Back when the Coolscans were first discontinued and digital cameras coming into their own, photographers would buy a used Coolscan, copy all the images they wanted to, then resell it back online, often for the same price they bought it for.
A thing like that developed today commercially by a Japanese company would cost more than any commercially manufactured film camera that there was since the transistor era inflation adjusted. 😂
Note that your scanner needs to have the latest available firmware (V1.20). Earlier versions had an incomplete USB implementation which causes the scanner to not be recognized by more modern Windows versions. You may have to find yourself an old Windows 2000 system to allow the firmware loader to work.
I bought one back in the day and still have it in mint condition. It does scan beautifully, especially when you use the software that removes dust and scratches and restores colour for old faded slides. I still have a very old laptop with the software installed, but it sounds like you can get it working on a new machine, which is great! Even my grandfather's slides taken more than 60+ years ago come up very nicely.
I currently have the iv working on Windows 11, and a 4000 working on Windows 10. My upcoming project will be getting the 4000 working on W11, people say it can’t be done online, I call bs, as a computer technician I’m convinced I’ll be able to get it working
I bought one of these many years ago (£400 second hand if I remember correctly) and have scanned thousands of (mostly) b&w negatives, many of which I've sold to magazines and other publications. It's more than paid for itself over the years!
I bought a Super Coolscan 5000 new many years ago when it was released. Still using it. Of course the scanning software it came with isn't supported for Mac any more. But after trying Silverfast and VueScan I found myself happy with the VueScan. Just wish I had the larger one to do 120.
Thank you for this very helpful video. I'm planning te get a Coolscan V ED (LS-50) and this video took away my last doubts. I now also understand why these scanners are still so expensive. Good to hear Nikon Scan 4.0 works on Windows 11. This might save the purchase of Vuescan. Can't wait to start scanning my grandfather's slides from the 70's and 80's. About the Firewire cable on the more expensive Coolscan X000 models: I read people having problems to connect these to Thunderbolt 3. You need multiple adapters to get from Firewire to Thunderbolt 3. Because of this, the connection is unstable and fails 50% of the time.
Have owned and used a CA8000, a CS5, a Minolta 5400, a PIE XAs, and various others in between, yes, Nikon made fantastic scanners. I will also say a $200 digital camera, a $50 adapted 80s macro lens, and a Valoi Easy35 will outperform every traditional scanner ever made, and you can convert an entire roll in 5-10 minutes. The static dust brush on the Valoi works really well, I don't miss Ice at all.
My end goal with the coolscan is to mod my SA-21, hook it up to a 4000 and use it to scan entire rolls unsupervised. The results are 95% of the way there from being perfect, and it requires basically no user input
@@nickschraml I owned the PIE XAs and got whole-roll scanning working with Silverfast actually. That scanner provided 4300dpi of real optical resolution too, as long was you manually tuned the autofocus. Ultimately it would drift during scanning though, getting progressively worse as it progressed through the roll, ultimately cutting off part of each frame. Mechanical drift was the issue. I then tried an older scanner, the PIE 3650 Pro 3. That did much better in terms of not drifting quite so much. You might lose 4-5% the last frame of a 36, and ~3000dpi real resolution. In the end, they all failed when compared to the output from camera conversion, most especially vs Pentax composite shots. Pentax does some crazy black magic in their de-bayer or algorithm, they don't distort the grain structure at all. With the Valoi needing no copy stand or leveling, I can't see how using any other option would ever be faster, as reliable, or produce such amazing results. I am often completely done with an entire role in less than 15 minutes.
no shadow or highlight detail with the Epson V600 film scanner because the Dmax is 3.4 versus the NIKON's 4.2. I have been scanning for 35 years and would not touch a scanner that had a Dmax of under 4.0. Further, I only fluid mount and have a glass holder for my NIKON 9000 which allows me to do that, and would not suggest using a flatbed at all for film unless you fluid mount.The enhanced detail is well worth it. My three scanners are the NIKON 5000, NIKON 9000, and the EPSON Perfection V850.I would also suggest using the multi-pass function on the NIKONs, even though this considerably lengthens the total scan time.
@@rupertthomson blends the multiple scans, have found that it makes for beautiful smooth shadow tonalities in my night time volcano eruption shots ... that is why it extends the total scan time ... In 1983, wanting to freeze night explosive activity and get the full tonal range I went with Fuji ISO 400 negative film because it gave me an extra four or five stops and I was able to shoot at 1/500 second.I began work as a drum scanner operator in the early Nineties, and went with the NIKONs when they became available.I should point out that scanning speed is not an issue for me since I have the three scanners and five Mac workstations - I still use the NIKONs with Mac G5s.
I bought this scanner soon after it was released. Still have it. Still works. Have to use VueScan or SilverFast or other third party software to run it on a modern Mac. I still use mine from time to time. Only complaint.........it is so slow. Always was.
Thanks for the vid! Really informative. I like the laid back presentation but think it would benefit from being denser and half as long. I bought my Perfection 600V as an "investment into my hobby" and as something best while still attainable by mere mortals, but looking at this... Sheeshh... I thought my old (1938 old) cameras optics suck... But I have to reconsider now.
I've been using cool scan ED 8000 since 2005 and getting nice results especially from colour negative films. I managed to get it working under Win10, so the life goes on.
My experience with Nikon film scanners from early 2000s: Scanning 35mm color negatives shot at ISO 400: - There was no fixed white balance; the scanner only operated in auto mode for exposure, white balance, contrast, and sharpness. So you might get wildly different results if you scanned the same neg twice. - The output is something akin to 8-bit TIFF; and that means you couldn't correct like a raw file. Correction on the highlights and shadows was like working with a JPEG. Once sharpness and contrast have been applied, there's no going back. - It was sharp-much more than scanning a 4x6 print on a flatbed-and that means you got contrasty sharp grain noise in the highlights; random pools of magenta or green grain. It required lots of work in photoshop, in those days, to get it to look like a natural photograph.
I still have mine.. all boxed up… not sure if it still works… but I ran a TON of Chrome thru it in the day when this was the ONLY “digital” photography that could be got! Actually, my Coolscan lasted longer than Baboo Land in NYC where I had been doing my drum scans per roll! And I still got the Photoshop on a disk! Pay once. Use forever!
I got a Coolscan LS 9000ED, well worth the money, and in general I also noticed that the scans are better than on my V850, especially in regards to dust, the filmholders are just a dust magnet... For the coolscan I had to buy a fitting firewire card tho, because it needs to be a powered one, only issue I have with the Coolscan is that the film holders are ridiculously expensive, and using them with curved film strips is a mess, and same with special formats (such as 35mm loaded in a medium format cameras), which can't be scanned because the film holder expects the 35mm films to be the default frame size and spacing.
Yeah if you want to scan the sprocket holes you’ll need to use a flatbed I believe. As for the curved negatives, I believe the slide mount plus film strip adapter works very well for that on the Nikons. I got lucky and my Coolscan iv came with those
For scanning 35mm with sprocket holes try to get hands on the FH-869G holder with glass plates. Meanwhile I've got two of 'em. Yes, they are fu... expensive.
I have coveted a Nikon Coolsan Film Scanner scene I was 15 (2003). This video brought back a gang of memories. Though I now rely on lab scans with the Fujifilm SP-3000 Frontier scanner, I might pick one up a Coolscan in the very distant future.
I think I’ll just end up super glueing the pieces back together. The seller gave me a bit of a refund on it which was nice. I have a 4000 coming in the mail this weekend, I only ordered the iv because it came with an SA-21 film strip adapter and was the same price as just buying that on its own, soooooo free scanner I guess
I have used my Nikon Coolscan IV since Window XP, after switching to Mac I was unable to use the scanner. A buddy said try VueScan software and the old scans using Nikon’s Windows software looked like crap compared to the rescanned images on Mac with VueScan. Just the dust removal capability alone was worth the cost of the new software. Give it a try I’m sure you will be redoing your video.
Interesting, that’s the opposite of what I’ve heard, but it’s definitely interesting to hear. Once I’m done doing all my current testing with Nikon Scan I’ll certainly be looking at testing out Vuescan and potentially Silverfast
@@nickschraml I’m wondering when those with negative comments tried VueScan, when Nikon no longer supported its Mac drivers I tried VueScan and was less then impressed but it’s latest version(as of my trying it out again two years ago) were night and day.
I have a Super Coolscan 9000 ED. Have not used it in years, but want to resume scanning my Chromes and negs. I still have my ancient Fujitsu laptop with the Nikon software on it and will be using it as a dedicated setup. My 7-year-old son broke the slot flap, however, and was wondering if there will be an issue with the scans if that cover is missing.
Likely not, I think the flap is mostly there to stop dust from getting in, so you might just need to clean the inside of the scanner more often. You could also probably get a new flap 3D printed I would think
I have one of those. Very nice. Slow though. Mine developed a thin blue line on every scan after years of use. I have a TON of negatives to can in the near future. I am going to use my camera and light source and shoot my negatives. Think this way might be the best.
I bought one of these a year ago on eBay and my front panels looks exactly like yours. I think that plastic is just very brittle due to age so any slight movement causes it to shatter.
Yeah I ordered a 4000 at the same time on eBay as well and its front panel arrive shattered too, fortunately eBay refunded the entire order and from what I can tell so far, they don’t want it back? I haven’t tested it, but I think the scanner itself still works, just the front panel got shattered. Plastic becomes very brittle with age
Very informative! I would also be very interested to see a comparison between your Coolscan results and "scans" shot with a 1:1 macro lens and, say a 20mp or higher camera. Which would result in higher resolution? I ask, because I bought a 60mm m.zuiko lens for my Pen-F, and mean to set up a stand and LED light source to digitize my slides. BTW, I intend on sharing this with my daughter, who is somewhat reluctant to opt for negative returns when getting film scanned and processed. Your comparison between lab scans and home scans is very convincing! We should always have our original negs and slides, for this reason and others.
