I wrote an earlier post about a problem I was having with strange artifacts
appearing on slide scans using Vuescan IR cleaning and an Epson 4990 Photo
flatbed. Someone asked if they were Kodachrome (they were) cuz they've
been known to have problems with IR cleaning. Some captures:

no IR cleaning:

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/e...22/IR-none.jpg

with IR cleaning:

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/e...2/IR-light.jpg

My new question is does Nikon Coolscans with Digital ICE have the same
problem? Have people had good or bad results with Kodachrome slides on
Coolscans? Does it matter if you use Vuescan or the OEM software? In other
words, is the problem with how Vuescan handles Kodachromes or is it the
IR/Digital ICE technology that has problems with Kodachromes?

I have a bunch of Kodachrome slides and don't want to invest in a Coolscan
if it also has problems with Kodachromes.

Thanks!!

In article <Xns99FAC89303CCBmeherecom@63.218.45.254>, me@here.com
says...
ICE (and FARE) have probs with Kodachrome.

It's said the latest version of ICE is better, I don't know.

It also depends on the vintage of Kodachrome. It also depends on the
quality of the Kodachrome processing, as less than optimal film
processing left silver content in the emulsion, giving at least the same
partial probs ICE has with silver based films.

I have used Vuescan's IR Clean with Coolscan 2000 with good results on
some Kodachrome vintages.

But all in all, I think it's safe to say that no version of IR Cleaning
is without problems with all Kodachromes.

MM

Hi

I think what you've found is simmilar to this

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/rev...tecoolscan.htm

their findings suggested that for a primairlly kodachrome scanning that the
Minolta did better

hth
In article <Xns99FAC89303CCBmeherecom@63.218.45.254>, me <me@here.com> wrote:
See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)

Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer
Motorcyclist and dingbat

please remove undies for reply

"Obakesan" <pellicleundies@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K7Q4j.69$Wr.54@read4.inet.fi...
Hi.

I use a Minolta 5400 Film Scanner, and Kodachromes are still very iffy.

I am very happy with it, because most of my slides were taken on Fuji Films.
I gave up on Kodak because the person with the red pen seemed to always be
picking on my best slides.

Roy G

On Dec 2, 7:43 pm, me <m...@here.com> wrote:

My Epson has DI4 and it works Ok for Kodachromes, I only use it if I
need it since it doubles scanning time.

Tom

pellicleundies@hotmail.com (Obakesan) wrote in
news:K7Q4j.69$Wr.54@read4.inet.fi:

Excellent article, thanks for sharing. The one thing missing in their
comparison of the Nikon and the Minolta was scan times. The little chart
said 60 secs for Minolta and 20 secs for the Nikon Coolscan, but I have a
suspicion that's without ICE. Can someone give me an idea how long it
takes to scan slides using either the Nikon or Minolta with ICE engaged and
scanning at 2400-3000 dpi, including whether you're using the OEM software
or Vuescan?

For comparison, I currently have an Epson 4990 and when I scan at 2400 dpi
using Vuescan with IR cleaning, it takes about 3 mins per slide. If I use
Epsons OEM software and ICE, it takes about 6 mins per slide. How much
quicker are the Nikon and Minolta?

Thanks!

yes, generally. The issue is a conflict between some films and IR
scanning. The answer may be to simply turn off Digital ICE and do only
a visible light scan.


me wrote:

Hi

google is your friend

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008cCM

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D7qI

hth


In article <Xns99FB815267F58meherecom@63.218.45.254>, me <me@here.com> wrote:
See Ya
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)

Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer
Motorcyclist and dingbat

please remove undies for reply

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4754e39d$0$2480$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

It would be the answer, but the Kodachrome slides will need to be very
clean.

Mark K.

me <me@here.com> wrote in news:Xns99FAC89303CCBmeherecom@63.218.45.254:


Just wanted to thank everyone who responded to my post. I did some more
investigation and wanted to pass along some info in case anyone does a
search on this subject in the future. I talked to a tech person at
Nikon and their official position is that if you scan Kodachrome's on
the Coolscan 5000ED, they recommend turning the Digital ICE off. The
Coolscan 5000 Users Manual warns that scanning Kodachrome film can
result in "blurring or localized loss of detail". However, the Coolscan
9000ED with "Digital Ice Professional" is marketed in their sales
materials as being compatible with Kodachrome films "in most scenes".
The Nikon techie said the 9000ED works most (but not all) of the time
with Kodachrome.

Since the 9000ED is a bit out of my price range, I'm now looking for a
scanning service that uses the 9000ED for Kodachrome slides. Dig My
Pics does have 9000's but they reserve them solely for medium format
film and scan all slides (including Kodachromes) on the 5000. If they
have problems with Kodachrome, they simply turn the ICE off. Scancafe
does scan Kodachromes on the 9000 but they ship the slides to India and
turnaround is like 8-10 weeks. So, I'm looking for a domestic scanning
service that uses the 9000 on Kodachromes. If anyone knows of one off
hand, I'd appreciate the info. Thanks again!

me wrote:

Send 'em to me, I'll only charge ya a fortune. (9000ED).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Dec 4, 3:38 pm, "Mark Kelepouris" <wmarkwkell...@wbigpond.com>
wrote:
And those card mounts (if the slides are of that vintage) make getting
a very clean slide very difficult - they always seem to be shedding
dust, especially the square-cornered ones from 30 years ago. The
later round-cornered ones seem a little better, but plastic mounts are
better again.