Slide Scanner

[JoshFink]

I've just recently inherited about 2000 slides from my dad and I'd like to scan them in and sort through them. I know I can ship them out to a company to do it but I would like to do it myself.

Can anyone recommend a good slide scanner and that is reasonably fast and has some kind of correction such as ICE4?

Thanks

Josh

 

[pdxflint]

I don't know who all is still making dedicated film scanners anymore besides Nikon, but you might want to take a look at either of these:

COOLSCAN V ED

Super COOLSCAN 5000 ED

I'm not sure what you can get them for new these days, but I bought a Coolscan V for $599 at Pro Photo Supply in Portland over a year ago. It does take some time and patience to deal with old slides, but I don't really see any other way to digitize them. It's not a bad project to take on during those nights when you would otherwise be watching bad tv or screwing around surfing the web... Anyway, good luck and have fun.

PS: the file sizes you will get are much larger than from digital cameras, so have some good hard drive storage space available.

 

[jamesarm97]

I have all my mom's old slides that I have been wanting to scan for years. I have looked out for good deals on slide scanners on ebay. Most of the cheap ones are slow. I finally broke down a few weeks ago and took the easy, but pretty good quality road. I setup the slide projector and used a white foamcore board for the screen. Setup my Olympus digital SLR and just took photos of the slide. Went pretty fast.

 

[Lucifer_sam]

I have just received some old slide of my mother. Can you get decent scans of slides without a dedicated slide scanner? Will just a regular scanner do? I am a grad student so I have a very limited budget.

Thanks

 

[Lovesong]

A Nikon Coolscan is the way to go for all this. I've been working with a 5000 (which is 16 bit, vs the V, which is 14 bit) for a couple of months now, and the quality is impecable. Forget about the flatbed scanner- the pictures lack sharpness, dynamic range, and appear "smudged," for a lack of a better expression.

Scanning does take time, practice, and A LOT of post processing to get decent results, especially with negatives. Slides are a bit easier, but they also tend to have quite a bit more dust and scratches. One thing you will notice is that there will be quite a bit of grain, which will induce a lot of noise in your images. It's a fine act to balance noise with sharpness in PS.

 

[JoshFink]

Thanks all for the responses.. The big thing seems to be finding a dedicated film scanner for the MAC. I'll check into the Nikon's.. .Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Nikon 5000 come out about 3 years ago?

Josh

 

[Father Jack]

I have just received some old slide of my mother. Can you get decent scans of slides without a dedicated slide scanner? Will just a regular scanner do? I am a grad student so I have a very limited budget.

Thanks

Yes a regular flatbed scanner with the light hood will do fine as long as the optical resolution is at least 3000 ppi ..

 

[Lovesong]

Thanks all for the responses.. The big thing seems to be finding a dedicated film scanner for the MAC. I'll check into the Nikon's.. .Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Nikon 5000 come out about 3 years ago?

Josh

Yes, that sounds about right (3 years or so). This doesn't mean that it isn't still top of the line.

BTW- most ANY film scanner you get will work with a mac. Relax.

 

[rjphoto]

2000 slides!

2000 slides are going to take a while.

Unless you need ALL of them do some editing before you start scanning.

I bought a the MicroTek 35T YEARS AGO. It did a great job on color but it was SLOW... Anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes depending on resolution.

I know the new scanners like the Nikon are faster (and cheaper.)

Another option is a flat bed with a Transpanecy adapter (like the the good Father mentioned). I know Epson and HP make them. I've used the HP that one of my co-workers has, but I'm not sure what the model numbers are. (Sorry, I don't have time to look them up right now.)

But if you want really good reproduction grade scans stick with the Nikon.

For cheap, quick capture though, like jamesarm97 said, the projector and foam core idea will work... A little PhotoShop work will do wonders for color saturation.

For large volume high quality images I've been using my old 35mm duplicator and my S2Pro, then running the images through PhotoShop for color balance and clean-up. For most of what I do like making a DVD for someone to show at a family get together it works.

