Nikon LS-5000 + Kodachrome

[Gian Carlo]

Hi,

I have about 9000 Slides to scan and I'm looking for a slide scanner. I
already have a LS1000 that work great + SF100 feeder that has lot of problem
doing 50 slides in one time.

I'm looking for the LS 5000 that has lots of features more than the LS1000
+ the SF210 that I reared is far more better than the SF-200 and I think
than the SF-100 also.



My problem is that more than 70-80% of my slides are Kodachrome and digital
ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome. The LS9000 ICE work with Kodachrome but it
is a little to expensive for me and don't have a slide feeder. The slides
are in good condition, no scratch but little bit of dust.



What your suggestion? Witch scanner should I buy? There is other scanner
that have ICE (or something similar) that work with Kodachrome and have also
a slide feeder?



Do someone have experience with the SF-210 ?



Thanks for your help



Gian Carlo

 

[Don]

My problem is that more than 70-80% of my slides are Kodachrome and digital
ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome. The LS9000 ICE work with Kodachrome but it
is a little to expensive for me and don't have a slide feeder. The slides
are in good condition, no scratch but little bit of dust.

What your suggestion? Witch scanner should I buy? There is other scanner
that have ICE (or something similar) that work with Kodachrome and have also
a slide feeder?

There is the Minolta 5400 *Mark II*. I have no personal experience
with it but it has ICE, although, I believe Minolta warns it doesn't
work with Kodachromes.

Now, back to Nikons and Kodachromes (KC). I have been tortured by
Nikons (first LS-30 and then LS-50) trying to scan KCs for about 3
years now.

I turned ICE off but that's a personal preference. ICE will work with
some KCs. The trouble is "work" is a flexible definition. It really
depends on how closely you examine the results and what resolution
your end product will be. On the other hand, ICE will actually work on
(severely) overexposed KCs where all the silver has been washed out.

But the biggest problem with Nikons when it comes to KCs is not so
much ICE but "the cast"!!! Nikons just struggle with KCs and produce
images with a heavy non-linear (!) blue cast. This is due in part to
amplified blue but mostly it's the absence of red.

Now, you seem to be happy with LS-1000 which implies you either did
not notice this cast or it doesn't bother you (or it's "good KCs"). In
that case the LS-5000 which actually has a KC mode should do wonders.

Finally, KC is not always KC. Kodak has changed the specs over the
years and it depends on the vintage of your slides. Mine span a
relatively short period between 1982-1988, inclusive. The oldest ones
were sheer torture to scan. Then, around early 1984, "something
happened" and the red cast which until then was only lurking in
shadows extended to midtones pushing the blue cast up!?

After that upheaval KC seems to have stabilized and the last few years
(1985-1988) are actually very good needing only a minor adjustment
afterwards. I don't know if it's only me (or my labs at the time) or
if this is documented elsewhere, but that's my experience.

Don.

 

[Gian Carlo]

Hi Don Thanks for your hints:

There is the Minolta 5400 *Mark II*. I have no personal experience
with it but it has ICE, although, I believe Minolta warns it doesn't
work with Kodachromes.

Now, back to Nikons and Kodachromes (KC). I have been tortured by
Nikons (first LS-30 and then LS-50) trying to scan KCs for about 3
years now.

I turned ICE off but that's a personal preference. ICE will work with
some KCs. The trouble is "work" is a flexible definition. It really
depends on how closely you examine the results and what resolution
your end product will be. On the other hand, ICE will actually work on
(severely) overexposed KCs where all the silver has been washed out.

But the biggest problem with Nikons when it comes to KCs is not so
much ICE but "the cast"!!! Nikons just struggle with KCs and produce
images with a heavy non-linear (!) blue cast. This is due in part to
amplified blue but mostly it's the absence of red.

Now, you seem to be happy with LS-1000 which implies you either did
not notice this cast or it doesn't bother you (or it's "good KCs"). In
that case the LS-5000 which actually has a KC mode should do wonders.

