Scanning glass mount slides

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...

[SNIP]

No, and the autofocus is not always the best choice for certain slides. Some scanners have a
fixed DoF that covers a certain width of film, and might actually do okay with a slightly
curved piece of film. It is better to find a scanner that lets you manually adjust the focus.
Some films will give much better results by adjusting the focus slightly before, or slightly
after, the point that the autofocus suggests.

[SNIP]

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!


Thanks for the advice, Gordon.

Presumably going for a scanner with a higher DOF is a good idea... any
ideas about where to research such arcania?

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...

[SNIP]

No, and the autofocus is not always the best choice for certain slides. Some scanners have a
fixed DoF that covers a certain width of film, and might actually do okay with a slightly
curved piece of film. It is better to find a scanner that lets you manually adjust the focus.
Some films will give much better results by adjusting the focus slightly before, or slightly
after, the point that the autofocus suggests.

[SNIP]

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!


Thanks for the advice, Gordon.

Presumably going for a scanner with a higher DOF is a good idea... any
ideas about where to research such arcania?

Remove the slide from the glass mount and remount it a non glass plastic mount.
That works for me.

Remove the slide from the glass mount and remount it a non glass plastic mount.
That works for me.

MrScience9 wrote:

Remove the slide from the glass mount and remount it a non glass plastic mount.
That works for me.

or in the negative carrier for the scanner.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

MrScience9 wrote:

Remove the slide from the glass mount and remount it a non glass plastic mount.
That works for me.

or in the negative carrier for the scanner.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Ed Blagden wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...

[SNIP]

No, and the autofocus is not always the best choice for certain slides. Some scanners have a
fixed DoF that covers a certain width of film, and might actually do okay with a slightly
curved piece of film. It is better to find a scanner that lets you manually adjust the focus.
Some films will give much better results by adjusting the focus slightly before, or slightly
after, the point that the autofocus suggests.

[SNIP]

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Thanks for the advice, Gordon.

Presumably going for a scanner with a higher DOF is a good idea... any
ideas about where to research such arcania?

Unfortunately, there is very little information about this. There are a few individuals who
publish some limited test information on some scanners, though I don't have a handy list
available. Largely the scanner resolution numbers indicate the movement of a stepper motor, and
might not indicate a true possible resolution. With flat bad scanners, that is mostly true, except
for high end scanners like Creo or Fuji Lanovia. With drum scanners, the resolution is completely
different from other types of scanners, and there is an extra variable with an aperture setting on
the scanner, though largely even drum scanners of more than ten years ago can capture down to 6 µ
(micron) film area. To understand that better, most film grains are actually less than 3 µ
(micron) across. Newer drum scanners introduced in the last year can capture down to 3 µ size
areas.

I was guessing your interest was more along the lines of film scanners. Nearly all are CCD
trilinear array scanners. Of the 2500 to 2900 resolution film scanners, almost all those are
indicated a true possible capture resolution. With the 4000 to 5400 resolution scanners, many
actually do not capture that full resolution, and some barely do better than the 2500 to 2900
scanners. Of course, there are other issues, like need for calibration, light sources failing at
some point, speed of scanning, speed of communication (SCSI and FireWire generally quick, while
nearly all USB are painfully slow), film holders and film loading, ability to avoid dust, or
software issues. The basic idea is that you are not often giving up much going with what might
seem like a lower resolution scanner. Look more at colour issues (when possible), or at the film
holders.

Many people are quite happy with Nikon film scanners, and they seem to be quite popular. I am one
of the few that have not been happy with those, mostly due to breakdowns in high usage
environments. The capture ability is quite good, but reliability could be better. The Minolta
scanners are less known to me, though the few I have experience with seem fairly good. The newest
5400 is one I have not yet seen in action, though with the previous 4000 resolution models, they
were not capturing a true 4000 resolution. Most of the Microtek scanners are the same as the older
Polaroid film scanners, generally good, though the colour range could be better. The Canon film
scanners work quite well once off the default settings, though are somewhat let down by their
included software, which does not give a very accurate preview.

