Taken from the ritz website.......

"The Digital Time Machine - The Coolscan V ED is an affordable, high-performance film scanner that is designed to be easy to operate for first-time scanner users. For some film camera users, their best digital camera may, in fact, be their own film SLR camera. By using the Nikon Coolscan V ED, a Nikon N75 or N80 can produce digital scans at close to 22-megapixel resolution."

Thoughts and opinions?

thanks,
Wes

Taken from the ritz website.......

"The Digital Time Machine - The Coolscan V ED is an affordable, high-performance film scanner that is designed to be easy to operate for first-time scanner users. For some film camera users, their best digital camera may, in fact, be their own film SLR camera. By using the Nikon Coolscan V ED, a Nikon N75 or N80 can produce digital scans at close to 22-megapixel resolution."

Thoughts and opinions?

thanks,
Wes

I've never used a Coolscan V, but it would be infinitely easier and cheaper over the long run to buy a D70 or D50 camera instead of going this route. As a practical matter, 22 megapixel resolution won't get you any more than the 6 megapixels in the D70/D50. Youc an print 11 x 14s that look great with 6 megapixels -- maybe even larger prints, although I haven't tried it.

I have had one slide scanned with a a Nikon Coolscan and the resolution was incredible, and the file size was HUGE. If I had the money, the Coolscan would be my first choice for a film scanner. I don't know about the 22 megapixel resolution conversion, but the scan quality is very impressive.

Taken from the ritz website.......

"The Digital Time Machine - The Coolscan V ED is an affordable, high-performance film scanner that is designed to be easy to operate for first-time scanner users. For some film camera users, their best digital camera may, in fact, be their own film SLR camera. By using the Nikon Coolscan V ED, a Nikon N75 or N80 can produce digital scans at close to 22-megapixel resolution."

Thoughts and opinions?

thanks,
Wes

This is marketing nonsense. About 2700 dpi is scanning 35mm film grain. Anything more than that is redundant data that expands file size but provides no new information. There is no "partial" information on the grain, they are either on or off. Sort of digital! :-)

If you have lots and lots of neg or slides, a film scanner may be a good idea. But in no way is a film camera + scanner even close to a DSLR.

I don't doubt the validity of the file size possible using that scanner, but IMO Michael's right.

Unless you already have a large amount of slides and/or negs to process into a digital system, the workflow of shooting film>processing film>organizing film>scanning film>retouching digital files is infinitely less efficient and probably much more nerve-wracking than simply shooting digital to begin with.

Don't get me wrong. Drum scanning a medium format film original will give you a wonderfuly large and detailed digital file, but that is very different (and much more expensive) than batch scanning 35mm originals on even a high-end consumer film scanner...

The thing to keep in mind is that, in the entire realm of what makes a great or successful photo, digital file resolution is rarely the single most important factor. Sometimes it's not even high on the list.

You always have to weigh what the cost is to achieve that file size, and what other things you might be sacrificing or neglecting by going that route...

A 22-megapixel film scan is a very different animal (or fruit) from a 22-megapixel digital camera back file. As Michael said, after a certain resolution, you're just enlarging film grain. One of the wonderful things about a digital back that captures very large files is there is virtually no noise. The files are cleaner than any film can produce. Scanning film is also a slow process. Just buying a 6 to 8 megapixel digital SLR is a lot easier and will deliver image quality as good or better than the best 35mm film scanner.

I don't know that a 5000dpi scanner is a 5000dpi scanner - much like a 6mp camera isn't a 6mp camera. Compare a 6mp point and shoot to a 6mp DSLR in low light with a large print...

There will be a big learning curve with learning to use a scanner, and all the post production work needed to make a good print. In my own experience, this was a steeper learning curve than learning how to get a good print from a digital camera - but my scanner isn't that great. I don't have Digital ICE, ROC, GEM, etc - so I have to adjust the colors in Photoshop, and spot out the dust (yuck!).

PS - heard great things about the much less expensive Minolta 5400 too...

I do have years of film negatives that we would like to have digitized for safe keeping and also to do DVD's of the kids growing up (a really fun hobby btw!)

Going forward I am stuck though. I have a Nikon N90s, a Mamiya 645AFD and a D100. I love the digital work flow but I really really love the "look" of film. I even prefer scanned film to the D100. I recently went back to my good friend Reala.

What am I to do. Am I destined to hours of scanning?

