35mm slides scanner clarification questions

"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uJCdnXiwrtp6imvenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Have you ever determined how long it would take to scan an 8x11 area at
> 2000+ dpi? How much space would the intitial scan occupy before cutting
> up? Even scanning one negative on my Canon flat bed scanner at 2400 dpi
> seems to take for ever. Even if you accept the time involved, I suspect
> the separation would get old very fast! I'll admit I don't intend to try
> but I suspect I would certainly like to have some sort of automatic feed
> that would allow the loading of say 20 slides.


Scanning 4x5" film at 2400 spi on the Epson 4990 is
reasonable, as long as dICE isn't turned on.

I don't use the 4990 for scanning slides. I'd like to
think it was smart enough to scan just the relevant
areas on the scan bed, but I haven't really tried it.

It's certainly "smart" in that regard, when scanning
LF in the supplied LF film holder.

Epson's implementation of dICE is pretty slow,
but still worth the trouble. I mean, I can do other
things while dICE is busy processing.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

> Have you ever determined how long it would take to scan an 8x11
> area at 2000+ dpi?
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland.

Let me suggest another solution, assuming you have a DSLR with a macro
lens that goes to 1:1.

Novoflex makes a series of macro focusing slides as well as bellows
units.

In the front of each of these are a pair of holes.

Novoflex also makes a device called a CASTELCOP DIGI. This has a pair of
rods that slide into these holes and a stop block that is adjustable to
control how far into the holes the CASTELCOP DIGI slides. On the end of
the CASTELCOP DIGI is a translucent screen with a combination slide and
film holder that adjusts up and down as well as side to side and accepts
any size slide mount or unmounted film - horizontally or vertically - up
to 6x9cm.

Assuming one has a DSLR and the proper lens you can make excellent dupes
from your slides, one at a time of course, from any light source - if
you white balance the translucent screen.

Cost for the CASTELCOP DIGI is $185.00. Resolution is limited only by
your camera.

The smallest Novoflex focus rack that will accommodate the CASTELCOP
DIGI is the CASTEL MINI with a list price of $226.00.

Camera stores normally discount from these prices.

So assuming you are willing to spend the time this can be an inexpensive
solution with a very fast copy time. The slowest part would be the
handling of the film/slide and not the actual recording of the image.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today David Dyer-Bennet commented courteously on the subject
at hand

> All Things Mopar <nunofyour.DeleteThis@beez.wax> writes:
>
>> 2nd recommendation for an Epson 4990.I clearly have to
>> learn more. Thanks.
>>
>> The Epson appears to be a simple flatbed with a slide
>> adapter. Is that what it is? I don't "know" but "think" I
>> want a dedicated scanner that presumeably is designed
>> specifically to do slides. Better would be on that can do
>> Kodak negs, but that's not as high a priority with me.
>
> The drawbacks to a flatbed are usually D-max capability,
> resolution, and maybe quality. The best flatbeds have very
> good quality, and you don't need the higher resolutions
> you've said. The Epson 4990 is widely thought (i.e. I've
> never used one myself) to be one of the best flatbeds.
>
> So, if the d-max capability works for you, it might be a
> solution, and it's cheap, and it at least lets you do
> batches of a few slides (I forget exactly how its slide
> holder works).

My current flatbed is a 6-7 year-old legal size MicroTek
Scanmaker 4. I originally bought it because I needed (not just
wanted) legal size and HP had dropped that size. I haven't
upgraded because it is adequate, although not good, and legal
size or tabloid is still tough to find. Plus, I do less and
less scanning these days.

So, I've not at all kept up with Epson's line. I looked at a
simple retail store today, and he tried to sell me a $200 POP
Epson flatbed with a single slide adapter. When I explained
what I was after, his eyes just glassed over. It's not his
fault; his store is the walk-up consumer market, of which my
definition says that $200 is high, not entry level.

