Repair Nikon LS8000 or new Epson V850?

[hughmcintyre]

I am 100-200 films into scanning an archive of 35mm and 6x6 negatives with a Nikon Coolscan 8000, but the scanner needs repair because of broken stage positioning.  When it works it's still OK, although somewhat slow at about 1-1.5 35mm films per day when batch scanning, and the repair cost from Nikon may not be much different from a new Epson V850 (or V800).

In addition, the LS8000 is Firewire which means keeping around an old, unsupported, and power-hungry MacPro1,1 for 2-3 years to finish the scans

So are there people who have used both the LS8000 (or 4000/5000) and Epson V850 who can comment on some of the tradeoffs:

- What relative quality will I get from the Epson?  The photos will mostly be viewed on a high resolution computer display (with some cropping sometimes), probably not printed out.

- Will the Epson be noticeably faster or slower when bulk scanning films?  Enough to make this a compelling decision?  I am using fine mode with VueScan for the Nikon to avoid banding (1 scan line at a time) so each 2*4 or 2*6 pair of 35mm film strips takes 1.5-2 hours on the Nikon.  I would probably use 4000-6400 DPI, digital ICE, and other fine modes with Epson, but with a faster computer.

- How well does the focusing work in practice for the Epson?  Once I have adjusted the feet for 1 film, is this fire-and-forget in terms of being in focus for other films, or do I need to re-check for each film?  For the Nikon I can just say "autofocus, always".

- Any comments on quality of results with SilverFast (with/without LE) versus VueScan?  Will SilverFast improvements counteract and Epson/Nikon hardware differences when compared to VueScan on the Nikon (or vice versa)?  In particular when batch scanning and importing into Lightroom, not color adjusting each negative when scanning.

- Finally, how good (or not) is SilverFast at auto-detecting 6x6 film positions on the V850.  This is one of the major issues with VueScan scanning 6x6 on the Nikon

Thanks! - Hugh

[Nick Walker]

I posted a detailed reply (post No 14) re my findings at http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=20803.msg163653#msg163653

I personally would not entertain an Epson scanner for 35mm - large format maybe. I have owned an Imacon scanner, LS8000 and ended up with an LS5000 as it is slightly sharper due to the direct light source.

[Doug Fisher]

The Epson will be faster.  The Nikon will be slightly sharper and better able to see into denser areas of the film.  You will appreciate the increased sharpness with the smaller 35 mm format.  Epsons work better with medium format and larger.  If you are scanning lots of dense old slide film, you will appreciate the better dmax performance of the Nikon.  Once you calibrate a film holder's height, it rarely ever needs to be changed.

Doug

[Mark D Segal]

I am 100-200 films into scanning an archive of 35mm and 6x6 negatives with a Nikon Coolscan 8000, but the scanner needs repair because of broken stage positioning.  When it works it's still OK, although somewhat slow at about 1-1.5 35mm films per day when batch scanning, and the repair cost from Nikon may not be much different from a new Epson V850 (or V800).

In addition, the LS8000 is Firewire which means keeping around an old, unsupported, and power-hungry MacPro1,1 for 2-3 years to finish the scans

So are there people who have used both the LS8000 (or 4000/5000) and Epson V850 who can comment on some of the tradeoffs:

- What relative quality will I get from the Epson?  The photos will mostly be viewed on a high resolution computer display (with some cropping sometimes), probably not printed out.

- Will the Epson be noticeably faster or slower when bulk scanning films?  Enough to make this a compelling decision?  I am using fine mode with VueScan for the Nikon to avoid banding (1 scan line at a time) so each 2*4 or 2*6 pair of 35mm film strips takes 1.5-2 hours on the Nikon.  I would probably use 4000-6400 DPI, digital ICE, and other fine modes with Epson, but with a faster computer.

- How well does the focusing work in practice for the Epson?  Once I have adjusted the feet for 1 film, is this fire-and-forget in terms of being in focus for other films, or do I need to re-check for each film?  For the Nikon I can just say "autofocus, always".

- Any comments on quality of results with SilverFast (with/without LE) versus VueScan?  Will SilverFast improvements counteract and Epson/Nikon hardware differences when compared to VueScan on the Nikon (or vice versa)?  In particular when batch scanning and importing into Lightroom, not color adjusting each negative when scanning.

- Finally, how good (or not) is SilverFast at auto-detecting 6x6 film positions on the V850.  This is one of the major issues with VueScan scanning 6x6 on the Nikon

Thanks! - Hugh

Please see my 85 page article on the Epson V850 and its comparison with a number of other scanners here: https://luminous-landscape.com/epson-v850-pro-scanner-context/. This may answer quite a few of your questions, although it does not cover a Nikon 8000. It does cover the Nikon 5000 and 9000. Your 8000 is probably closer to the 9000 than it would be to the 5000. These dedicated film scanners and flatbed scanners are different animals. On the whole, there is some trade-off between sharpness and productivity between the former versus the latter, so if productivity is your main concern, you would lean toward the Epson, but I recommend buying it from a retailer that will allow you to return it if you find it doesn't meet your image quality requirements, because quite apart from the results of measuring targets, acceptability of outcomes from real photographs varies from person to person.

The image quality - particularly resolution - you need from a scan depends on how large you intend to make the final output. The larger it needs to be, the more exacting the quality requirements. Perceived sharpness also declines as enlargement increases, so for bigger output the quality of the scanner lens and the scanner assembly become more important.

For high-productivity work, the combination of an Epson V850 combined with SilverFast's batch scanning capability on a reasonably up-to-date computer with adequate specs works very efficiently. The scan time per set of frames you report on the Nikon is extremely slow.

Digital ICE is out-dated technology. SilverFast's iSRD is a far more capable, customizable tool for mitigating dirt and scratches.

SilverFast's "Find Frames" algorithm is fast and on the whole pretty accurate.

No software can truly compensate for readily visible differences in overall sharpness due to differences of scanner lens quality and the scanner assembly design (the two key areas where the Imacon dwarfs the rest, but you probably don't want to spend that kind of money for a scanner). All the more so if you are looking for edge to edge sharpness. If the lens and assembly of Scanner "A" is visibly inferior to that of Scanner "B", it won't matter whether you drive them with Vuescan or SilverFast, that difference will still be there. Flatness of film and the scanner depth of field (usually very shallow) also matters a lot. SilverFast has a very effective manual focusing algorithm for those supported scanners that can be focused from software (not the Epsons).

The way I settled on scanner software years back was to start from the cheapest (i.e. bundled) and where I saw room for improvement I migrated upward; this is a low risk way of settling on the level of software expenditure that best suits your particular requirements.