Having your original negatives is an absolute must! Film scanning and editing is where the true “film look” comes from, film itself does not have any “look” to it, sure some films are more sensitive to different colors, or have different latitudes and grain structures, but at the end of the day the scan and the edits are what will make the film look the way it does. While in negative form we truly can’t observe what the film actually looks like, for that we need to use slide film. As for the resolution, looking at the files from my Coolscan iv, it seems to have an effective resolution of 12mp, the 4000 I have is more, I’m just not sure what it is off the top of my head
Thanks for doing this video. I have a Coolscan 9000 that I want to hookup to my windows 11 laptop or my large windows 10 computer. I think I did buy a firewire card in the past and just have to find it. Will be waiting to see what you find out on the Coolscan 4000.
I had to load a modified version of the driver, and to do so I had to boot windows into a mode that disabled driver signing requirements. Super not ideal from a security standpoint, but it seemed to be the only way to get windows to load the driver unfortunately
This is a really good and informative comparison. I'm currently „scanning” my negatives with a Nikon D850, and used to do it with a Nikon D5300. The increase in dynamic range between the two sensors is obvious, and the images are „cleaner” on the D850 than what I used to get with the D5300. Would many people notice? Would it make a difference when printed on a 20x30 in piece of paper? I bet not. But I would like to see the comparison between the Nikon Coolscan IV and some full frame DSLR at one point.
Just learned that the Coolscan has a UV sensor, that is used for dust removal, which should cut down on cleaning the digital filers if you weren't careful enough with them when scanning in the first place.
The problem with scanning using a camera is dust. Without any SRD feature, you have to content-aware remove all the dusts yourself, which can be extremely time consuming.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 I keep a very clean environment, rarely had real nasty issues with dust. I built a habit of using the basic air blower to dust everything off before taking photos. I also use CaptureOne as my main processing software, and the built in dust removal feature works quite well.
The comparison is night and day but did you ever try moving your film into focus on the Epson when you were mainly using it? I've seen big improvements online when people actually sort that part out. Curious how far it would fall short then, at least in sharpness.
It’s not a lot of hassle. I did it to my V600. Trial and error, with thin strips of cardboard stacked up. Twelve pieces and BINGO it was FOCUSSED. Cardboard thickness: .0022". Unless you focus the Epson, a fair comparison with another scanner is IMPOSSIBLE.
Any luck with the Coolscan and Digital ICE on Kodachrome slides? My Epson V500 makes artifacts with it. I think I read somewhere that the Coolscan implementation of Digital ICE could actually handle Kodachrome. Don't know about the V600. But I know I have a lot of dusty Kodachrome slides!
I have a V600 and can confirm is also makes artifacts. I think the Coolscan 4000 and up can handle it though, but you should research that specifically online before buying. I haven’t shot any Kodachrome yet so I can’t offer firsthand experience, I’ve only scanned Kodachrome for clients but that was a while back when I didn’t have these Coolscans yet
@@nickschraml Thanks for the reply, Nick. From what I've seen lately, only the Digital ICE Professional version that comes with the Nikon Coolscan 9000 seems to be problem-free with Kodachrome film. But I don't have one, and I can't imagine scanning all my Kodachromes over again. For the dirtiest, I had scanned them twice: with and without ICE. Then I stack the two results as layers with the ICE layer on top. I manually erase any ICE artifacts I see (and I don't worry about the ones I can't see). Crude, but reasonably effective.
The real hardware resolution of Plutek’s scanners are not 7200dpi, they’re closer to around 4000 dpi which is about what the Coolscans have as well. I unfortunately don’t have a Plustek to include in the comparison video
I've felt similarly about my Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (released back in 2004!), until it died on me recently 😐Debated getting a "legacy" scanner again, but decided against - and was pleasantly surprised by the Plustek 135i - despite it lacking autofocus, the scans have similar levels of detail - dare I say even better (more consistent, if anything). Even flat drying film used to bow a bit in Minolta's holder, so I could decide whether I want grain to be visible in the center, or at the edges, depending on where I focused😅Reports on resolution are varied though - guess it depends on how well it got calibrated in the factory or how much love it received on the way.
I’ve heard the Plustek’s are the sharpest modern scanners you can get right now as a consumer, apparently they’re just really slow and require a lot of manual intervention. That’s why I wanted to go with a Coolscan 4000, so I can feed the entire film roll into it and walk away. The Epson V600 film holder is terrible, you get distortion marks in the centre of the film all the time, very irritating. Apparently you can get a special type of glass and then wet mount the film to the scanner bed, but its an expensive and hard to get 3rd party add on
Месяц назад
Oh yeah, the ability to scan full uncut rolls is definitely a nice capability to have 👍 The holders are probably similarly bad on my Canoscan 9000f - I resorted to just placing the negatives directly onto the glass platen and weighing them down with a piece of ANR glass (which I got as part of an aftermarket holder). There's a couple more surfaces one needs to keep dust-free, but at least on the Canon the negatives are in better focus that way. Reportedly the Epson V700 and higher models have better holders (and better support for wet mounting), but I don't have personal experience with either
I should really grab a piece of ANR glass for my V600 to give it a more fair comparison, I just worry it won't make as big of a difference as I want it to
If you still have the Minolta scanner, there's a cheap way to 'repair' it. Some nutters have discovered that this scanner's lens makes a good macro lens. So, they slaughter perfectly working scanners, take the lens out and sell the rest for far less than a complete scanner, usually on ebay. Just get one of those, transfer the lens from your broken scanner and Bob's your uncle. It's totally easy, no special tools or adjustments required. And I really hope there's a special place in hell for those scanner butchers. 😕
Месяц назад
@@fotoralf That thought has crossed my mind, and I've been eyeing a supposedly working one that's been listed for a while that's just lacking a lens. The surgery seems simple enough if all one wants is to remove the lens, but I'm not sure how precise I'd have to be putting it back in.
I'm curious. How will the Nikon scanner compare to a "scan" with a camera? I've "scanned" a few old negatives using my old Nikon d7100, NLP and Essential Film Holder. Results were a lot better than I thought were possible when I know the camera used(for film) were basically point and shoot from the 90's. On social media some actually thought they were new photos. 🙂
Hi, nice video and comparison. I have the Epson since long time and I noticed that the resolution went down with the latest sw version. I was struggling what could be wrong in the scanner, but installing and using the older epson scan v1 the resolution of the scans increased again to the old ones. I kept the different scans of some films and the difference, setting exactly in the same way the scan and save option, is evident. Have you noticed something similar? Did you ever tried a scan with the Epson scan v1?
I’ve only used the Epson software a few times, but I agree that V1 is much better than V2. Your scanner should have come with a license for Silverfast though, have you tried using it? It’s more complicated but gives you much more control over the output
Back in the day Epson, Minolta, and probably other brands sold 35mm film scanners. These were way inferior to the Nikon scanners but far more affordable.
punch through, hue shifts and sharpness? A Dmax of 3.4, even with increased scanner resolution, is going to clip highlights and shadows, increasing contrast, creating hue shifts and destroying sharpness. I am a huge EPSON fan because it supported the Mac when other companies would not. Even with a lower Dmax I was able to achieve a higher range on reflective originals by disassembling my old (which I still use for quick and dirty document scans, saving wear and tear on my EPSON) HP ScanJet 5300C flatbed and lining it with black felt from Michael's and then using black paper masks on the glass to cut out glare from internal reflections. Creating highly accurate grey scales with Munsell color chips I found that clipping was significantly reduced to about only five per cent in both the shadows and highlights. Further, hue shifts due to the original's color was also cut down. The clipping actually produces cleaner document whites. Also (I have the Munsell Book of Color) I noted that color saturation was inherently low and made a custom setting which is used for all scans, irregardless of the characteristics of the original.
@@nickschraml YES! Twenty plus years ago I was scanning CCGs (Collectible Card Games) for sale on eBay and wanted accurate color. Prior to that I had been trying to scan overly large originals such as posters, topo maps, record album covers and found hue shifts when splicing together. Recognized that internal reflections were altering the color when automatic settings were used and that I needed a custom setting which was to be used for all scans, similar to a photographer shooting something like paintings in which all images are shot the same irregardless of the originals. Prior to that I had only been using drum scanners in a service bureau.
Nick, as you pointed out, the NIKON IV scan has a lot more detail than the EPSON V600. How do you deal with the inherent "noise" or graininess of the NIKON images?
Unfortunately with the iv you can’t multi sample in Nikon Scan, but you can in Vuescan so that might help. Otherwise doing a regular exposure, and then a second exposure with the gain increased in Nikon scan, then merging the two as an HDR image might work. With the coolscan 4000 I just use multi sampling I also have found that Topaz Photo AI does a decent job at cleaning up the images as well
I instantly thought about a 3D printed front panel (or maybe there are "dead" scanners to be found with intact front panels). I prefer camera scanning, more flexible (I already owned an Olympus Pen F digital with 80 MP pixel-shift hi-res mode, which does bring up the grain, especially with 35 mm film, but even with 120 and 4x5); but a Coolscan needs less tinkering …
The front cover is known to break these days. I use Vuescan with my LS-IV. I had an old Epson Perfection 4180, which tooks ages to scan and quality was not really good. So i had more or less the same experience like you. Even digitalitzing with my D750 and a macro doesnt match the Coolscan. The LS-IV uses USB 1.1 while the -LS-V already has USB2.0 i think...AND the V has only Software ICE
My only issue with the Coolscan is time. A scan takes a very looooong time… For images that are not critical a shoot them with my digital camera and a macro lens. I most cases the quality is good enough for me. However, when I comes to dust and scratches nothing can match a good scanner.