A few people have recommended specific Epson models, but I
didn't perceive enough testimonial value to add them to my
short list to learn more about.

> My experience with the 5000 ED is that, for my old and far
> too often under-exposued slides, the D-max capability is
> marginal. I believe (but this doesn't seem to be a
> published rating) that the Epson 4990 is significantly less
> good in this area.

My slides run the usual gamut: OK, under, some over, fair
amoutn with wrong WB, camera shake from trying to do available
light without a tripod, you name it, I've got it. That, plus I
don't need 150 pictures of the Eiffel Tower, is why I SWAGed
the number of slides I want to scan at 1,000, probably much
less, out of a collection of say, 8,000 or so.

So, sorry if I appeared ungrateful or flippant about Epson, I
just haven't heard anything that tells me to change from my
growing opinion that I want a Nikon 5000 with an SF-210,
despite the steep (to me) price. Thank you.


--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

> Point being that Nikon's role in consumer
> and prosumer film scanners is roughly
> equivalent to Canon's role in DSLRs and
> digicams. It's not much of a market any
> more, but in any even, Nikon is the
> market leader.

I just said that to Bob, but I rather suspect he'll either
dispute that or try to spin it.

> The Braun may be an excellent machine,
> but I have no way of knowing that, because
> I've never heard any comments or questions
> about it, one way or another. If it weren't
> for Bob Solomon, I'd still not know about it.

Obviously, I've not heard any comments, yea or nay. Hell, I'd
never even heard of the brand until I asked my first question.
I've long been aware of Braun's excellent reputation in
electronics, and earlier, in cameras and other things, but
nothing leaps off the page these days.

> It's unfortunate that you can't test drive
> something as critical as a film scanner, so
> the best you can do is go by reviews and
> comments on the web or from people you know
> and trust.
>
> But in all cases, the review needs to be
> considered for veracity. Is it from a
> store owner or manufacturers' rep? Hmm,
> maybe some bias there. Has the store
> owner or rep actually used this thing
> he's selling?

As I think I said, I read and consider reviews, but I've had
enought bad experiences on anything-digital over the last 15
years to know that "figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

I remember reading Popular Photography in the early 1990s when
I was looking for my first flatbed. The HP Scanjet //c was by
far the superior scanner, according to the reviews. Besides
image quality, PP said it's color rendition was outstanding.

Not. Every damn scan I ever made in Win 3.1 and 95, regardless
of source or how I set the software, had a distinct green
color cast. After awhile, I learned to correct for it, but it
never did perform well.

Then there's my Nikon 5700 from two years ago. I bought that
on the recommendation of a friend, blind. I didn't even check
to see if I could find a store that'd let me do a test drive.
Well, for my purposes, it was a really piss-poor camera. When
it died just before Christmas, I fixed it the way I used to
fix Timex watches - I literally took it out on my drive-way
and broke it into 3 pieces with a hammer. I was astonished at
/not/ being able to even crack the lens after 4-5 hard whacks
with the head of the hammer, and it took a fair amount of
energy to even break the body.

> Even user reviews need to be scrutinized
> this way. There are folks who have been
> burned by Brand X, and spend the rest of
> their lives badmouthing Brand X in every
> forum available.
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, I've
> owned six or seven film scanners since 1998,
> and of all these, the Nikon LS-8000 is my
> absolute favorite; nearly five years old
> and still going strong. So I am very much
> a pro-Nikon partisan, though I recognize
> that there are other worthy and excellent
> film scanners out there.

Very few people will buy a car, no matter who makes it, based
on Motor Trend and Consumer Report reviews alone. Yes, those
are very important, as are lots of things. But, you really
don't know if you will like it, or if your family and "stuff"
fits in it, if you don't at least take a 30 minute spin.

