The slide feeder only works with the 4000 and 5000. The 8000 and 9000 are
generally for medium format film.
On Sep 18, 2012 8:23 AM, "Shai Drori" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> What about thee cool scan 8000? I thought it is a better choice?
> Shai
>
> Sent from my ringing donkey
>
> On 18 בספט 2012, at 16:21, Randy Lane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > A Nikon Coolscan 5000 is your best bet. It is really the only one to ever
> > have an optional slide feeder, which will cost you an extra $300-500.
> > Expensive, yes. But, they hold their value. Buy one, even used, slide
> your
> > clooection, then resell it and you likely have very little if any loss -
> > you may even sell it for more than you paid. The CoolScan 4000 will work
> > also, but you MUST have a firewire port, as it does not support USB.
> >
> > There is also the flatbed option, for which slide holders capable of
> batch
> > scanning up to 15 slides are available. My recommendation there is the
> > Epson Perfection V700 or V750. Like the Nikon, both of those come with
> > Digital Ice infrared scatch removal - a critical element as even the best
> > slides have imperfections. Infrared scratch removal examines the surface
> of
> > rthe slide itself for imperfections. Other solutions examine the photo
> > itself to determine what is a scratch; with those solutions many items
> > meant to be in the picture get mistaken for scratches or dust.
> >
> > One other recommendation - do NOT use the bundled software that comes
> > withthe scanner, even SilverFast. Get VueScan (
> > http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html ). I am the restoration artist in you
> Tom
> > will be much much happier with this software. You've used enough audio
> > restoration software to know that the easiest/simplest solution most
> always
> > produces poor quality, unwanted distortions, and more. Like better audio
> > restoration software, VueScan has a learning curve, but the results are
> > well worth the effort. And, very importantly, VueScan lets you save the
> > "RAW" scanned information without applying any correction effects, much
> > like you would first record an LP and save the raw unretouched audio file
> > separate from that which you apply restorative effects to later. My
> > workflow with VueScan involves starting  the raw scan, usually in batch
> > mode as you've expressed a desire for, set to save the results to a file
> > that inculdes teh infrared data embedded in the file. VueScan can then,
> one
> > at a time with you at the helm, reload each file and apply color
> balancing,
> > scratch removal, etc (the equivalent of DSP) and see the reults before
> > saving you final file. The raw scan file can be saved and reprocessed at
> a
> > later time (no scanner neessary, just VueScan) should you desire to
> revisit
> > the it to apply the digital effect a little differently.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All:
> >>
> >> This kinda relates to ARSC because I'm sure all of us have dabbled in
> >> multi-media at one point or another.
> >>
> >> I have a bunch of 35mm slides I'd like to digitize. They are all good
> >> condition and almost all are Kodachrome or whatever the film type was
> that
> >> holds color and doesn't fade. So they are vivid and not scratched or
> dirty,
> >> despite being 50-60 years old.
> >>
> >> Back the last time I thought about this, years ago, a Nikon scanner with
> >> an auto-feed mechanism cost a small fortune and took several minutes per
> >> slide (this was back in the early Pentium IV days). I have a faster
> >> computer now (Dell Precision Workstation T3400 with loads of memory and
> >> fast hard drives), and am wondering what the recommended hardware
> options
> >> are. I'm not wedded to Nikon, but I do want a solid scanner with an
> >> excellent auto-feed mechanism. I'd love to load in a few dozen slides
> and
> >> set-and-forget, with the scanner software writing some sort of non-lossy
> >> format (PSD, TIFF or something else). I'll then look at the results in
> my
> >> image-viewing software and decide which warrant further Photoshop work.
> >> Ideally, the scanner would be unlike my Epson large-format scanner in
> that
> >> it turns out a nicely contrasted/nicely-color-**balanced image from the
> >> getgo and doesn't require Photoshop in most cases.
> >>
> >> I notice there are a variety of slide scanners on the market, varying
> >> widely in price. I don't have to go dirt-cheap, but I want value if I
> pay
> >> extra, not just a brand name. I need "good quality personal-use
> strength"
> >> not "industrial strength." Total project will be a few hundred slides,
> not
> >> thousands and not intending to use this thing every day for years.
> >>
> >> Recommendations appreciated. Thanks in advance!
> >>
> >> -- Tom Fine
> >>
>