I've had my black and white negs scanned by one of these at a service in town, and the results were OK. I've also had them scanned by an acquaintance with a higher-end Epson flatbed. Again, OK. But the results I get scanning with my M43 mirrorless with the 30mm macro are noticeably sharper, IMO. The files are much smaller, of course, but it's not my intention to make big prints. And if I do, I have Gigapixel.
Having scanned a lot of negatives and slides on a Coolscan IV the only thing I wish was higher resolution. Otherwise it has been excellent (as long as the mirror is kept clean)
@@MezeiEugen I’m done with my scanning project. I don’t feel like it’s worth the time to re-scan and edit 80 rolls of film and several hundred slides just for more resolution.
The The Ugly V 600 is a single lens flatbed. A better comparison to a flat bed would be the V800 that has two lenses: one for larger scans such as A4 size. The other lens is used for smaller scans such as 35mm slides or negatives. I have a Nikon V ED but it won't scan now that I am using Windows 10. I can attest to the extra resolution gained by the V ED that scans at a true optical scan on 4000 ppi. For a comparison, my Epson V800 scans at a true optical resolution of 2300 ppi. So you can see why the Nikon 5 ED delivers scans that are visually sharper than what a flatbed does. I'd love to use my Nikon scanner but as I say, it won't work with more recent Windows such as 10 or 11. I did find that Vuescan would enable the Nikon to work again but then you have to pay a monthly fee.
The coolscans are very much compatible with Nikon Scan on Windows 10 and 11, in fact I just made a video showing how to get a Coolscan 4000 working via FireWire on Windows 11
@@nickschraml One point I omitted in my comments earlier is the optical resolution of the Epson 600 you used. It is around 1600 ppi. My EpsonV800 is at 2300ppi about 700ppi higher res. That is why you found such a big difference between the Nikon Coolscan and the 600. What I've found with the V800 is that its files are less rough than that of the Nikon which gives quite rough-edged files. While my V800 is lower res than the Nikon the files often look tidier than those of the Nikon. I put this down to the aged hardware of the Nikon whereas using the V800 with Silverfast software is regularly updated so has the advantage of using much more recent technology.
I’m fairly certain it’s the same frame, the crop would be slightly different on it. I did shoot 2-3 frames only a few seconds apart though, so it might be slightly different if I grabbed the wrong one. Camera was on a tripod with a wire trigger so the frames will be functionally the same. I’ll be more careful next time with my methodology
No doubt that a Coolscan give sharper images directly from the scanner and have better real resolution, but to get a good comparison you need to post process the Epson image, add sharpening etc. Havent used the V600 you use, but it's not that much better in a V850.
My longtime held belief was that a good scanner, like the Nikon models, were the best, short of the really expensive Imacons and such. That is until I was seeing comparison tests with the Nikons vs photographing the film with a digital camera and using other hardware to hold the film strip flat, and high quality light source etc. Not a cheap setup either unless you already own the camera and proper lens, However, the results shown in these videos are better than with the Nikon scanners. Of course the other major part of getting the best final image falls on the software you use with the scanner/copier.
I used to own a Nikon CoolScan like this and it was really sharp, and had a really cool infrared based technology that reduced scratches and dust, unfortunately I never managed to obtain decent color with it. It also wasn't very fast
I used to own an 8000ed, and while it was great, it was very expensive, very slow, and very large. At the end of the day, I got equal quality scans with my gfx, and that camera can serve a dual purpose, and is way smaller. I must admit, in my opinion, scanning setups have been surpassed. (My opinion may change if a company made a modern film scanner in 2024, but the pre 2010’s scanners I feel this way about
@@nickschraml I agree! The closest we’ve seen is plustek, but I wouldn’t say it’s up to par. I’d love to see one of the big names, like Nikon, hasselblad, canon make an update to a modern film scanner…… however, the flextight new cost the modern equivalent of $20,000, and 8000ed $13,000. So if that price, I wouldn’t be the market for it. We will see! Kind of crazy though that the best out there were last manufactured 20 years ago
would be nice to see a noritsu scanner for comparison, as from all Ive used its the only one that detected colours fairly correctly for both kodak and weird fuji emulsion
The noritsu or the coolscan did? It would be cool to get in touch with a local lab and see if they’d let me get hands on with one of their Noritsu scanners to test it
@@nickschraml noritsu did, have a check with them especially if they have hs1800 - the high end option that came with bigger machines. Its a pity that tech never made it to consumer scanner, its really is amazing
@@nickschraml just bought myself a coolscan V ED and its amazing with sa21, now time to modify it to SA30 and see how good it will do the whole film and how slow
Hi. I bought my Coolscan III in 2000 and am using it with Macs ever since. Nikon stopped supporting its own software for Macs on 2010, I guess. Since then, I've been using Vuescan, with no problems. The Coolscan is a SCSI scanner. How do I connect it to my 2011 iMac and 2012 retina 15" and 2019 16" Macbooks? Adapters: SCSI > Firewire 400 by Ratoc; FW 400 to 800 by Moshi; FW 800 to Thunderbolt 2 by Apple; Thunderbolt 2 to 3 by Apple. It's a long line when using it with the 16", but on the iMac it is just an adapter and a small FW 400 cable from Apple. But the important, for me, is that I still have my scanner and it's been working as my other Nikon equipment perfectly. I never opened it and don't feel a need to do so but was curious to know if cleaning the mirror is easy. Yes, I'm used to play with the inside of all my computers, so I suppose it must not be that hard. Thanks for the video and any advice! All the best!
Cleaning the mirror is SUPER easy, this is the guide I followed for my iv, I'm sure the LS-30 is extremely similar: www.nikoncafe.com/threads/nikon-coolscan-iv-ed-ls-40-film-scanner-cleaning-the-mirror.339949/
Haven’t done a colour calibration, as for adjusting the height I’m using the film holder that came with the scanner, I’m aware that you can get aftermarket options that aim to help with the focusing of the scanner, but realistically those cost quite a bit and once you consider that plus the cost of the V600 you’re already over the price of a Coolscan iv. I’d also like to keep my reviews focused on how the product is delivered to the consumer, if the default film carrier isn’t sufficient to get the scans in focus, than Epson should address that. Perhaps in a future video though I could tinker with adjusting the focusing plane on the Epson, it’s not a bad idea
Negs can't be in the sharp zone, it focuses on the outer surface of the glass. You can't get negs there without Newton rings. And let's just not talk oil here, alright?
Tbf, any dedicated scanner will crush the V600. I have a Plustek as well as the Coolscan IV and the plustek gives better results and far superior colour. The Coolscan digital ICE can't be beat though.
I use silver fast in the high dynamic range mode. The Coolscans do have a higher rated density level, it’s something they’re known to be good at, the Coolscan 9000 is at like 4.9 or something crazy while the V600 is at a 3.4
Thanks for the reply my 9000F has a unresoveable dust problem (and probably also a calibration problem) so i am set on a V850 as my new scanner but your vid has thrown me off a bit. since i also want 120 and eventually 4X5 the only other option that makes some sense would be the plustek 120 which is double the price of the epson and cant do 4X5 ...
I would recommend starting with a Coolscan IV or V as your dedicated 35mm scanner, and then look at an Epson V850 down the road once you start shooting more large format film. Unless you already shoot large and medium format right now, then just grab the V850
@@gojuadorai You might want to consider a second-hand Epson F-3200 (not the Perfection 3200) for MF and 4x5. For 35 mm there's nothing like a real 35 mm film scanner.
I use the lab at a local Canadian pharmacy called London Drugs, they do a good job at development, they’re close, and they’re cheap. I was getting scans done by them because it was a huge PITA to scan an entire roll with my V600, but once I started comparing the results I realized home scanning is the only way to go unless I’m willing to ship my film out somewhere and pay a lot more $.
@@nickschraml understood. Okay it made sense now. Have you tried using camera to take pic of the negative? The cost can be high though. You need really good macro lens. Modern one. Clinical lens is a must for negative capture with negative supply lights and equipment. Nikon coolscan is great but to me sometimes I think it’s too sharp. I tent to like darkroom sharpness.
@@nickschraml Hi Nick. I also have a Nikon CoolScan IV, however, I much prefer working with my new KODAK Slide N Scan. It's so much faster. I realize the resolution and detail of the Nikon is superior, however, when I put my Kodak images through Topaz Photo AI and then Photoshop (using automated batch jobs), the images look very good. I'm simply archiving hundreds of my old slides and negatives, so "very good" is good enough for me. I just don't have the time to spend on generating Nikon-quality scans. Incidentally, the files I'm generating are only 2160 x 1440 pixels in size. They look excellent when they're printed at 4" x 6" (which is 360 ppi). They also look fabulous on my 70" LG television.
Nikon Scan is available on Nikon's website www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000050788&configured=1&lang=en_GB and works quite well on Windows still, as for MacOS, I believe your only option for modern versions of MacOS is Vuescan
Any software suggestions for running the Coolscan V ED? I was using Nikon Scan on my old iMac 2009, but the LED screen has gone so I have a Mac Mini M1, which doesn't run Nikon Scan, so I haven't been scanning since then! Would love to complete my scanning projects. (my Dad's Kodachrome, my old slides etc.)
I haven’t confirmed if it works, but I think you might be able to use UTM on the Mac to run Windows 11 for arm, then pass through the Coolscan V to that VM and run Coolscan that way. It’s just a theory but all signs point to it working
I am having a Minotlta EliteScan 5000. It is very good. However, it is not as good as scanning it with a camera. A camera has less noise. For B/W Scans I probably still prefer the film scanner.
How many frames of 35mm can you bulk scan? With my V850 I can do 18 with the holders, or twice as many if I wet mount on glass. I hit click and walk away…
On the iii, iv and v you can do 6 frames I believe, and on the 4000/5000 you can do an entire uncut 36exp roll of film if you have an SA-30 or modded SA-21
I actually tested it today, while the results were sharper than Nikon Scan, the color were not as good imo, the dust removal didn't seem to catch everything, and it was MUCH slower with the settings I chose. It is likely that it could be set up to scan faster than Nikon Scan, at the expense of the sharpness benefit. It's also paid vs Nikon Scan which is free.
