Digitizing 35 mm Slides

I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
time around.

Thanks, Don and Liz

You're right about tif (you can compress it with no loss). Size all depends
what you are going to use them for.
Printing 20mb is better 30 if you can get it with out getting too bored with
the scanner.
For digital display 5-10mb (tif) is good. If you are making slide shows you may
want to make jpeg copies, generally gets opened faster by programs.
A program such as Irfanview can batch convert whole folders at one time.

Have fun
Tom

In article ,
says...

I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
time around.

Thanks, Don and Liz

I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
LS-5000.

I have to confess to simply saying that family pictures are family pictures,
and I save all my many LS-5000 family scans as jpgs. They are a lot easier
to crop and edit as jpgs (take far less time to open and save; though if
you have them as TIFFS, and can spare the time and processing power, any
cropping or editing you do won't diminish quality or add artifacts).

I usually scan to include a narrow edge of the slide frame, because you can
always crop later, but you can't add in unscanned parts of the slide later.
I use the Digital ICE feature because it does a super job of cleaning up
dust, but don't use any of the other enhancements or fixes in the scanner
software because they've not looked natural to me, and I found it better to
try to clean any problems up in post-process editing instead.

In article ,
"Douglas W. Hoyt" wrote:


I use the Digital ICE feature because it does a super job of cleaning up
dust, but don't use any of the other enhancements or fixes in the scanner
software because they've not looked natural to me, and I found it better to
try to clean any problems up in post-process editing instead.

Second that. But, the ICE feature slows the scan and I have found that
the Polaroid dust and scratches filter works faster than the ICE feature
on a completed scan (and does a better job, and is free). Also, that
way one can fix other "defects" in the scan (for which I am using
Elements 3).

--
Panta Rei

Don and Liz Campbell wrote:

I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
Nikon LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3
and later with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file
size for a digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I
was thinking of approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to
get it right the first time around.

The optimum file size depends on how sharp the slides are, and only
you know that.

Save them as TIFF, and make sure you use a reasonably large colour
space. Adobe RGB will probably be adequate, but Wide Gamut RGB is
better. Adobe RGB is probably OK for 8-bit data, with Wide Gamut RGB
you might need to go to 12-bit data.

Andrew.

I'm also scanning slides, bought an HP Scanjet with a TMA, the slides come
out pretty grainy tho, I thought they were supposed to be better than film,
is it perhaps my scanner?
could I post a 500K JPEG expample?
Steven

Here's one example

In article ,
says...
I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
time around.

Thanks, Don and Liz



I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
with digital media.
I would scan only those images which show signs of fading before they
get too bad and those for which you have an immediate need for display
or other use.
Go to scantips.com for good advice on scanning resolution and other
issues.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Robert Feinman commented courteously ...

I always question the motivation for scanning
large quantities of slides. It is very labor
intensive. What do you plan to do with the scanned
images? If you are planning to archive them what
makes you think that the digital versions will last
any better than the originals? Original material kept
in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
environment is a proven way to preserve film.
We have little experience with digital media.
[snip]

I'm coming into this thread rather late, so please don't
think I'm trying to hijack it. I have a perspective on the
OP's question and a question of my own.

I have a $250 dedicated slide scanner which turned out to
not only be a crappy scanner from a picture quality
standpoint, but the time-per-slide is a couple of minutes,
and lots of time in PSP 9 fixing what it did wrong. I
could buy a $600 Nikon with Digital Ice but I'm still
mulling that.

I've got 5,000+ slides from my film days. Most are of my
travels through southern Germany, Paris, and London while
I was overseas with the U.S. Army in 1971. There're more
of 1970's vacations, my wedding, etc. I would *never* scan
anything close to 5,000 slide, they're probably 80% crap.

What I'd probably do is set up my reconditioned Kodak
Carousel and cull out 500 or so of the "best". My purpose
is two-fold:

1) I'm strongly considering a digital picture viewer like
an Epson 2000 (may have the model number wrong). My wife
wants one (albeit, not necessarily one that expensive), so
she can take *her* digitals to her friends houses. I'd
like to get the pictures I just described into the Epson.

2) I use a screen saver that continously flashes my
picture libraries. It's quite entertaining, so I like it.
I also have Microsoft's Wall Paper Changer Power Toy. So,
I'd like to have the 500 35mm's turning into digital;
they're just languishing in my basement right now.

So, that is why *I* would want to scan a large number of
slides. Might be 500, might approach 1,000. That may or
may not be the order of magnitude the OP is considering,
but it is still a farily large number.

So, my question for you or others reading this is:
considering both my time and expense, for 500, maybe 800-
1,000 slides, what would be most cost & time efficient,
buying a better scanner (ala Nikon) or shipping them off
to a pro?

Just as a rough guideline (I'll do the research on my
own), what should I expect to have to pay per slide
scanned? I'm just guessing, but I'd be willing to pay a
premium not to be a slave to a scanner for a month.

Thanks for your help.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Steven Hook" wrote in message
...
I'm also scanning slides, bought an HP Scanjet with a TMA, the
slides come out pretty grainy tho, I thought they were supposed to
be better than film, is it perhaps my scanner?
could I post a 500K JPEG expample?

Lots of grain with my Nikon Coolscan V, too, so must use my scanner's
Digital ICE4 which is preferable over trying to fix it in
postprocessing. If your scanner does not have ICE (or similar) then
yes you can fix the grain in post, ie use something like NeatImage or
the Kodak GEM plugin for Photoshop Elements or PS CS.