top | item 34525219

(no title)

I used to work in a photo studio in Germany, we had 2 of these and the predecessor to the Hasselblad/Imacon X1. The difference between them was amazing. I'd still love to have one of those Coolscan 9000s, they are great machines. Even back then (around 2004) we used Vuescan for the Nikons. It was already an issue to get up to date drivers for our Macs.

discuss

pimlottc|3 years ago

It’s not clear from this post which was better, the Nikon or the Hasselblad?

buildbot|3 years ago

The Hasselblad. They are considered to be as close to drum scans as scanners can get.

ChrisMarshallNY|3 years ago

The X1 was probably better, as it was a [almost] drum scanner.

But scanner tech seems to have basically "hit a wall," in the last decade, or so. Not many advancements in the imaging. I think digicams and pure digital images/documents have made it difficult to justify the cost of developing them.

beezle|3 years ago

I think the Nikon was 4000 dpi so imagine he means Hasselblad

keithbingman|3 years ago

Sorry, yeah I meant the Hasselblad. The Imacon we had was quite old, but it was an amazing scanner.

staticautomatic|3 years ago

I worked in a multimedia lab that had one. Great scanner but god help you if you turned off the automatic dust removal.

fmajid|3 years ago

VueScan did not support Digital ICE4, which was the only way to scan Kodachromes with automatic dust removal using the infrared channel (Kodachrome is opaque to the infrared LED used on the Coolscan V ED or 5000 ED). Only Nikon Scan did, and possibly SilverFast (Digital ICE was invented by Applied Science Fiction, a subsidiary of Kodak).