New Nikon Coolscan 9000ED

"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 07:48:18 GMT, "Nick C"
wrote:


"JKML" wrote in message
...
Not sure if I am the first with this....

Nikon's 35mm and medium format scanner the 8000ED has finally been
replaced!

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_...3/ls9000ed.htm

also there are another 2 (35mm only) new scanners there.

Thing is im not sure what the difference is between the old and the new
models as they have not increased the scan dpi (still 4000)



Apparently Nikon doesn't think film is dead.


And apparently they don't think it's worth a huge new
investment in R&D either. I see no interesting -- let
alone radically new -- features in these scanners,
compared to the current lot. Resolution is unchanged
from the current lot.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

There is an investment in design, tooling, manufacturing, and promotion.
Upon deeper investigation, one may find there is an improvement in
resolution or other capability though the numbers appear to remain the same.
It's much like their continuing the release of VR lenses for SLR cameras.

None-the-less, if Nikon felt film was dead, the monies could have been put
to use in further development of digicams. They chose not to do that, ergo,
film is not dead nor does Nikon see film dying for some time.

Nick

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:01:20 GMT, "Nick C"
wrote:

There is an investment in design, tooling, manufacturing, and promotion.
Upon deeper investigation, one may find there is an improvement in
resolution or other capability though the numbers appear to remain the same.
It's much like their continuing the release of VR lenses for SLR cameras.

No, the specs indicate absolutely no improvement in
resolution which is in fact a bit surprising -- given that
Minolta has a 5400 dpi 35 mm scanner that's getting
enthusiastic reviews.

None-the-less, if Nikon felt film was dead, the monies could have been put
to use in further development of digicams. They chose not to do that, ergo,
film is not dead nor does Nikon see film dying for some time.


I suppose that's one way to spin it. I see it as the usual
repackaging of the same-old same-old, in order to grab
what they can from a declining market with minimal investment.

Nikon is known to be way behind the curve in their high
end digital cameras.

And lest you think I'm dissing Nikon in general, I own
two Nikon SLRs, several Nikon lenses, and a Nikon
LS-8000 which has been serving me well for a couple
of years.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:01:20 GMT, "Nick C"
wrote:

There is an investment in design, tooling, manufacturing, and promotion.
Upon deeper investigation, one may find there is an improvement in
resolution or other capability though the numbers appear to remain the
same.
It's much like their continuing the release of VR lenses for SLR cameras.

No, the specs indicate absolutely no improvement in
resolution which is in fact a bit surprising -- given that
Minolta has a 5400 dpi 35 mm scanner that's getting
enthusiastic reviews.

None-the-less, if Nikon felt film was dead, the monies could have been
put
to use in further development of digicams. They chose not to do that,
ergo,
film is not dead nor does Nikon see film dying for some time.


I suppose that's one way to spin it. I see it as the usual
repackaging of the same-old same-old, in order to grab
what they can from a declining market with minimal investment.

I suppose you've offered another variation of the spin.

Nikon is known to be way behind the curve in their high
end digital cameras.

Looking at the D1h, I would not say with certainty that Nikon was way behind
the curve. In fact, from what I read about the future plans of Nikon in
designing newer digital cameras, if they remain on course they'll be ahead
of the competition, in the eyes of professionals who have a lot of Nikon
lenses.

Nick

lest you think I'm dissing Nikon in general, I own
two Nikon SLRs, several Nikon lenses, and a Nikon
LS-8000 which has been serving me well for a couple
years.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Product development in many fields requiring fairly high R&D costs and
tooling costs does tend to cede one level of development while working on
the next. (Like disk drives...ever notice how Maxtor, Seagate, and Western
Digital leapfrog one another? In any given year one of them is always the
"odd man out".) With the D2H, I really don't think Nikon is behind at all,
just ahead in a different area...after all, who else has a DSLR that is as
fast and can send the files to your PC or printer via WiFi? I do find this
combination of strengths a bit strange, the speed seems to suggest
photojournalism usage while the WiFi would be handier for studio usage, at
least to my thinking.


"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:01:20 GMT, "Nick C"
wrote:

SNIP

Nikon is known to be way behind the curve in their high
end digital cameras.

SNIP

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

You do not need more than 4000 dpi.
In my Nikon 8000 images I can magnify right down into the grain, seeing
grain detail. Why do I want to see more detail in grain?????

I've scanned 6x7s, digitally manipulated them as regards contrast etc.(slow
process) and got absolutely stunning digital prints which no digital camera
on the market could yet match, though the Canon 1ds must be close, but for
the money I could not justify it, and the Canon will be obsolote soon.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:27:50 -0500, "George"
wrote:

Product development in many fields requiring fairly high R&D costs and
tooling costs does tend to cede one level of development while working on
the next. (Like disk drives...ever notice how Maxtor, Seagate, and Western
Digital leapfrog one another? In any given year one of them is always the
"odd man out".) With the D2H, I really don't think Nikon is behind at all,
just ahead in a different area...after all, who else has a DSLR that is as
fast and can send the files to your PC or printer via WiFi? I do find this
combination of strengths a bit strange, the speed seems to suggest
photojournalism usage while the WiFi would be handier for studio usage, at
least to my thinking.


Yes, I understand that these things can change over time.
I don't see where the D1H is very special at all either for
specs or for value. In fact, it seriously lags the Canon 10D
at a price that is substantially higher. The D2H is only a
marginal improvement, still lagging far behind the Canon 10D
in resolution and only matching it for CCD size.

