'm not familiar. Maybe they are coming
    out with a newer version at the PMA?

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Feb 9, 2004
    #8
  9. I doubt it! The LS-5000ED has been around in Europe and Japan for about
    4 or 5 months now, but has only been available in the US since the
    middle of January. Hence my surprise that you have any substantial
    experience using it at all.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 9, 2004
    #9
    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.