In the LS1000 before scanning I corrected the Colors using the
"Auto-Contrast" button.
Pheraps I ca use some Kodachrome-Profile to adjust the color difference. The
Nikon SW support
ICC color profiles. Or silverfast is also a good SW.

Finally, KC is not always KC. Kodak has changed the specs over the
years and it depends on the vintage of your slides. Mine span a
relatively short period between 1982-1988, inclusive. The oldest ones
were sheer torture to scan. Then, around early 1984, "something
happened" and the red cast which until then was only lurking in
shadows extended to midtones pushing the blue cast up!?

After that upheaval KC seems to have stabilized and the last few years
(1985-1988) are actually very good needing only a minor adjustment
afterwards. I don't know if it's only me (or my labs at the time) or
if this is documented elsewhere, but that's my experience.

All my slides are dated from 1985 to 2003 and I would like to scan it at the
maximal resolution, to store
them in DVD. I also read from other people that old Kodachrome has more
problem with ICE that newer one.
Do Kodak say something about that ?


I have readed also about some othe scanner that doesn''t use ICE but another
system that is compatible with
Kodachrome. Do you ear about it to ?

If is possible I will stay with Nikon Scanner because I find the quality
very good.


Gian Carlo

 

[Jim]

Hi,

I have about 9000 Slides to scan and I'm looking for a slide scanner. I
already have a LS1000 that work great + SF100 feeder that has lot of
problem doing 50 slides in one time.

I'm looking for the LS 5000 that has lots of features more than the
LS1000 + the SF210 that I reared is far more better than the SF-200 and I
think than the SF-100 also.



My problem is that more than 70-80% of my slides are Kodachrome and
digital ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome. The LS9000 ICE work with
Kodachrome but it is a little to expensive for me and don't have a slide
feeder. The slides are in good condition, no scratch but little bit of
dust.



What your suggestion? Witch scanner should I buy? There is other scanner
that have ICE (or something similar) that work with Kodachrome and have
also a slide feeder?

If your slides aren't scratched much then perhaps the ICE situation is not
that serious. My old Kodachromes don't need ICE. The Ektachromes certainly
do.
Jim

 

[Roger]

Hi,

I have about 9000 Slides to scan and I'm looking for a slide scanner. I
already have a LS1000 that work great + SF100 feeder that has lot of problem
doing 50 slides in one time.

I'm looking for the LS 5000 that has lots of features more than the LS1000
+ the SF210 that I reared is far more better than the SF-200 and I think
than the SF-100 also.

I've been running the LS-5000ED and the SF210 almost since they became
available.

The SF210 works well, but is not fool proof, nor is it warped slide
proof. The old paper mounts that are bent, or have the edges belled
out will jam. That's a "will" not a might. <) I use a kitchen
knife handle to "rub" or roll the edges flat and that will cure the
vast majority of problems. Don't forget this can happed to the inside
edges as well.

Some plastic mounts which have hooked edges will refuse to feed,
*unless* you turn them upside down, which is really not a problem as
long as you remember to put those mounts in properly.

My problem is that more than 70-80% of my slides are Kodachrome and digital
ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome. The LS9000 ICE work with Kodachrome but it
is a little to expensive for me and don't have a slide feeder. The slides
are in good condition, no scratch but little bit of dust.

I'm surprised that scanner claims ICE will work. It may, but as I
said, I'd be surprised.

ICE and Kodachrome are a sometimes thing. On some it works and on some
it doesn't. I've done some extreme enlargements and did not see any
detrimental effects from leaving ICE on that others see. Nor could I
see any difference between on and off, but I sure could on E6.

I'm well past 20,000 images. I've lost track as the thing has been
reset several times. I scan E6, Kodachrome, and color negatives. I
have no complaints about the scanner.

