Scanning Negatives II
 

Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482

I've a few hundred negatives I'd like to relive - last word in quality
not that important, but a half-decent rendition would be nice to
distribute to family/friends.


* Silvercrest Negative Digitiser £ 24.99

Keep older memories alive with this handy device that scans negatives
and photo slides on to your PC
Suitable for 35mm film strips and 5 x 5cm small picture slides
High-definition CMOS 5 megapixel sensor produces quality 1800dpi scans
with automatic colour balancing and exposure control
One-button scan function for ease of use
Includes software CD, cleaning brush, photo slide cassette and two
film-strip holders



--
Cheers, Rob

Scanning Negatives II
 

In article , RJH wrote:

Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482

junk.

if you want to go the cheap route, get a slide copier attachment (or
build one, it's not hard) and use it with your digital camera which is
going to be way better than what's in that piece of ****.

Scanning Negatives II
 

On 2018-03-15 18:21, RJH wrote:
Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482

I've a few hundred negatives I'd like to relive - last word in quality
not that important, but a half-decent rendition would be nice to
distribute to family/friends.


* Silvercrest Negative Digitiser £ 24.99

Keep older memories alive with this handy device that scans negatives
and photo slides on to your PC
Suitable for 35mm film strips and 5 x 5cm small picture slides
High-definition CMOS 5 megapixel sensor produces quality 1800dpi scans
with automatic colour balancing and exposure control
One-button scan function for ease of use
Includes software CD, cleaning brush, photo slide cassette and two
film-strip holders

The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

If you want better quality than that there are many choices, but more
expensive. Some take several minutes per photo, some use advanced
techniques to eliminate dust.

If you already have a macro lenses, then an "slide copying adapter"
becomes interesting.

You choose according to your price bracket and needs :-)


--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning Negatives II
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 2018-03-15 18:21, RJH wrote:
Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482


The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

actually, it's worse than a 5 mp camera for several reasons, including
having a low quality lens and low quality sensor.

there are cameras with *less* megapixels that can produce better
results.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

also junk, just slightly less so.

If you want better quality than that there are many choices, but more
expensive. Some take several minutes per photo, some use advanced
techniques to eliminate dust.

quality costs money. no surprise there.

If you already have a macro lenses, then an "slide copying adapter"
becomes interesting.

macro lenses are not required.

You choose according to your price bracket and needs :-)

obviously.

Scanning Negatives II
 

On 2018-03-15 21:38, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 2018-03-15 18:21, RJH wrote:
Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482


The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

actually, it's worse than a 5 mp camera for several reasons, including
having a low quality lens and low quality sensor.

there are cameras with *less* megapixels that can produce better
results.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

also junk, just slightly less so.

That's your opinion, not shared by others.


If you want better quality than that there are many choices, but more
expensive. Some take several minutes per photo, some use advanced
techniques to eliminate dust.

quality costs money. no surprise there.

If you already have a macro lenses, then an "slide copying adapter"
becomes interesting.

macro lenses are not required.

You choose according to your price bracket and needs :-)

obviously.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning Negatives II
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

actually, it's worse than a 5 mp camera for several reasons, including
having a low quality lens and low quality sensor.

there are cameras with *less* megapixels that can produce better
results.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

also junk, just slightly less so.

That's your opinion, not shared by others.

it's very easy to prove because quality can be objectively measured,
making it not an opinion, but an actual fact.

most others will agree, because it really is junk.

Scanning Negatives II
 

On 2018-03-15 19:25:40 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:

On 2018-03-15 18:21, RJH wrote:
Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482

I've a few hundred negatives I'd like to relive - last word in quality
not that important, but a half-decent rendition would be nice to
distribute to family/friends.


* Silvercrest Negative Digitiser £ 24.99

Keep older memories alive with this handy device that scans negatives
and photo slides on to your PC
Suitable for 35mm film strips and 5 x 5cm small picture slides
High-definition CMOS 5 megapixel sensor produces quality 1800dpi scans
with automatic colour balancing and exposure control
One-button scan function for ease of use
Includes software CD, cleaning brush, photo slide cassette and two
film-strip holders

The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

If you want better quality than that there are many choices, but more
expensive. Some take several minutes per photo, some use advanced
techniques to eliminate dust.

If you already have a macro lenses, then an "slide copying adapter"
becomes interesting.