A brief digretion to my Canon Rebel XT, each day I love it
more. The learning curve was incredibly steep and there's
still areas I can't fathom. But, I was lead to believe from
every source I looked at that it was the low-noise leader in
its field. Right /after/ I bought it, I read Popular
Photography's review where they said "very low noise up to ISO
200, noice begins at 400 and is unacceptable at 800."

WTF?! I wouldn't give a hoot after I'd bought it (and I
wouldn't return it now, anyway, I like it), except that I'd
already figured out that ISO 800 wouldn't work if the exposure
wasn't dead-nuts accurate, much less 1600. So, I shoot flash
and intend to practice available light with a light-weight
tripod before I try car pictures for real in a museum.

> I can't tell you much about the LS-5000,
> the Coolscan V, or about automatic slide
> feeders on film scanners.
>
> David Dyer-Bennet has been on these lists
> for years, is as knowledgeable as anyone
> here, and I'd trust him implicitly in his
> comments on these matters.
>
Thanks, rafe. I am going with David's recommendation. One data
point is enough, when it is as in-depth and long-term as
David's experience is with Coolscans. It helps that reviews
confirm what David says in the lab, but that's not what tipped
the scales for me.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today James Silverton commented courteously on the subject at
hand

> Have you ever determined how long it would take to scan an
> 8x11 area at 2000+ dpi? How much space would the intitial
> scan occupy before cutting up? Even scanning one negative
> on my Canon flat bed scanner at 2400 dpi seems to take for
> ever. Even if you accept the time involved, I suspect the
> separation would get old very fast! I'll admit I don't
> intend to try but I suspect I would certainly like to have
> some sort of automatic feed that would allow the loading of
> say 20 slides.
>
You're not talking to me, but my answer is "damn straight!" When
I'm scanning half-tone, I'll "overscan" by tripling the DPI I
want for the final image, but I have /never/ gone over 500-600
DPI. There flat-ass isn't enough image information there to make
it worthwhile. Then, too, people need to be aware of when any
given scanner switches over from optical to interpolated DPI.

As to 8x10, let's see, 320,000,000 pixels x 3 for bytes of RGB
in memory until you save to JPEG. That'd finish in time for the
Memorial Day parades on most computers, if Windoze didn't die a
cruel death trying to do it at all.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today Bob Salomon commented courteously on the subject at
hand

> Let me suggest another solution, assuming you have a DSLR
> with a macro lens that goes to 1:1.
>
> Novoflex makes a series of macro focusing slides as well as
> bellows units.

Don't go there, Bob. You're in the tall weeds even suggesting
this for more than a handful of slides, and even then, it must
be very carefully qualified to a specific camera, specific
slide adapter, specific optics or straight-to-sensors, etc. It
is a rare digital that can match the image quality of a
dedicated slide scanner, yours or Nikon or whomever's.

> In the front of each of these are a pair of holes.
>
> Novoflex also makes a device called a CASTELCOP DIGI. This
> has a pair of rods that slide into these holes and a stop
> block that is adjustable to control how far into the holes
> the CASTELCOP DIGI slides. On the end of the CASTELCOP DIGI
> is a translucent screen with a combination slide and film
> holder that adjusts up and down as well as side to side and
> accepts any size slide mount or unmounted film -
> horizontally or vertically - up to 6x9cm.
>
> Assuming one has a DSLR and the proper lens you can make
> excellent dupes from your slides, one at a time of course,
> from any light source - if you white balance the
> translucent screen.

I've already investigated this and dismissed it as total
horseshit. For my Canon Rebel XT, the best adapter I've found
is very pricey and doesn't use a lens at all - it sends the
analog light directly to the sensors. You can't crop and
there's no way around the 1.6X sensor size. As soon as you put
a lens in the picture, your "scans" are total mush, unless
you've invested $4,000 in a "dedicated" macro lens.

(you ever do 1:1 with a bellows and good lens in the film
days?)

> Cost for the CASTELCOP DIGI is $185.00. Resolution is
> limited only by your camera.

