If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED
I am considering purchasing a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED scanner and optional
slide feeder. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions concerning this scanner? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:56:35 -0800, "Norman & Nancy Perry"
wrote: I am considering purchasing a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED scanner and optional slide feeder. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions concerning this scanner? Thanks. It sounds good enough for me. I was going to order one last week, but put it off till Wednesday night. I didn't find one of the big supply houses that had one in stock. Some just didn't say if they had them or not. There are a number listed on e-bay, but I've never dealt with any of the dealers I saw listed. I'm looking at one with the roll film feeder and the slide feeder, but I've found old slides that have been viewed much are pretty much a one-at-a-time thing. No way do any of the "clean up" programs work that well. They work well for a little dirt, but I find the vast majority of my time on old slides is spent cleaning them. New slides right out-of-the-box and fresh films strips are *great*. Maybe something is coming up at the PMA show? Either way, it looks like I wait Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roger Halstead
writes It sounds good enough for me. I was going to order one last week, but put it off till Wednesday night. I didn't find one of the big supply houses that had one in stock. Some just didn't say if they had them or not. There are a number listed on e-bay, but I've never dealt with any of the dealers I saw listed. I'm looking at one with the roll film feeder and the slide feeder, So we conclude from the above that you do not have one and that everything which follows is guesswork - it is important that the Perry's understand that your comments are NOT based on experience of using the scanner they are interested in and hence deviate significantly from the experience of those who have used it or earlier versions. but I've found old slides that have been viewed much are pretty much a one-at-a-time thing. That is what the SF-210 adapter is for - bulk scanning slides 50 at a time. In fact, as long as you keep feeding slides into the hopper, the capacity for bulk scanning is limited only by the disk space available on the machine hosting the LS-5000. No way do any of the "clean up" programs work that well. They work well for a little dirt, but I find the vast majority of my time on old slides is spent cleaning them. I assume you are referring to programs which operate after the image has been scanned, in which case I have to agree. However your time would be saved considerably by using the ICE facility on the LS-5000 scanner, which cleans the image at the scanning stage and works extremely well. So well that you will kick yourself for wasting weeks, months or years of your life spotting things manually when you could have just bought a scanner with this facility, like the CS-5000ED in the first place. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:20:05 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote: In article , Roger Halstead writes It sounds good enough for me. I was going to order one last week, but put it off till Wednesday night. I didn't find one of the big supply houses that had one in stock. Some just didn't say if they had them or not. There are a number listed on e-bay, but I've never dealt with any of the dealers I saw listed. I'm looking at one with the roll film feeder and the slide feeder, So we conclude from the above that you do not have one and that everything which follows is guesswork - it is important that the Perry's No, you shouldn't. understand that your comments are NOT based on experience of using the scanner they are interested in and hence deviate significantly from the Assumptions are rarely safe. :-)) Although it is true I do not own either of the scanners mentioned I have enough experience using the 5000 that it was pretty much a toss up between the Minolta 5400 and the 5000 as far as quality. However the 5000, even though slightly lower resolution has some distinct advantages over the 5400 such as the ability to directly take film strips without the adapter, plus the bulk feeders (slide and roll film) At least I've not seen bulk feeders available for the 5400. The one for the 5000 is simple to use. Both have more resolution than is normally needed for the average photographer. experience of those who have used it or earlier versions. The specific comments on old slides, bulk feeding, and cleaning slides are based on many hundreds of hours of scanning slides and pertain to any film scanner. One of the reasons I am getting a new Nikon 5000 which will have Digital ICE and both bulk feeders. (I develop my own slides and negatives) No, I do not *currently* have any film, or negative scanner. I have been lucky enough to have been able to use a number of scanners over the past few years to get a good comparison. In a bit over two years I've scanned