Robert McCarthy , Jan 20, 2005; 04:38 p.m.
After finally giving up on my HP S20 to yield a decent scan, I am in
the market for a new scanner. Did a lot of searching and saw a lot
of opinions, many conflicting, on what works best with Kodachrome.
The scanners of interest in my price range are the Minolta 5400,
Nikon V, and maybe the Canon FS4000.
The Nikon apparently has the most advanced version of ICE, and I have
seen maybe three mentions that it now works on Kodachrome, but
apparently no first hand use. Older versions most always are said to
not work on Kodachrome. Of course, as it happens the vast majority
of old slides I want to scan are indeed Kodachrome and many rather
nasty with old crud.
So, does anyone have actual experience using ICE4 on Kodachrome to
verify that it does work? If not, I might as well just get a Minolta
Dimage IV as I would be manually cleaning the things in PS anyway.
Ted Marcus , Jan 20, 2005; 05:27 p.m.
The Canon FS4000US is now discontinued, although some vendors may still advertise it. I use this scanner with Vuescan, which uses its own version of infrared cleaning algorithms instead of the proprietary ICE or FARE. Ed Hamrick has claimed that Vuescan's infrared cleaning does work with Kodachrome. I have found that it works inconsistently at best, and it seems to work better with the old K-12 Kodachrome than the current K-14 version. On some slides it works well, but on others it either produces smearing of details, odd artifacts, or (worst case)it produces smearing and artifacts while leaving dirt untouched! My approach was to scan each slide with infrared, and then save the scan twice, with and without cleaning (Vuescan lets you do that without re-scanning).
From the reviews I've seen of the new ICE that mention Kodachrome, it seems to work as inconsistently as Vuescan. That may be the best any infrared cleaning approach can manage. Try it and see whether you get lucky with a particular slide.
Kodachrome challenges scanners in other ways. It's denser than other films, so it shows sensor noise; multiple scanning passes can help with that. Shadows also tend to block up readily with even the slightest underexposure. And it can sometimes get strange color casts. Whatever scanner you choose, you'll have a lot of work.
Matthew Currie , Jan 20, 2005; 05:59 p.m.
When I updated the Nikon Scan software that came with my Coolscan IV, it started claiming it was "ICE4" but I don't know whether it really is or not. Anyway, ICE3 or 4, whichever it really is, has worked well for me on Kodachromes of various ages from 1945 to 1989. I have none newer than that, so can't say how they would work.
Some time ago, just to see how it really worked, I took a badly exposed Kodachrome slide and deliberately gouged it very deeply, and scanned it with and without ICE. A detail (of course dumbed down to low-DPI Jpeg) is shown here.
1978 vintage KChrome Without and with Ice
Mendel Leisk 
, Jan 20, 2005; 09:44 p.m.
I'm going through my slide collection chronologically, so haven't tested my Elite 5400 with ICE (not the newer version, I assume) on a lot of Kodachrome, but I did test scan a few. First off, there apparently are variations in Kodachrome make-up, so the results with ICE may vary. What I found so far, with the few I've tryed:
If I scanned with Infrared active, but without Grain Dissolver (a combo only possible with Vuescan), I got feather-edge artifacts at sharp dark-to-light boundaries. If I used GD, either through Vuescan with it's proprietory cleaning, or Minolta Scan Utility with ICE, those artifacts were gone. Bottom line, it appeared to work as well as any E6 process slide, WITH the Grain Dissolver on.
Also of note, the Minolta Scan Utility with ICE/GD did a much more complete and seamless cleaning job than Vuescan.
Les Sarile 
, Jan 21, 2005; 12:18 a.m.
Except for b&w film, I always have ICE on and found that it does not degrade the image any even at 800X magnification. However, of all the types/brands that I've scanned with this scanner, this film has been the only one that required color adjustments, Digital DEE and Analog Gain to more closely match what I see on the light table. Although the tweaking needed to get a successful scan is fairly minor, if the film is grossly underexposed, it is near impossible (takes a lot more work) to get an acceptable scan.
Click here for full res version here
Click here for full res version here
Additional full res Kodachrome as well as other types of films can be found on my Film 2 Album if you're interested.
Chiswick John , Jan 21, 2005; 06:44 a.m.
I thought it was only on the LS9000 that Nikon claimed ICE would work with Kodachrome.
P. S. , Jan 21, 2005; 08:26 a.m.
I just finished scanning 40 Kodachromes from the early 1980s with my Minolta 5400. ICE worked very well. There is a very small degree of softening of fine detail but quite acceptable.
Les Sarile , Jan 21, 2005; 09:49 a.m.
Forgot to state that ICE4 on the Coolscan 5000 works just fine on the Kodachrome setting . . .
Robert Martin , Jan 21, 2005; 10:28 a.m.
Nikon claims that ICE4 Professional works with Kodachrome. ICE4 Professional is only available on the Nikon 9000. I don't know what is different with Nikonscan when used with the V and 5000 models versus the 9000. I have the Nikon 9000, but am scanning color negatives and have only tried it on a few Kodachrome, which worked ok.
Robert McCarthy , Jan 21, 2005; 12:41 p.m.
I looked at Nikon's .pdf and it indeed only refers to Kodachrome and ICE4 Professional with the 9000. You guys have said the 5000 ICE4 works, IV with upgraded software works, and the V is same as the 5000 far as I can tell with ICE versions.
So, I took the plunge and ordered a V. The 5400 was quite a bit more expensive, and it sure looks like the V will do the job. Thanks for the info and help.