Yes, resolution is limited by your camera, but that is hardly
the only considation, much less the most important. More mega
pixels doth /not/ a sharper picture make - necessarily. Easy
example: a 6 MP P & S vs. a 6MP Canon or Nikon DSLR.

> The smallest Novoflex focus rack that will accommodate the
> CASTELCOP DIGI is the CASTEL MINI with a list price of
> $226.00.
>
> Camera stores normally discount from these prices.
>
> So assuming you are willing to spend the time this can be
> an inexpensive solution with a very fast copy time. The
> slowest part would be the handling of the film/slide and
> not the actual recording of the image.
>
Bob, what is your photographic experience on film and digital?

/Nobdody/ who wants quality will try to get it with a $185
gizmo on their DSLR. What happened to your ringing endorsement
of the Braun 4000, or did you qualify that by conveniently
spinning the issue down by cutting the price to 15% of the
Bruan. And, let me guess, you sell CastelCop, right? If yes,
you just crossed over into the Twilight Zone of company shill,
so clearly biased that no one will listen to you in future.

I will readily apologize to the extent I leaped to a
conclusion based on unfounded assumptions about you, but as
I've read more and more of your comments in lo these many
threads, I deduced that you aren't personally that exerpienced
outside what you sell. I won't disparage you further than I
already have, but I'm now wondering how I should interpret
your real-world experienc with the Braun 4000.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today David Dyer-Bennet commented courteously on the subject
at hand

>> I am also retired, but my desire is to get the "good" 1000
>> or so slides out of the 8000+ in my basement scanned. I am
>> an archivist, not an artist or perfectionist. So, I'm not
>> at all interested in a solution that's 10, 20, 60 minutes
>> per slide.
>
> For actual scan times, the 5000 ED won't go over about 5
> minutes. Any higher numbers I've mentioned are for the
> *entire process*, often including multiple scans as I play
> with the settings, plus basic Photoshop time afterwards.

That's what I suspected. But, again, your personal experience
is more than enough for me. "Ask the man who owns one",
Packard's motto.

>> If I haven't looked at my slides in 20+ years, can't be
>> that important, right? So, I want good quality, yes, but
>> speed and easy of effort are far more important.
>
> Yeah, well, maybe. I've had quite a lot of interest in old
> slides when I scanned them and made them accessible. We
> had a fairly long thread on another newsgroup where I asked
> for help identifying people in those old SF convention
> pictures of mine (the 1972 and 1974 examples I posted
> pointers to earlier) with people in the photos coming out
> of the woodwork and identifying the people standing next to
> them, and general interesting discussion.

David, I'd like a little to re-visit the castles of Germany,
Paris, and London, and get my honeymoon and vacation slides
onto my computer, but I'd also like to find and scan any/all
pictures of my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles,
cousins, etc.

I never said, but that's my primary motivator.

My father was one of only 40 Marines to storm Mt. Suribachi on
February 23, 1945. He wasn't one of the 6 flag raisers, of
course, but he was there. I know I have hundreds of pictures
of him that I'd like to add to my album. I can easily do that
without spending $1,500 because I'm unlikely to find any in
the boxes I've labeled from my US Army days in West Germany.
<grin>

But, if I'm going to go through all the effort of finding his
photos and buying something that will preserve his memory with
quality scans, I'll want his family, my mother's family, my
daughter when she was a small child, etc. And, not just 1,000
bad pictures of Mad King Ludwig's 4 castles.

Since I've waited this long, I am going to take my local
camera store manager's advice and let him come back from PMA
with what's new. If I'm at all lucky, Nikon may replace or
upgrade the 5000, and I can buy one in current stock at a
better price. Or, maybe, the new one will have a bigger/better
SF-210. Or, maybe I'll be happy enough with a 5000. So, what's
a couple weeks?

