Nikon 8000 question

[natas]

I am in the market for a scanner. My plan is to use it for medium format film (mostly 645). I plan to to do printing at a max of 22x30. I was thinking about getting the Epson v750-M but from the looks of it this scanner can only really do 2400dpi which would limit me to around 16x20.

Anyway, with that said I am on the search for a scanner under the $2000 mark that can give me the results above.

The nikon 8000 ED looks like it fits my needs, but I have no idea if it will work with my setup. I run OSX Snow Leopard on my main computer (64bit) on a Mac Pro 2011. Will this scanner work on my computer? My plan is to get Vuescan. Sorry if this seems like a dumb question but I haven't found any info on drivers for Snow Leopard in 64bit mode.

BTW, if you guys have any other recommendations for a scannerlet me know.

[David Good]

The Epson V750 is a very capable scanner, I believe it's hardware resolution is higher 4800 or 6400. I have not used this scanner, there are plenty of articles available describing it's use.

Vuescan will drive the Nikon 8000 on your OS. I have used Vuescan for many years on several scanners including a 9000 with excellent results.

So you still have a choice, flatbed or dedicated scanner, both with it's inherent learning curve in order to get the best results from it.

Dave

[natas]

Thanks for the reply Dave. I have read plenty about the 750...in fact I almost bought one here used but that deal fell through because I waited to long. From what I have read the epson v750 really can only resolve 2400dpi. One huge benefit though is that it can scan 4x5 film as well as 120 and the other sizes. I find that really nice.

One option I didn't consider until last night was fractals to uprez if needed. I do own a copy (now called Perfect Resize) and it works really well. I have printed stuff from my 5D MKII to 20x30 with 0 issues. Those prints are less detailed then what my medium format produces, but they are acceptable.

[artobest]

You might want to sit tight for a couple of months - Plustek are close to releasing a 120-capable film scanner that may just blitz the older Nikons.

http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/

Shouldn't be too expensive, either.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The Nikon scanners are incredibly good, but out of production and I saw one being sold for 7,000 € - glad I got one of the last new ones (LS 9000 ED) for about 2000€.
So - if you can get a used Nikon 9000 for a reasonable price I'd say: "get it".
It really delivers the 4k DPI resolution.
The Epson seems to be good but is not in the same ballpark, but for 120 film its probably good enough.
I use the Silverfast Archive suite for scanning which I can highly recommend, but its expensive.



 

[natas]

That new plustek sounds interesting. I wonder what price they plan to sell it for

[artobest]

The best guess seems to be they will try and compete with the Reflecta/Pacific Image unit that is already out there, so around $2000US. There is talk of measured resolution of 5000ppi (about half the stated max, but still impressive if true). Also, greatly improved dynamic range, but those claims are often debatable. On the other hand, CCD technology has come a looong way since the last generation of Nikon scanners. Naturally, none of that matters if focus and film flatness isn't well sorted.

[Ellis Vener]

The major  real world detail resolution limiting factor with either flatbed or dedicated film scanners is film flatness and where the scanner is actually focused. The Epson V750M  does a very good job in these parameters if you wet mount the film. Same with the Nikon LS8000/9000ED scanners. Details down into the deep shadows are recorded  better as well when you wet mount . Also don't forget the issue of scanner profiling as well.

[John Nollendorfs]

I've had the V700 for a few years. Works great, and the Epson software is easy to use. The scanner will easily go higher in rez than 2400, so you don't need to bother with those dubious uprezing programs. I would buy the 700 model and try that out. I've heard the Epson liquid mounting option isn't that great, and third party ones are better. But, I've had no reason to step up to the wet mounting option and have been satisfied with the results.
BTW, I've compared same color neg with the nikon 8000 that a friend owns, and while pulling dark details was just a touch better, it wasn't $1500 better. Sharpness wise, we didn't see much difference.

[pfigen]

"I've had the V700 for a few years. Works great, and the Epson software is easy to use. The scanner will easily go higher in rez than 2400, so you don't need to bother with those dubious uprezing programs."

John, while you can ask the scanner to scan whatever you want up to the stated optical resolution, the actual realized resolution in the final scan will never go much above that 2400 dpi figure.

"BTW, I've compared same color neg with the nikon 8000 that a friend owns, and while pulling dark details was just a touch better, it wasn't $1500 better. Sharpness wise, we didn't see much difference."

If you're scanning negs, either black and white or color, the shadow end is never the problem, as that's the thinnest part of the neg. CCDs always have a problem with the d-max not the d-min, although they still lag behind what a pmt can do on either end of the scale.

[John Nollendorfs]

The number of options for scanning film has thinned immensely in the last few years. While I'm not necessarily a "fanboy" of the Epson V700 scanner, it does do quite a good job especially considering it's price point. I "upgraded" to the Epson from an Agfa T2500--what a monster, but in it's day, did a good job. The Epson does as well, if not better in all regards. It's glassless frames, while appearing flimsy, do do a good job of hold holding film reasonably flat.

Regarding the "optical" resolution question, I believe the OP was going to use it for 2 1/4 film, other than  scanning sharper grain, I don't believe anything above 2400 dpi would gain you much. Quite frankly, even the 2400 dpi of the Epson seems noticeably sharper than the Agfa T2500's 2400 dpi (or ppi if you so chose).

No disputing, that you can get better results from PMT scanner, but not many of them left operating anymore. The maintenance on them was really expensive, even if you could pick one up for sale for 2k.

It's getting to the place that you could use your 36MP Nikon D800 in place of a scanner. Something to consider.

[pfigen]

"Regarding the "optical" resolution question, I believe the OP was going to use it for 2 1/4 film, other than  scanning sharper grain, I don't believe anything above 2400 dpi would gain you much. Quite frankly, even the 2400 dpi of the Epson seems noticeably sharper than the Agfa T2500's 2400 dpi (or ppi if you so chose)."

Well, as the operator of one those antiquated analog sensored beasts, I can tell you that good sharp 2-1/4 film can support scanning resolutions all the way up to 8000 dpi, although 4000 is usually enough for most purposes. Films like Velvia and T-Max 100, if carefully shot will show added detail at the higher resolution, but only if the photographer has been very careful about using tripods, focusing accurately and using the sharpest aperture. I've actually seen pieces of Tri-X show marginally more detail at 8000 rather than 4000, so more than likely, the practical limit for that film is 4000.

But what I was really talking about was the difference between pixels produced and actual resolution. All scanners will produce the number of pixels you ask of them, but only the best will actually give you more detail with more pixels.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

"Regarding the "optical" resolution question, I believe the OP was going to use it for 2 1/4 film, other than  scanning sharper grain, I don't believe anything above 2400 dpi would gain you much. Quite frankly, even the 2400 dpi of the Epson seems noticeably sharper than the Agfa T2500's 2400 dpi (or ppi if you so chose)."

Well, as the operator of one those antiquated analog sensored beasts, I can tell you that good sharp 2-1/4 film can support scanning resolutions all the way up to 8000 dpi, although 4000 is usually enough for most purposes. Films like Velvia and T-Max 100, if carefully shot will show added detail at the higher resolution, but only if the photographer has been very careful about using tripods, focusing accurately and using the sharpest aperture. I've actually seen pieces of Tri-X show marginally more detail at 8000 rather than 4000, so more than likely, the practical limit for that film is 4000.

But what I was really talking about was the difference between pixels produced and actual resolution. All scanners will produce the number of pixels you ask of them, but only the best will actually give you more detail with more pixels.

I have measured resolution on my Nikon LS 9000 ED with the Lasersoft resolution target and all I can say is, that it delivers the 4000 DPI true optical resolution.