# COOLSCAN IV ED (LS-40 ED)



## urbanist (Oct 30, 2015)

hi, im new here, so, hi again!  
I would like to buy a film scanner for 35 mm negative that will scan in high quality and possibly will be able to print big sizes like 50*60. 
Is this a good scanner, the seller offers it for about 500$. any opinions? Thanks.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2015)

Yes but that is over priced Nikon Coolscan IV LS-40 ED Slide & Film Scanner Tested & Works MA-20


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 30, 2015)

Yes it's a good scanner. $500.00 isn't overpriced -- it's laughably overpriced. They can sell for $200.00 but they often sell for under $100.00. If that's the scanner you want then be a little patient and get one off ebay for $75.oo.

If it is a IV ED then I believe the interface is USB. Make sure it's not a firewire interface unless you're prepared to deal with that. Many of the Nikon Coolscans are firewire.

How will you use it? Nikon no longer supports that scanner with driver software updates (many years now). What driver/software will you use?

50 x 60 from 35mm? Seriously?

Joe


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Yes it's a good scanner. $500.00 isn't overpriced -- it's laughably overpriced. They can sell for $200.00 but they often sell for under $100.00. If that's the scanner you want then be a little patient and get one off ebay for $75.oo.
> 
> If it is a IV ED then I believe the interface is USB. Make sure it's not a firewire interface unless you're prepared to deal with that. Many of the Nikon Coolscans are firewire.
> 
> ...



Vuescan


----------



## urbanist (Oct 30, 2015)

well, first of all, thanks for all the responds.  what the guy sent me to justify his price is this link ls40 coolscan | eBay
saying that it comes with all the accessories. 

My goal is to scan quite a lot of 35 mm negatives, for professional use, and if necessary, so to print any size that I will desire, when 50*60 is the maximum.

I know that nikon is no longer produce or support the scanners, but I read somewhere that todys 35 film scanners doesnt come close to theirs.

Any opinions?

Thanks.


----------



## urbanist (Oct 30, 2015)

and on amazon it is being sold in 648$ Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Nikon Coolscan IV ED USB Film Scanner

so...


----------



## cgw (Oct 30, 2015)

No service, parts or support from Nikon on any Coolscans. Move along to something newer.


----------



## sabbath999 (Oct 30, 2015)

Honestly, I would get an Epson V series scanner, like a V850. Modern, supported, good software and you are not limited to dinky little 35mm negatives. 

When it comes to high-quality scans, go big or go home... The smallest I shoot for high-quality wallhangers negative-wise is 6x7, although I am as likely to whip out my 6x9 if I am REALLY wanting to blow one up big. 

35mm is a "miniature format". 120 is a "normal size" format when it comes to enlargments of any size.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 30, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it's a good scanner. $500.00 isn't overpriced -- it's laughably overpriced. They can sell for $200.00 but they often sell for under $100.00. If that's the scanner you want then be a little patient and get one off ebay for $75.oo.
> ...



That's another $90.00.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 30, 2015)

urbanist said:


> well, first of all, thanks for all the responds.  what the guy sent me to justify his price is this link ls40 coolscan | eBay
> saying that it comes with all the accessories.
> 
> My goal is to scan quite a lot of 35 mm negatives, for professional use, and if necessary, so to print any size that I will desire, when 50*60 is the maximum.
> ...



Today's scanners do come close, more than close enough. You can buy a new Epson V200 for under $250.00. You won't have connection or software issues and you won't need to purchase 3rd party software.

You're new here (welcome) and I don't want to offend you, but if you're really thinking of enlarging 35mm originals to 50 x 60 then the subtle distinctions in scanner performance should be meaningless to you.

Joe


----------



## Dave442 (Oct 30, 2015)

I would also suggest a new model. Too many issues with connections, support, drivers, etc with old computer hardware. Now you could always buy both.


----------



## urbanist (Oct 31, 2015)

all right, thanks everybody. 

Jo, you said something about subtle distinctions. what do you mean by that? is the quality of the photo will be bad?
what is the maximum size its best to print from a scanned 35 film that wouldn't make the photo look bad , i.e. with pixels?

By the way, I have epson 4490 and the quality is ok, but I'm wondering which one will give me better results.
So there is several scanners of epson v, like 200, 500, 600, 700, 750, 800. 
Is there a bigh difference between them?

thanks, 
victor.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 31, 2015)

urbanist said:


> all right, thanks everybody.
> 
> Jo, you said something about subtle distinctions. what do you mean by that? is the quality of the photo will be bad?
> what is the maximum size its best to print from a scanned 35 film that wouldn't make the photo look bad , i.e. with pixels?
> ...



