Nikon Coolscan settings question

For those who have been using the Nikon scanners I'm wondering what kind of settings you have settled on as far as ICE, GEM and sharpening go. I've been using a Polaroid for a couple of years and am loving the clean scans that don't need dust spotting!!! I know that Tim Gray has suggested general settings but paid little attention to them at the time. Thanks.

Here's what I'm setting for a full, archival scan. Media type: Positive. Color Model: Calibrated RGB. Under Preferences: Set Gamma to 2.2 (Windows) or 1.8 (Mac); check "Use Custom Profile" under "Monitor" and be sure to choose the latest profile for your monitor; choose Adobe RGB (1998) under "RGB." Tools: Resolution 4,000 dpi. Unsharp Mask: 20/10/3. Enable Digital ICE. Enable Post Processing and set Digital GEM to 4 (controversial--many claim this softens image too much, but I much prefer minimized grain). Multi-sampling: 1x (extra sampling slows down scan dramatically without any noticeable benefit). Scan Bit Depth: 14.

Cliff Beittel wrote:Here's what I'm setting for a full, archival scan. Media type: Positive. Color Model: Calibrated RGB. Under Preferences: Set Gamma to 2.2 (Windows) or 1.8 (Mac); check "Use Custom Profile" under "Monitor" and be sure to choose the latest profile for your monitor; choose Adobe RGB (1998) under "RGB." Tools: Resolution 4,000 dpi. Unsharp Mask: 20/10/3. Enable Digital ICE. Enable Post Processing and set Digital GEM to 4 (controversial--many claim this softens image too much, but I much prefer minimized grain). Multi-sampling: 1x (extra sampling slows down scan dramatically without any noticeable benefit). Scan Bit Depth: 14.

Thanks Cliff. That pretty much clinches it. Those are EXACTLY the settings that a friend suggested as a good starting point and both you and he consistantly produce superior scans. The only difference is I now have the 5000 and would select 16 bit. There is also a new setting that is similar to the shadow/highlight tool in PS that I haven't yet played with.

Thanks agian.

Jim Zipp wrote:. . . now have the 5000 and would select 16 bit. . . .

Funny, I came back just now after it occurred to me 14 was incorrect for you. What size file do you get at 16?

Cliff Beittel wrote: What size file do you get at 16?

102.5MB. I have't tried any really challenging slides yet to scan but haven't found any need for using curves etc. I also have to experiment on using the USM in "fine" and "normal" mode too. Don't know if that was on the 4000.

Jim Zipp wrote:. . . have to experiment on using the USM in "fine" and "normal" mode too. Don't know if that was on the 4000.

No, it isn't. About the file sizes--a full, out-of-the-mount scan at 14 bits on the Coolscan 4000 runs about 118 MB. So 102 MB at 16 bits must be a crop?

Thank you for the timely information Cliff, as I received my 5000 two days ago. The setting information has produced better scans, and the fact that you needn't scan at 16X or 8X to get fine scans, has saved me from buying a faster computer unnecessarily. I was about to, when scanning a full frame slide at 16X was about 20-25 minutes. Scanning a mounted slide at 16 bit produces approximately a 130 mb file. Wicked!

Buy the way, your cover shot is breathtaking.

Mark,

Thanks. Don't know what computer you are running, but I'm thinking I can't get enough computer power, given the ability to do all Photoshop work at 16 bits. Add a couple layers, and suddenly you have a 500+ MB file!

Cliff Beittel wrote: About the file sizes--a full, out-of-the-mount scan at 14 bits on the Coolscan 4000 runs about 118 MB. So 102 MB at 16 bits must be a crop?

Cliff,
Of course you are right. 12 bit scans from my Polaroid are 113MB so that doesn't make sense at all. I'll have to see what the reason for the 102 is when I get home tonight. I must have set something wrong because there was no crop other than what is under the mount! Thanks.

131MB file at full size. Somehow I had cropped one scan a bit and it defaulted to that crop on the next one. Just getting used to the new software.

Be sure you have Digital ICE on "Normal". I use Cliff's settings, and add 20% of DEE on most slides (Gamma to bring out a little more shadow detail).

sveingud wrote:Be sure you have Digital ICE on "Normal". I use Cliff's settings, and add 20% of DEE on most slides (Gamma to bring out a little more shadow detail).

Thanks I'll try that. I just tried that and with DEE on the process runs smoothly untill I get a popup that says there has been an error in post processing. Guess I'll have to try and reinstall the software and see if that helps.

Cliff Beittel wrote:Here's what I'm setting for a full, archival scan. Media type: Positive. Color Model: Calibrated RGB. Under Preferences: Set Gamma to 2.2 (Windows) or 1.8 (Mac); check "Use Custom Profile" under "Monitor" and be sure to choose the latest profile for your monitor; choose Adobe RGB (1998) under "RGB." Tools: Resolution 4,000 dpi. Unsharp Mask: 20/10/3. Enable Digital ICE. Enable Post Processing and set Digital GEM to 4 (controversial--many claim this softens image too much, but I much prefer minimized grain). Multi-sampling: 1x (extra sampling slows down scan dramatically without any noticeable benefit). Scan Bit Depth: 14.

Hey Cliff,

My setup in PS (using 5.5) is Colormatch RGB. Should I use that with the scanning software too? Or should I change my P/S setup to Adobe RGB 1988? I'm a Mac. If I use Adobe RGB in my Photoshop preferences, should I then change the Gamma to 1.8 (where it becomes a custom setup)?

Thanks

Carl

Carl,

I'm no expert--I've just read Tim Grey's DDQ mailings and experimented from there to find what works for me. Tim actually recommends you scan in Adobe RGB or (his preference) Scanner RGB. When I tried Scanner RGB, it was awful, but I may retry it now that my monitor is the "right" luminence. But if you use Colormatch in Photoshop, then scanning in Colormatch makes sense to me. I don't know the sure answer on Gamma, but again, it makes sense to match the Mac's 1.8.

hey cliff,

thanks a lot man .. i appreciate it. I'll keep fooling around with it.

Cheers

Carl