I've very much enjoyed interacting with you, David. I have
learned a great deal. Thank you.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

On 17 Feb 2006 22:14:55 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b DeleteThis @dd-b.net>
wrote:

>All Things Mopar <nunofyour DeleteThis @beez.wax> writes:
>
>> My current flatbed is a 6-7 year-old legal size MicroTek
>> Scanmaker 4. I originally bought it because I needed (not just
>> wanted) legal size and HP had dropped that size. I haven't
>> upgraded because it is adequate, although not good, and legal
>> size or tabloid is still tough to find. Plus, I do less and
>> less scanning these days.
>
>Amusingly, I have one of those just to my left as I type. I haven't
>had it very along, though; I got it from a friend in Nashville last
>September. It's a step up from my Umax ASTRA 1220U (with full-size
>transparency lid; bloody thing cost exactly as much as the scanner,
>back when).

I recently asked here for some advice in buying a new CCD scanner to
use to scan objects such as coins. Later I remembered that I had an
old Microtek ScanMaker 4800 tucked away that I hadn't used for quite a
while.

I pulled it out, downloaded ScanWizard from the Microtek site, and
scanned some coins. Beautiful! Nice depth. True colors. These are
US gold pieces, and scanners tend to give them an odd reddish color.
I like the ScanWizard software.

I have the slide copying accessory for it, but I haven't tried that
yet.

Pays never to throw anything away. I guess I'll hang on to that
external 5 1/4" diskette drive, too. You never know. I think I have
a 8" diskette drive, too, but any disks I have left in that format
were CP/M stuff.




--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976DDF57AA1B0ReplyID.RemoveThis@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour.RemoveThis@beez.wax> wrote:

> I've long been aware of Braun's excellent reputation in
> electronics, and earlier, in cameras and other things,

Different Brauns as I pointed out earlier.

Our Braun made the cameras and makes projectore, including opaque and
overheads.

The other Braun is part of Gillette and makes shavers and appliances and
made flash. No relationship except in both cases the founders name was
Brown - Braun.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976DDF57AA1B0ReplyID RemoveThis @216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour RemoveThis @beez.wax> wrote:

> > The Braun may be an excellent machine,
> > but I have no way of knowing that, because
> > I've never heard any comments or questions
> > about it,

Your local dealer, Adray, is a PRO member. Tell them to check with Mike
at Wolfes camera in Kansas - not the Wolf that is owned by Ritz.

They should find comments and reviews on their private PRO dealer
section as several of those stores use the Braun 4000,

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today Bob Salomon commented courteously on the subject at
hand

>> > The Braun may be an excellent machine, but I have no
>> > way of knowing that, because I've never heard any
>> > comments or questions about it,
>
> Your local dealer, Adray, is a PRO member. Tell them to
> check with Mike at Wolfes camera in Kansas - not the Wolf
> that is owned by Ritz.

So, you come into Micigan, Bob? I know of one Adray store in
Troy and their original store in Dearborn. I don't know any
others so I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you know about
them.

Tell me again what being a "PRO member" means, and why I would
want to buy indirectly through whoever Mike is at Wolfes
("Wolf's") in Kansas. Kansas? And, if Adray can get to Braun
by going through some obscure store in Kansas, which makes me
quite nervous, why wouldn't the store manager I deal with tell
me that right away? The first brand I asked him about was the
Braun 4000. This also makes me nervous because I'm suspicious
that my guy either had bad experiences with Braun or he's on
the take from Nikon (which I doubt) or he doesn't like the
kick-backs he gets from Wolf's for an indirect sale from them.

> They should find comments and reviews on their private PRO
> dealer section as several of those stores use the Braun
> 4000,

Who would see these reviews besides a PRO member and why would
that be of use to me? You've seen me say multiple times that I
place very little weight in a buying decision, 10% or less,
sometime zero%, on reviews. It is technical jargon, often
bullshit, often contrived testing in a lab, no way to relate
to a real-world situation, and no real way to evaluate
"samples." I place /less/ than zero% on what I'd hear from a
camera store guy who is relating 2nd-hand what he read from
your possibly contrived "review". If my guy, or someone on
this NG, hasn't actually used a Braun 4000, they simply carry
no weight at all with me, no matter how loud and long they go
on. "Money talks and bullshit walks" is applicable here.

