Scanning 35 mm slides on the cheap!

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:06:38 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

Problem with scanners is that they are designed for sheets of paper
and the slide scanning is almost without exception mediocre.

Hi,

Flatbed scanners that can scan film have a backlight and a deeper
carriage, in those respects they are no different from dedicated film
scanners.

I've
tried the 1670 and would suggest it's performance on slides is very
significantly inferior to the results obtained by a 1M pixel camera
with a good lens.

I've had reasonable results scanning negatives with a Canoscan 5000F,
here's a sample of the Eiffel Tower:

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Scan0001b.jpg (1.8Mb)

I would say that viewing on a 1280x1024 screen captures all the
available detail, putting it about 1.3Mp.

Here's another one of the Champs Elysee:

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Scan00011b.jpg (1.6Mb)

This time if you zoom in on the lights at the end of the street, then
look at the image at 1280x1024, the screen doesn't represent all the
detail fully.

This detail is better represented at 1900x1200, so I'd put it at 2Mp,
and expect it can give pretty good enlargements up to 12" x 8".

If you want decent results you really need a slide scanner and, if
the slides are old one, with integral Digital ICE

If you just want to print off some reasonable enlargements I would say
that a film capable flatbed scanner will do.

If you want to digitally archive or create very good enlargments from
slides then a good dedicated film scanner is required.

One thing I've found is that the 5000F doesn't cope too well with
flash pictures where areas are over exposed, I'm going to get some
tinted film to reduce the light output to see if that helps.

If you just want reasonable enlargements with the occasional top
quality one, one way to go is to do the former with a flatbed scanner
and send the slides away for the latter.

cheers,
Pete.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:06:38 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

Problem with scanners is that they are designed for sheets of paper
and the slide scanning is almost without exception mediocre.

Hi,

Flatbed scanners that can scan film have a backlight and a deeper
carriage, in those respects they are no different from dedicated film
scanners.

I've
tried the 1670 and would suggest it's performance on slides is very
significantly inferior to the results obtained by a 1M pixel camera
with a good lens.

I've had reasonable results scanning negatives with a Canoscan 5000F,
here's a sample of the Eiffel Tower:

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Scan0001b.jpg (1.8Mb)

I would say that viewing on a 1280x1024 screen captures all the
available detail, putting it about 1.3Mp.

Here's another one of the Champs Elysee:

http://www.smileypete.dsl.pipex.com/Scan00011b.jpg (1.6Mb)

This time if you zoom in on the lights at the end of the street, then
look at the image at 1280x1024, the screen doesn't represent all the
detail fully.

This detail is better represented at 1900x1200, so I'd put it at 2Mp,
and expect it can give pretty good enlargements up to 12" x 8".

If you want decent results you really need a slide scanner and, if
the slides are old one, with integral Digital ICE

If you just want to print off some reasonable enlargements I would say
that a film capable flatbed scanner will do.

If you want to digitally archive or create very good enlargments from
slides then a good dedicated film scanner is required.

One thing I've found is that the 5000F doesn't cope too well with
flash pictures where areas are over exposed, I'm going to get some
tinted film to reduce the light output to see if that helps.

If you just want reasonable enlargements with the occasional top
quality one, one way to go is to do the former with a flatbed scanner
and send the slides away for the latter.

cheers,
Pete.

I think the best soloution for you is to have the slides scanned by a
bureau and you don't need the drum scan quality(oil).
However, if your motive for scanning is to archive your images, the
Kodachromes will probably be MUCH safer than any form of digital
storage yet deveoped. And Kodachromes are notoriously difficult to
scan.
I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and it is a superb scanner, however I
would not consider scanning all of my slides as I find in practice it
generally takes me 30 minutes to make a high quality scan. I
previously owned a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 and it was nearly the
equal of the nikon for 50% the cost, however scans took far longer to
make.
I am not familiar with your Canon, but you must determine why exactly
you want to digitize your images, if for web use, your Canon is more
than adequate. If you want to make high quality digital prints, you
have a very steep learning curve ahead of you reagrding file size,
resoloution, format, color calibration and more. In addition a great
printer will cost plenty as well.
It seems to me your problem is primarily software related and perhaps
you might do some study on the basics of digital imaging. As far as
software is concerned, there is a program available "VUESCAN", as a
web purchase that is far better than the software bundled with most
scanners. I prefer it to the Nikon Scan 4 software which was miles
ahead of the Minolta software, but a word of caution, you will find a
little study is essential to getting the optimum scan.
There is no "right" color setting on any scanner and the more
sophiscated will offer many more choices and options. Photoshop and a
good knowledge of it, is a must have in my opinion.
In conclusion, if you want a great scanner, I strongly recommend the
Nikon Coolscan 5000, it's fast and gives a high quality. The Minolta
Elite 5400 has plenty of bang for the buck and when using Vuescan
software can make a scan as good as the Nikon but takes much longer
and there may be an issue with focus( there was for me). The Nikon
V, at the same cost as the minolta is as good or better but not as
fast as the 5000.
If you want all your slides scanned, get some one else to do it,
otherwise, scan em as you need em. But do check out the Vuescan web
site.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to
any digital camera - but it doesn't. The uncompressed file format from
it (e.g. a BMP) is the right size for the res, about 25MB. But saving
it to a Jpeg yields an 800k file - much too small and comparable to a
2 megapixel camera. However if I scan direct into say Photoshop (and
then I get a 25MB file in there), save the file in PS at the highest
quality Jpeg setting it offers, and compare the resulting ~ 3MB file
(on screen, max zoom) with the 800k one which came straight from the
scanner's software, I can't see any difference. BOTH are pretty naff.

It is as if the scanner compressed to a jpeg on the transfer to the
PC! Even if going straight to an application.

The scanner went back to Canon very recently who charged me £150 for
replacing the scanner unit but nothing has changed.

The scanner had always been used for scanning low quality product pics
for a business website so its quality was never tested on outdoor
pics.

Most of my pics are landscapes and similar. Some of the pics are here

www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete/crete.html

where those with the 'click to see a larger pic' option are scanned
slides. The colours are way off! The rest were taken with a Casio Z4
(4 megapixel) which is a tiny camera but is basically better than the
2700dpi Canon scanner!

The other thing is colour management. The scanned image is very dark.
I have to do (in PS)

Assign Colour Profile (choose the Canon 2710 profile)
Convert to Colour Profile (as above)

and that makes the image a lot better. But I don't see why these steps
should be necessary - the scanner software should just return the
"right" colour... Any colour management should be available for the
display device.

The software was developed before Windows 2000 which is what I am
running under, but it does the same under NT4.

Whatever is actually wrong with it, it is clear that this scanner
won't do for scanning slides which one might then want to dispose of
afterwards.

I've read some reviews of scanners and Nikon do one for about £3000
which is way too much. I contacted a lot of scanning bureaus and they
want a min of 50p a slide and one wanted £10 a slide, for scanning
them in oil, apparently!

A friend has another 3000 slides and we could put them all together...

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...


Peter.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG

Err, which one?

... the subject is exactly what I am after.

[snipped saga of poor transparency scanners]

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

It seems early scanners weren't much good at colour matching. I got
bitten by that with both a Canon LS-20 (Colorscan II) and a Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi II. Neither produce acceptable scans from colour film
and I am still looking for a solution.

Computer Shopper Oct 04 (issue 200) has an interesting review of
scanners. The Mustek BearPaw 4800TA Pro II at £60 inc VAT was highly
rated for FILM scanning although it is basically an A4 flatbed. It will
take 2 strips of 6 by 35mm.

"It's an A4 2,400x4,800dpi flatbed scanner that produces high-quality
results from photos, negatives and slides and costs much less than we'd
expect for such results."

"2,400x4,800dpi optical resolution, 48-bit colour depth, USB Hi-Speed
interface, transparency adaptor. Part code 98-155-00010"

The review is at
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/revie...ta-pro-ii.html.
I'm not sure if you need to subscribe to view it (I have).

I am coming to the conclusion that to get good results from my scanners
I need to buy some colour calibration targets and colour matching
software - not a cheap option, and as you say, the damn things should do
it as sold anyway.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG... the subject is exactly what I am after.

I have about 3000 35mm slides, mostly kodachrome 25/64, ektachrome,
cibachrome and lately Fuji Provia. I would like to scan the lot, to a
standard which fully preserves the quality.

In 1999 I bought, for about £600, a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. This
is 2700dpi which in theory should give fantastic results compared to
any digital camera - but it doesn't. The uncompressed file format from
it (e.g. a BMP) is the right size for the res, about 25MB. But saving
it to a Jpeg yields an 800k file - much too small and comparable to a
2 megapixel camera. However if I scan direct into say Photoshop (and
then I get a 25MB file in there), save the file in PS at the highest
quality Jpeg setting it offers, and compare the resulting ~ 3MB file
(on screen, max zoom) with the 800k one which came straight from the
scanner's software, I can't see any difference. BOTH are pretty naff.

It is as if the scanner compressed to a jpeg on the transfer to the
PC! Even if going straight to an application.

The scanner went back to Canon very recently who charged me £150 for
replacing the scanner unit but nothing has changed.

The scanner had always been used for scanning low quality product pics
for a business website so its quality was never tested on outdoor
pics.

Most of my pics are landscapes and similar. Some of the pics are here

www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete/crete.html

where those with the 'click to see a larger pic' option are scanned
slides. The colours are way off! The rest were taken with a Casio Z4
(4 megapixel) which is a tiny camera but is basically better than the
2700dpi Canon scanner!

The other thing is colour management. The scanned image is very dark.
I have to do (in PS)

Assign Colour Profile (choose the Canon 2710 profile)
Convert to Colour Profile (as above)

and that makes the image a lot better. But I don't see why these steps
should be necessary - the scanner software should just return the
"right" colour... Any colour management should be available for the
display device.

The software was developed before Windows 2000 which is what I am
running under, but it does the same under NT4.

Whatever is actually wrong with it, it is clear that this scanner
won't do for scanning slides which one might then want to dispose of
afterwards.

I've read some reviews of scanners and Nikon do one for about £3000
which is way too much. I contacted a lot of scanning bureaus and they
want a min of 50p a slide and one wanted £10 a slide, for scanning
them in oil, apparently!

A friend has another 3000 slides and we could put them all together...

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...


Peter.

JPEG is a compressed format. The compressors remove detail in order to
compress further, most software allows you yo alter the "quality" of
the JPEG. I would scan to a BMP, and then use some photo processing
software to save as JPEG.

Some scanners scan at say 600 dpi, and then use come clever maths to
essentiall guess what is is the missing dots for 1200dpi, and then
claim to be 1200 dpi. I suggest you look for this feature when you
choose your scanner. this is a feature you probably don't want.

Rick

wrote:

[...]
I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and it is a superb scanner, however I
would not consider scanning all of my slides as I find in practice it
generally takes me 30 minutes to make a high quality scan. I

I concur. Only Nikon gives you in this class real batch scan
abilities through the slide feeder SF200 or SF210 and roll film
adapter SA-30. I virtually never scan without these.

I use the predecessor model LS4000, which is much slower than the
LS5000. It scans an image at 4000dpi in approx. 3min with my slow
computer. A roll of 35mm film takes approx. 1h50min, this should
be much better with the LS5000 and you will also get 16bit A/D
converter (compared to 14bit I have) and an additional module
from AFS to deal with high contrast scans (shadows and highlights.)

Thomas


previously owned a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 and it was nearly the
equal of the nikon for 50% the cost, however scans took far longer to
make.
[...]
A friend has another 3000 slides and we could put them all together...

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

Peter.

both jpeg and BMP are not the preferred file format, you should output
from the scanner in either .tiff or .raw (perhaps an older scanner
won't give you .raw)
Peter, I think you might try re reading the manual for your scanner, I
will not believe that the Cannon software will not allow you to save a
..tiff or .jpeg at full resolution of 2700dpi, your file should be
about 25megs. You are not understanding your software controls.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:53:40 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Rick Dipper wrote

JPEG is a compressed format. The compressors remove detail in order to
compress further, most software allows you yo alter the "quality" of
the JPEG. I would scan to a BMP, and then use some photo processing
software to save as JPEG.

Indeed - but

a) saving it as a BMP, or scanning direct into Photoshop, does not
produce any better results, and

b) the Canon software does not give any options on jpeg quality.


Peter.

Check out this site,

http://www.scantips.com/On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:39:36 -0400,

wrote:

both jpeg and BMP are not the preferred file format, you should output
from the scanner in either .tiff or .raw (perhaps an older scanner
won't give you .raw)
Peter, I think you might try re reading the manual for your scanner, I
will not believe that the Cannon software will not allow you to save a
.tiff or .jpeg at full resolution of 2700dpi, your file should be
about 25megs. You are not understanding your software controls.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:53:40 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Rick Dipper wrote

JPEG is a compressed format. The compressors remove detail in order to
compress further, most software allows you yo alter the "quality" of
the JPEG. I would scan to a BMP, and then use some photo processing
software to save as JPEG.

Indeed - but

a) saving it as a BMP, or scanning direct into Photoshop, does not
produce any better results, and

b) the Canon software does not give any options on jpeg quality.


Peter.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:53:40 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Rick Dipper wrote

JPEG is a compressed format. The compressors remove detail in order to
compress further, most software allows you yo alter the "quality" of
the JPEG. I would scan to a BMP, and then use some photo processing
software to save as JPEG.

Indeed - but

a) saving it as a BMP, or scanning direct into Photoshop, does not
produce any better results, and

b) the Canon software does not give any options on jpeg quality.


Peter.

Then I would suggest your scanner is somewhat less than 2500dpi, and
its got some clever maths in the software that guesses what colour the
dots inbetween should be.

Rick

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:31:23 +0100, Peter
wrote:

Hi All,

I've just found this NG

Err, which one?

... the subject is exactly what I am after.

[snipped saga of poor transparency scanners]

I suppose what I want is two things:

1. a scanner which is really excellent and which I can rent for a
month or so

2. a scanner which is a lot better than the 1999 Canon...

I would really appreciate any suggestions...

It seems early scanners weren't much good at colour matching. I got
bitten by that with both a Canon LS-20 (Colorscan II) and a Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi II. Neither produce acceptable scans from colour film
and I am still looking for a solution.


I have just scanned an image from a 15 year old Kodak Gold 100 negative, using
the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual 2, it is straight from the scanner, except for a
slight correction for a green cast, and was scanned using the Minolta software.
The original bmp file size was 26MB, but it has been saved as a jpg on 'High
quality' (8), giving an uploaded file size of 1.6MB
The image is on the following link, (can you recognise the face), but it needs
saving, and opening in an image programme to view properly.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gavin.g...ages/sammy.jpg
This would give a 12" x 8" print at 300 pixels/inch, which is not bad from a
full frame 35mm negative, or 18" x 12" at 200 pixels/inch.