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.

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

In article , neux_55-
says...
I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and=
=20
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at =A3100- N=
ow,=20
would I be better off with a Minolta at =A32-300 more? Or would the quali=
ty=20
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?=20
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does=
=20
this require the better quality scanner...=20
=20
TIA...=20
Gel. =20
=20
=20
The rule-of-thumb is to take the dpi of the scanner and divide by 300 to
get the degree of enlargement you can expect with best quality for
prints. So, 1800/300 =3D 6x or about a 6x9 inch print. If you print at=20
240 or 200 you can go a little bigger with some loss of sharpness.=20
1800dpi is more than needed for online viewing where most images are in
the range of 600-800 pixels.
The real question is why do you want to scan so many images? What are=20
you planning to do with them? If you are just archiving them why do you
think that the digital format will be a better choice than just storing
the originals in good environmental conditions. If you want some more
advice on scanning go to the scantips.com web site.
You can also read the scanning discussions in the tips section of my
web site as well.

--=20
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Robert Feinman commented courteously ...

The rule-of-thumb is to take the dpi of the scanner and
divide by 300 to get the degree of enlargement you can
expect with best quality for prints.

I'd go with 200 unless you plan gigantic prints. And, the
old photographer's rule for viewing distance comes into
play. Call me a fool, but I've got plenty of 8.5 x 11, 11
x 17, and 13 x 19 pictures printed on glossy paper with
PPIs as low as 125 (for 8.5 x 11) or even 60 for the big
guys.

I don't let people put their nose up against my pictures.
They can view the 8.5's at a foot or two, but I display my
"gallery" of large prints (I have an HP DEskjet 1220C
wide-carriage printer) in a way that people can't get much
close than 4-5 feet. Natually, if you look at any of my
prints up close, they look ghastly! Fuzziness and severe
pixelations are a fact of life at those low PPIs.

And, you can only expect improvement up to the visual
information in the original. In a very good 35mm
KodaChrome, I've gotten good results with a dedicated
scanner at 2600 DPI, then resized down. Less-than-perfect
slides and/or slides taken with a less-than-optimum camera
may not be able to withstand DPIs about about 1200.

Unfortunately, in my case, the scanner turned out to be
crap. It's sharp enough but brightness/contrast, color
balance, and color saturation are just dismal. Lots of
post-process time in PSP to fix them...

You can also read the scanning discussions in the tips
section of my web site as well

I may not be the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to
scanning, but 12 years experience makes be at least fair.
But, I am always on the lookout for new tips to augment my
skills.

I'm sure I missed it - what's your web site URL? Thanks.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

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.

All Things Mopar wrote in
:

Robert Feinman commented courteously ...

The rule-of-thumb is to take the dpi of the scanner and
divide by 300 to get the degree of enlargement you can
expect with best quality for prints.





Thanks to all for your comments, very helpful. If it was just for the
old folks Transparencies, I would probably farm the job out, but I also
would like to keep my film cameras and process the negs then scan them in
and print what I want and archive the rest ( if they are worth archiving
:-) )

Maybe I'm weird, but I actually enjoy spending a few hours scanning and
editing....

I have seen this http://tinyurl.com/yqee which looks like it
might fit my bill.

thanks again....

Gel.


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