Dedicated 35mm film scanner is much better than a flatbed 35mm scan. Not sure how good the results would be if you setup a custom glass holder and did a fluid scan on the Epson, I got much better results with 120 film when I started wet scans.
@@nickschraml Interesting. When using silverfast, I get scans equally sharp on my 850 as my Nikon 5000. Only when using the Epson software, I get unsharp results like you did.
It's a good scanner from my knowledge, it's likely the technician doesn't know how to use it, has bad taste, or the monitor they're using is trash. The main issue tho is the files are delivered as jpg images so the colors are locked in
I cherish and baby my Coolscan V ED. I'd like to get a 8000 or 9000 for scanning medium format film, but the cost is prohibitive and only goes up. For hybrid workflow (film shooting - converting to digital) a dedicated scanner is a cornerstone. I am never satisfied by lab scans (Noritsu or Frontier - whatever), but without a proper scanner shooting medium format is moot. If I can't deliver quality, what is the point? This being said, I swear by my V ED for 35 mm film. Nobody services these anymore, so in case of emergency... oof... it's better to not think about that.
There is a Facebook group called Nikon Coolscan users, there is a guy in there that services them still and there are constantly units being put up for sale in the group as well, I recommend joining if you have a meta account. As for medium format, I think dslr scanning might be your best option for now, just keep an eye out for deals on an 8000 or 9000, one is bound to come around eventually!
@@nickschraml that is not an option in my case. I'm in Ukraine with all possible logistical problems which this entails. As for DSLR scanning, one can name a laundry list of why this is the worst option for digitizing your negatives. From issues with laying film perfectly flat to such intricacies as inability to scan each channel (R G and B) separately - which is what dedicated scanner does while having very even, calibrated light source. smashandgrabphoto wrote a detailed article on why DSLR scanning sucks and I wholeheartedly agree with his findings. I bemoan the abscence of quality scanners on the market today and reluctance of camera makers to release their respective updated versions of old gear with USB-C connection and modern sensors. Nikon could do that and Sony as well as they own all Minolta patents. Film community is booming, new cameras enter the market, why sit on the fence?
At least as good as the coolscans, better film holders/feeders to keep it perfectly flat, CRI 99 light source with variable brightness to do multi-pass composites of the same negative for great HDR raw files, and just way faster at scanning lol
The variable brightness light source for HDR multipass was honestly something I was thinking as well. I think the most difficult part of the whole thing would be getting it to interface with software
There’s a Nikon Coolscan Facebook page, one guy in there does repairs and refurbishments on these units, he likely can direct you to where you can find a bulb, he posts multiple times per day so it shouldn’t be any trouble finding him
Super easy to do, there are many tutorials available via a Google search. You just take the scanner casing off, move the mirror clip, carefully remove the mirror, clean it, and reverse the steps
Bringing exposure up on a film scanner - especially with chrome - is a no win situation. Scan frames with good exposure. It has less latitude than a digital camera file.
I had a minolta dimage scanner that was also incredible. when you want speed these are not helpful sadly. nowadays i scan with a digital camera and over 50 rolls at once. it would take me weeks to scan with the minolta. still i wish i had kept it for really good photos that could be printed large.
I've heard that the dust removal and batch scanning aren't as great. I found that Nikon Scan 4.0 ran perfectly fine, which is awesome since it's free! Perhaps I'll do a comparison video of all the different programs
@@nickschramlI agree. I've tried both. Nikon's own software works great with my Coolscan V. A plus is that it can output NEF files, that are very tweakable in Adobe Camera Raw or Rawtherapee.
From what I remember of this scanner, the hardware was good. Not the best, but fine. The software was terrible. There were scanners with much better software.
@@nickschraml there were a lot of consumerish, sort of, but not quite professional scanners back when this was out. Some were better, some worse. None, in that category were great. The Nikon had a reputation for clunky, unreliable software.
Almost nobody can understand my pain... This Nikon is great, but it's only 35mm. I'm shooting mostly 645 and I need something like Coolscan 8000. Which is damn expensive... more than $1000 and negative mounts for even higher price. So I have to do all my scans with this shitty V600.
I’ve read that the V600 is excellent for medium format, it just sucks for 35mm, however after this video I’m wondering how true that actually is. If I can ever find myself a good deal on a good condition medium format camera and a 8000 or 9000 I’ll make a comparison video to see if the claims truly hold up
I have not since I don’t have a good macro lens, just a Tamron 70-180 f2.8 which can do “macro” just not at a high enough level to really be considered an option
Video clarity is good, audio backtrack should've been in more of the video, but balanced a little better so as to not drown out your voice. Hosting could use some work, you spent a lot of time not addressing the audience directly or talking to the audience directly. I was ready to click off the video almost as soon as it started, the intro needs work, I would've started the video at the 46-ish second mark instead. It's much more interesting starting from there. Keep creating!
@@nickschraml It needs to be able to come off if needed - painters tape. When friends and family come by and they see it - they will see you are tough!
I recently bought one of these for £50. Boxed with all accessories (even the APS film adapter!). It's brilliant.
50??? How?
Lucky one! Here in Europe on Ebay they go for over 500 more like 1k-3k
@@hex_1733yes, the scanner itself was £8 and ended up paying £42 for postage.
Wow. Did the seller miss a zero? 😮
They’re like 1,000 to 2,000 USD here.
Back when the Coolscans were first discontinued and digital cameras coming into their own, photographers would buy a used Coolscan, copy all the images they wanted to, then resell it back online, often for the same price they bought it for.
Use mine several times per week. Love it. Such a shame Nikon did not continue developing it.
If film keeps growing like it is then perhaps they’ll bring it out, but I doubt they’ll keep the same name which is a shame
A thing like that developed today commercially by a Japanese company would cost more than any commercially manufactured film camera that there was since the transistor era inflation adjusted. 😂
I love my 23 year old scanner, I would never change
Note that your scanner needs to have the latest available firmware (V1.20). Earlier versions had an incomplete USB implementation which causes the scanner to not be recognized by more modern Windows versions. You may have to find yourself an old Windows 2000 system to allow the firmware loader to work.
Interesting, good information
it can probably work with a virtual machine
@@v0ldy54That’s what I was thinking. Just spin up a Vm !
Thanks, will check my machine to see what firmware it has.
I bought one back in the day and still have it in mint condition. It does scan beautifully, especially when you use the software that removes dust and scratches and restores colour for old faded slides. I still have a very old laptop with the software installed, but it sounds like you can get it working on a new machine, which is great! Even my grandfather's slides taken more than 60+ years ago come up very nicely.
I currently have the iv working on Windows 11, and a 4000 working on Windows 10. My upcoming project will be getting the 4000 working on W11, people say it can’t be done online, I call bs, as a computer technician I’m convinced I’ll be able to get it working
I bought one of these many years ago (£400 second hand if I remember correctly) and have scanned thousands of (mostly) b&w negatives, many of which I've sold to magazines and other publications. It's more than paid for itself over the years!
What scanning software do you use for your B&W negatives? The Nikon scan or vue scan? Or another program
@ Nikon scan
I bought a Super Coolscan 5000 new many years ago when it was released. Still using it. Of course the scanning software it came with isn't supported for Mac any more. But after trying Silverfast and VueScan I found myself happy with the VueScan. Just wish I had the larger one to do 120.
+1 for VueScan, it made all the difference for me with my coolscan
BTW, some flatbed scanners, like the old HP I use to copy comic books in their plastic holders, can autofocus above the glass plate.
My grandpa has an old HP flatbed film scanner, I wonder if it's got auto focus
Thank you for this very helpful video. I'm planning te get a Coolscan V ED (LS-50) and this video took away my last doubts. I now also understand why these scanners are still so expensive. Good to hear Nikon Scan 4.0 works on Windows 11. This might save the purchase of Vuescan. Can't wait to start scanning my grandfather's slides from the 70's and 80's.
About the Firewire cable on the more expensive Coolscan X000 models: I read people having problems to connect these to Thunderbolt 3. You need multiple adapters to get from Firewire to Thunderbolt 3. Because of this, the connection is unstable and fails 50% of the time.
I’m confident I will be able to get it to work with W11 via a cheap FireWire card, I’ll make a video covering the process once I do
Have owned and used a CA8000, a CS5, a Minolta 5400, a PIE XAs, and various others in between, yes, Nikon made fantastic scanners. I will also say a $200 digital camera, a $50 adapted 80s macro lens, and a Valoi Easy35 will outperform every traditional scanner ever made, and you can convert an entire roll in 5-10 minutes. The static dust brush on the Valoi works really well, I don't miss Ice at all.
My end goal with the coolscan is to mod my SA-21, hook it up to a 4000 and use it to scan entire rolls unsupervised. The results are 95% of the way there from being perfect, and it requires basically no user input
@@nickschraml I owned the PIE XAs and got whole-roll scanning working with Silverfast actually. That scanner provided 4300dpi of real optical resolution too, as long was you manually tuned the autofocus. Ultimately it would drift during scanning though, getting progressively worse as it progressed through the roll, ultimately cutting off part of each frame. Mechanical drift was the issue. I then tried an older scanner, the PIE 3650 Pro 3. That did much better in terms of not drifting quite so much. You might lose 4-5% the last frame of a 36, and ~3000dpi real resolution. In the end, they all failed when compared to the output from camera conversion, most especially vs Pentax composite shots. Pentax does some crazy black magic in their de-bayer or algorithm, they don't distort the grain structure at all.
