Old 35mm Slides

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

Hi all

I have just unearthed about 600 slides taken by my late father about 50
years ago.

Can anyone suggest a scanner that would allow me to put these slides (some
of which are deteriorating) onto CD/DVD whilst at the same time 'touch up'
the problems with these slides.

I have little knowlege of film editing etc but am prepared to give it a go.

I see the Nikon Coolscan LS40 advertised locally here in Melbourne Australia
for $675 Australian ( US $470.)

Chief
10 answers Last reply
More about 35mm slides
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
    D. Douglas <bbnet1@bigpond.com> wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > I have just unearthed about 600 slides taken by my late father about
    > 50 years ago.
    >
    > Can anyone suggest a scanner that would allow me to put these slides
    > (some of which are deteriorating) onto CD/DVD whilst at the same time
    > 'touch up' the problems with these slides.
    >
    > I have little knowlege of film editing etc but am prepared to give it
    > a go.
    >
    > I see the Nikon Coolscan LS40 advertised locally here in Melbourne
    > Australia for $675 Australian ( US $470.)
    >
    > Chief

    You can certainly buy dedicated film scanners such as the ones you mention,
    and they will doubtless do a good job. However, they are very expensive and
    may be an overkill.

    Many general-purpose A4-size scanners have built-in facilities for scanning
    mounted slides and film strips - and do an adequate job, unless you are
    looking for extremely high resolutions. Many come bundled with photo editing
    software including, in some case, scratch and dust removal.

    I have recently bought an Epson Perfection 1670-Photo scanner which has all
    the necessary features, and which costs but a fraction of the price you
    mention. They sell in the UK for about UKP 80 (US $140) - although I paid a
    lot less than this for mine on Ebay. [If you *do* go for something like
    this, note that they come in 2 versions - only one of which has a built-in
    light-lid for film scanning - so you need to get the right version].
    --
    Cheers,
    Roger
    ______
    Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    In article <FhQFc.2952$Fc7.484016@stones.force9.net>, Roger M
    <rkm@privacy.net> writes
    >In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
    >D. Douglas <bbnet1@bigpond.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi all
    >>
    >> I have just unearthed about 600 slides taken by my late father about
    >> 50 years ago.
    >>
    >> Can anyone suggest a scanner that would allow me to put these slides
    >> (some of which are deteriorating) onto CD/DVD whilst at the same time
    >> 'touch up' the problems with these slides.
    >>
    >> I have little knowlege of film editing etc but am prepared to give it
    >> a go.
    >>
    >> I see the Nikon Coolscan LS40 advertised locally here in Melbourne
    >> Australia for $675 Australian ( US $470.)
    >>
    >> Chief
    >
    >You can certainly buy dedicated film scanners such as the ones you mention,
    >and they will doubtless do a good job. However, they are very expensive and
    >may be an overkill.
    >
    >Many general-purpose A4-size scanners have built-in facilities for scanning
    >mounted slides and film strips - and do an adequate job, unless you are
    >looking for extremely high resolutions. Many come bundled with photo editing
    >software including, in some case, scratch and dust removal.
    >
    >I have recently bought an Epson Perfection 1670-Photo scanner which has all
    >the necessary features, and which costs but a fraction of the price you
    >mention. They sell in the UK for about UKP 80 (US $140) - although I paid a
    >lot less than this for mine on Ebay. [If you *do* go for something like
    >this, note that they come in 2 versions - only one of which has a built-in
    >light-lid for film scanning - so you need to get the right version].

    Stick with the Nikon that you first considered - at least if the slides
    are 35mm. That scanner includes a facility called ICE which will detect
    and conceal some, if not all, of the deterioration damage you refer to,
    and this can save hours of time on each scan. It uses an extra channel
    which is sensitive to infrared to distinguish between the defects and
    the image. Unfortunately, Kodachrome is still fairly opaque to
    infrared, especially dense shadows, so it is not as reliable with that
    film and it would be be worth checking the film type first. You might
    also want to look for the newer Coolscan V (LS-50) which is about the
    same price and has better resolution, or the Minolta Dimage 5400 which
    is a little more expensive but again more resolution.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    Thanks for the quick info. Much appreciated. I might take some slides in &
    see what results the two machines produce. Seemed a lot to pay for a scanner
    that I mightn't use much after this. Commercially it will cost me $1.10 /
    slide so purchaseing is a real option..

    Is the software with the Nikon user friendly enough for a first time user?.
    I am competent with a computer.