Someone give me an easy way out!!!!!!

thanks,
Wes

What am I to do. Am I destined to hours of scanning? Someone give me an easy way out!!!!!!
Have a lab do it - but you might need a second mortgage... :)

I know Nikon has an attachment for automatic batch slide scanning to save time in cases like this - but not sure if anything like this is out there for negs. This scanner (Coolscan V) is 35mm only. Medium format film scanners are quite expensive, but some of the better Epson flatbeds are pretty good. This way (4990, I think) you can scan a contact sheet.

Another option is a slide duplicator. You attach it to your camera, and photograph the slide. Not sure how they work, just seen them advertised in photo mags. Pretty inexpensive, but it would take a lot of time.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=45205&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

If you have lots and lots of neg or slides, a film scanner may be a good idea. But in no way is a film camera + scanner even close to a DSLR.

I have to disagree unless you are refering to state of the art DSLR's such the Canon 1Ds or the Nikon D2X. A friend of mine happen to own a Coolscan V. From what I have personally seen, he gets more detailled (yet very heavy) files with his film SLR/scanner combo than what I can get from my 6mp D70. Clearly, these scanned files are much more grainy than a file from a DSLR but there are more details to retrieve.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't feel like starting to argue on these kind of technicalities, I wouldn't even consider to switch from a DSLR to a film&scanner workflow. I prefer the straightforward nature of a purely digital workflow and I'll replace the D70 for something more substantial within the next two years anyway. I just don't think that the average DSLR beats the film/scanner combo in terms of image quality (efficiency is another story...).

Seb

Scanner technology has probably improved since I bought my Nikon LS2000. But getting a good scan is definitely trickier than shooting a nice digital original. It's also a lot more time consuming. I loved having a good film scanner. But I'm much happier not having to scan slides anymore.

I have to disagree unless you are refering to state of the art DSLR's such the Canon 1Ds or the Nikon D2X. A friend of mine happen to own a Coolscan V. From what I have personally seen, he gets more detailled (yet very heavy) files with his film SLR/scanner combo than what I can get from my 6mp D70. Clearly, these scanned files are much more grainy than a file from a DSLR but there are more details to retrieve.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't feel like starting to argue on these kind of technicalities, I wouldn't even consider to switch from a DSLR to a film&scanner workflow. I prefer the straightforward nature of a purely digital workflow and I'll replace the D70 for something more substantial within the next two years anyway. I just don't think that the average DSLR beats the film/scanner combo in terms of image quality (efficiency is another story...).

Seb

The problem is that scanners have improved quite a bit but 35mm film has not kept up. Grain is grain, scanning "deeper" than grain is useless. Just because a scanner can go very high with its resolution doesn't mean that the film has any more resolution to give! Besides, any shop that would talk about the "pixel equivalent of film" doesn't have a clue. How many apples does it take to make an orange?

Taken from the ritz website.......

"The Digital Time Machine - The Coolscan V ED is an affordable, high-performance film scanner that is designed to be easy to operate for first-time scanner users. For some film camera users, their best digital camera may, in fact, be their own film SLR camera. By using the Nikon Coolscan V ED, a Nikon N75 or N80 can produce digital scans at close to 22-megapixel resolution."

Thoughts and opinions?

thanks,
Wes

I have a 10Mpix (2900dpi) Coolscan IV scanner and a 6Mpix D70 DSLR. Both solutions are excellent - sometimes. Most of the time I use digital but for some situations I prefer the look of film.

Already with the Coolscan IV the grain of the film is clearly visible. I always use GEM to reduce the visual impact of the grain, but it still looks intrusive and not as clean as the D70 image. I don't feel any need to get a Coolscan V because I have the feeling that I'm already getting almost everything there is on the film.

Charles

just the POV I was looking for!

The problem is that scanners have improved quite a bit but 35mm film has not kept up. Grain is grain, scanning "deeper" than grain is useless. Just because a scanner can go very high with its resolution doesn't mean that the film has any more resolution to give! Besides, any shop that would talk about the "pixel equivalent of film" doesn't have a clue. How many apples does it take to make an orange?

Indeed, there is a point where you can't retrieve any more details from film regardless of the capacity of the scanner. I am absolutely not implying that a scanned file have "X times" more resolution than the raw file from a DSLR because that scanned file is "X times" bigger. There is obviously a point where you are facing redundant datas (although I couldn't say when too much is too much). My comment regarding the more detailled nature of scanned files versus my D70 raw files simply comes from real life personal observations. As I said, the 100% digital workflow is more efficient.

regards

Seb