 

[phunque]

Slide Scanner Options

Here are a couple of links to other Mac-compatible slide scanners --

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=F1800I&cat=SCN

http://www.amazon.com/Minolta-DiMAGE-Scan-Dual-Scanner/dp/B00004XS38

Hope this offers some other worthwhile choices.

By the way, don't bother with the VuPrint Scanner being offered by Hammacher-Schlemmer and Nat Geo for $100. While it does a pretty good job, it is compatible ONLY with Windows XP and nothing else.

-- Phunque

 

[Doylem]

Knowing nothing about scanning, I finally stumped up for a Nikon Coolscan VED. I have a lot of transparencies to 'digitise, so it's a good job for those long winter evenings.

It's a terrific machine. To scan, just push a slide into the slot and watch it appear on the screen. Magic! Quality is stupendous. I wondered how much detail I'd be able to capture from a 35mm slide, but I needn't have worried.

The Coolscans seem to hold their value on eBay. If you buy one, keep the box and packaging... expect to get back two-thirds of what you paid for it.

 

[ChrisA]

I setup the slide projector and used a white foamcore board for the screen. Setup my Olympus digital SLR and just took photos of the slide. Went pretty fast.

Quality suffers a bit if you try that method.

1. Slide projectors normally do not have the best quality lenses
   
2. No automatic dust and scratch removal like ICE would give you
   
3. The DSLR does not have enough resolution to capture all the detail in a 35mm slide. Slides are still higher quality then DSLR files. This will remain true untill we have a 24 megapixel full frame DSLR.

If you must shoot the slides with a DSLR they make slide holders that will possition the slide in a holder in front of your macro lens. Then you shoot the slide, not a projected image of the slide an aviod issue #1 above.

 

[Lovesong]

Really, if you MUST use a dSLR to copy your slides, you should get something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Slide-Copier-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EQ24Z4

 

[ChrisA]

I have just received some old slide of my mother. Can you get decent scans of slides without a dedicated slide scanner? Will just a regular scanner do? I am a grad student so I have a very limited budget.

Thanks

You can use a flatbed scanner but it has to be made for scanning transparent art. These flatbed scanners will have a second light source that is above the glass so that the light travels through the art being scanned. The more common flatbed scanners are designed only for reflective artwork and hhave only one light source that is under the glass.

The other thing to look for is resolution and dynamic range. Good 35mm film camera can record about 80 lines per millimeter on the film. To capture ALL the detail that is in the slide you need to scan at least twice 80/mm. For most of us a scanner with the ability to scan at about 3,000 pixels per inch will do well enough.

The Kodak digital ICE system is made by Kodak and licensed to most of the scanner makers like Epson, Canon and so on. It works well and is worth having. This system uses a second infrared light source to make a second pass over the image by comparing the white light and IR images the scanner can find dust and scratches.

 

[Apple Corps]

Josh - trust me - you only THINK you want to do it yourself

I did the same thing and was totally worn out and sick and tired of the process by the end. Do a lot of thinking, organizing and screening before starting. After a couple of months I started tossing more and more out - it is a tiring effort believe me.

Nikon CoolScan IV is what I used and got very good results. As someone else said - the files are LARGE !!!

 

[Father Jack]

[*]The DSLR does not have enough resolution to capture all the detail in a 35mm slide. Slides are still higher quality then DSLR files. This will remain true untill we have a 24 megapixel full frame DSLR.

Can I ask where you got this info from?

I read in a Pro Photo Journal that 12 Mp - 15 Mp was equal to a 35mm 100 iso colour trany.

 

[cube]

There are some Nikons that can take a slide feeder for cases like this.

 

[jerryrock]

You want an Epson V-750. 6400 dpi(optical), digital Ice built in, dual lens system. It comes with SiverFast Ai & Monaco EZ color software.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm

 

[Lovesong]

You want an Epson V-750. 6400 dpi(optical), digital Ice built in, dual lens system. It comes with SiverFast Ai & Monaco EZ color software.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm

Yes, Jerry. He wants to spend $750 on a flatbed scanner, instead of $500 for a dedicated high res film scanner. Good one.

 

[pdxflint]

Can I ask where you got this info from?