The Nikon D100 is a better value all around (compared to
the D1H or D2H), though still considerably more expensive
than the 10D. In fact, it has to share its market with the Fuji
S2 which, as far as I can tell, is quite comparable. I would
put the Canon 10D, Nikon D100, and Fuji S2 in the same
league based on specs and performance.

The Nikon/Kodak 14n gives better resolution and a lower
price than the competing Canon 1Ds, but pros seem to be
ignoring it in droves, prefering the Canon. Apparently the
14n does OK in bright studio lighting, but not so well at ISOs
higher than 100 or so.

WiFi is an interesting twist, though not really what I buy a
camera for, and in any case if that feature turns out to be
a big hit, you can be sure it will be copied.

PS: I have removed the cross-posting to the MF camera
group and added a link to rec.photo.digital.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Garry, I do not want to get into a big digi versus silver debate... If you
prefer digi, go for it... But, beware of what the computer software puts on
the screen as being reality - taint so!.
Just for starters, a 35mm lens with ASA100 film is capable of 100 line pairs
per millimeter on the negative (with a consumer grade lens no less -
greater than 200 lpm is duck soup with good lenses)... Off the top of my
head, 100 lpm is ~0.0001312" width per single visible line... This means
that you will need ~7619 dpi for a pixel to equal the smallest detail on the
negative... Actually you need approximately 14,000dpi because the imaging
pixel has to be smaller than the smallest detail it is imaging by n/2, not
just equal in width - and *remember* that the single element of a visible
line pair consists of more than a single silver grain, so my estimated 10K
dpi still won't image single grains by at least a factor of 3X... So, if
you are imaging 4000 dpi and it is putting that on the screen as being the
actual image of a single silver grain - taint so... That single 4000dpi
pixel is actually wider than a 100 lpm line pair and the intervening space
between them...

So, if we are going to debate pixel detail we have to do the math, and not
just someones opinion... OTOH, if you prefer digital and it makes prints
sharp enough for you, then go for it, and don't bother to debate...

Cheers ... Denny


"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message
...
You do not need more than 4000 dpi.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Garry, I do not want to get into a big digi versus silver debate... If you
prefer digi, go for it... But, beware of what the computer software puts
on
the screen as being reality - taint so!.

hmm

Just for starters, a 35mm lens with ASA100 film is capable of 100 line
pairs
per millimeter on the negative (with a consumer grade lens no less -
greater than 200 lpm is duck soup with good lenses)...

eh? Duck soup, brown murky and barely translucent. Doesn't sound good.

Is this an americanism such as "everything else is just gravy"?

So as i have a consumer grade lens and a 2800dpi scanner i'd be wasting my
time on a canon L lens?



Off the top of my
head, 100 lpm is ~0.0001312" width per single visible line... This means
that you will need ~7619 dpi for a pixel to equal the smallest detail on
the
negative... Actually you need approximately 14,000dpi because the imaging
pixel has to be smaller than the smallest detail it is imaging by n/2,

As a pixel may be made up of 3 colours rgs isn't it n/3?


not
just equal in width - and *remember* that the single element of a visible
line pair consists of more than a single silver grain, so my estimated 10K
dpi still won't image single grains by at least a factor of 3X... So, if
you are imaging 4000 dpi and it is putting that on the screen as being the
actual image of a single silver grain - taint so... That single 4000dpi
pixel is actually wider than a 100 lpm line pair and the intervening space
between them...


erm so you can make a single grain spread across more than one pixel. How
detailed a picture do you want of the film grain itself? I use grain
removal on my scanner (GEM). Am i reducing the quality?

So, if we are going to debate pixel detail we have to do the math, and not
just someones opinion... OTOH, if you prefer digital and it makes prints
sharp enough for you, then go for it, and don't bother to debate...

Its not sharpness its detail. If you increase the detail or you get is a
better picture of the individual grains (halides or even smaller individual
colour couplers). If anything that will detract from the image. I read a Q
and A in AP of a reader who asked why his low res images appeared sharper
than his high ones. The answer was more detail at higher res and so greater
tonal range so lower apparent contrast over a given area. Thus illusion of
sharpness of lower res scan. So not a matter of sharp enough for you but
detail enough. As far as i'm concerned higher res is only required at
higher magnifications. 4000dpi and above means a3 or larger prints or a
selective enlargement of a small area.

"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message
...
You do not need more than 4000 dpi.

This has become an interesting thread. How much resolution do we really
need? Are our expectations increasing _because_ of the digital paradigm? I
wonder because my conventional (enlarger) prints are sometimes not as
'crisp' as some digital prints of the same subject. By 'crisp' I mean that
elusive thing called accutance which can be quantified to death in words
and is therefore true Usenet fodder, but is still evasive to the human eye
because it can be provoked by different qualities. And then there is
tonality; another story entirely.

This was brought home to me recently when I found some old negatives. One
was of a brother who is a discerning artist. I offered to send him a good
inkjet print. He declined, asking instead for a conventional print. In
some kind of digital fugue I had forgotten that I print _very_ differently
under light than in digital. He wants that 'quality', as it were.

For the grain sniffers, here is a little digital show-and-tell.
http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/bluff

Read the entire story from the manual, available via Nikon Europe.

http://www.europe-nikon.com/support/

Not much new is in this upgrade, I am afraid. The new "fouth ICE
component" will be available only with the new scanners 9000, 5000
and Coolscan V. Probably the best news is the incredible scan speed!

Thomas


JKML wrote:

Not sure if I am the first with this....

Nikon's 35mm and medium format scanner the 8000ED has finally been
replaced!

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_...3/ls9000ed.htm

also there are another 2 (35mm only) new scanners there.

Thing is im not sure what the difference is between the old and the new
models as they have not increased the scan dpi (still 4000)