I have also used some Sony and Kodak film scanners. I use to consider the Kodak scanners as quite
good, though now I realize that they are really only good in a high volume environment. The colour
range is not as good as it would seem from the specifications. I find colour issues to be much
more troublesome than resolution, though all manufacturers list dynamic range information that is
nearly useless to actually compare different scanners, nor to give a true idea of capability.

A really great independent source of research is the FLAAR organization. They only test units for
one year before giving an opinion. Some manufacturers do not want to submit a scanner to a one
year test, so the few they have reports about might be not the latest in scanners (especially true
with flat scanners). However, they are definitely the first place to check into more information:

http://www.flaar.org/ Main page, which allows selection of other report areas. Some of the older
gear they mention is still quite good. Since they are slow about reporting, there are some newer
scanners that they have no written reports about.

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints2.html Norman Koren has some great information about
several scanners. He also has several articles discussing colour issues, and scanner settings.
While I do not find myself in total agreement with him, there is lots of very useful information
on his site.

http://fb42.s6.domainkunden.de/kunden/hamann/Artikel/Wann_macht_Trommelscannen_Sinn/EN_Scans_vergleich.htm

Okay, really long link to type out, hopefully you can just click on it. This site has some great
comparisons about different scanner types, and some really well considered information. Definitely
worth the reading, if you are interested in the technology behind scanners. Kai Hamann is
probably one of the most knowledgeable people I have ever read about for scanning technology.

Norman Koren also has many links to other sites, which can help you research and compare many
different scanners. You can spend quite a bit of time on his site, and using the links provided.

Since I don't really know what you want to accomplish with your film scanning, it is tough for me
to recommend any one scanner. I do recommend that whatever you choose, try to find a scanner
supported by SilverFast software). While you might never feel the need to buy SilverFast AI, it is
nice to have that option in the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

"Drum scanning oil" sounds messy to me! Doesn't it get everywhere and
attract dust, or is it not actually an oil at all?

The reason for 'using' a glass mount would not be so much a deliberate
intention but more a question of if I were to mount a number of slides for
safe keeping and distortion free projecting, and then also at a later date
wish to scan them, would I have to remove the glass

ITMA wrote:

"Drum scanning oil" sounds messy to me! Doesn't it get everywhere and
attract dust, or is it not actually an oil at all?


Not exactly. The idea is only to use one drop, which would restrict it to the
transparency surface only. It is actually good for the film. It will even
fill in scratched film, so you could consider it a type of dust and scratch
removal. Obviously, since it takes more time, this is not a good choice for
all scanned film. The big advantage of this method is best exploited for
large reprints.


The reason for 'using' a glass mount would not be so much a deliberate
intention but more a question of if I were to mount a number of slides for
safe keeping and distortion free projecting, and then also at a later date
wish to scan them, would I have to remove the glass

If it is anti-Newton glass, like in the better Gepe mounts, then you should
have no need to worry about future scanning. The only consideration should be
the additional cost over normal mounts.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

ITMA wrote:

"Drum scanning oil" sounds messy to me! Doesn't it get everywhere and
attract dust, or is it not actually an oil at all?


Not exactly. The idea is only to use one drop, which would restrict it to the
transparency surface only. It is actually good for the film. It will even
fill in scratched film, so you could consider it a type of dust and scratch
removal. Obviously, since it takes more time, this is not a good choice for
all scanned film. The big advantage of this method is best exploited for
large reprints.


The reason for 'using' a glass mount would not be so much a deliberate
intention but more a question of if I were to mount a number of slides for
safe keeping and distortion free projecting, and then also at a later date
wish to scan them, would I have to remove the glass

If it is anti-Newton glass, like in the better Gepe mounts, then you should
have no need to worry about future scanning. The only consideration should be
the additional cost over normal mounts.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!