A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Scanning Negatives II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 15th 18, 05:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
RJH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default 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
  #2  
Old March 15th 18, 05:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,783
Default 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 ****.
  #3  
Old March 15th 18, 07:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default 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.
  #4  
Old March 15th 18, 08:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,783
Default 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.
  #5  
Old March 16th 18, 01:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default 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.
  #6  
Old March 16th 18, 02:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,783
Default 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.
  #7  
Old March 16th 18, 05:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,852
Default 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

  #8  
Old March 16th 18, 12:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default 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.
  #9  
Old March 16th 18, 12:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default 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.
  #10  
Old March 16th 18, 01:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,783
Default Scanning Negatives II

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

But, take for instance the reflecta ProScan 10T or the RPS 10M. Both
takes 7 minutes for a single shot! Yes, at 10000dpi.


no. it's 'effectively 4100 ppi', apparently inflating the true
resolution for marketing purposes, to fool the masses.

https://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/...scan-10t-se.ht
ml
The Reflecta ProScan 10T is the top recommendation in the middle
price field for film scanners at the moment. It scans with a nominal
resolution of 5000 ppi and achieves effectively 4100 ppi.
....
As you can read in our test report, too, the image quality is rather
bad, if the scanner is operated with the manufacturer's scan software
CyberView. You will get very good scans only if you use the
SilverFast scan-software.

it needs third party software, which is even more money.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning negatives android Digital Photography 86 March 16th 18 08:31 PM
scanning old negatives Phillip Helbig[_2_] Digital Photography 23 May 29th 15 06:49 AM
Help scanning negatives, please! iamcanadian 35mm Photo Equipment 12 December 3rd 06 02:32 AM
Scanning 126 and 110 negatives Terry Tomato Film & Labs 7 March 14th 05 11:06 AM
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... ron 35mm Photo Equipment 3 October 14th 04 05:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.