in *about* 20,000 slides and it appears I'm not half way through. I originally estimated there were about 20,000 slides and it looks like the total is going to be over 40,000. Although not in the same class as either of the above scanners the little HP-S20 was a nice scanner that would meet most amateur needs when working well. Unfortunately it was a bear (politely put) to keep the prisms clean and you had to carefully monitor the results which could easily slip by. A good example of the type of dust faults on the S-20 is seen in the aircraft photos on http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm and particularly on the "Over Lake" shot. Single dust spots create linear artifacts. These are some of the first that are going to be redone as they look like crap on the web page. I do wish I'd had the use of the other scanners long enough to complete the project instead of just a few weeks, but you can use some one else's equipment just so long. but I've found old slides that have been viewed much are pretty much a one-at-a-time thing. This is one very important point. Scanning "old slides" is a lot of work due to the cleaning required and I've yet to see any software that allows me to skip this stage. Maybe I've just been lucky to get the really, dirty slides, but I'd assume that most any slides that have been viewed a lot are just as big a problem. That is what the SF-210 adapter is for - bulk scanning slides 50 at a time. In fact, as long as you keep feeding slides into the hopper, the capacity for bulk scanning is limited only by the disk space available on the machine hosting the LS-5000. And how clean the slides. The bulk feeder is great for fresh slides and even relatively clean slides. You can bet the old slides are going to get a normal cleaning, run through the hopper and then reviewed. Hopefully a good percentage will be acceptable using Digital ICE. That way I only have to really work on the bad ones. it's just I haven't found ICE to do nearly as well as I keep hearing people say it works. No way do any of the "clean up" programs work that well. They work well for a little dirt, but I find the vast majority of my time on old slides is spent cleaning them. I assume you are referring to programs which operate after the image has been scanned, in which case I have to agree. However your time would be Yes, in my experience, the post processing does not work at all well and hand retouching is... tedious (to say the least) and very time consuming. I have easily spent over half an hour just *fixing* a single slide. I do have one set of slides which consists of eight 36 exposure rolls on which I did not get the chance to try using ICE. They came back from Kodak with bacteria on them. It can not be removed without destroying the emulsion. They look like some one threw pepper at them and it is part of the emulsion. These are worse than the "old" slides I was using for comparison and on which I have used ICE. OTOH the "imperfections" are of a different nature and I *hope* ICE will be able to help salvage them. saved considerably by using the ICE facility on the LS-5000 scanner, which cleans the image at the scanning stage and works extremely well. So well that you will kick yourself for wasting weeks, months or years I already know thatsigh I really should have gone ahead and purchased the older version of the scanner a year and a half back, but hat was not an option as it was also about the time the stock market tanked. of your life spotting things manually when you could have just bought a scanner with this facility, like the CS-5000ED in the first place. It works very well, but I did not find it sufficient to handle many of those "old slides" that had been though some ones projector along with having been handled many times. I would not get another scanner without it. And as I noted at the beginning, I am getting one. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roger Halstead
writes The specific comments on old slides, bulk feeding, and cleaning slides are based on many hundreds of hours of scanning slides and pertain to any film scanner. I strongly dispute that. It certainly pertains to scanners which do not have any IR image cleaning facility or to those which do but are unable to handle the residual silver content of Kodachrome, if that is the emulsion you are using. I am not suggesting that you shouldn't clean your slides before scanning, just because you have ICE, but the normal operation with a blower brush or compressed air can should be adequate for even relatively poorly stored slides. A good example of the type of dust faults on the S-20 is seen in the aircraft photos on http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm and particularly on the "Over Lake" shot. Single dust spots create linear artifacts. That is due to a fundamental design flaw on that low end scanner, which is little more than a small frame flatbed scanner, with all of the limitations that entails. The problem occurs because the optical design includes a surface, on which dust can settle, at or near a focal plane. A good film scanner design specifically avoids that