35mm scan images for Aperture

Scanning is very slow, so to be feasible for large slide volumes you do need to batch scan. Even then be aware that it is a very slow process, slow enough that I shoot (fast, Nikon D2x 105mm macro) copy shots of slides on a light table jig for image databasing purposes. Only if I sell specific work do I go to the effort of high resolution (Nikon 8000ED) slide scanning.

The 5000ED with batch loader is excellent. I am unfamiliar with the Powerslide, but my guess is that like always you get what you pay for...

Good luck!

-Allen Wicks

You might want to try out ScanCafe before buying the hardware and making thousands of scans yourself.

http://www.scancafe.com/

Hi, just like to chip in with my positives for the Nikon Coolscans. I always feel like a shill when doing this, but they're great at what they do.

At my job I use a Coolscan 9000 and we also have a 5000, both excellent scanners. The only reason for going with the 9000 is that I have to scan medium format film, up to 6x17.
In the 18 months we have had the 9000, I have put over 3500 scans through it (80% 35mm). The results are amazing, but it's up to you to produce those results, you cannot rely on post-scan in Aperture only to fix underexposure etc.

The 5000 produces the same quality from 35mm and the bulk loader is handy. The only caveat to this is that the mounts need to be of similar thickness with no labels half peeling off etc, otherwise it will jam, not jam and ruin the film, just get stuck.

The amount that can be done per day all depends on how much adjustment the film needs pre and post, but with ideal circumstances I can get around 100 35mm 4000ppi scans done in an 8 hour day, this means that they're scanned, corrected, output as lowres and archived, this is on the 9000, it may be more on the 5000.

The scans we produce are used in a wide variety of formats, from the web to A1 posters.
If your images are valuable and you have the time, scanning yourself (or delegating to someone you trust) would be a much better option than sending to an outside service provider.

Scanning can seem tedious, but the satisfaction of rescuing a degraded piece of film is well worth the effort.

cheers,
Greg.

I can't say for sure. What I can say is if you're going to scan them, you should use the Nikon scanner or you should sub out the work (who will use the Nikon scanner).

The Nikon scanner really is very, very good. I'd say, it's not really worth looking for alternatives, unless you wanted to go for a drum or Imacon scanner.

a little more info for you.

1. if you're scanning negative film, you'll get better batch scanning success with the slide adapter. we tried the film roll adapter but the software was not able to accurately determine the edges of the frames. with the slide adapter (and mounting all of the negatives as if they were slides), that edge determination problem went away and we can now begin a scan of 50 frames with confidence.

2. I use SilverFast. it's excellent software with options that will really help you to get the most out of your film. we typically scan using multi-scan 4x or better for greater dynamic range. SilverFast is also compatible with Leopard (although I haven't tested it fully yet), which brings me to the next point.

3. Nikon is giving up on the Mac market as far as scanners go. Much of their software has not been and will not be updated for Leopard or Intel. scanning professionals are advising people to look at other alternatives. many of the bed scanners with transparency functionality are now very good, offering excellent focus and excellent dynamic range, and templates/software that allow you to scan multiple strips at the same time.

4. SilverFast offers JPEG2000 compression, and Leopard/Aperture is now compatible with JPEG2000 which is an option if you want the best possible compression while retaining image quality.

I probably have a few more tips but they've escaped me for the moment ;–)

cheers,
Gregory

so that I'm not causing unnecessary panic, I double-checked via the Nikon support site.

Nikon Scan 4.0.2 is the current version. the 4.0.2 updater on my Mac is dated 9 April 2004!

so yes, I was generally correct in my statement. note though that I'm referring to Nikon's scanners, not their cameras, etc.

for a long time, SilverFast were forced by license to use the Nikon Scanner MAID libraries. I discovered at least one bug in that library which prevented use of the slide adapter under OS X/Intel. that bug was never fixed. fortunately, Nikon has stated its intention to give up scanning support, and SilverFast is no longer required to use the MAID libraries. they now have their own code (which I might test today if I can push myself to get the 4000ED out of the drawer).

cheers,
Gregory



• SilverFast's announcement regarding Nikon Scanner support in Leopard.
• Nikon's announcement to no longer support its scanners on the Mac.

it looks pretty good. and I'd be glad to know that it supports FireWire because more and more scanners don't support FireWire which I prefer over USB.

and SilverFast supports it, although it apparently runs under Rosetta. there's a demo just in case you want to give it a try ;–) that D4.0 range will become even larger.

cheers,
Gregory