News     DIFP   Benefits Profiles Account  


Recent Posts

(New threads or threads with new replies - ↑ Links to top of thread)

 Software RAID Recommendations
Aug 7, 2004 1:05 AM
Posted by Gervaise Davis

 Epson 4000 spooling failure on XP
Aug 7, 2004 12:58 AM
Posted by Gervaise Davis

 Problem with my Lacie EBIV monitor
Aug 6, 2004 9:42 PM
Posted by Stephen Scharf

 Camera Raw database - where is it?
Aug 6, 2004 5:00 PM
Posted by Richard Southworth

 Profile #769 quality problems
Aug 6, 2004 3:20 PM
Posted by Daniel Marder

 1D's and 10D replacements
Aug 6, 2004 2:14 PM
Posted by John MacLean

 PS ACR extrapolation
Aug 6, 2004 12:40 PM
Posted by Gervaise Davis

 Best RAM for a G5
Aug 6, 2004 11:40 AM
Posted by Joe Ontjes

 How Adjustment Layer Mask "Hide All"..?
Aug 6, 2004 10:56 AM
Posted by Paul Kramarchyk

 ICC Profile Procedure
Aug 6, 2004 10:29 AM
Posted by Harry Stewart

...see more posts


Weekly Chatter:Nikon 5000 experience???
Monday July 12, 2004

Section 1: Nikon 5000 experience???

Scanners > Recommendation & Opinion > Nikon 5000 experience???

AuthorSubject: Nikon 5000 experience???
Stephen Gordon
Posted on Fri Jul 9, 2004 10:14 AM

I am contemplating buying this scanner but since it is a bit new have held off to see what experience others have had with it.

Can it be recommended? Can anyone point to any reviews. Thanks muchly for any help.

Bob Steger
Posted on Fri Jul 9, 2004 11:14 AM

I've been using a 5000 for a few weeks now and had an LS-2000 for several years prior. I scan slides at 16b, 8X, at 3000~4000 dpi. I usually only go to 4000 when I crop agressively. For my standard scans I don't use ICE (I use an anti-static brush) or otherwise process the image in Nikon scan. At 4000 dpi you are getting essentially everything that's there -- unless you like really sharp grain definition! The factory profile is fine. I've created custom profiles in the past (on 2000) and found it to be a waste of effort, since virtually all of my images require color rebalancing anyway (I shoot avail. light). This scanner is considerably faster than the 2000, esp. since I don't need 16X sampling to get full bit depth. At 4000 dpi 16b it creates rather sizeable files, however. I am investigating doing my contrast compression in Nikon scan and generating only 8b scans. I have not found much value in having enormous 16b scans on my drives -- it takes only a few minutes to rescan if I need to start over.
One feature I like is that I can adjust the diode gains individually, so if e.g. I need to shift from ~3000K up towards 5500K I just do it in the scan. Also, I can pump up all diodes for a second scan which I take the shadows from -- effectively increasing the lattitude of the film.
I haven't used any of the other scanners in this segment, but I can't find anything lacking in this one.

Mark Tomalty
Posted on Fri Jul 9, 2004 11:44 AM


Like you,I'd also appreciate a few user reviews or setup advice.
I've been using an Imacon 848 for close to a year and a half now but
just this week picked up a 5000 at a decent price with the intent of
setting it up at home to try to work through a huge logjam of 35mm
I've been getting killed,financially, on outsourcing my Imacon scans
for dustbusting and hoped that the 5000,with its ICE feature could at least
handle the 35mm portion of my backlog.

In brief,the finished scans are pretty decent (actually better than I had
anticipated) and ICE does work as advertized.Realistically,I don't think you
could use the scanner with ICE deselected as my early tests showed far,far
more dust,scratches than my Imacon when the feature was turned off.

Unless I was using it incorrectly,GEM,the grain reducing feature (I tried
settings in the range of 1 to 3) appeared to be a waste of a good scan as it
left very apparent artifacts when viewed at 100%.