With the Valoi needing no copy stand or leveling, I can't see how using any other option would ever be faster, as reliable, or produce such amazing results. I am often completely done with an entire role in less than 15 minutes.
no shadow or highlight detail with the Epson V600 film scanner because the Dmax is 3.4 versus the NIKON's 4.2. I have been scanning for 35 years and would not touch a scanner that had a Dmax of under 4.0. Further, I only fluid mount and have a glass holder for my NIKON 9000 which allows me to do that, and would not suggest using a flatbed at all for film unless you fluid mount.The enhanced detail is well worth it. My three scanners are the NIKON 5000, NIKON 9000, and the EPSON Perfection V850.I would also suggest using the multi-pass function on the NIKONs, even though this considerably lengthens the total scan time.
Is multi pass a feature in Nikon Scan?
@@nickschraml Yes ....... I primarily use it for 35mm ...
@@bernpedit7819 May I ask what the Multipass scan feature does?
@@rupertthomson blends the multiple scans, have found that it makes for beautiful smooth shadow tonalities in my night time volcano eruption shots ... that is why it extends the total scan time ... In 1983, wanting to freeze night explosive activity and get the full tonal range I went with Fuji ISO 400 negative film because it gave me an extra four or five stops and I was able to shoot at 1/500 second.I began work as a drum scanner operator in the early Nineties, and went with the NIKONs when they became available.I should point out that scanning speed is not an issue for me since I have the three scanners and five Mac workstations - I still use the NIKONs with Mac G5s.
From what I can tell, it's only available on the 5000, 8000, and 9000 right? Or is it also on the 4000? It's hard to find information on this feature
These were LEGENDARY back in the day... late 90's
I bought this scanner soon after it was released. Still have it. Still works. Have to use VueScan or SilverFast or other third party software to run it on a modern Mac. I still use mine from time to time. Only complaint.........it is so slow. Always was.
Thanks for the vid! Really informative. I like the laid back presentation but think it would benefit from being denser and half as long.
I bought my Perfection 600V as an "investment into my hobby" and as something best while still attainable by mere mortals, but looking at this... Sheeshh... I thought my old (1938 old) cameras optics suck... But I have to reconsider now.
Thanks! I totally agree, the video stats don’t like, I should have condensed this down a lot, definitely something I’ll be improving for next video
I've been using cool scan ED 8000 since 2005 and getting nice results especially from colour negative films. I managed to get it working under Win10, so the life goes on.
My experience with Nikon film scanners from early 2000s: Scanning 35mm color negatives shot at ISO 400:
- There was no fixed white balance; the scanner only operated in auto mode for exposure, white balance, contrast, and sharpness. So you might get wildly different results if you scanned the same neg twice.
- The output is something akin to 8-bit TIFF; and that means you couldn't correct like a raw file. Correction on the highlights and shadows was like working with a JPEG. Once sharpness and contrast have been applied, there's no going back.
- It was sharp-much more than scanning a 4x6 print on a flatbed-and that means you got contrasty sharp grain noise in the highlights; random pools of magenta or green grain. It required lots of work in photoshop, in those days, to get it to look like a natural photograph.
Things seem to have improved a lot since then
I still have mine.. all boxed up… not sure if it still works… but I ran a TON of Chrome thru it in the day when this was the ONLY “digital” photography that could be got!
Actually, my Coolscan lasted longer than Baboo Land in NYC where I had been doing my drum scans per roll!
And I still got the Photoshop on a disk! Pay once. Use forever!
I got a Coolscan LS 9000ED, well worth the money, and in general I also noticed that the scans are better than on my V850, especially in regards to dust, the filmholders are just a dust magnet...
For the coolscan I had to buy a fitting firewire card tho, because it needs to be a powered one, only issue I have with the Coolscan is that the film holders are ridiculously expensive, and using them with curved film strips is a mess, and same with special formats (such as 35mm loaded in a medium format cameras), which can't be scanned because the film holder expects the 35mm films to be the default frame size and spacing.
Yeah if you want to scan the sprocket holes you’ll need to use a flatbed I believe.
As for the curved negatives, I believe the slide mount plus film strip adapter works very well for that on the Nikons. I got lucky and my Coolscan iv came with those
For scanning 35mm with sprocket holes try to get hands on the FH-869G holder with glass plates. Meanwhile I've got two of 'em. Yes, they are fu... expensive.
I have coveted a Nikon Coolsan Film Scanner scene I was 15 (2003). This video brought back a gang of memories. Though I now rely on lab scans with the Fujifilm SP-3000 Frontier scanner, I might pick one up a Coolscan in the very distant future.
And what a shame that the face plate arrived damaged. Hopefully you found a permeant fix for it.
I think I’ll just end up super glueing the pieces back together. The seller gave me a bit of a refund on it which was nice. I have a 4000 coming in the mail this weekend, I only ordered the iv because it came with an SA-21 film strip adapter and was the same price as just buying that on its own, soooooo free scanner I guess
I have used my Nikon Coolscan IV since Window XP, after switching to Mac I was unable to use the scanner.
A buddy said try VueScan software and the old scans using Nikon’s Windows software looked like crap compared to the rescanned images on Mac with VueScan. Just the dust removal capability alone was worth the cost of the new software.
Give it a try I’m sure you will be redoing your video.
Interesting, that’s the opposite of what I’ve heard, but it’s definitely interesting to hear. Once I’m done doing all my current testing with Nikon Scan I’ll certainly be looking at testing out Vuescan and potentially Silverfast
@@nickschraml I’m wondering when those with negative comments tried VueScan, when Nikon no longer supported its Mac drivers I tried VueScan and was less then impressed but it’s latest version(as of my trying it out again two years ago) were night and day.
I have a Super Coolscan 9000 ED. Have not used it in years, but want to resume scanning my Chromes and negs. I still have my ancient Fujitsu laptop with the Nikon software on it and will be using it as a dedicated setup. My 7-year-old son broke the slot flap, however, and was wondering if there will be an issue with the scans if that cover is missing.
Likely not, I think the flap is mostly there to stop dust from getting in, so you might just need to clean the inside of the scanner more often. You could also probably get a new flap 3D printed I would think
Those dedicated 35mm scanners hit different!
I have one of those. Very nice. Slow though. Mine developed a thin blue line on every scan after years of use. I have a TON of negatives to can in the near future. I am going to use my camera and light source and shoot my negatives. Think this way might be the best.
The thin blue line may be due to some dust on the mirror or sensor, try giving it a cleaning
I bought one of these a year ago on eBay and my front panels looks exactly like yours. I think that plastic is just very brittle due to age so any slight movement causes it to shatter.
Yeah I ordered a 4000 at the same time on eBay as well and its front panel arrive shattered too, fortunately eBay refunded the entire order and from what I can tell so far, they don’t want it back? I haven’t tested it, but I think the scanner itself still works, just the front panel got shattered. Plastic becomes very brittle with age
Very informative! I would also be very interested to see a comparison between your Coolscan results and "scans" shot with a 1:1 macro lens and, say a 20mp or higher camera. Which would result in higher resolution? I ask, because I bought a 60mm m.zuiko lens for my Pen-F, and mean to set up a stand and LED light source to digitize my slides.
BTW, I intend on sharing this with my daughter, who is somewhat reluctant to opt for negative returns when getting film scanned and processed. Your comparison between lab scans and home scans is very convincing! We should always have our original negs and slides, for this reason and others.
Having your original negatives is an absolute must! Film scanning and editing is where the true “film look” comes from, film itself does not have any “look” to it, sure some films are more sensitive to different colors, or have different latitudes and grain structures, but at the end of the day the scan and the edits are what will make the film look the way it does. While in negative form we truly can’t observe what the film actually looks like, for that we need to use slide film.
As for the resolution, looking at the files from my Coolscan iv, it seems to have an effective resolution of 12mp, the 4000 I have is more, I’m just not sure what it is off the top of my head
Thanks for doing this video. I have a Coolscan 9000 that I want to hookup to my windows 11 laptop or my large windows 10 computer. I think I did buy a firewire card in the past and just have to find it. Will be waiting to see what you find out on the Coolscan 4000.
Got my 4000 working on Windows 10 wonderfully, will be trying to get it working on 11 soon
@@nickschraml What did you have to do to get it running, just plug it in or what?
I had to load a modified version of the driver, and to do so I had to boot windows into a mode that disabled driver signing requirements. Super not ideal from a security standpoint, but it seemed to be the only way to get windows to load the driver unfortunately
This is a really good and informative comparison. I'm currently „scanning” my negatives with a Nikon D850, and used to do it with a Nikon D5300. The increase in dynamic range between the two sensors is obvious, and the images are „cleaner” on the D850 than what I used to get with the D5300. Would many people notice? Would it make a difference when printed on a 20x30 in piece of paper? I bet not. But I would like to see the comparison between the Nikon Coolscan IV and some full frame DSLR at one point.
Just learned that the Coolscan has a UV sensor, that is used for dust removal, which should cut down on cleaning the digital filers if you weren't careful enough with them when scanning in the first place.
I have a Sony A7iv as my main digital cam, I’ll have to rent a macro lens to make a comparison video in the near future
i think kyle mcdougall made some video about this
The problem with scanning using a camera is dust. Without any SRD feature, you have to content-aware remove all the dusts yourself, which can be extremely time consuming.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 I keep a very clean environment, rarely had real nasty issues with dust. I built a habit of using the basic air blower to dust everything off before taking photos. I also use CaptureOne as my main processing software, and the built in dust removal feature works quite well.
The comparison is night and day but did you ever try moving your film into focus on the Epson when you were mainly using it? I've seen big improvements online when people actually sort that part out. Curious how far it would fall short then, at least in sharpness.
I haven't tried tinkering with film distance on my V600 yet, it's a lot of hassle for something that I can just use the Coolscan for imo
It’s not a lot of hassle. I did it to my V600. Trial and error, with thin strips of cardboard stacked up. Twelve pieces and BINGO it was FOCUSSED. Cardboard thickness: .0022". Unless you focus the Epson, a fair comparison with another scanner is IMPOSSIBLE.
