Film Scanners

I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
this require the better quality scanner...

TIA...
Gel.

--
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by".
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

"Gel" wrote in message
...
I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
Whether it is good enough depends on the size of any prints you expect to
make.. An 1800 dpi scanner should yield a file that can make a decent 8x10.
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
this require the better quality scanner...
No
Jim

On 6 Feb 2005 23:56:08 GMT, Gel
wrote:

I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
this require the better quality scanner...


How much is your time worth? Are you
interested in the best possible quality
or just "good enough?"

If the latter, I suggest you find a
photo lab or service to scan your slides.

If the former, get the Minolta and
be prepared for a lot of time at the
computer.

Seriously, for 35mm, the Minolta 5400
is about the best there is nowadays.

Film scanning is tedious and time-
consuming. For me, if it's worth
doing at all, it's worth doing right.
If you just need "good enough," farm
it out.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

I totally agree with Rafe - after you've done 100 of them, see how much
enthusiasm you still have!

A 'cheapie' film scanner may suffer from the following:
- poor focus and overall image quality
- inconsistent/inaccurate colour (* a bit less of a problem with
trannies, admittedly)
- poor dynamic range (ie blown highlihgts, lost shadow detail)
- slow scanning
- poor quality of moving parts may result in premature `aging`
/breakdown

1800 dpi should be OK for screen display, eg DVD display on a TV, but
if you are planning to print any of these images to much bigger than 7
x 5, forget it. Either farm it out to a bureau (check your local
photo-processor, most offer fairly low-cost, medium quality (2400 dpi)
scan services, and they may have better quality services at a price),
or prepare yourself for a long learning curve, preferably with a decent
film scanner.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I totally agree with Rafe - after you've done 100 of them, see how much
enthusiasm you still have!



Another "agree". I only did about 50 before I gave up. It is a slow,
tedious, unpleasant task. I recommend sending them to a specialty house and
let them do it. 1000 slides should take you about 2 years.

Don Dunlap

A 'cheapie' film scanner may suffer from the following:
- poor focus and overall image quality
- inconsistent/inaccurate colour (* a bit less of a problem with
trannies, admittedly)
- poor dynamic range (ie blown highlihgts, lost shadow detail)
- slow scanning
- poor quality of moving parts may result in premature `aging`
/breakdown

1800 dpi should be OK for screen display, eg DVD display on a TV, but
if you are planning to print any of these images to much bigger than 7
x 5, forget it. Either farm it out to a bureau (check your local
photo-processor, most offer fairly low-cost, medium quality (2400 dpi)
scan services, and they may have better quality services at a price),
or prepare yourself for a long learning curve, preferably with a decent
film scanner.

In article m,
says...
Another "agree". I only did about 50 before I gave up. It is a slow,
tedious, unpleasant task. I recommend sending them to a specialty house and
let them do it. 1000 slides should take you about 2 years.

Don Dunlap

and after the first 1000, you will want to redo most of them because you
are just getting the hang of it now.

(O;

In article ,
Gel wrote:

I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
this require the better quality scanner...

I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
adequate for printing. The Minolta Scan Dual 4 will yield a 4000 x 3000
image (approx) at 400dpi - far better for big enlargements.
However scanning is very time consuming and tedious. The 1800 will scan
1 neg or slide in about 2 minutes, the Minolta takes 5 minutes.
Slides tend to be more detailed than negatives and both scanners will
work very well on bothe negs and slides.
The Minolta has the advantage of handling APS reels too.
If you'd like samples of each contact me at anyone4tennis1SPAM@
yahoo.co.uk (remove spam) with another address that will accept larger
files.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy
wrote:

In article ,
Gel wrote:

I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
this require the better quality scanner...

I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
adequate for printing.


Something's wrong with your math here.

1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a
35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx
1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86
Mpixels at 1800 dpi.


FWIW, I started out in film scanning
with a Microtek 35t+, which was 1950
dpi -- and from that I got images a
little over 5 Mpixels.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe bustin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy
wrote:

In article ,
Gel wrote:

I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD
and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at
£100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or
would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning,
does this require the better quality scanner...

I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
adequate for printing.


Something's wrong with your math here.

1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a
35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx
1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86
Mpixels at 1800 dpi.


FWIW, I started out in film scanning
with a Microtek 35t+, which was 1950
dpi -- and from that I got images a
little over 5 Mpixels.


My 'primitive' HP S20 scanned a mid-50s
Kodachrome® 35mm slide at
2400dpi and saved it at
2221 x 3275 and as
*TIFF at 20.8*MB;
Photo Shop saved it as a biggest-possible
*JPEG at 8.39*MB


That included enough in the frame you could
see all the fuzz from the cardboard mount
trailing into the image, and the round corners.


--
Frank ess

"Because of the Swiss Cheese nature of everyone's life experience and
education, the Whoosh Bird can drop a load on anyone's head, without
warning." -Albrecht Einstein