Nikon Coolscan 4000 with Roll Film Adapter?

I'm curious how VueScan works with the roll film adapter (my scanner should arrive in a week)

To any who might have been following this thread:

The roll film adapter is a great addition to my workflow. It saves lots of time running a set of lo-res .tif's of every frame (saved user settings) and then I can go back and do hi-res versions. The software is unnecessarily quirky on thumbnails and the need for rescanning previews. Some changes in settings require the whole roll to be ejected and then sucked back in (too much time, too much film movements). But in all, it saves me time.

The scanner has some excellent features (especially GEM for grain reduction, it actually works with minimal detail softening!).

The software (latest ver from website) offers several useful adjustments (after the learning curve).

I haven't found a way to export a RAW file, but some of the options give me a rough starting point before sending the file to PS (setting the Auto Contrast, when set in Prefs to 0, does a great but slower job of setting end points as I would do in PS right away anyway)

If anyone is interested in more detail, let me know.

Ken

Additional info:

I had been using ASF's Digital GEM with my BW film, and then ran across a reference that said BW film should be scanned as RGB for the benefits of GEM. I confirned this with ASF's tech rep. As far as I can find, this isn't mentioned in Nikon's documentation.

--
ken

Ken,

Backwards:

I scan using the Nikon software. My belief, despite the TWAIN utility, is that it's always best to scan using the software that came with the hardware. I have had no problems with the Nikon software although, I do feel that the Help is limited and some of the options are WYSIWYG. Then again, talk to some of the other people in the forums here and listen to the kinds of problems they've experienced when scanning directly into Photoshop. I don't mind doing my scanning work separately.

I batch scan (technically, with Nikon's software, that means anything more than 1 frame at a time), and let the software do my file-naming for me -- I even preset the destination folders. It is all rather brainless, which is the idea.

I did not install the Firewire card that came with the scanner, but that's only because I have a laptop. Thus, I had to purchase a Firewire card suitable for a laptop. Just so long as your card is IEEE 1394, you'll be fine.

I have not noticed any damage in the transport. It does handle the negs rather delicately. It is probably more damaging to move your negs in and out of sleeves than it is to move them in and out of the scanner.

If I'm looking for another set of proofs, scanning at 300 dpi and scaling the image size to 4 x 6, is adequate for my lab. Only if I was doing real digital correction and printing the image at a size larger than 4 x 6 would I use a higher resolution (like 4000).

-o

If no one here knows, best to ask on UseNet in comp.periphs.scanners.
I don't have one, but it's been discussed there from time to time.
Can't remember if you need to put an offset value in VueScan or not, but
VS is a great way to batch scan with long roll (or slide stacker).

Prob is that any camera, unless pin registered, is likely to "drift" a
little from frame to frame as it winds in relation to the sprocket holes.

--
        Mac McDougald
Doogle Digital - www.doogle.com

-o,

Thanks.
That pretty much matches my expectations.

I'm up early just waiting for delivery.

I currently use my Polaroid SS4000 as an external app, so I have no problem doing the same for NS. In fact I prefer it. Rather than opening into PS, eating RAM and possibly interrupting things I'm doing, the files are saved to a folder, I view and open as appropriate.

Agreed on the film sliding in/out of sleeves.

So are you scanning RAW or doing adjustemnts in NS?

K

Ken,
    I have used the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 with the SA-30 roll adapter to scan uncut 35mm rolls of negs. I purchased my scanner and the SA-30 adapter recently (about 2 months ago, or so) and have been testing the devices ever since. I'm not saying that I'm any sort of expert, however.

What exactly is your question?

O

Hi O,

Several questions come to mind:

How is the film flatness? Does it remain flat for each frame?

Does the slightly reduced frame size with the adapter, cut into the image area?

How long does it take for a full scan?

Is RAW output possible?

Thanks,
Ken

Also, where did you get yours?

Here's link refering to ICE with BW

 <http://www.asf.com/support/Scanners/FilmICEFAQs.shtml>

O,

Are you there?

Ken

Ken, Sorry 'bout that .. I didn't check-in yesterday. As for your questions:

"How is the film flatness? Does it remain flat for each frame?"

I have not had any problems thusfar with film flatness and, yes, it has remained flat in each frame. I have used both the SA-21 adapter as well as the (roll-feed) SA-30 adapter and have not had any problems regarding flatness with either adapter.

"Does the slightly reduced frame size with the adapter, cut into the image area?"

