batch scanning with Kodak RFS 3600 filmscanner

[jan lameer]

Hi!
While I am writing this message, my new scanner is automatically scanning a whole 36 pics filmroll.
Actually, it is not MY scanner, I have it on loan from Kodak for a few months.
The quality of this scanner is just amazing, it shows subtle colors in my aurora negatives that I haven't seen before. Needless to say that I will rescan all my negatives, at 12 times multiscanning into 50 MB files...

It is a pity that the scanner has no dust removel, this means a lot of retouching. It gives a sharper image though.
But at least the scanning goes automatical. It takes about ten minutes to prepare and after that I can do other things.
I should try and find out now about software that automatically registers the images.
I have quite a few 10 meters rolls with 250 images of aurora, typical exposure time 6 or 10 seconds per image at 3200 ISO at 24 mm f/2.

JanL

[Heiko]

Hallo Jan,

weisst Du was der FFS 3600 kostet ?
Ich wuerde mich freuen, wenn Du mal einen Probescan ins Netz stellen koenntest.

Gruss Heiko

[jan lameer]

Hallo Heiko!

The RFS 3600 costed about 1500 Euro but is on sale now for 900 Euro or even less. It will be discontinued soon (not enough buyers).
The scanner never became very popular, probably because there is no scratch and dust removal plus the fact that the first software with it had bugs. But it ranks as one of the best, especially because of its optics. Users see almost no difference with drum scans.

I'll see if I can put a scan on Internet, I doubt that the subtle details will show though. For me the batch scanning is just fantastic.

[Dieter Raith]

Hallo Jan,
das Mass aller Dinge soll jedoch der Nikon ED 2000 sein. Laut Tests vieler Fotozeitschriften das beste gerade auf dem Markt. Auch er verarbeitet Stapel. Mal sehen wenn ich mal an dem Teil etwas scannen kann, zeige ich es Dir. Mit 3200 ASA Filmen arbeitest Du? Was siehst Du da noch? Ameisenrennen
Gruß Dieter

[jan lameer]

Hallo Dieter
3200 ISO is not so bad, considering that the output in the end will be only 720 x 576 pixel TV at 25 frames per second.
I scan at 1800 dpi, getting a 12 MB file. This has a horizontal resolution of a little over 2500 pixels. The special effects of the cinema movie Lords of the Rings were done in the computer at a horizontal resolution of 2000 pixels (called 2K).

At the various editing steps I will slowly rescale and resample, so grain will dissappear.
This sort of images are different than a photograph that you look at for a long time.

That Nikon scanner might be heaven indeed, I haven't seen it yet. Must be 2000 Euro or so ?

greetings, JanL

[udo, dk5ya]

> Hallo Jan,
> das Mass aller Dinge soll jedoch der Nikon ED 2000 sein.

Oops, ED 2000? You're sure? Never heard about that one. State of the
Art is Nikon Coolscan LS 4000ED, this is THE ONE! Batch scan running
50 in a row, fantastic ICE feature. Never (!) buy a scanner without
this feature.

I call a LS-40 my own which is a very good one too (no batch scan
feature) and I was really surprised with my first Aurora scans.
Suddenly I had details I've never seen before. Amazing. Even your
positive is featured with scratches (arrgh) you ain't gonna see them
anymore, thanks ICE .

Never tried to scan 3600 ISO's, will do that soon and let you guys
know.

Udo

[Dieter Raith]

Re: ED 4000 war gemeint, sorry *o.T.*

[jan lameer]

In the pro film lab that I visit often, I heard that this nikon 4000 indeed is the "first real film scanner".
Fromwhat I read on the internet, the Kodak RFS 3600 is even a little better optically.
But the lack of scratch and dust control is a serious dawback. It is just so very easy for most images.