Jump to content
Stephen Lloyd

Scansoft v Nikon Scan

Recommended Posts

As my 2017 digitising project starts to grow legs and already into 2018 my trusty Coolscan 4000, fresh from a service, is performing wonders. Except with the odd Kodachrome. I know the later 5000 was better with Kodachrome but buying one is not going to happen. So I looked at the much lauded Scansoft software which at about £350 is not cheap. Before I post a couple of screen zooms has anyone else tried this or similar combination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked into Vuescan? Considerably cheaper and very good software.

 

Hope this helps

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used Vuescan since 2004 - it's excellent, much cheaper than Scansoft, supports a massive number of scanners and is kept up to date by the author Ed Hamrick  http://www.hamrick.com/

I have no financial interest ! I've scneed about 6000 negs using nothing else

Good Luck

John

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is the 5000 better for Kodachrome? 

 

As far as I know, the only scanner that will do ICE on Kodachrome is the 9000 (and possibly the 8000?). The 5000 certainly doesn't.

 

In terms of image quality, what you need is an IT8 target for Kodachrome which will greatly improve the colour rendition. I don't know if you can use these with all scanning software but you certainly can with Vuescan, for which I also add my "+1". I bought my IT8 target from Lasersoft for use with Vuescan and a Nikon 5000 and it vastly improved the results, though you will probably still need to do some colour balance adjustments in Photoshop.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that having ICE turned OFF, using Nikon Scan software on an Nikonscan 8000, resulted in a sharper image.

 
The last scan I made was in 2005. I started copying using a digital camera and a macro lens after that. I got better results. Just as sharp as with ICE OFF on the scanner, but with a higher dynamic range.
 
If ICE is off on the scanner, then the cleanup is the same for either method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way is the 5000 better for Kodachrome?

 

As far as I know, the only scanner that will do ICE on Kodachrome is the 9000 (and possibly the 8000?). The 5000 certainly doesn't.

 

In terms of image quality, what you need is an IT8 target for Kodachrome which will greatly improve the colour rendition. I don't know if you can use these with all scanning software but you certainly can with Vuescan, for which I also add my "+1". I bought my IT8 target from Lasersoft for use with Vuescan and a Nikon 5000 and it vastly improved the results, though you will probably still need to do some colour balance adjustments in Photoshop.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a familiar name.

 

I thought the 5000 was sold on greater ICE etc for Kodachrome and USB. The firewire only of the 4000 in 2017 is limiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a familiar name.

 

I thought the 5000 was sold on greater ICE etc for Kodachrome and USB. The firewire only of the 4000 in 2017 is limiting.

 

You too. My team is doing a little better than yours though... ;)

 

I wasn't aware of any marketing that suggested the 5000 was better for Kodachrome, and having owned both a 4000 and a 5000 I can't see any difference in that respect. The problem is that most ICE works by detecting dust that lies outside the plane of the emulsion layer. But Kodachrome is a multi-layer emulsion, which makes that impossible. I've tried dust removal with VueScan (and I think in the early days with NikonScan though I ditched that fairly quickly) and it introduces unpleasant artefacts - perhaps not very noticeable at web-size resolutions but definitely at higher resolutions.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important difference between a 4000 and a 5000 is that the 5000 collects the dust data (using an IR beam) at the same pass as the normal scan. So there's no difference between the scans because of film popping or stretching because of heat.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.