No. But just so you know the specifications of what you're working with, according to Nikon, the scanner's Scanning Area is 25.1 x 38mm (3,946 x 5,959 pixels). As for each of the adapters, they break down like this:

- Effective Scanning Area: SA-21: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646 pixels)

- Effective Scanning Area: MA-20(S): 25.1 x 36.8mm* (3,946 x 5,782 pixels) *Actual effective size depends on slide mount aperture size

- Effective Scanning Area: FH-3: 24.0 x 36.0mm (3,762 x 5,646 pixels)

- Effective Scanning Area: IA-20(S): 16.1 x 26.9mm (2,525 x 4,219 pixels)

- Effective Scanning Area: SA-30: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646 pixels)

"How long does it take for a full scan?"

The time required for a "full scan" varies depending on a number of factors, like resolution, scaling, post-processing, et al. According to Nikon scan time would be approximately 38 seconds at 4,000 dpi (for a 35mm negative), 16-bit output.

Nikon is currently offering rebates on all of their scanners (the Coolscan IV ED, SuperCoolscan 4000, and SuperCoolscan 8000). I picked mine up from Five-Star Photo in New York. Go to EBay, but beware of the pirates.

Thanks O,

I had decided to plunge this morning.

I've been buying things from
 www.17photo.com
good prices (looks like they're trying to beat B+H), good service,
and someone answers the phone!!!

Had to get the SA-30 from B+H.

Thanks again.
Ken

Ken,

Good for you, I'm sure that you'll be pleased. Tell me how the SA-30 works out for you (I also bought my SA-30 from B&H, by the way).

I initially purchased mine because, as a wedding photographer, I wanted to scan all my negs from each wedding (about 20-25 rolls per wedding). This is a bit too much, however, when you factor in real world issues -- like the time required to scan all of that at a decent resolution. I had determined that, unless I was scanning at a very low res, with no post-processing, it would be a waste (it would just take too long). And, when considering that I would be busy every week with another new wedding, I gave up on that idea altogether (at least for now). I was a bit disappointed. I thought that the SA-30 would be a godsend and solve all my problems. But, I found a "solution."

Now, primarily, I'm scanning my favorite 80-90 images, or so, per wedding at around 300 dpi (scaled to 4 x 6), with some post-processing, and the images are archivable. I've given a cd of these digital images to the lab, and they've printed them as 4 x 6 proofs, and they look just as good as the proofs from the neg. Thus, I'm happy. It's served its purpose in that regard.

Now, for my needs .. I'm debating as to whether or not the SA-30 was worth it. However, sometimes I want to scan 10-15 images or so from a roll, and that would just be a hassle if the rolls were cut. Thus, it is working at its intended purpose, just differently than I would've originally thought.

-o

Ken,

I think the roll thing can be a real timesaver in a high
productionflow.......
And the contruction can be more gentle than the shortstrip
module if we are lucky.
Basically there is nothing wrong with the shortstrip mechanism
more than that there are a bunch of small rubber rolls and
some velvet in the filmpath.
Somehow films tend to be more easy to scratch after deloped
than in the camera where it also goes through a path.....
And does so having a pressure plate on the back of it.
The Nikon coolscan picks up scratches created from sliding
the filmstrip in and out of the archive sleeves.....

But the stripfeeder for short strips works, slides the film in and
out but I just feel that IF any thing goes wrong it would be a real
mess in there.
It will probably be more secure with the longroll and stabilize
the film in the path thanks to the lenght and the put through
such a long way to the collector.

I??ve been on both Polaroid and Nikon 35 mm and there is a
huge difference between these scannerbrands.
The light system is so different as is the scannersoftware.
Nikons weaker light from the diods is probably the reason
for the short depth of field/sharpness.
In darkroom I??ve always been a glasscarrier user even in
35 mm enlargers......
Corner to corner sharpness has been extremely important
to me and even with an "on top glass only" it has not been
enough to satisfy me when using 50 mm, or even 40 mm in
the Leitz Focomat enlarger, so I constructed my own stuff.
I did build my own measuretools for the adjustments and just
before digital took over I was ready to use *laser beams* in that.......
Well, Photohop was my rescue. If You know what I mean ;)
(80 mm focal lenght is no problem with corner to corner.)

In the Nikon scanners, which I prefer, it??s extremely difficult to
achive a perfect flatness and the lens system seems to have
problem to cover that keeping sharpness allover the surface.
I??ve been through several  FH-2 stripholders (the manual one)
but even when not been abused there are problems.
I??m on higher speeds negfilms like Fuji Press 400/800.
The older black and white stuff on Fuji neopan 400 is a killer.
Grain is "visible" and it??s works like an indicator for corner to
corner sharpness for me......
I??ve tried to adjust the Fh-2 in many different ways for better
perfection but failed, I??ve found some useful adjustments but
it will allways be a compromise.
It??s not a disaster ...:)....not "that" noticeable at printouts but zooming
in on screen reveals the bad stuff when using the USM dialog.

