PDA

View Full Version : Stuff to scan



Rhys
01-02-2005, 02:58 PM
I have an album and loads of packets of negatives as well as loads of slides. Most are 35mm although there are a very few 120/220 and some 126 as well as 127 and 110.

I'm thinking of various options for digitising the images. I'd like to be able to do them as quickly as possible because sitting, scanning for hours on end, day after day, does not really appeal.

The options I have considered are:
1. Using my Nikon 995 in macro mode to photograph using a home-made copier. This is good but only 3mp.
2. A film scanner. This will do the bulk of the copying but not all of it.
3. A scanner. This will scan everything BUT it's damnably slow and needs loads of fiddling with the resultant copies.

What do you think?

Also, is 1800 dpi sufficient?

kgosden
01-02-2005, 10:17 PM
Rhys, while I haven't tried it, I hear that using the Nikon as a slide copier is a pretty good solution. Your biggest issue will be the larger than 35mm format negatives. Film scanners that can do those formats start at $1000 or so. Knowing your habits that is a bit pricey. I think that if they are important then a good flat bed scanner with transparency capability is your best bet.

Rhys
01-03-2005, 12:25 PM
Rhys, while I haven't tried it, I hear that using the Nikon as a slide copier is a pretty good solution. Your biggest issue will be the larger than 35mm format negatives. Film scanners that can do those formats start at $1000 or so. Knowing your habits that is a bit pricey. I think that if they are important then a good flat bed scanner with transparency capability is your best bet.

I started by looking at film scanners but then found there was little to no advantage in using them, over a flatbed scanner save for the fact there are some automated film scanners around. Now those would be excellent if I still used film. As I've given up film in favour of digital images, I'm coming to the comclusion that a flatbed scanner would be best.

I've seen some advertised as 19200 dpi, which upon invesitgation turn out to be 600 x 1200. Obviously they picked 19,200 dpi out of thin air to make the scanner sound better than a lousy 600 x 1200.

I'm currently looking at the Epson_Perfection_3170_Photo. Is 3200 dpi good or do I need more? I don't need to see the individual grains on Kodachrome 25 but I'd like the highest possible quality. Of course, at a real-world price too. I intend to archive my 35mm and 120 slides and negatives to DVD.

D70FAN
01-03-2005, 12:57 PM
I have an album and loads of packets of negatives as well as loads of slides. Most are 35mm although there are a very few 120/220 and some 126 as well as 127 and 110.

I'm thinking of various options for digitising the images. I'd like to be able to do them as quickly as possible because sitting, scanning for hours on end, day after day, does not really appeal.

The options I have considered are:
1. Using my Nikon 995 in macro mode to photograph using a home-made copier. This is good but only 3mp.
2. A film scanner. This will do the bulk of the copying but not all of it.
3. A scanner. This will scan everything BUT it's damnably slow and needs loads of fiddling with the resultant copies.

What do you think?

Also, is 1800 dpi sufficient?

1. Done that (990 and slide copier). OK for small runs. Equivalent to about an 1800 dpi scanner.

2. The best way to go. Not as tedious as the camera method, but still a little boring. But you have to start somewhere.

3. This will actually work very well and you might be able to find a good deal on a scanner like the Epson 1600 family that can go up to 4800dpi for less than $300, and occasionally go on sale for less than $100. I use my 1650 (3200dpi) ($49 refurb!) frequently for this as it has a nice template and the software can separate the frames. Controlled backlight is in the lid. Again better than the camera method, but more tedious than the film scanner.

I would recommend at least 2400 dpi to make it worth while. That gives you 240dpi for printing an 8 x 10.

Rhys
01-03-2005, 03:08 PM
I've just been looking at a Canon scanner: Canon scanner (http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=CAN4200F&BRAND=&CONTINUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MODELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=230&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY=&QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNODE=0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=999999&SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=1&SUBS=307,304,308,53147,313&WORD_SEARCH=N&)

Is this one any good for what I wish to do? At 3200 dpi I would imagine I could probably print photos up to tabloid double-page size.

kgosden
01-03-2005, 03:29 PM
The Canon 4200F looks like it would be acceptable. I would double check that it supports larger than 35mm media. The online descriptions mention using a film adapter. To me that smells of something that only accepts certain fixed sizes of film stock or slides.

Rhys
01-03-2005, 04:16 PM
I looked at that and found for just a shade extra (and remaining only a few quid above budget) a better scanner: Canon 8400F (http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Scanners/Flatbed_with_Film_Scanning/canonscan8400F/index.asp?ComponentID=230300&SourcePageID=26561#1)

Does this look better? I'm thinking this might be the answer to my needs.

kgosden
01-03-2005, 07:34 PM
Rhys, I would go for that one. The added dust and scratch filter and the fact that the brouchure states it will handle 120 format film has your name written in bold letters.