Buying on reviews alone is not unlike contrived "sample"
prints that printer makers leave by their products - no one
knows what was done to the image, how big it was or anything.
Also, samples are often "soft" objects and the real point is
to show color saturation. I can't judge a printer without
trying in on my car pictures, and I /won't/ buy a scanner
through some arcane method through a membership in "PRO"
(whatever that is), and likely not be able to return it to
Kansas.

You're qute adamant that your product is a superior solution,
so why is it that /nobody/ has ever heard of it, much less
used it, hence nobody can offer any concrete evidence to
corroborate what is quite clearly /your/ biased opinion? The
more you talk, Bob, the less credibility you have with me, and
a solution that involves going to one specific store in the
entire U.S. doesn't make me "all warm and fuzzy."

--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

In article <Xns976E49E159319ReplyID RemoveThis @216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <nunofyour RemoveThis @beez.wax> wrote:

> Tell me again what being a "PRO member" means, and why I would
> want to buy indirectly through whoever Mike is at Wolfes
> ("Wolf's") in Kansas. Kansas? And, if Adray can get to Braun
> by going through some obscure store in Kansas, which makes me
> quite nervous, why wouldn't the store manager I deal with tell
> me that right away? The first brand I asked him about was the
> Braun 4000. This also makes me nervous because I'm suspicious
> that my guy either had bad experiences with Braun

That isn't what I said at all.

Adray's is a member of PRO - Photographic Research Organization - this
is a dealer buying group in the USA headquarted in Fairfiel, CT.

The President of PRO is the owner of Wolfes in KS. Wolfe uses the 4000
in their lab so other PRO members like Adrays can check with Wolfes to
see how they use it. Just ask the buyer at Adrays to check with Mike at
Wolfes.


In no case would Adrays buy it from Wolfes to sell to you.

All dealers, including Adrays, buy our products directly from us. Just
like they buy Nikon products directly from Nikon.

Both Nikon and we are the distributors of our products.

As for what a store sells. That is a decision made by the store. If they
have something in stock they are going to do their best to sell that
rather then special order something that they don't carry in stock.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions 

Today Bob Salomon commented courteously on the subject at
hand

>> Tell me again what being a "PRO member" means, and why I
>> would want to buy indirectly through whoever Mike is at
>> Wolfes ("Wolf's") in Kansas. Kansas? And, if Adray can get
>> to Braun by going through some obscure store in Kansas,
>> which makes me quite nervous, why wouldn't the store
>> manager I deal with tell me that right away? The first
>> brand I asked him about was the Braun 4000. This also
>> makes me nervous because I'm suspicious that my guy
>> either had bad experiences with Braun
>
> That isn't what I said at all.

I don't know what you said. But, I do know this: you still
don't get it, you've got no credibility, and I'm gone.

> Adray's is a member of PRO - Photographic Research
> Organization - this is a dealer buying group in the USA
> headquarted in Fairfiel, CT.
>
> The President of PRO is the owner of Wolfes in KS. Wolfe
> uses the 4000 in their lab so other PRO members like Adrays
> can check with Wolfes to see how they use it. Just ask the
> buyer at Adrays to check with Mike at Wolfes.
>
>
> In no case would Adrays buy it from Wolfes to sell to you.
>
> All dealers, including Adrays, buy our products directly
> from us. Just like they buy Nikon products directly from
> Nikon.
>
> Both Nikon and we are the distributors of our products.
>
> As for what a store sells. That is a decision made by the
> store. If they have something in stock they are going to do
> their best to sell that rather then special order something
> that they don't carry in stock.
>



--
ATM, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm slides scanner clarification questions