Digitizing Slides
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: But will MS's overheat in the sun, like the Crapple iPad?
Next: Turn To Stone With The 24/1.4G!!
From: (PeteCresswell) on 2 Aug 2010 19:47 Per Ryan McGinnis: >If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper >attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since >the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping >each one out. I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed the slides. I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A lot of mine aren't that wonderful. -- PeteCresswell
From: Bruce on 3 Aug 2010 08:39 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:47:16 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote: >Per Ryan McGinnis: >>If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper >>attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since >>the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping >>each one out. > >I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks >extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed >the slides. > >I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A >lot of mine aren't that wonderful. My experience also. I have the SF-210 slide feeder on my Coolscan 5000ED right next to me on my desk. It is a waste of time and money. It jams far more often than not. It then takes a lot longer to sort the problem out than the time the feeder should have saved. There are some useful ideas on the Web about how to modify it to work more reliably. They all involve attacking it with some sandpaper or a file to ease the passage of the slide mounts. I can't be bothered. It's quicker to feed the slides manually. This thread has served as a reminder to me to remove the feeder from the scanner, put it back in its box and sell it on eBay. ;-)
From: GMAN on 3 Aug 2010 18:14 In article <jb0e5658nel33vqb7t3carattn53pjqojn(a)4ax.com>, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:57:54 -0500, Ryan McGinnis <digicana(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >> >>It'd take even longer if you had to do it at home with a Nikon Coolscan >>or somesuch. (They produce marginally better scans, but take around a >>minute or two per scanned image at the best settings.) > > >Marginally better scans? Don't be ridiculous, the scans from a Nikon >Coolscan are significantly better, with much higher dynamic range as >well as greater resolution. > Agreed, and the Digital ICE feature helps immensly on older, scratched or dusty slides. >Until recently, the best way to proceed would have been to buy a good >quality scanner, digitise the slides yourself then sell the scanner on >eBay. Unfortunately, used prices for Nikon Coolscan scanners have >gone through the roof since production of the 35mm scanners ended, so >the economics of doing it yourself are no longer quite so predictable. > >There are very cheap scanners available but the results are poor. >Probably the best compromise would be to buy something like a Plustek >OpticFilm 7600i which has good resolution and reasonably good dynamic >range. It is relatuvely easy to use and doesn't cost a fortune - a >new 7600i is a fraction of the cost of a used Nikon Coolscan V. The >output quality is good, and more than adequate for all but the most >critical user. > >Here's a review: >http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/PLTK7600/7600.HTM >
From: GMAN on 3 Aug 2010 18:20 In article <i36mml$mpe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dave Cohen <user(a)example.net> wrote: >On 8/2/2010 3:04 AM, Skylamar Jones wrote: >> Hi. I'm new to this group so I don't know if someone posted a similar >> question recently. >> >> My mom has 3000 slides taken by my dad, who has passed away. Because of >> the space the slides take up in her home, my mom is weeding through >> them, looking at them manually using a slide projector. >> >> She isn't that computer savvy but she told me that Costco charges 29 >> cents per slide for digitizing them. For 3000 slides that's $870 which >> is more than my mom wants to spend. >> >> I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for other ideas for >> digitizing slides such as using a company that's cheaper/better than >> Costco or a buying/renting good scanner that my mom can use at home. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sky >I used a dedicated slide/negative duplicator that sells for around $100. >It worked fairly well for negatives but was unsatisfactory for color >slides, so avoid that. >Flat bed scanners may do better. If I had to do it, I would play with >the camera solutions suggested in other threads. The commercial camera >accessory shown made by Soligor looks interesting but you need a camera >that will work with that. This little scanner is a fine alternative to a Nikon Coolscan IV or V and also has the DIGITAL ICE capabilities. I see them used on ebay all the time and I got mine for less than $50 at auction. http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250u.php The new PrimeFilm 7250u Film scanner offers 7200 dpi resolution at an affordable price. This model incorporates KADC - Kodak Austin Developments processing tools: -Digital ICE� - Hardware based Dust and Scratch removal with infrared sensors and automatic Software correction. -DigitalROC� - Color Restoration; Image color is reconstructed and optimized with Digital ROC Technology -DigitalGEM� - Grain Management; minimize grain to restore the image�s sharpness. Film Type: Negative and positive filmstrips (35mm) or mounted slides � Opt. Resolution: 7200 x 3600 dpi (approximate pixel size of a positive image after cropping 9360 x 6528 Pixels) � Scanning Area: 24.3 x 36.5 mm � Color Depth: 48 Bit � Dynamic Range: 3.2 Dmax � Image Sensor: Linear Color CCD � LightSource: LED Array � Interface: USB 2.0/1.1
From: croy on 3 Aug 2010 18:35
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:39:29 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:47:16 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> >wrote: >>Per Ryan McGinnis: >>>If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper >>>attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since >>>the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping >>>each one out. >> >>I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks >>extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed >>the slides. >> >>I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A >>lot of mine aren't that wonderful. > > >My experience also. I have the SF-210 slide feeder on my Coolscan >5000ED right next to me on my desk. > >It is a waste of time and money. It jams far more often than not. It >then takes a lot longer to sort the problem out than the time the >feeder should have saved. > >There are some useful ideas on the Web about how to modify it to work >more reliably. They all involve attacking it with some sandpaper or a >file to ease the passage of the slide mounts. > >I can't be bothered. It's quicker to feed the slides manually. > >This thread has served as a reminder to me to remove the feeder from >the scanner, put it back in its box and sell it on eBay. ;-) If it's the corners of the mounts that are causing the problem (due to being frayed, slightly de-laminated, etc.), the pincher-style fingernail clippers work amazingly well to trim back to terra-firma. -- croy |