Film flatness,even with 35mm,is a serious concern with this scanner and I
have yet to achieve a scan where the grain was uniformly sharp across the
entire frame.Very sharp in the center but the grain appears to 'smear' or
'stretch' in irregular patterns as it works it way out from the center.
There are those who have compared assorted 35mm mounts and determined that
some perform much better than others but I have yet to source them out so that
would likely improve the grain issue.

Imacon scans,with their dust problems,were a little bit more 'focussed'
and were grain sharp side to side and center to corner.
4000 dpi Imacon 848 scans took a little over a minute while the Nikon 5000
took well over 7-8 minutes per scan when ICE was applied.
The resulting Nikon scans were relatively dustfree but still required some
post scan cleaning up as ICE missed some film anomalies and occasionally would
leave a few funky artifacts.
From my experience,you'd be way further ahead(timewise) with the Nikon if your
transparencies were not completely clean or perhaps older with accumulated

If you have a large volume of images to scan and they are in relatively good
condition then I think one of the Imacon products would be better suited to
the task given the very significant difference in scan times.


P.S.-Genius's that they are,Nikon did not include a software CD with my 5000
but chose,instead to include a ver. 4.01 updater.

Mark Tomalty
Posted on Fri Jul 9, 2004 12:19 PM

> I am contemplating buying this scanner but since it is a bit new have held off to see what experience others have had with it.
> Can it be recommended? Can anyone point to any reviews. Thanks muchly for any help.


There is a very good review of the 4000ED (I know,not the 5000) at creativepro.com
that is authored by Bruce Fraser.
Much of what is reviewed would apply to the 5000


John MacLean
Posted on Fri Jul 9, 2004 1:25 PM


I got this scanner this year, and it's my first film scanner ever. Before I used West Coast Imaging for $40 8 bit drum scans, or A&I; with PhotoCD for website stuff.

Silverfast 6 and the Wolf Faust IT-8 S1 film targets www.targets.coloraid.de have nailed the color. I typically scan 1X, 16 bit, 4000ppi, ProPhoto RGB, using Wess 35mm Full-Frame Glassless Slide Mounts (#AGX 500K) http://tinyurl.com/2ughu which keeps the film very flat. The 10x15" @ 360ppi prints look pretty sharp on the edges. I'll typically use the Auto feature in Silverfast to get the Level/Curve setting, then I might tweak it. I found it's about the same as doing it in PS after from a non-Auto scan.

My observations are that I'm getting better scans on about 80% of my slides than I was with WCI. At least as far as having to tweak them to get the file to look like the chrome. And I like that ICE!


Nick Walker
Posted on Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:54 PM

I owned an Imacon Photo scanner but sold it in favour of the Nikon LS 8000 scanner to cover 35mm and medium format film. As I no longer shoot medium format film and favour EOS1ds files I have sold the Nikon 8000 scaner for the 5000 model to scan 35mm archived chrome stock.

I carried out test between the 8000 and 5000 scanner, both IT8 calibrated, using Silverfast. The Nikon 5000 is noticeably sharper than the 8000 as the light source is directly in line with the optics wheras the 8000 light source is piped in and therfore slightly softer.

I would not hesitate to recomend the 5000 even over an Imacon. I use Weiss AAX500K pin registerd slide mounts which provide better flatness than standard mounts and are true to the 35mm format. The only downside of these mounts is having to file the pins down slightly to prevent localised buckling due to the very tight fit.

The mounts reduce the out of focus edges that cheaper mounts often cause.


Nick Walker
Golf Picture Bank

Other Sections Available if you login:

August 2004
9 10 11 12 13 14
29 30 31        
September 2004
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
26 27 28 29 30    

Upcoming Events

...see more upcoming events

imagingrevue Members receive special discounts on most events listed in calendar


Copyright 2002-2003
Imaging Revue and Virtuaserve Inc. Online Media Division
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service