VueScan is the way to go even for newer scanners. I use the Olympus film scanner at 4000dpi and an Epson V600 for my flatbed, both with VueScan.
Another commenter mentioned veuscan was a lot better, I’m going to have to test it and do a side by side
@5:40 : I spy a LTT Screwdriver. A man of taste.
It’s an excellent piece of kit
Wow 😮 such a big difference
Any luck with the Coolscan and Digital ICE on Kodachrome slides? My Epson V500 makes artifacts with it. I think I read somewhere that the Coolscan implementation of Digital ICE could actually handle Kodachrome. Don't know about the V600. But I know I have a lot of dusty Kodachrome slides!
I have a V600 and can confirm is also makes artifacts. I think the Coolscan 4000 and up can handle it though, but you should research that specifically online before buying. I haven’t shot any Kodachrome yet so I can’t offer firsthand experience, I’ve only scanned Kodachrome for clients but that was a while back when I didn’t have these Coolscans yet
@@nickschraml Thanks for the reply, Nick. From what I've seen lately, only the Digital ICE Professional version that comes with the Nikon Coolscan 9000 seems to be problem-free with Kodachrome film. But I don't have one, and I can't imagine scanning all my Kodachromes over again. For the dirtiest, I had scanned them twice: with and without ICE. Then I stack the two results as layers with the ICE layer on top. I manually erase any ICE artifacts I see (and I don't worry about the ones I can't see). Crude, but reasonably effective.
But what about Plustek scanners? The 8200i se can do up to 7200 dpi. I generally run it at 3600.
The real hardware resolution of Plutek’s scanners are not 7200dpi, they’re closer to around 4000 dpi which is about what the Coolscans have as well. I unfortunately don’t have a Plustek to include in the comparison video
Nikon made the best film scanners
I've felt similarly about my Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (released back in 2004!), until it died on me recently 😐Debated getting a "legacy" scanner again, but decided against - and was pleasantly surprised by the Plustek 135i - despite it lacking autofocus, the scans have similar levels of detail - dare I say even better (more consistent, if anything). Even flat drying film used to bow a bit in Minolta's holder, so I could decide whether I want grain to be visible in the center, or at the edges, depending on where I focused😅Reports on resolution are varied though - guess it depends on how well it got calibrated in the factory or how much love it received on the way.
I’ve heard the Plustek’s are the sharpest modern scanners you can get right now as a consumer, apparently they’re just really slow and require a lot of manual intervention. That’s why I wanted to go with a Coolscan 4000, so I can feed the entire film roll into it and walk away.
The Epson V600 film holder is terrible, you get distortion marks in the centre of the film all the time, very irritating. Apparently you can get a special type of glass and then wet mount the film to the scanner bed, but its an expensive and hard to get 3rd party add on
Oh yeah, the ability to scan full uncut rolls is definitely a nice capability to have 👍
The holders are probably similarly bad on my Canoscan 9000f - I resorted to just placing the negatives directly onto the glass platen and weighing them down with a piece of ANR glass (which I got as part of an aftermarket holder). There's a couple more surfaces one needs to keep dust-free, but at least on the Canon the negatives are in better focus that way. Reportedly the Epson V700 and higher models have better holders (and better support for wet mounting), but I don't have personal experience with either
I should really grab a piece of ANR glass for my V600 to give it a more fair comparison, I just worry it won't make as big of a difference as I want it to
If you still have the Minolta scanner, there's a cheap way to 'repair' it. Some nutters have discovered that this scanner's lens makes a good macro lens. So, they slaughter perfectly working scanners, take the lens out and sell the rest for far less than a complete scanner, usually on ebay. Just get one of those, transfer the lens from your broken scanner and Bob's your uncle. It's totally easy, no special tools or adjustments required.
And I really hope there's a special place in hell for those scanner butchers. 😕
@@fotoralf That thought has crossed my mind, and I've been eyeing a supposedly working one that's been listed for a while that's just lacking a lens. The surgery seems simple enough if all one wants is to remove the lens, but I'm not sure how precise I'd have to be putting it back in.
I'm curious. How will the Nikon scanner compare to a "scan" with a camera? I've "scanned" a few old negatives using my old Nikon d7100, NLP and Essential Film Holder. Results were a lot better than I thought were possible when I know the camera used(for film) were basically point and shoot from the 90's. On social media some actually thought they were new photos. 🙂
Hi, nice video and comparison. I have the Epson since long time and I noticed that the resolution went down with the latest sw version. I was struggling what could be wrong in the scanner, but installing and using the older epson scan v1 the resolution of the scans increased again to the old ones. I kept the different scans of some films and the difference, setting exactly in the same way the scan and save option, is evident. Have you noticed something similar? Did you ever tried a scan with the Epson scan v1?
I’ve only used the Epson software a few times, but I agree that V1 is much better than V2. Your scanner should have come with a license for Silverfast though, have you tried using it? It’s more complicated but gives you much more control over the output
@@nickschraml no, I never did, but I'll try for sure following your suggestion 👍🏻
Back in the day Epson, Minolta, and probably other brands sold 35mm film scanners. These were way inferior to the Nikon scanners but far more affordable.
W video
Thanks Goose 🪿
punch through, hue shifts and sharpness? A Dmax of 3.4, even with increased scanner resolution, is going to clip highlights and shadows, increasing contrast, creating hue shifts and destroying sharpness. I am a huge EPSON fan because it supported the Mac when other companies would not. Even with a lower Dmax I was able to achieve a higher range on reflective originals by disassembling my old (which I still use for quick and dirty document scans, saving wear and tear on my EPSON) HP ScanJet 5300C flatbed and lining it with black felt from Michael's and then using black paper masks on the glass to cut out glare from internal reflections. Creating highly accurate grey scales with Munsell color chips I found that clipping was significantly reduced to about only five per cent in both the shadows and highlights. Further, hue shifts due to the original's color was also cut down. The clipping actually produces cleaner document whites. Also (I have the Munsell Book of Color) I noted that color saturation was inherently low and made a custom setting which is used for all scans, irregardless of the characteristics of the original.
These mods were done to an HP scanner not an Epson right?
@@nickschraml YES! Twenty plus years ago I was scanning CCGs (Collectible Card Games) for sale on eBay and wanted accurate color. Prior to that I had been trying to scan overly large originals such as posters, topo maps, record album covers and found hue shifts when splicing together. Recognized that internal reflections were altering the color when automatic settings were used and that I needed a custom setting which was to be used for all scans, similar to a photographer shooting something like paintings in which all images are shot the same irregardless of the originals. Prior to that I had only been using drum scanners in a service bureau.
Nick, as you pointed out, the NIKON IV scan has a lot more detail than the EPSON V600. How do you deal with the inherent "noise" or graininess of the NIKON images?
Unfortunately with the iv you can’t multi sample in Nikon Scan, but you can in Vuescan so that might help. Otherwise doing a regular exposure, and then a second exposure with the gain increased in Nikon scan, then merging the two as an HDR image might work.
With the coolscan 4000 I just use multi sampling
I also have found that Topaz Photo AI does a decent job at cleaning up the images as well
I instantly thought about a 3D printed front panel (or maybe there are "dead" scanners to be found with intact front panels). I prefer camera scanning, more flexible (I already owned an Olympus Pen F digital with 80 MP pixel-shift hi-res mode, which does bring up the grain, especially with 35 mm film, but even with 120 and 4x5); but a Coolscan needs less tinkering …
The coolscan also has phenomenal dust and scratch removal, not to mention the ability to scan an entire roll autonomously
The front cover is known to break these days. I use Vuescan with my LS-IV. I had an old Epson Perfection 4180, which tooks ages to scan and quality was not really good. So i had more or less the same experience like you. Even digitalitzing with my D750 and a macro doesnt match the Coolscan. The LS-IV uses USB 1.1 while the -LS-V already has USB2.0 i think...AND the V has only Software ICE
The V doesn’t have hardware ICE??? That seems weird, guess Nikon wanted to save some money
My only issue with the Coolscan is time. A scan takes a very looooong time… For images that are not critical a shoot them with my digital camera and a macro lens. I most cases the quality is good enough for me. However, when I comes to dust and scratches nothing can match a good scanner.
I've had my black and white negs scanned by one of these at a service in town, and the results were OK. I've also had them scanned by an acquaintance with a higher-end Epson flatbed. Again, OK. But the results I get scanning with my M43 mirrorless with the 30mm macro are noticeably sharper, IMO. The files are much smaller, of course, but it's not my intention to make big prints. And if I do, I have Gigapixel.
Unfortunately you lose out on digital ICE dust removal then
@@nickschraml I have one of those Giotto air bulbs and it works great blowing off dust.
Having scanned a lot of negatives and slides on a Coolscan IV the only thing I wish was higher resolution. Otherwise it has been excellent (as long as the mirror is kept clean)
Buy the 4000.
@@MezeiEugen I’m done with my scanning project. I don’t feel like it’s worth the time to re-scan and edit 80 rolls of film and several hundred slides just for more resolution.
Cleaning the mirror made a MASSIVE difference, absolute must for maintenance in my book
The The Ugly V 600 is a single lens flatbed. A better comparison to a flat bed would be the V800 that has two lenses: one for larger scans such as A4 size. The other lens is used for smaller scans such as 35mm slides or negatives. I have a Nikon V ED but it won't scan now that I am using Windows 10. I can attest to the extra resolution gained by the V ED that scans at a true optical scan on 4000 ppi. For a comparison, my Epson V800 scans at a true optical resolution of 2300 ppi. So you can see why the Nikon 5 ED delivers scans that are visually sharper than what a flatbed does. I'd love to use my Nikon scanner but as I say, it won't work with more recent Windows such as 10 or 11. I did find that Vuescan would enable the Nikon to work again but then you have to pay a monthly fee.
