scanning colour slides

David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
It looks that the Nikon 8000 is superior to the Epson 4890.
Too bad I just bought an Epson 4490.

Not at all. The 4490 should be more than you need for web and smaller
prints. You may even be happy with 8x10 prints. And you can learn
about scanning without spending gobs of money.

Nikon.ca are showing no Nikon 8000 but instead they have a 9000 with
a mrsp of $2599.95 CAD before taxes.

Sorry. Nikon makes two scanner lines: one for up to 24x36 mm slides,
and one for up to 56x83mm slides. The 8000 and 9000 are the big ones.
I have the 8000, the 9000 is the newer model.

But if you only have 35mm slides, you don't need the 9000. You only
need the 5000 or the V.

They have the 5000 at $1339.95CAD and the V ED at $739.95 CAD.
In order to have a comparable match produced by the Nikon 8000 I
would have to purchase the 9000.
Or maybe the V ED at $739.95 CAD can perform the same as the 9000
which I have some doubt?

Yes. The V is a good scanner. The 9000 is only expensive because it
handles much larger film.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Plustek's 7200 scanner is cheap and does a great job. The SilverFast SE
software alone is worth the price of the scanner, and with a maximum dpi of
7200, the scans are superb. I use mine at 300dpi for 1024 by 768 viewing on
my PC. They are as good as the originals, and even Nikon can's improve on
that. For 10 by 8 prints I simply use Photoshop CS2 to put the final touches
to the file.

Google for Plustek and look at their range.

Dennis.

In article iRkkh.526945$5R2.192515@pd7urf3no,
gA wrote:

Thank you all for providing answers. It's obvious, by the sanples,
that the Nikon 8000 produces the best quality. However, I feel a
little uncomfortable spending all that money (approx. $750 CAD)
for one-time conversion. I won't be taking any more slides and
once the conversion is over, I will find out that the project was
indeed an expensive proposition. Cheers,

There are answers for this. Right now my Nikon V is being passed around
to children and sons-in-law to scan their slides. Then we plan to sell
it.
Many people have the same situation, when they have scanned all their
slides now they have a useless thing on their hands. Not so. For that
exact reason there is a good secondary market for used slide scanners.
Currently here the V is going used for about 150.00 US below costs new.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

"Many people have the same situation, when they have scanned all their
slides now they have a useless thing on their hands. Not so. For that
exact reason there is a good secondary market for used slide scanners.
Currently here the V is going used for about 150.00 US below costs new."

What should we be looking for when buying a preowned Nikon V.
Is there a lamp that is good for only so many hours? and so on.
What would be the approximate longevity of a Nikon V?

"Ockham's Razor" wrote in message
...
In article iRkkh.526945$5R2.192515@pd7urf3no,
gA wrote:

Thank you all for providing answers. It's obvious, by the sanples,
that the Nikon 8000 produces the best quality. However, I feel a
little uncomfortable spending all that money (approx. $750 CAD)
for one-time conversion. I won't be taking any more slides and
once the conversion is over, I will find out that the project was
indeed an expensive proposition. Cheers,

There are answers for this. Right now my Nikon V is being passed around
to children and sons-in-law to scan their slides. Then we plan to sell
it.
Many people have the same situation, when they have scanned all their
slides now they have a useless thing on their hands. Not so. For that
exact reason there is a good secondary market for used slide scanners.
Currently here the V is going used for about 150.00 US below costs new.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

It's heart-warming to see how many people are trying to be helpful
- I never used this forum before..

My primary purpose for digitizing the slides will be to create
(and use as storage) slide shows that can be watched on big screen
TV and make some 8x10 prints (may be the odd poster). I would like
to obtain as good a quality as I can with my low budget. However,
after having seen the comparison between the Epson and the Nikon
(earlier in this thread), I would not want to compromise that much
quality in favour of a cheaper film scanner.

This group is educating me a lot. Thank you.
- gA

Bob Williams wrote:


gA wrote:
Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
- gA

What do you intend to do with the scanned images.
Like most processes, the cost of the duplication process increases
exponentially as the quality of the result.
If you don't have a whole lot of slides (say 100-300) you can send them
off and have them scanned pretty inexpensively.
See: http://www.discountdigitalart.com/slides.html
Scanning a lot of slides is a real PIA and a real time consumer.
Bob Williams

In article ,
wrote:

What should we be looking for when buying a preowned Nikon V.
Is there a lamp that is good for only so many hours? and so on.
What would be the approximate longevity of a Nikon V?

No help with that except my Nikon V has scanned over 5000 slides and is
still going strong.

You might try the Nikon web site for anything on lamp replacement.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:48:45 GMT, wrote:

I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides scanned
with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the job
or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed scanner?

I'm not ready to givv up on the ( digital ) cameras that we all own.
they have close-up capability,
they have excellent optics
they have the mega-pixel capacity.

So why isn't there a simple camera attachment for copying slides ?

????
rj

In article ,
"RJ" wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:48:45 GMT, wrote:

I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides scanned
with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the job
or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed scanner?

I'm not ready to givv up on the ( digital ) cameras that we all own.
they have close-up capability,
they have excellent optics
they have the mega-pixel capacity.

So why isn't there a simple camera attachment for copying slides ?

????
rj

There are camera attachments for copying slides. The problem is there
is too much variability from the back lighting of the slide and the
quality of the end product.

If you want the best, use a dedicated slide scanner.

To each his own.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

David J. Littleboy wrote:

If you are serious about image quality and want to make 8x10 or larger
prints, the Nikon dedicated 35mm film scanners are very good.



Is there any real difference between t Dmax=4.8 and Dmax=4.2 ?
(I understand that these may be advertising numbers rather than in
actual practice).
I have a Nikon 4000 that a friend would like to buy (~$400) and before
starting up a comprehensive project to finally digitalizet all of my
slides worth converting thought that I would at give some consideration
of getting the 5000 if it is worth it. Probably no more than 1000
slides would get the full treatment: 4000 ppi and 16 bit depth.

Are there any other factors that would justify spending another $600 to
get the 5000?

A second question is about the slide feeder for the Nikons. I've read
reviews that they jam easily and really can't be relied on.

Thanks.

wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

If you are serious about image quality and want to make 8x10 or larger
prints, the Nikon dedicated 35mm film scanners are very good.

Is there any real difference between t Dmax=4.8 and Dmax=4.2 ?
(I understand that these may be advertising numbers rather than in
actual practice).

IMHO, those are just numbers. I'm not convinced that the V/5000 are
_significantly_ better than the 4000 (or in my case 9000 vs. 8000). IMHO,
it's in the somewhat better, not significantly better, sort of range. Spend
some time with your nose on the screen looking at these scans.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

I have a Nikon 4000 that a friend would like to buy (~$400) and before
starting up a comprehensive project to finally digitalizet all of my
slides worth converting thought that I would at give some consideration
of getting the 5000 if it is worth it. Probably no more than 1000
slides would get the full treatment: 4000 ppi and 16 bit depth.

If you have a 4000, I'd recommend that you get to work scanningg.

Are there any other factors that would justify spending another $600 to
get the 5000?

If you really are going to do a big project, even a slight increment in
performance, combined with the machine being in warantee, might be worth it.
For example, if your 4000 dies, you just lost the US$400 you could have sold
it for, whereas if the 5000 dies, Nikon's responsible.

A second question is about the slide feeder for the Nikons. I've read
reviews that they jam easily and really can't be relied on.

I can't speak to that: I use the 8000 with MF film, one frame at a painfully
slow time...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan