[Gooshin]

Thanks for the explanation Gooshin, that makes sense. I'll give the V500 another go at native res (which I'm assuming is 6400dpi) and then downsize it in PS.

What I'd really like is a scanner where you could just feed the negative strip in and it does everything else (setting black and white, dust removal, etc). I bet those are expensive though. Surely it would cost more than my "point & shoot" V500

the Nikon scaners, you could buy a special roll-feeder attachement (like 50 bucks i think extra)

all you would have to do is tell the developing place (or if you do it yourself) is to leave the film un-cut.

you put the whole reel on one end of the scanner, and play around with the settings on the first frame, then hit go. Come back in 30 minutes and you're done. Just make sure your computer doesnt crash, or as a precaution, disable that part where the photo "previews" after its been scanned.

Nikon Scan 4 threw my computer into overdrive after i had like 15 130mb tiff files open, since it is very innefficient as a program.

[MeFirstO]

thanks for opening this thread, guys! i'll be all eyes and ears!

[Vertex Ninja]

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but after owning multiple Epsons, a Nikon, and currently a Creo Scitex, I've come to the conclusion that:

Almost every scanner on the market has enough d-range to capture everything on a color negative in one pass except for maybe the deepest shadows(because the film is essentially clear). Negatives aren't very dense, which is also the reason they tend to have more apparent grain when compared to slide film. If you scan at a high bit depth and make sure nothing is clipped or crushed in the scanning software, a couple levels and curves layers in photoshop should get mostly everything there is on the film in regards to dynamic range.

Slide films like Velvia or some B&W negative films can be really tough to scan. If you've got a consumer flatbed I find that there is only ever one reason to scan above 1600-2400DPI and that's to downsample for scanner noise reduction. Rather than do multiple passes, which causes blurring from mis-registration, scan at a multiple of 2 to your desired dpi then downsample in Photoshop, effectively increasing your signal to noise ratio. You'll get much better shadow detail this way.

Some of the higher end Nikons have the ability to take multiple samples in a single pass so they don't suffer from the blurriness that consumer flatbeds can. If you look at a how a consumer flatbed is built you can see why mutiple passes rarely works. If the plastic frame flexes even just a minuscule amount, or the very thin drive belt stretches just a hair, or the heat from the lamp warps the film just a bit, the pixels won't match up on subseqent passes.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[stevebrot]

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but after owning multiple Epsons, a Nikon, and currently a Creo Scitex, I've come to the conclusion that:

Almost every scanner on the market has enough d-range to capture everything on a color negative in one pass except for maybe the deepest shadows(because the film is essentially clear). Negatives aren't very dense, which is also the reason they tend to have more apparent grain when compared to slide film. If you scan at a high bit depth and make sure nothing is clipped or crushed in the scanning software, a couple levels and curves layers in photoshop should get mostly everything there is on the film in regards to dynamic range.

Slide films like Velvia or some B&W negative films can be really tough to scan. If you've got a consumer flatbed I find that there is only ever one reason to scan above 1600-2400DPI and that's to downsample for scanner noise reduction. Rather than do multiple passes, which causes blurring from mis-registration, scan at a multiple of 2 to your desired dpi then downsample in Photoshop, effectively increasing your signal to noise ratio. You'll get much better shadow detail this way.

Some of the higher end Nikons have the ability to take multiple samples in a single pass so they don't suffer from the blurriness that consumer flatbeds can. If you look at a how a consumer flatbed is built you can see why mutiple passes rarely works. If the plastic frame flexes even just a minuscule amount, or the very thin drive belt stretches just a hair, or the heat from the lamp warps the film just a bit, the pixels won't match up on subseqent passes.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Your 2 cents are worth a ton here! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Steve

[DonDouglas]

I use a (discontinued) Canon FS400US. It's okay, especially with VueScan instead of the OEM software. However, in common with the (also discontinued) Minolta 5400, it moves the image past the stationary light source so lack of registration makes multi-pass scanning impossible. With the Nikon LS5000 and similar, the light source moves and the film is stationary. The thing which would eliminate the problem of film flexing during scanning is wet mounting, something which is available on the Nikon LS9000 MF scanner, as well as some Epson flatbeds. Julio Fernandez makes aftermarket wet mounting units for various scanners (Wet Mounting and Fluid Scanning).

[Vertex Ninja]

Your 2 cents are worth a ton here! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Steve

Thanks!

Another thing I like to do, is scan into the Ektaspace color profile and then in Photoshop apply(not convert) to the Chromespace profile(if you've bought them).

Joseph Holmes - Shadow Detail Comparison

If you haven't checked them out, the workflow of the Chromespace profile and chroma varients is very nice. Well worth the money.

Joseph Holmes - RGB Working Space Profiles

[DonDouglas]

Regarding the OP question about extension of dynamic range, the $80 Pro version of Hamrick's VueScan permits RAW output. I only have the $40 regular version and so can't comment from experience, but it would seem that following scanning with RAW processing that allows for extension of dynamic range (e.g., Silkypix 4.0) would squeeze more out of the scans. Also, Topaz can be applied to scanned TIFFs.