By subtle distinctions I mean quality differences in the scans between different hardware. Scanner performance differences deal with resolution, focus/sharpness, color rendition, and tonal range. We want the scanner to give us a sharp detailed scan with faithful color and a full range of tonality. A further complication will be the software that controls the scanner. Unfortunately many scanners are sold with poor software and/or software that's designed for the consumer market and in fact interferes with getting the most out of the scanner. Gary noted Vuescan as a software option. It's very good (much better than Epson software) but more money to spend. If you know what you're doing you can usually make the OEM software work but many people don't know what they're doing. A lot of the complaints I see about Epson V series scanner performance are really complaints about how the software sucks and the user doesn't know how to get around that.

The Epson V series are much better than the 4490. Differences in the various V series scanners are mostly age/model differences and options differences. Performance is very similar across the entire line. For example the 800 models are replacements for the 700 models. The top of the line 850 has a full size lighted lid so that it can scan your 8 x 10 sheet film. Got a lot of that? The 200 has a strip light in the lid that can only scan 120 and smaller film and so you're stuck with no way to get all your 4 x 5 sheet film scanned. Big problem for you? The 200 can only scan two strips of 35mm at a time instead of a full page and so on.

You got the subtle distinctions remark from me and "go big" comment from sabbath999 because we think 50 x 60 from a 35mm original is past the limits of "pushed to the limit." This is a very difficult issue to give you any kind of a solid answer. Enlarging the size of a photo is a process that degrades the quality of the photo. For example Edward Weston simply wouldn't do it at all and instead made contact prints from 8 x 10 negatives. Think of that as the extreme position on one end. Few of us are that extreme, but 50 x 60 from 35mm is certainly towards the other end of that scale. I'm pretty conservative and so if I knew I wanted prints in that size I'd be shooting bigger film. If I had only 35mm originals I'd make smaller prints, but you're not me and you'll have to find the limits that satisfy you.

Here's a real 35mm example: http://photojoes.net/columbine_4000.jpg

The film is low ISO (100) Fuji RDP. That's a 4000 ppi scan. That's already overkill. At about 3000 ppi you reach the point of diminishing returns for film. In other words you're scanning the film grain at that point and there's not much advantage to trying to scan in between the film grains  That's the full image uncropped and let's say you want to print it. At 300 ppi which is the standard for high quality print output you're going to get a 16 x 20 print. To print any larger you have to lower the ppi of the image. At 225 ppi you can get a 20 x 30 print. Arguably the difference between 300 and 225 is pretty minor to negligible, but we're no where near 50 x 60 yet -- you'll have to drop to 100 ppi to get there and most people will tell you that dropping below 150 ppi is the cut off point for acceptable. Scanning at higher resolutions is just faking it (4000 ppi is already faking it) since there's really nothing more there to scan so how do you get to 50 x 60.

That slide was scanned on an Epson V 750 in my office. You'll get the same result from any of the Epson V series.

Joe


----------



## Dikkie (Dec 29, 2015)

I have such a scanner.
Bought it like 12 years ago or so... For € 300 I think..

Keep in mind the drivers may not work anymore on newer operating systems.
With the original software, I cannot get it to work in Windows 7.
I have to use Hamrick's Viewscan software to get it to work.
Scans like 2500 dpi too, don't know if that will do for a 50*60 print.

The specific Nikon's Digital Roc and Digital ICE functions are not possible to enable with the Viewscan software.


----------



## Beverley (Feb 25, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> urbanist said:
> 
> 
> > all right, thanks everybody.
> ...


Hi Joe - I am just looking through this forum and looking at where VueScan has been mentioned... I am responsible for the marketing of VueScan so just thought I would add that if you - or anyone else  -had any questions they would like to ask me  please go ahead, I may not be able to answer them immediately - but I will be able to find out  Thanks, Beverley.


----------



## xenskhe (Feb 29, 2016)

urbanist said:


> what is the maximum size its best to print from a scanned 35 film that wouldn't make the photo look bad , i.e. with pixels?


 IMO, with small format 14x11". Not more than ten times enlargement max. - assuming a good scan, very sharp neg or suits the subject matter/grain.


----------