Anyway, to get to the point; The shortstrip autofeeder has the
same tendencies but is impossible to finetune.......
Can??t bend anything in there...

The Polaroids 35 does not have this little problem even though
their stripholder is a joke - I don??t know how many of these
pl

Thanks for the info Michael.

I have a Polaroid SS4000 (early version) (using Insight) which i'm using to scan chromes (usually E100S or Provia) but mostly for TMax 3200 and some TMax 400.

I have a project now which I'm excited about and will have lots of film to develop and scan. Having roll capability should help my workflow, but there is no budget for the project, I'm doing it out of pocket.

Trying to work myself up to yet another purchase.

Happy and safe holidays to you too.

K

Glad to hear that it works, Ken!

As You??re going to use films with *clearly* visible grains
like the p3.200, try to get any of those users to testscan
the whole filmarea for a flatness test.

That film at e.i 1600 and e.i 3200 has been one of my most
used films for a long period some years back.
Nowdays, my pure B&W is done from colornegs or the
T-Max CN (C-41) type of films which scans wonderful.
It??s easier to manage the softness in PS than in in wet
darkroom where it takes high skills to master it.
But I liked it even there, one just have to adapt the the
"feeling" and technic to it.
Pushing to e.i 1600 from iso 400 drops some shadows
like always but grain is close to T-max 100.....
As an old Piezo B&W master as You are You might like it ;)
I saw recently that Jon Cone has new formulas for that.
Non clogging inks....tried it?

The C-41 B&W stuff gives You the option of ICE dust-
cleaning system as it is a colornegfilmtech.
Traditional B&W films don??t work with that system!
Clone and healing brush.........

Best,

Michael

I did get several replies to my question on other forums.
Those who posted said they loved their roll adapters. I don't know how critically they view their scans though. All comments were positive except for the price.

M,

I used to do the older TMZ @1600 in D76 to great success. My recent attempts were way too chunky looking, so I ran tests and came up with 800 or 1000 at about 58% of the usual dev. times. And confirmed this with the new version of TMZ.

Since I was at such a low EI I tried TMY (400) at 200/400/800 with reduced dev. The grain is tighter of course, but I like the shadows at 200 best as expected.

I'm shooting a social documentary project where I want to keep a sense of the available light, while using my new F100/SB80DX to add a bit o' fill. The TMZ @1000 with the flash fill @ -1.7 stops is close, but somehow the grain structure is still not as refined as I was getting a few years ago when I used the EI 1600 almost exclusively. I don't know why I can't get the same quality.

This does place great need for the scanner sharpness. My Polaroid SS4000 is only fair at this with it's 6 frame strip holder.

To add to this, my film is drying with greater curl than in the past. I'm even using trays of water in the bottom of my film cabinet to slow it down. I might have to humidify!.

I've never had success with the C41/BW films. I always seem to want greater apparent edge sharpness. That's why I use D76. It used to seem to make the edges of details crisper, thus visually going head to head with the apparent graininess.

What C41 film/EI combe are you working with?

I'll get to the Piezo thing next post or so...

K

Michael,

When I saw your name on the response, I too, thought nice to see you.

I don't have any review links, only a few vague 'product info' ones. I did get a very brief response on the dpreview.com forums that one person said only "Yes, I use it all the time for negatives AND positives.. It's worth it's weight in CF cards.."

Still hoping for more feedback.

I have a Polaroid SS4000 (early version) but I'm on a new project where I'm hoping to shoot (and develop!) lots o' film, and the roll film capabilities are making a dent in my thoughts.

The purchase with SA-30 will be around $1930 dent in wallet before rebate though, so I need to really talk myself into this as an upgrade from what I have.

Have a safe/happy holiday season, Michael and all other readers.

No, I have not.

Thanks (if not for the insight, then for the bump up the forum)

Hi Ken,

No I have not.....<grin<. That was fun. I can??t help it.
Oh no...I can be Wild but I??m not Bill.

The idea is cool, but even if I have no experince from
that SA-30, I know that I??m very hesitant to the smaller
striploader for 6 frames pieces.
The reasons are two - and You know them;

- If the edges/corners are not perfectly cut a disaster is
  coming up right into my face.
  I just coulden??t forgive myself.....
  It seems to be a quite powerful engine moving things...

- If not kept clinically clean, scratches will be the result.
  That??s no news, I know, but the Nikons are extremely
  sharp......and if You don??t want to use the cleansystem ....
  I like the cleaning very much, but I??m not sure what You
  think of it in Your flows......
  Nose-greasing films in these days - nah..;)

The first reason above is no problem with the SA-30 I guess.
But the second would probably be larger.

I have not seen any reviews on the SA-30.
Post a link if You have.
I could be wrong in my opinions on this.

Anyway Ken, glad to see You around and alive.

Best,

Michael