The coolscans are very much compatible with Nikon Scan on Windows 10 and 11, in fact I just made a video showing how to get a Coolscan 4000 working via FireWire on Windows 11
@@nickschraml Was it a separate video from the one I replied to?
This video here: ruclips.net/video/RgL_j8KXalA/видео.html
@@nickschraml One point I omitted in my comments earlier is the optical resolution of the Epson 600 you used. It is around 1600 ppi. My EpsonV800 is at 2300ppi about 700ppi higher res. That is why you found such a big difference between the Nikon Coolscan and the 600. What I've found with the V800 is that its files are less rough than that of the Nikon which gives quite rough-edged files. While my V800 is lower res than the Nikon the files often look tidier than those of the Nikon. I put this down to the aged hardware of the Nikon whereas using the V800 with Silverfast software is regularly updated so has the advantage of using much more recent technology.
I will have to look into getting a V800/V850 at some point to compare, they're really expensive though so it likely won't be for a while
The photo of the mountain: clouds are in different positions, different lights are on and off.
I’m fairly certain it’s the same frame, the crop would be slightly different on it. I did shoot 2-3 frames only a few seconds apart though, so it might be slightly different if I grabbed the wrong one. Camera was on a tripod with a wire trigger so the frames will be functionally the same. I’ll be more careful next time with my methodology
No doubt that a Coolscan give sharper images directly from the scanner and have better real resolution, but to get a good comparison you need to post process the Epson image, add sharpening etc. Havent used the V600 you use, but it's not that much better in a V850.
I did post processing to both the V600 shots and the Coolscan shots in the video
My longtime held belief was that a good scanner, like the Nikon models, were the best, short of the really expensive Imacons and such. That is until I was seeing comparison tests with the Nikons vs photographing the film with a digital camera and using other hardware to hold the film strip flat, and high quality light source etc. Not a cheap setup either unless you already own the camera and proper lens, However, the results shown in these videos are better than with the Nikon scanners.
Of course the other major part of getting the best final image falls on the software you use with the scanner/copier.
I used to own a Nikon CoolScan like this and it was really sharp, and had a really cool infrared based technology that reduced scratches and dust, unfortunately I never managed to obtain decent color with it. It also wasn't very fast
I think the auto WB and exposure aren’t very good, you need to drop the photos into Lightroom to truly get the full potential out of them
@@nickschraml I sold mine in 2001 and on Photoshop 6, it was not full potential. Worked amazing on black and white.
I used to own an 8000ed, and while it was great, it was very expensive, very slow, and very large. At the end of the day, I got equal quality scans with my gfx, and that camera can serve a dual purpose, and is way smaller. I must admit, in my opinion, scanning setups have been surpassed. (My opinion may change if a company made a modern film scanner in 2024, but the pre 2010’s scanners I feel this way about
I think a high quality modern film scanner would be an amazing product for the current market honestly
@@nickschraml I agree! The closest we’ve seen is plustek, but I wouldn’t say it’s up to par. I’d love to see one of the big names, like Nikon, hasselblad, canon make an update to a modern film scanner…… however, the flextight new cost the modern equivalent of $20,000, and 8000ed $13,000. So if that price, I wouldn’t be the market for it. We will see! Kind of crazy though that the best out there were last manufactured 20 years ago
Imacons are better at colors and gradients over GFX but at an insanely higher cost and much slower.
would be nice to see a noritsu scanner for comparison, as from all Ive used its the only one that detected colours fairly correctly for both kodak and weird fuji emulsion
The noritsu or the coolscan did? It would be cool to get in touch with a local lab and see if they’d let me get hands on with one of their Noritsu scanners to test it
@@nickschraml noritsu did, have a check with them especially if they have hs1800 - the high end option that came with bigger machines. Its a pity that tech never made it to consumer scanner, its really is amazing
Confirmed with the lab nearest to me, they have an hs1800, so I'm going to try and see if they'll collab on a video
@@nickschraml just bought myself a coolscan V ED and its amazing with sa21, now time to modify it to SA30 and see how good it will do the whole film and how slow
Hi. I bought my Coolscan III in 2000 and am using it with Macs ever since. Nikon stopped supporting its own software for Macs on 2010, I guess. Since then, I've been using Vuescan, with no problems. The Coolscan is a SCSI scanner. How do I connect it to my 2011 iMac and 2012 retina 15" and 2019 16" Macbooks? Adapters: SCSI > Firewire 400 by Ratoc; FW 400 to 800 by Moshi; FW 800 to Thunderbolt 2 by Apple; Thunderbolt 2 to 3 by Apple. It's a long line when using it with the 16", but on the iMac it is just an adapter and a small FW 400 cable from Apple.
But the important, for me, is that I still have my scanner and it's been working as my other Nikon equipment perfectly.
I never opened it and don't feel a need to do so but was curious to know if cleaning the mirror is easy. Yes, I'm used to play with the inside of all my computers, so I suppose it must not be that hard. Thanks for the video and any advice! All the best!
Cleaning the mirror is SUPER easy, this is the guide I followed for my iv, I'm sure the LS-30 is extremely similar: www.nikoncafe.com/threads/nikon-coolscan-iv-ed-ls-40-film-scanner-cleaning-the-mirror.339949/
@@nickschraml Thank you very much!
Are the later modules of the nikon as good, better or worse?
Sorry I’m not sure I understand your question
have you calibrated you Epson V600 with a colour transparency and adjusted the height to ensure negs are in the sharp zone?
Haven’t done a colour calibration, as for adjusting the height I’m using the film holder that came with the scanner, I’m aware that you can get aftermarket options that aim to help with the focusing of the scanner, but realistically those cost quite a bit and once you consider that plus the cost of the V600 you’re already over the price of a Coolscan iv.
I’d also like to keep my reviews focused on how the product is delivered to the consumer, if the default film carrier isn’t sufficient to get the scans in focus, than Epson should address that.
Perhaps in a future video though I could tinker with adjusting the focusing plane on the Epson, it’s not a bad idea
Negs can't be in the sharp zone, it focuses on the outer surface of the glass. You can't get negs there without Newton rings. And let's just not talk oil here, alright?
@@NGC1433 Well, that escalated quickly.
@@NGC1433I can talk oil all I want. I have six cats. If anybody knows oil it’s me
Very Impressive!
Tbf, any dedicated scanner will crush the V600. I have a Plustek as well as the Coolscan IV and the plustek gives better results and far superior colour. The Coolscan digital ICE can't be beat though.
question considering punshing through the dense areas
did you use multiexposure scanning on the V600 ?
did you use epson or silverfast
I use silver fast in the high dynamic range mode. The Coolscans do have a higher rated density level, it’s something they’re known to be good at, the Coolscan 9000 is at like 4.9 or something crazy while the V600 is at a 3.4
Thanks for the reply
my 9000F has a unresoveable dust problem (and probably also a calibration problem) so i am set on a V850 as my new scanner but your vid has thrown me off a bit.
since i also want 120 and eventually 4X5 the only other option that makes some sense would be the plustek 120 which is double the price of the epson and cant do 4X5 ...
I would recommend starting with a Coolscan IV or V as your dedicated 35mm scanner, and then look at an Epson V850 down the road once you start shooting more large format film. Unless you already shoot large and medium format right now, then just grab the V850
@@nickschraml
already shooting lots of 120 and eventually 4X5 though not yet thats another sort of comittment
thanks for the advice.
@@gojuadorai You might want to consider a second-hand Epson F-3200 (not the Perfection 3200) for MF and 4x5. For 35 mm there's nothing like a real 35 mm film scanner.
Which lab do you go to? If you go to the right lab with Imacon or drum scan is the best there is.
I use the lab at a local Canadian pharmacy called London Drugs, they do a good job at development, they’re close, and they’re cheap. I was getting scans done by them because it was a huge PITA to scan an entire roll with my V600, but once I started comparing the results I realized home scanning is the only way to go unless I’m willing to ship my film out somewhere and pay a lot more $.
@@nickschraml understood. Okay it made sense now. Have you tried using camera to take pic of the negative? The cost can be high though. You need really good macro lens. Modern one. Clinical lens is a must for negative capture with negative supply lights and equipment. Nikon coolscan is great but to me sometimes I think it’s too sharp. I tent to like darkroom sharpness.
I also sometimes do wet mount to replicate drum scan with camera capture.
I don't do macro photography so I don't have a macro lens unfortunately
How long does it take to scan a color slide at the resolution you selected?
Just under 2.5 minutes with the Coolscan iv, I believe the V is faster
@@nickschraml Hi Nick. I also have a Nikon CoolScan IV, however, I much prefer working with my new KODAK Slide N Scan. It's so much faster. I realize the resolution and detail of the Nikon is superior, however, when I put my Kodak images through Topaz Photo AI and then Photoshop (using automated batch jobs), the images look very good. I'm simply archiving hundreds of my old slides and negatives, so "very good" is good enough for me. I just don't have the time to spend on generating Nikon-quality scans.
Incidentally, the files I'm generating are only 2160 x 1440 pixels in size. They look excellent when they're printed at 4" x 6" (which is 360 ppi). They also look fabulous on my 70" LG television.
I still have mine…..what software will now work with it? If I recall, the software that came with it was on CD-ROM
Nikon Scan is available on Nikon's website
www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000050788&configured=1&lang=en_GB
and works quite well on Windows still, as for MacOS, I believe your only option for modern versions of MacOS is Vuescan
What resolution (ppi) did you choose for your scanning?
2900 DPI, which is the maximum resolution that the iv is capable of
Any software suggestions for running the Coolscan V ED? I was using Nikon Scan on my old iMac 2009, but the LED screen has gone so I have a Mac Mini M1, which doesn't run Nikon Scan, so I haven't been scanning since then! Would love to complete my scanning projects. (my Dad's Kodachrome, my old slides etc.)