For programs I use both Nikon Scan and VueScan. Each has strong and
weak points. Between the two. VueScan has a steeper learning curve
as it gives the user more options while NikonScan makes a lot of the
choices instead of leaving them up to the user. NikonScan has a
problem of finding the space between images on some film strips where
the images have a lot of high contrast vertical lines. VueScan
doesn't. VueScan has its own scratch and dust removal program which
seems to work quite well when turned on.

Good Luck

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

 

[Don]

VueScan has a steeper learning curve
as it gives the user more options while NikonScan makes a lot of the
choices instead of leaving them up to the user.

They can all be turned off in NikonScan (click on the checkmark to
turn it into an "x") and you can scan raw if so choose. Vuescan's many
"undocumented features", however, can't be turned off... :-(

NikonScan also produces pure data while Vuescan is notoriously buggy
and unreliable producing severely corrupt data.

However, if requirements are low (highly compressed Web JPGs, for
example) then the difference may not be so apparent. Some users with
such low threshold find Vuescan easier to use out of the box. Others
can't overcome its "unusual" user interface.

VueScan has its own scratch and dust removal program which
seems to work quite well when turned on.

That's just plain wrong. Vuescan users constantly complain about IR
cleaning which (if it happens to do anything at all!) fluctuates
wildly with each release. That's not even in the same league as ICE!

I don't think there's a single reasonable person who would contradict
that ICE4 in NikonScan is several orders of magnitude superior to
Vuescan's amateur bungling attempts at so-called IR "cleaning".

Don.

 

[Roger]

They can all be turned off in NikonScan (click on the checkmark to
turn it into an "x") and you can scan raw if so choose. Vuescan's many
"undocumented features", however, can't be turned off... :-(

NikonScan also produces pure data while Vuescan is notoriously buggy
and unreliable producing severely corrupt data.

However, if requirements are low (highly compressed Web JPGs, for
example) then the difference may not be so apparent. Some users with
such low threshold find Vuescan easier to use out of the box. Others
can't overcome its "unusual" user interface.


That's just plain wrong. Vuescan users constantly complain about IR
cleaning which (if it happens to do anything at all!) fluctuates
wildly with each release. That's not even in the same league as ICE!

I don't think there's a single reasonable person who would contradict
that ICE4 in NikonScan is several orders of magnitude superior to
Vuescan's amateur bungling attempts at so-called IR "cleaning".

I just don't have the problems you see.
I do however find NikonScan to be the buggy one with the occasional
computer crash (running XP Pro), while VueScan has never crashed.

Even with large blowups I do not see the quality differences you see
either.

Both programs in general work pretty well.

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

 

[Roger S.]

Don, can you post an example of the problems you've seen?

 

[Don]

Don, can you post an example of the problems you've seen?

I tried repeatedly in all those long threads but it didn't make any
difference because you ignore facts and only use your feelings.

And those personal feelings have a massive blind spot, as you just
demonstrated again:

Even with large blowups I do not see the quality differences you see
either.

Don.

 

[John]

I tried repeatedly in all those long threads but it didn't make any
difference because you ignore facts and only use your feelings.

Go on, Don, give it another go. In fact, you are the ideal person to do this
because you have your own program which will extract pure raw data from your
scanner. After all, we don't really know that NikonScan is not massaging the
data in some way, although I have to admit, I doubt it does if all the auto
settings are turned off.

What I suggest is this. How about you doing 2 scans of the same slide - one
with your program and one with Vuescan. Post a crop of the raw data from
each, then we can all see what problems Vuescan is causing. Surely this
would prove any corruption of data beyond reasonable doubt?

And those personal feelings have a massive blind spot, as you just
demonstrated again:

In case you haven't noticed, there are 2 separate Rogers at work here -
obviously colluding to bamboozle you

 

[Don]

Go on, Don, give it another go.

If you're really that interested, check the archives. It's all there.

After all, we don't really know that NikonScan is not massaging the
data in some way, although I have to admit, I doubt it does if all the auto
settings are turned off.