and it is not an issue with any of the Nikon range - the only surfaces which exist at, or close, to a focal plane are the film and the CCD (which is sealed behind an optical window that is well away from a focal plane). So the problems you have experienced with a bottom range, I hesitate to use the term entry level, film scanner are not relevant in this context. This is one very important point. Scanning "old slides" is a lot of work due to the cleaning required and I've yet to see any software that allows me to skip this stage. Maybe I've just been lucky to get the really, dirty slides, but I'd assume that most any slides that have been viewed a lot are just as big a problem. Roger, your slides must be in extremely bad condition if ICE is not able to do a good job. When I bought my first ICE scanner one of the first things I tried was to test just how good ICE was - after all, the images used to advertise it seemed pretty filthy before processing, so I was less than convinced as to how well it would work. I used a waste frame (the first blank from a roll of film, the just happened to have a reasonable, if uncomposed image on it) dropped it onto the kitchen floor and wiped my shoe on it. This was then wiped down to remove loose particles and scanned to test the effect of ICE. With ICE on normal, the image did not need any further work and looked perfect - from a far worse original than anything used in the ASF advertising. You seem to be indicating that your slides are in a worse state than the film I wiped my shoe across! And how clean the slides. The bulk feeder is great for fresh slides and even relatively clean slides. You can bet the old slides are going to get a normal cleaning, run through the hopper and then reviewed. I have images that are more than 40 years old and none require more than a short blast of compressed air to clean them sufficiently for scanning. Whether you classify these as being "relatively clean" is something I cannot quantify, but they are certainly old and bulk feed and clean with ICE extremely well. I haven't found ICE to do nearly as well as I keep hearing people say it works. What emulsion are you using it on? Original ICE implementations in Nikon scanners performed very poorly with Kodachrome. More recent implementations are better, but still not perfect with Kodachrome although all implementations are very good with all conventional chromogenic emulsions. How are you using it? ICE on normal setting works extremely well except on very large dust/dirt particles. Even on those, the artefact left by an ICE failure in the middle of the large blob is so significant that it is easily visible at preview and is easy to find and clone. ICE on fine setting only works with certain emulsions, and probably not with any emulsions over a couple of years old, which suffered from a base defect called pepper noise - microscopic bubbles in emulsion itself. An image of these on Kodak Ektachrome 64, taken by Roger Smith, is at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/im...-bubbles-3.jpg Some films are worse than others, but Roger has found this on almost all types. No way do any of the "clean up" programs work that well. They work well for a little dirt, but I find the vast majority of my time on old slides is spent cleaning them. I assume you are referring to programs which operate after the image has been scanned, in which case I have to agree. However your time would be Yes, in my experience, the post processing does not work at all well and hand retouching is... tedious (to say the least) and very time consuming. I have easily spent over half an hour just *fixing* a single slide. Which is the USP of ICE - at worst, except in your case apparently, hours of fixing and manual spotting and cloning are reduced to one or two spotting/cloning operations whilst normally they are eliminated entirely. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:44:50 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote: In article , Roger Halstead writes The specific comments on old slides, bulk feeding, and cleaning slides are based on many hundreds of hours of scanning slides and pertain to any film scanner. I strongly dispute that. It certainly pertains to scanners which do not have any IR image cleaning facility or to those which do but are unable to handle the residual silver content of Kodachrome, if that is the I think the answer to this is probably down near the bottom so other than a quick comment on the S-20 I'm going to jump to the end. emulsion you are using. I am not suggesting that you shouldn't clean your slides before scanning, just because you have ICE, but the normal operation with a blower brush or compressed air can should be adequate for even relatively poorly stored slides. A good example of the type of dust faults on the S-20 is seen in the aircraft photos on http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm and particularly on the "Over Lake" shot. Single dust spots create linear artifacts. That is due to a fundamental design flaw on that low end scanner, which is little more than a small frame flatbed scanner, with all of