You choose according to your price bracket and needs :-)

If you are pressed for time and have shoeboxes full of slides and negs
then Oki... The pictures will be preserved as long as someone cares to
keep the files and that can be important to future family members and
sometimes for coming ethnographs/historians as well. But if you have
quality material and can spare the time then there are better equipment
and methods that we have discussed elsewhere.
--
teleportation kills

Scanning Negatives II
 

On 2018-03-16 03:52, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

actually, it's worse than a 5 mp camera for several reasons, including
having a low quality lens and low quality sensor.

there are cameras with *less* megapixels that can produce better
results.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

also junk, just slightly less so.

That's your opinion, not shared by others.

it's very easy to prove because quality can be objectively measured,
making it not an opinion, but an actual fact.

I'll play. How, exactly?

Did you actually test it and reported the results? Where is the link?


most others will agree, because it really is junk.

No, they don't.

I have only seen your opinion that it is, and several very detailed
opinions that it isn't.

As I have your track record in sight, I don't trust anything you say in
vehement terms.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning Negatives II
 

On 2018-03-16 06:33, android wrote:
On 2018-03-15 19:25:40 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:

On 2018-03-15 18:21, RJH wrote:
Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482

I've a few hundred negatives I'd like to relive - last word in quality
not that important, but a half-decent rendition would be nice to
distribute to family/friends.


* Silvercrest Negative Digitiser £ 24.99

Keep older memories alive with this handy device that scans negatives
and photo slides on to your PC
Suitable for 35mm film strips and 5 x 5cm small picture slides
High-definition CMOS 5 megapixel sensor produces quality 1800dpi scans
with automatic colour balancing and exposure control
One-button scan function for ease of use
Includes software CD, cleaning brush, photo slide cassette and two
film-strip holders

The pros is that it is cheap, but the cons is that it is only 5
megapixel. Ie, as good as a 5 megapixel camera. There are many in this
range.

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

If you want better quality than that there are many choices, but more
expensive. Some take several minutes per photo, some use advanced
techniques to eliminate dust.

If you already have a macro lenses, then an "slide copying adapter"
becomes interesting.

You choose according to your price bracket and needs :-)

If you are pressed for time and have shoeboxes full of slides and negs
then Oki... The pictures will be preserved as long as someone cares to
keep the files and that can be important to future family members and
sometimes for coming ethnographs/historians as well. But if you have
quality material and can spare the time then there are better equipment
and methods that we have discussed elsewhere.

Absolutely!


But, take for instance the reflecta ProScan 10T or the RPS 10M. Both
takes 7 minutes for a single shot! Yes, at 10000dpi. With hardware based
dust/scratch removal. And of course, 500..750 euros, way more expensive.
Scanning a collection takes weeks non stop...

That thing is only viable for doing a few shots, not a collection.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning Negatives II
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

also junk, just slightly less so.

That's your opinion, not shared by others.

it's very easy to prove because quality can be objectively measured,
making it not an opinion, but an actual fact.

I'll play. How, exactly?

lab tests.

Did you actually test it and reported the results? Where is the link?

dpreview.com for starters.

most others will agree, because it really is junk.

No, they don't.

anyone who has experience with copying slides and negatives will tell
you it's junk.

common sense tells you it's junk. it's a cheap digital camera with a
housing to hold slides/negatives. cameras in the $50-100 price range
are junk. the sensors and electronics are low quality, as are the
lenses, which likely isn't even glass.

you're accustomed to junk, so you don't realize just how ****ty it
really is. you might think it's fantastic, but to everyone else, it's
not.

copying is ideally done with a film scanner, but that's a lot more
money. however, scanners are in very high demand, so it's possible to
buy a used scanner, scan stuff, then sell it for roughly the same
price, possibly even *more*, making the net cost free or even a profit.

absent a scanner, a copy attachment with an slr works quite well, but
that's because an slr camera and lens are *far* higher quality than a
$50 toy camera.

even a midrange compact digicam will produce better results, except
that most of those aren't designed for lens-mounted attachments.

the copy attachment is basically just a dark tube and can even be built
from household stuff (been there, done that, long ago).

a macro lens is *not* required, particularly with crop sensors, and
those who can afford full frame cameras (where the copy is 1:1 and
macro might sometimes help) can afford doing it properly with a
scanner. slrs have a slew of options, including extension tubes,
bellows and more, most of which do not cost a lot and unlike that
scanner, can be used for other purposes too.

I have only seen your opinion that it is, and several very detailed
opinions that it isn't.

bull**** you have. you only see what you want to see.

As I have your track record in sight, I don't trust anything you say in
vehement terms.

more ad hominem.