[filmscanners] Re: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED

["" <lists@lazygranch.com>]

I got a used scuba tank (steel), hose, regulator and nozzle for $80. The
regulator (or maybe valve is a better word) was rebuilt, but who
cares.It's not like my life depends on it.  I never had any trouble
getting a tank filled without a license, but I am obligated to meet all
tank inspections. Just a guess, but I'd say a full tank of scuba air is
about 10 cans of canned air.

Scuba air is just compressed air, filtered and dried. The compressor
uses a vegetable based oil so that if any oil gets into the air, it is
not hazardous. There is a special nitrogen/oxygen mix used for deeper
diving that does require diver certification. For just compressed air, I
think there are more people playing paintball with the air than doing
photography.

One trick to remember is not to completely empty your scuba tank. That
is, as the pressure gets low, you really need to get it refilled. If the
tank is emptied, I believe they have to inspect the tank for leaks,
which will cost.

This is one project I don't suggest getting on ebay. Those scuba tanks
are heavy, especially the cheap tanks. Better to get the gear used.
Scuba is like any other hobby, that is, people want to upgrade.

Vuescan costs more for the pro version with perpetual upgrades. Those of
us who got the software when there was only one version (I think it was
$45) got a free upgrade to the pro version., i.e. grandfathered in.

Patrick M. Florer wrote
<snip>:

>If you aren't using Vuescan, I would highly recommend it - I don't know what
>it costs now, but, at the time, it was a very good investment of $35.
>
>Regarding someone else's suggestion about using a scuba tank for compressed
>air - I checked into this in Dallas at a local dive shop:  1) the least
>expensive tank setup they had was about $250; and, 2) I would have needed a
>certificate from a diving school in order to fill / re-fill the tank!  I
>didn't do it!.
>
>Patrick Florer
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mary Orton
>Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:10 AM
>To: pmflorer@swbell.net
>Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
>
>Did you find much detail loss with the dust detection settings or is it
>possible to turn those settings off with the Nikon? I know it is time
>consuming but for some images were optimum sharpness is key it would be nice
>to have that choice. Do you find that you get more detail in the shadows
>than with the Polaroid? You mentioned better quality, is that referring to
>sharpness, contrast levels, colour accuracy?
>
>Perhaps the way to describe the waves from the Polaroid is that they are
>closely spaced soft diagonal lines in the dark areas.
>
>Thanks
>Mary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Patrick M. Florer
>Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:58 AM
>To: maryorton@shaw.ca
>Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
>
>
>Sorry about the $600!
>
>I had a similar situation, except that I didn't spend the $600 to try to fix
>my SS4000.  The SS4000 had developed bad pixels in the CCD sensor - Polaroid
>wanted $400 just to look at it, and more $$$ to fix, so I just junked it
>after 3 years, figuring that I had gotten plenty of value for what I paid.
>
>I bought a Nikon Supercoolscan 5000ED as a replacement, about a year ago,
>and have scanned approximately 150 - 200 rolls of print negative and print
>positive film.  I have recently purchased a Digital SLR, and will be doing
>most photography with that now, but I am glad to have the 5000ED and have no
>plans to sell it.  Including sales tax, I paid about $1,100 for the device.
>
>The scanner connects to a PC via USB, the scan speed is roughly 4x faster,
>and the quality is better, too.  Having IR dust detection and correction,
>which I usually use on it's least intrusive setting, solved a major problem
>I had with the Polaroid.  My expenditures for canned air dropped to $0!  If
>you are careful with this feature, you won't lose much sharpness, but if you
>overdo it, you will definitely see some loss of detail.
>
>Also, the Nikon doesn't use a carrier for strips of film - you just feed
>anywhere from 2-6 frames on a strip right into the from of the machine,
>which is a huge timesaver when compared to the SS4000 - I always had trouble
>getting my film to lay flat enough to line it up correctly in the Polaroid
>filmstrip carrier!  The slide feeder takes only one mounted slide at a time,
>which is kind of a pain if you have a lot of these to scan.  You can buy
>both a bulk filmstrip loader, which can process up to 40 images on a roll,
>and a bulk slide loader, which holds 50 mounted slides.  Each of these
>options costs about $500.  I have neither.  I was tempted to get the
>filmstrip loader, but then I realized that, after scanning the film the
>first time, I was going to cut it into strips of 6 images each to fit the
>storage sleeves I use, so what was the point!  I still have 3-4,000 mounted
>slides inherited from parents to scan, so I may still purchase the slide
>loader.
>
>I don't use the Nikon software much, preferring Vuescan as easier to use and
>faster, with no loss of functionality.
>
>I have had no software or hardware issues, either.  My PC is fairly new and
>very capable with fast processor and 2 gb of memory and Windows XP Pro.  I
>do computing for a living and run a pretty "tight ship", so this may be an
>important reason why I have had no problems.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Patrick Florer
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mary Orton
>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:01 PM
>To: pmflorer@swbell.net
>Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 ED
>
>
>Has anyone had any experience with this slide scanner? Nikon Supercoolscan
>5000 ED
>
>My Polaroid SS 4000 is not working well (-fine waves in dark areas and
>coloured lines ). We sent it to the Polaroid repair shop and it is virtually
>the same upon return except we are 600 dollars poorer. As it has worked well
>for us for 7 years we thought there must be something better out there by
>now.
>The Nikon specs sound good, but it is hard to find independent reviews. We
>don't do high volumes but do need top quality.
>Thanks for any help
>Mary /Michael Orton
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body
>
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body