the limitations that entails. The problem occurs because the optical design includes a surface, on which dust can settle, at or near a focal plane. That is basically what I was trying to point out, but keep my note to a manageable size. :-)) A good film scanner design specifically avoids that and it is not an issue with any of the Nikon range - the only surfaces which exist at, or close, to a focal plane are the film and the CCD (which is sealed behind an optical window that is well away from a focal plane). So the problems you have experienced with a bottom range, I hesitate to use the term entry level, film scanner are not relevant in this context. No argument at all. snip You seem to be indicating that your slides are in a worse state than the film I wiped my shoe across! Some may be. They go back to early Argus C-3 days (probably early 50s) and were regularly viewed over the years by various members of the family. In later years quite a few older/elderly members of the family looking at days gone by. Some even suffer from heat damage from being in the projector too long. So, some of that dirt is baked in. And how clean the slides. The bulk feeder is great for fresh slides and even relatively clean slides. You can bet the old slides are going to get a normal cleaning, run through the hopper and then reviewed. I have images that are more than 40 years old and none require more than a short blast of compressed air to clean them sufficiently for scanning. Whether you classify these as being "relatively clean" is something I cannot quantify, but they are certainly old and bulk feed and clean with ICE extremely well. I haven't found ICE to do nearly as well as I keep hearing people say it works. What emulsion are you using it on? Original ICE implementations in Nikon scanners performed very poorly with Kodachrome. More recent Kodachrome 25. Probably 90% of the slides are Kodachrome 25. All of the old ones. It was basically the only film my folks used. There are some from aunts and uncles but those have not held up well physically. The only Ektachrome and C41 negatives are the ones I shot in recent years (over the last 30) which went quite well except for the ones on the cheap scanner. Welll even most of those were acceptable (acceptable for CRT display), but not for prints. I don't know which implementation of Digital ICE he had installed. I was new to using a film scanner at that time, so inexperience could well have played a part. He moved, but I might be able to find out what implementation he had. With all the work I came away with a lasting impression that the slides had to be relatively clean, but I'm not sure how to quantify that. implementations are better, but still not perfect with Kodachrome although all implementations are very good with all conventional chromogenic emulsions. How are you using it? ICE on normal setting works extremely well except on very large dust/dirt particles. Even on those, the artefact left by As I said, I was new to scanning, but if memory serves correctly it was on the normal setting. an ICE failure in the middle of the large blob is so significant that it is easily visible at preview and is easy to find and clone. ICE on fine setting only works with certain emulsions, and probably not with any emulsions over a couple of years old, which suffered from a base defect called pepper noise - microscopic bubbles in emulsion itself. An image of these on Kodak Ektachrome 64, taken by Roger Smith, is at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/im...-bubbles-3.jpg Thanks, Even with all the photography I've done I was not aware those existed and had never seen them before. I have never worked at a resolution where those bubbles would be a problem. :-)) Some films are worse than others, but Roger has found this on almost all types. No way do any of the "clean up" programs work that well. They work well for a little dirt, but I find the vast majority of my time on old slides is spent cleaning them. I assume you are referring to programs which operate after the image has been scanned, in which case I have to agree. However your time would be Yes, in my experience, the post processing does not work at all well and hand retouching is... tedious (to say the least) and very time consuming. I have easily spent over half an hour just *fixing* a single slide. Which is the USP of ICE - at worst, except in your case apparently, hours of fixing and manual spotting and cloning are reduced to one or two spotting/cloning operations whilst normally they are eliminated entirely. I do remember that ICE did a great job or removing fingerprints. If I can find one of the Ektachrome slides with the bacteria (or what ever it is) I'll put it up for you to take a look. Although it may be a while until I can scan them again, or find one of the old ones some where on CD. (I never throw any thing away) I'd really like to do a before and after, One of the old scans compared to the new scans as well as some of the old Ektachrome 25s that didn't do so well. That batch of slides was shot at the big fly in at Oshkosh Wisconsin. It was of the 50th anniversary of D day and they had more WW-II aircraft flying in formation at one time than since WW II. Those slides can not be replaced so you can imagine my disappointment when I saw all the spots. These are the blotches you mentioned that require cloning. Thanks for the additional information. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roger Halstead
writes You seem to be indicating that your slides are in a worse state than the film I wiped my shoe across! Some may be. They go back to early Argus C-3 days (probably early 50s) and were regularly viewed over the years by various members of the family. In later years quite a few older/elderly members of the family looking at days gone by. Some even suffer from heat damage from being in the projector too long. So, some of that dirt is baked in. Even so, I would expect ICE to work wit these. However, it is apparent from your more recent comments that your earlier statements about the capabilities of "clean-up programs" owe more to your unique situation with lots of badly damaged or dirty slides than it does to the actual capabilities of ICE. What emulsion are you using it on? Original ICE implementations in Nikon scanners performed very poorly with Kodachrome. More recent Kodachrome 25. Probably 90% of the slides are Kodachrome 25. All of the old ones. It was basically the only film my folks used. There are some from aunts and uncles but those have not held up well physically. You will probably find a significant number of these just will not work at all with ICE. It depends on the film and processing batch used by Kodak at the time. You will also find much more colour variation between the image on the slide and the scan with KC than with other emulsions for similar reasons, combined with the LED sources used in Nikon scanners. Despite Kodachrome being regarded as a long lasting emulsion, ironically it only achieves that longevity if it is kept in the dark and not displayed. Henry Wilhelm did some tests which showed that even though Ektachrome is generally a more fugitive emulsion, losing yellows even if stored in the dark, Kodachrome actually fades faster if it is projected for a couple of hours per year. So you will probably find the old Kodachromes vary in colour quite a lot. ROC, available on the LS-5000, will help with both of these effects. The only Ektachrome and C41 negatives are the ones I shot in recent years (over the last 30) ICE should have no trouble at all with these emulsions. I don't know which implementation of Digital ICE he had installed. It changed with Nikon hardware implementation. LS-2000 was pretty poor with Kodachrome and ICE generally didn't work at all with that emulsion. LS-4000 had a new version and, as if by magic, all my previously ICE rejected Kodachromes worked fine on that. Thanks, Even with all the photography I've done I was not aware those existed and had never seen them before. I have never worked at a resolution where those bubbles would be a problem. :-)) Err, if you have used an LS-5000, or even its predecessor the LS-4000, then you have - whether you realised it or not. It was only when this scanner came to the market that the problem with the film base became widely recognised, because they cause single pixel spots over highlights. Even working at lower resolutions with these scanners you will see them, because they are aliased. Fortunately ICE picks them all up and clears them, but they are so common that some overall image sharpness is lost. That batch of slides was shot at the big fly in at Oshkosh Wisconsin. It was of the 50th anniversary of D day and they had more WW-II aircraft flying in formation at one time than since WW II. Those slides can not be replaced so you can imagine my disappointment when I saw all the spots. These are the blotches you mentioned that require cloning. Out of interest, how do you know it was bacterial damage as opposed to chemical damage? Did Kodak enclose a damage a notice, which they have been known to do. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:38:27 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote: In article , Roger Halstead writes You seem to be indicating that your slides are in a worse state than the film I wiped my shoe across! Some may be. They go back to early Argus C-3 days (probably early 50s) and were regularly viewed over the years by various members of the family. In later years quite a few older/elderly members of the family looking at days gone by. Some even suffer from heat damage from being in the projector too long. So, some of that dirt is baked in. Even so, I would expect ICE to work wit these. However, it is apparent from your more recent comments that your earlier statements about the capabilities of "clean-up programs" owe more to your unique situation with lots of badly damaged or dirty slides than it does to the actual capabilities of ICE. That could very well be so. What emulsion are you using it on? Original ICE implementations in Nikon scanners performed very poorly with Kodachrome. More recent Kodachrome 25. Probably 90% of the slides are Kodachrome 25. All of the old ones. It was basically the only film my