Actually it does. It seems to always apply the NKLS50_R.icm profile
(whatever that is?). Possibly doing other things as well.

Check the thread:

Subject: Re: Scan Quality Vs Digital

I posted a partial disassembly of the Nikon cache and what I found
out. It's not complete because I was just fooling around and didn't
have time to finish it.

But even a simple inspection of the histogram (16-bit!) of a "raw"
Nikon Scan image will show that something weird is going on. For
example (at least on my machine) the R channel never goes beyond 65528
while G & B peak at 65535, as expected. Again, all that on my LS-50.

What I suggest is this. How about you doing 2 scans of the same slide - one
with your program and one with Vuescan. Post a crop of the raw data from
each, then we can all see what problems Vuescan is causing. Surely this
would prove any corruption of data beyond reasonable doubt?

Oh, there are so many problems with that... First of all, which
Vuescan? They come fast and furious and each reshuffles the deck.

But there's a much easier way anyone can do it for themselves but they
need a true 16-bit histogram. Simply inspect any Vuescan "raw" image
and shriek in horror... Or check what effect various settings have...
You don't need to compare to anything else to see that something is
seriously wrong. Or just compare (any?) two Vuescan versions and
you'll spot wild fluctuations as assorted Vuescan bugs (re)appear.

In case you haven't noticed, there are 2 separate Rogers at work here -
obviously colluding to bamboozle you

Right you are!!! (About two Rogers, that is.)

My profound apologies to Roger!

I was really referring to Roger... ;o)

(I'm very serious about the apology, though.)

Don.

 

[Roger S.]

"Oh, there are so many problems with that... First of all, which
Vuescan? They come fast and furious and each reshuffles the deck. "

Try the latest version and let us know what you find. Is there no
"corruption" that is visible in a side-by-side comparison? You've
never posted actual examples to support your theories in any of our
discussions. The only pics I've seen from you are of Kodachromes.

If Nikonscan also "corrups" the data why don't you rant against it as
well? Consistency is all we ask for.

 

[Roger]

"Oh, there are so many problems with that... First of all, which
Vuescan? They come fast and furious and each reshuffles the deck. "

Try the latest version and let us know what you find. Is there no
"corruption" that is visible in a side-by-side comparison? You've
never posted actual examples to support your theories in any of our
discussions. The only pics I've seen from you are of Kodachromes.

If Nikonscan also "corrups" the data why don't you rant against it as
well? Consistency is all we ask for.

Maybe from a "disinterested" third party?

Just a nit...You really need to include enough text to show the post
being answered, but in this case it appears to be quite evident<)

Generally when posts tend to be consistently rants, I never see them
from that source again.<)

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

 

[Don]

"Oh, there are so many problems with that... First of all, which
Vuescan? They come fast and furious and each reshuffles the deck. "

Try the latest version and let us know what you find.

That's just a very transparent diversionary tactic.

And then when the next version shows up all the Vuescan cheerleaders
will erupt into a premature orgy of jubilation (as they have in the
past) how "it's all fine now" (without providing any objective facts,
of course, only to be contradicted by other Vuescan users) and then
demand more tests, more diversions, etc... etc...

Look, anyone who's *genuinely* interested (and doesn't just want to
change the subject or is only being argumentative) has an
*inexhaustible* (!) amount of data already on record.

Why not tackle all that first before asking for more?
Why not do your own tests and prove Vuescan critics wrong?
Why not argue with other Vuescan users who are complaining?
Etc. Etc.

Therefore, and in light of all that, any rational person would take
the above "innocent request" with huge pinch of salt.

Is there no
"corruption" that is visible in a side-by-side comparison? You've
never posted actual examples to support your theories in any of our
discussions. The only pics I've seen from you are of Kodachromes.

Isn't that enough? What's wrong with using Kodachromes? What's wrong
with all the other data already out there? Why are you, all of a
sudden, so interested in my examples? Why can't you do your own tests?
Etc. Etc. (see above). So, your assertion just doesn't add up!