I haven’t confirmed if it works, but I think you might be able to use UTM on the Mac to run Windows 11 for arm, then pass through the Coolscan V to that VM and run Coolscan that way. It’s just a theory but all signs point to it working
VueScan works well with new Macs.
What scanning software are you using? I use VueCan because the Nikon software won't work with Windows !!.
I’m actually using Nikon Scan, it works, you just need to convince it to. I’m working on a video showing how to do that
Now compare it to camera scanning with a high resolution full frame or medium format camera.
Once I get a suitable macro lens I certainly will
I am having a Minotlta EliteScan 5000. It is very good.
However, it is not as good as scanning it with a camera. A camera has less noise.
For B/W Scans I probably still prefer the film scanner.
The higher end Coolscans have do multisampling, it takes a long time but absolutely obliterates any noise
How many frames of 35mm can you bulk scan? With my V850 I can do 18 with the holders, or twice as many if I wet mount on glass. I hit click and walk away…
On the iii, iv and v you can do 6 frames I believe, and on the 4000/5000 you can do an entire uncut 36exp roll of film if you have an SA-30 or modded SA-21
What version of Nikon Scan do you use?
4.0
VueScan Software by.. Hammerick Software? Works for Linux, Windows and Macs as an alternative to Nikon Scan 4. More features.
I actually tested it today, while the results were sharper than Nikon Scan, the color were not as good imo, the dust removal didn't seem to catch everything, and it was MUCH slower with the settings I chose. It is likely that it could be set up to scan faster than Nikon Scan, at the expense of the sharpness benefit. It's also paid vs Nikon Scan which is free.
Dedicated 35mm film scanner is much better than a flatbed 35mm scan. Not sure how good the results would be if you setup a custom glass holder and did a fluid scan on the Epson, I got much better results with 120 film when I started wet scans.
For all the extra work, I think the Coolscan is by far preferable
@@nickschraml For sure. Dreaming of scoring a Imacon someday.
what software did you use on the epson?
Silverfast
@@nickschraml Interesting. When using silverfast, I get scans equally sharp on my 850 as my Nikon 5000. Only when using the Epson software, I get unsharp results like you did.
I think the 850 is significantly better than the V600
Out of curiosity, what scanner was your lab using?
Noritsu HS-1800
@@nickschraml thanks! interesting, I thought that was a pretty good scanner, no?
It's a good scanner from my knowledge, it's likely the technician doesn't know how to use it, has bad taste, or the monitor they're using is trash. The main issue tho is the files are delivered as jpg images so the colors are locked in
@@nickschraml Yeah, i'm very happy with my lab scans but I want to do my own scanning just so they're not jpegs. Thanks for the responses!
I cherish and baby my Coolscan V ED. I'd like to get a 8000 or 9000 for scanning medium format film, but the cost is prohibitive and only goes up. For hybrid workflow (film shooting - converting to digital) a dedicated scanner is a cornerstone. I am never satisfied by lab scans (Noritsu or Frontier - whatever), but without a proper scanner shooting medium format is moot. If I can't deliver quality, what is the point?
This being said, I swear by my V ED for 35 mm film. Nobody services these anymore, so in case of emergency... oof... it's better to not think about that.
There is a Facebook group called Nikon Coolscan users, there is a guy in there that services them still and there are constantly units being put up for sale in the group as well, I recommend joining if you have a meta account.
As for medium format, I think dslr scanning might be your best option for now, just keep an eye out for deals on an 8000 or 9000, one is bound to come around eventually!
@@nickschraml that is not an option in my case. I'm in Ukraine with all possible logistical problems which this entails. As for DSLR scanning, one can name a laundry list of why this is the worst option for digitizing your negatives. From issues with laying film perfectly flat to such intricacies as inability to scan each channel (R G and B) separately - which is what dedicated scanner does while having very even, calibrated light source. smashandgrabphoto wrote a detailed article on why DSLR scanning sucks and I wholeheartedly agree with his findings. I bemoan the abscence of quality scanners on the market today and reluctance of camera makers to release their respective updated versions of old gear with USB-C connection and modern sensors. Nikon could do that and Sony as well as they own all Minolta patents. Film community is booming, new cameras enter the market, why sit on the fence?
What would be a list of things you'd like to see on a modern scanner? A perfect scanner if you will
At least as good as the coolscans, better film holders/feeders to keep it perfectly flat, CRI 99 light source with variable brightness to do multi-pass composites of the same negative for great HDR raw files, and just way faster at scanning lol
The variable brightness light source for HDR multipass was honestly something I was thinking as well. I think the most difficult part of the whole thing would be getting it to interface with software
Yeah. No lie. A Coolscan was the first scanner I ever used. I thought ALL scanners were that good. Lol.
I have one -- do you know where / how / I can get a replacement bulb? (I would need fitting instructions.)
There’s a Nikon Coolscan Facebook page, one guy in there does repairs and refurbishments on these units, he likely can direct you to where you can find a bulb, he posts multiple times per day so it shouldn’t be any trouble finding him
@@nickschraml Thank you -- that kind of you to respond. I am willing to give the scanner to whoever pays the postage. I'm in Switzerland.
@@peterwinnington447
Is this offer still available?
How you clean the mirror?
Super easy to do, there are many tutorials available via a Google search. You just take the scanner casing off, move the mirror clip, carefully remove the mirror, clean it, and reverse the steps
Bringing exposure up on a film scanner - especially with chrome - is a no win situation. Scan frames with good exposure. It has less latitude than a digital camera file.
So increase the scanner gain?
I've got an LS 5000 ED and it's got USB, not FireWire. (I use it with VueScan on my Mac.)
I’ll admit, FireWire with my 4000 was a PITA to set up with W10
I had a minolta dimage scanner that was also incredible. when you want speed these are not helpful sadly. nowadays i scan with a digital camera and over 50 rolls at once. it would take me weeks to scan with the minolta. still i wish i had kept it for really good photos that could be printed large.
ive been looking to buy a used scanner off FB marketplace but now my hesitation has increased by 1000%...
why are there so many options....
If you can find a Coolscan iv or v then go for that, if not then a V600 is fine
And compared to a Plustek ?
I’ll get a Plustek to compare against eventually, I just don’t have one right now
VuescanX64 works well with these Nikon scanners and there's no compatibility issues.
I've heard that the dust removal and batch scanning aren't as great. I found that Nikon Scan 4.0 ran perfectly fine, which is awesome since it's free!
Perhaps I'll do a comparison video of all the different programs
@@nickschramlI agree. I've tried both.
Nikon's own software works great with my Coolscan V.
A plus is that it can output NEF files, that are very tweakable in Adobe Camera Raw or Rawtherapee.
I still use my Nikon Coolscan 5000...
From what I remember of this scanner, the hardware was good. Not the best, but fine. The software was terrible. There were scanners with much better software.
Nikon Scan is old for sure, but at least it’s simple and easy to understand
@@nickschraml there were a lot of consumerish, sort of, but not quite professional scanners back when this was out. Some were better, some worse. None, in that category were great. The Nikon had a reputation for clunky, unreliable software.
Almost nobody can understand my pain... This Nikon is great, but it's only 35mm. I'm shooting mostly 645 and I need something like Coolscan 8000. Which is damn expensive... more than $1000 and negative mounts for even higher price. So I have to do all my scans with this shitty V600.
I’ve read that the V600 is excellent for medium format, it just sucks for 35mm, however after this video I’m wondering how true that actually is. If I can ever find myself a good deal on a good condition medium format camera and a 8000 or 9000 I’ll make a comparison video to see if the claims truly hold up
@@nickschraml It's not excellent... it's rather barely acceptable. There are still lots of details which it cannot resolve
But they’re so expensive lol. I’d love to find one for any kind of reasonable price
The iv I showed in the video came in at $230 USD, very reasonable imo
the Epson seems like out of focus of the scans
Yes, the Nikon has auto focus but the Epson is fixed focus
My Nikon 9000 is going to the grave with me.
Have you tried DSLR scanning?
I have not since I don’t have a good macro lens, just a Tamron 70-180 f2.8 which can do “macro” just not at a high enough level to really be considered an option
Video clarity is good, audio backtrack should've been in more of the video, but balanced a little better so as to not drown out your voice. Hosting could use some work, you spent a lot of time not addressing the audience directly or talking to the audience directly. I was ready to click off the video almost as soon as it started, the intro needs work, I would've started the video at the 46-ish second mark instead. It's much more interesting starting from there. Keep creating!
I have had mine for over twenty years and I dread the day that it stops due to age. There is nothingness it this side of £2000.00.
I tried several Nikon scanners. They are not even close to my Imacon.
Your imacon will have higher quality at the expense of speed I presume
You get what you pay for...
There's no ICE with the Imacon I heard. Is that true?
@@analogfisheye yes. Macon is not the fastest method to scan but you can't really compare it to the Nikon scanners. Different level.
A little gaffe will take care of the front plate.
I was thinking super glue or epoxy
@@nickschraml It needs to be able to come off if needed - painters tape. When friends and family come by and they see it - they will see you are tough!
I meant to re-assemble the shards of plastic back onto the scanner. To actually hold the face plate on, you're right, painter or gaffe tape would work
I have an i7 32Gb iMac from 2010 that still works fine… maybe that would work then? What about new M1 Macs?😂
I believe Vuescan works with the Coolscans on the new Macs, Nikon Scan won’t
Compare this machine with a camera please!
Down the road I will, I just don’t have a suitable macro lens currently
Let me guess…FedEx was the carrier.
No it was DHL, I just don’t think the original packaging was designed for solo shipping
Pretty sure it was already broken, due to that fat polystyrene protector package.
It was definitely broken when it arrived from eBay, I was very gentle with it
@@nickschraml I believe you, but I meant that the shipper might package a broken product before shipping.
Why don't photo compare people never flip oneof te photos? comparison is impossible in the way you do this.
Side by side comparisons are preferred as you can see both images at the same time.