I read in a Pro Photo Journal that 12 Mp - 15 Mp was equal to a 35mm 100 iso colour trany.

By my rough calculations, with a 4000 dpi scanner doing a full resolution scan on a 1x1.5 negative or slide would be equivalent to 4000x6000 = 24,000,000 (or 24 megapixels.) But, scanning a negative at this resolution will yield a larger .tiff file than 24megs, more like 72megs. Some correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[jerryrock]

Yes, Jerry. He wants to spend $750 on a flatbed scanner, instead of $500 for a dedicated high res film scanner. Good one.

I happen to own the Epson V-750 and highly recommend it. It is a professional scanner with one of the highest optical resolutions on the market. It can scan multiple slides at a time and has built in digital ice (something the OP requested)

 

[Lovesong]

I happen to own the Epson V-750 and highly recommend it. It is a professional scanner with one of the highest optical resolutions on the market. It can scan multiple slides at a time and has built in digital ice (something the OP requested)

Right. I'm not saying that it's not a good scanner. Actually I'm looking at getting the V-700 myself. What I was saying was that if he needs something to scan slides, and his choices are between the Epson flatbeds, or a Coolscan V, I think we'd both agree that the dedicated film scanner is a better option, due to it's higher resolution, and Dmax values.

 

[valiar]

The actual resolution of V700 and V750 is somewhere between 2100 and 2400 lpi (measured with a resolution chart). I can post a link if there will be interest, but it is in Russian...

Main problem with these scanners is diffraction. If Epson were to use a physically bigger lens with autofocus (just like the Nikon scanners do), they would have been "killer" machines. Alas, this is not the case.

Of course, everything depends on what you are scanning. If it is Kodak Gold 200 ISO film, a V700 is probably all you need, and it is more versatile than a dedicated 35 mm scanner. If you wish to digitize Velvia slides, and retain all the detail - a Nikon film scanner is a better way to spend the money.

 

[jerryrock]

The actual resolution of V700 and V750 is somewhere between 2100 and 2400 lpi (measured with a resolution chart). I can post a link if there will be interest, but it is in Russian...

Main problem with these scanners is diffraction. If Epson were to use a physically bigger lens with autofocus (just like the Nikon scanners do), they would have been "killer" machines. Alas, this is not the case.

Of course, everything depends on what you are scanning. If it is Kodak Gold 200 ISO film, a V700 is probably all you need, and it is more versatile than a dedicated 35 mm scanner. If you wish to digitize Velvia slides, and retain all the detail - a Nikon film scanner is a better way to spend the money.

I really do not believe the Russian resolution test. The main critical focal factor with the Epson is adjustment of film height over the glass. The Nikon scanner has an adjustable lens to focus, that is a plus.

The Epson does have 2 lenses, one that covers the entire glass surface, (4800 dpi) and a high res lens that covers a smaller surface area (6400 dpi).
The Nikon claims a highest resolution of 4000 dpi.

I went for versatility because I have a variety of scanning needs. The fluid mount tray that came with the Epson V-750 is great for those old scratched negatives and really increases resolution and sharpness.

I have a 17" x 24" inch print made from a Velvia slide (35mm) scanned on the V750 hanging on my wall. It is tack sharp and those Velvia colors are beautiful.

 

[-hh]

Can I ask where you got this info from?

I read in a Pro Photo Journal that 12 Mp - 15 Mp was equal to a 35mm 100 iso colour trany.

IIRC, the "24MP equivalent" statement essentially comes from the resolution potential of Fuji Velvia.



However, its IMO likely that both statements are correct, but merely choosing different baselines. For example, since Velvia is traditionally an ISO 50 film, it would be expected to have a bit more resolving power than an ISO 100 film, so the question is "how much more?" to make both claims true.

For sake of easier math, let's round off these MP numbers to 16MP and 25MP. The square roots of each of these are 4 and 5 respectively. This then suggests that Velvia would only need to have (5/4 = 1.25) 25% more resolving performance than ISO 100 in order for the accompanying "pixel equivalency" generalization to increase from ~16MP for ISO 100 to ~25MP for ISO 50.

At least that's my guess


-hh