folks used. There are some from aunts and uncles but those have not held up well physically. You will probably find a significant number of these just will not work at all with ICE. It depends on the film and processing batch used by Kodak at the time. You will also find much more colour variation The old Pink Kodachrome! :-)) Fortunately the color variation has been easy to fix with many of the current image programs having an automated (click here) type of fix that in general works very well. It, or they also take care of the color balance from fluorescent lighting...or tungsten when using the wrong film. between the image on the slide and the scan with KC than with other emulsions for similar reasons, combined with the LED sources used in Nikon scanners. Despite Kodachrome being regarded as a long lasting emulsion, ironically it only achieves that longevity if it is kept in the dark and not displayed. Henry Wilhelm did some tests which showed that even though Ektachrome is generally a more fugitive emulsion, losing yellows even if stored in the dark, Kodachrome actually fades faster if it is projected for a couple of hours per year. So you will probably find the old Kodachromes vary in colour quite a lot. Very much so and as I mentioned, this have been viewed a lot. ROC, available on the LS-5000, will help with both of these effects. The only Ektachrome and C41 negatives are the ones I shot in recent years (over the last 30) ICE should have no trouble at all with these emulsions. I'm looking forward to using it on the C41 and Ektachrome. There is a lot of grain and grain clumping showing in the ASA 400 Ektachrome and I think the new programs will smooth that out. I don't know which implementation of Digital ICE he had installed. It changed with Nikon hardware implementation. LS-2000 was pretty poor with Kodachrome and ICE generally didn't work at all with that emulsion. LS-4000 had a new version and, as if by magic, all my previously ICE rejected Kodachromes worked fine on that. Thanks, Even with all the photography I've done I was not aware those existed and had never seen them before. I have never worked at a resolution where those bubbles would be a problem. :-)) Err, if you have used an LS-5000, or even its predecessor the LS-4000, then you have - whether you realised it or not. It was only when this As the slides were so dirty we used Digital ice on virtually all so these bubbles were probably masked. scanner came to the market that the problem with the film base became widely recognised, because they cause single pixel spots over highlights. Even working at lower resolutions with these scanners you will see them, because they are aliased. Fortunately ICE picks them all up and clears them, but they are so common that some overall image sharpness is lost. That batch of slides was shot at the big fly in at Oshkosh Wisconsin. It was of the 50th anniversary of D day and they had more WW-II aircraft flying in formation at one time than since WW II. Those slides can not be replaced so you can imagine my disappointment when I saw all the spots. These are the blotches you mentioned that require cloning. Out of interest, how do you know it was bacterial damage as opposed to chemical damage? Did Kodak enclose a damage a notice, which they have been known to do. I'm pretty sure based on all the processing, using Formaldehyde and thorough washing to prevent bacteria, or mold in the college classes and they appear just as described in the classes. That said, they are the first I've seen in the real world, so no guarantees. I was surprised that as bad as most of the slides were, there was no notice from Kodak or any mention of the problem. "As I recall" they used to send a notice even if the leader section with no images was longer than normal, or if the roll ended short. Having made the decision to purchase the latest Nikon 5000, I find that virtually everyone is "out of stock", except for some of the sellers on e-bay with whom I'm not familiar. Maybe they are coming out with a newer version at the PMA? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roger Halstead
writes Having made the decision to purchase the latest Nikon 5000, I find that virtually everyone is "out of stock", except for some of the sellers on e-bay with whom I'm not familiar. Maybe they are coming out with a newer version at the PMA? I doubt it! The LS-5000ED has been around in Europe and Japan for about 4 or 5 months now, but has only been available in the US since the middle of January. Hence my surprise that you have any substantial experience using it at all. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Nikon Coolscan 9000ED | JKML | Scanners | 133 | November 24th 03 01:59 PM |
Nikon Scan 3.1.2 Problem: Thumbnails Tab Disappears (0/1) | A B | Scanners | 2 | November 17th 03 11:59 PM |
Nikon Coolscan 4000 vs Minolta S E 5400 vs Canon FS4000US? | Mark B. | Scanners | 4 | October 2nd 03 01:30 AM |
Nikon CoolScan II & windows XP | CSM1 | Scanners | 0 | September 12th 03 04:00 PM |
Film Scanners - Nikon about to replace the Super Coolscan 8000 ED? | J. Smith | Scanners | 0 | July 13th 03 02:55 AM |