If Nikonscan also "corrups" the data why don't you rant against it as
well?

I do "rant" against Nikon when needed, but most Vuescan "fans" are far
too obsessed with that huge Vuescan chip on their shoulder to notice.

Check the archives! (Or the reply to Roger, for starters.)

Of course, you're also comparing apples and oranges i.e. the *very
few* NikonScan bugs against an *infinite number* of Vuescan bugs.

Consistency is all we ask for.

And anyone who really *reads* my messages (instead of a reflex
overreaction) will get exactly that!

Don.

 

[Don]

Maybe from a "disinterested" third party?

As always, Roger, using your "feelings" to (try to) argue against
facts.

Of course, after (mis)reading the quotes below I expect you'll go off
on a tangent - and I already have an inkling of its direction... :-(

Don.

--- start ---

Does anyone have *recommended analog gain* settings to compensate for
Nikon's LS-30 (a.k.a. CoolScan III) shameful inability to accurately
scan Kodachrome slides? I'm referring to dark scans and, most of all,
the very heavy blue cast. ....
The massively incompetent Nikon's (so-called) "support" is not even
aware of the problem (or doesn't wish to disclose it) and I'll think
twice before throwing any money their way in the future!


And I was prepared to! Only if Nikon would provide me with the
*recommended* values they use when the Kodachrome setting is selected. ....
Instead, the incompetent Nikon's so-called "support" blames my version
of Windows...

Yes, NikonScan installation is appalling (another reason why I ask
here for real world experiences rather than the incompetents at
Nikon).

Etc... Check the archives for more...

--- end ---

 

[DBM]

Don:

Why do you not just show examples of your work and examples of Vuescan
problems? Are you afraid of having criticism? Do not just say search the
archives. That is a diversionary tactic. I have been reading this
newsgroup for about three years and all you seem to do is express opinions.
Whenever anyone else states an opinion you belittle it. Grow up and show
all of examples of your work and how you accomplished the results. By the
way, I do not and I mean not, use Vuescan. I use Nikonscan and Canoscan for
my flatbed.

DBM

 

[Don]

Why do you not just show examples of your work and examples of Vuescan
problems?

I have!! Many times! Even responding to the author's challenge, no
less. I also went through the trouble of posting one example where
Vuescan did work (!!!), to show my impartiality.

But none of that made any difference. Instead of addressing the issue
the author painted himself in a corner and then just became abusive,
exposing his "challenge" as a mere *bluff* which badly backfired . His
"devoted" followers do exactly the same.

Are you afraid of having criticism? Do not just say search the
archives. That is a diversionary tactic.

It's not because:

When specific Vuescan bugs or a list is posted, that's criticized.
When searching the archives is recommended, that's criticized too.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't...

I have been reading this
newsgroup for about three years and all you seem to do is express opinions.

Then you haven't been reading very closely, I'm afraid.
Name *one* such case *in context*!

Whenever anyone else states an opinion you belittle it.

Again: *Context*!

I'm assuming this is prompted by the message you're commenting to.

If you have been *really* reading the group you would have noticed a
number of very long and protracted threads where I tried everything
under the sun to explain things to Roger but to no avail. In light of
that, the message you're commenting on is anything but belittling.
Just drawing on past experience i.e. those threads.

If you're speaking in general terms then: Can you name *one* example
of this "belittling" *in context*? The "in context" bit is essential!

Grow up and show
all of examples of your work and how you accomplished the results.

See my message to other Roger why this is straw man. In a nutshell:

There's nothing preventing anyone from doing their own tests. Also,
there's *plenty* out there already. Which begs the question:

Why not tackle all of that first before asking for more?

Of course it's blatantly obvious, why. All these "requests" are
nothing but empty grandstanding and diversionary tactics.

By the
way, I do not and I mean not, use Vuescan. I use Nikonscan and Canoscan for
my flatbed.

That doesn't matter to me either way. I merely respond to message
content.

Don.