Rhys
01-04-2005, 09:03 AM
Rhys, I would go for that one. The added dust and scratch filter and the fact that the brouchure states it will handle 120 format film has your name written in bold letters.

I think you're right. I was looking with interest at the automatic film scanners that one can just feed a strip of negatives into. Doing a whole strip automatically sounds wonderful - feed it in and go for a cuppa. The only problem is that once I have scanned my estimated 700 negatives and 300 slides my film scanner would then be redundant.

Call me daft but I don't think investing large sums in a film scanner that would be redundant before it's out of date is a sensible idea. The scanner, on the other hand, would mean that I could keep using it for ordinary scanning as well as other negative/slide formats.

One other thing that popped into mind this morning was that even a tiny 1800dpi film scanner that costs half of what this canon costs would produce 4 megapixel images from each negative. Given that I seem only to print to A4 (8.5 x 11), that seems an attractive proposition - especially when I consider the fact that of my negative stock, only a very small percentage is 110, 127, 126 or 120.

I'm mulling those thoughts around in my head at the moment. The Canon scanner costs 160 wheras a Jessops 1800dpi film scanner costs 80. Ideally, I'd like to copy everything to DVD but I don't think that even 3200 dpi and 48 bit is sufficient to capture the whole of the information on a single piece of film.

It's looking almost as though the unattractive redundant film scanner option is possibly the most viable of the whole lot.

I don't intend to bin my negatives and believe that scanners will increase in quality fairly rapidly - as digital cameras gain extra megapixels. That makes the Canon look to be the best buy of the moment but one which will be eclipsed fairly soon.

It's a very interesting issue.

kgosden
01-04-2005, 10:52 AM
Rhys, your whole train of thought on film scanners being a one time project for most people is why they are pretty good eBay items.

Rhys
01-04-2005, 11:32 AM
Rhys, your whole train of thought on film scanners being a one time project for most people is why they are pretty good eBay items.

What is it with people loving ebay? Nothing there is ever worth buying!

I looked at this ebay page: http://search.ebay.co.uk/film-scanner_W0QQsoloctogZ9 and found one scanner there that was 1800 dpi. The bidding had reached 56 and the guy wanted 20 postage. Even if that item went for that, it'd cost 76 and I fail to see why anybody should buy some secondhand and possibly defective goods with no guarantee when they can simply buy a similar 1800 dpi scanner from a shop for 80. Four extra pounds is hardly worth saving when that four pounds can guaratee the item will be good or if not, will be easily returnable!

kgosden
01-04-2005, 08:16 PM
Sorry, I forget that you are looking at UK based items. I just looked at completed Nikon Coolscans and Minolta Dimage Scanners and found some decent deals. But the ones I dug into seemed to be US sales. I agree I would not bother with the risk/reward ratio for a $20-50 savings on a $400 scanner. I bought my Minolta factory refurb back when uBid was a decent auction site and saved over $100. I have looked at some higher end Nikons on eBay and noticed some good deals, but never saw the need to upgrade.

Rhys
01-05-2005, 05:11 AM
Sorry, I forget that you are looking at UK based items. I just looked at completed Nikon Coolscans and Minolta Dimage Scanners and found some decent deals. But the ones I dug into seemed to be US sales. I agree I would not bother with the risk/reward ratio for a $20-50 savings on a $400 scanner. I bought my Minolta factory refurb back when uBid was a decent auction site and saved over $100. I have looked at some higher end Nikons on eBay and noticed some good deals, but never saw the need to upgrade.

I don't know about the US but in the UK, secondhand goods seem to go for very high prices - typically 3/4 of the brand new price. When an item costs more than 15% of the new price I often figure that it's worthwhile to buy new rather than secondhand. My secondhand laptop was a classic example - it looked fantastic - and cost me 200 when a brand new (cheapest) laptop would have cost me 600. So my laptop that was 1/3rd of the price of a new laptop needed a few bits along the way - before I decided further repair was uneconomical and broke it for parts, managing to sell just one part. That "cheap" laptop ended up costing the amount I paid for it, in spares and I still only had old laptop performance and a laptop that died totally after just 18 months of light use. Had I spent the extra 1/3rd (200) and bought a brand new 600 laptop then I'd still be using it and would not have thrown away 400 on something that ended up in the dustbin. This is my general experience of secondhand goods of all kinds so I always advise others to buy new and always buy new myself.

kgosden
01-05-2005, 05:46 PM
Well, used is different from a factory refurb, but I do agree with your cost rules in general. I give true factory refurbs a bit of an edge over used and might go to 70-80% of a new unit in cost for me. Some of what I see on US eBay results for scanners are refurbs and closeouts. And as I mentioned earlier I feel pretty confident that there are very good condition used film scanners available. Unlike a laptop these are rarely dragged around in cars and bars. Still it is your choice.