    Chief

    "Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:2hFMFYB7n95AFwGK@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
    > In article <FhQFc.2952$Fc7.484016@stones.force9.net>, Roger M
    > <rkm@privacy.net> writes
    > >In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
    > >D. Douglas <bbnet1@bigpond.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi all
    > >>
    > >> I have just unearthed about 600 slides taken by my late father about
    > >> 50 years ago.
    > >>
    > >> Can anyone suggest a scanner that would allow me to put these slides
    > >> (some of which are deteriorating) onto CD/DVD whilst at the same time
    > >> 'touch up' the problems with these slides.
    > >>
    > >> I have little knowlege of film editing etc but am prepared to give it
    > >> a go.
    > >>
    > >> I see the Nikon Coolscan LS40 advertised locally here in Melbourne
    > >> Australia for $675 Australian ( US $470.)
    > >>
    > >> Chief
    > >
    > >You can certainly buy dedicated film scanners such as the ones you
    mention,
    > >and they will doubtless do a good job. However, they are very expensive
    and
    > >may be an overkill.
    > >
    > >Many general-purpose A4-size scanners have built-in facilities for
    scanning
    > >mounted slides and film strips - and do an adequate job, unless you are
    > >looking for extremely high resolutions. Many come bundled with photo
    editing
    > >software including, in some case, scratch and dust removal.
    > >
    > >I have recently bought an Epson Perfection 1670-Photo scanner which has
    all
    > >the necessary features, and which costs but a fraction of the price you
    > >mention. They sell in the UK for about UKP 80 (US $140) - although I paid
    a
    > >lot less than this for mine on Ebay. [If you *do* go for something like
    > >this, note that they come in 2 versions - only one of which has a
    built-in
    > >light-lid for film scanning - so you need to get the right version].
    >
    > Stick with the Nikon that you first considered - at least if the slides
    > are 35mm. That scanner includes a facility called ICE which will detect
    > and conceal some, if not all, of the deterioration damage you refer to,
    > and this can save hours of time on each scan. It uses an extra channel
    > which is sensitive to infrared to distinguish between the defects and
    > the image. Unfortunately, Kodachrome is still fairly opaque to
    > infrared, especially dense shadows, so it is not as reliable with that
    > film and it would be be worth checking the film type first. You might
    > also want to look for the newer Coolscan V (LS-50) which is about the
    > same price and has better resolution, or the Minolta Dimage 5400 which
    > is a little more expensive but again more resolution.
    > --
    > Kennedy
    > Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    > Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
    replying)
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    In article <ZTRFc.77926$sj4.37668@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, D.
    Douglas <bbnet1@bigpond.com> writes
    >Thanks for the quick info. Much appreciated. I might take some slides in &
    >see what results the two machines produce. Seemed a lot to pay for a scanner
    >that I mightn't use much after this. Commercially it will cost me $1.10 /
    >slide so purchaseing is a real option..
    >
    Have you had a look on Ebay for similar used scanners available to you.
    That would be much more cost effective - and you can always put them
    back on Ebay when you have finished the job and get most, if not all, of
    your cash back.

    >Is the software with the Nikon user friendly enough for a first time user?.
    >I am competent with a computer.
    >
    I don't think you'll have any trouble getting acceptable results
    straight out of the box but, like everything, practice and knowledge of
    the control available to you will help improve on that baseline.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:01:00 GMT, "D. Douglas" <bbnet1@bigpond.com>
    wrote:

    >Hi all
    >
    >I have just unearthed about 600 slides taken by my late father about 50
    >years ago.
    >
    >Can anyone suggest a scanner that would allow me to put these slides (some
    >of which are deteriorating) onto CD/DVD whilst at the same time 'touch up'
    >the problems with these slides.
    >
    >I have little knowlege of film editing etc but am prepared to give it a go.
    >
    >I see the Nikon Coolscan LS40 advertised locally here in Melbourne Australia
    >for $675 Australian ( US $470.)

    I've noted you've received several answers.
    Typically the dedicated scanners will do a better job than a flat bed
    with an adapter, but it depends on the quality you seek.

    I saw digital ICE mentioned and it does work nice in its latest
    incarnation, but IF those slides are Kodachrome (and they probably
    are) it is likely ICE will do little to improve them, but that seems
    to vary from batch to batch of slides.

    There are also features that will restore the original color, or make
    a very good attempt. I had some Kodachrome 25 slides that were almost
    faded out, but they came out looking almost like the original.

    I assume the LS40 uses NikonScan, but don't know for sure. It is
    quite user friendly, but does not get along well with some programs
    that might be running at the same time.

    Be advised, scanning at a high resolution does take up a *lot* of
    drive space with 4000 dpi images taking *about* 60 megs each. Hence
    the DVD works nicely.

    Remember too that no storage medium is permanent and the life of DVDs
    is still a bit of a question. They probably will be long lived, but
    I'd make two copies of each, just to be safe.

    DVDs are also sensitive as to how they are handled. Store them away
    from sunlight, on edge in jewel cases, and do not flex them when
    removing them from the cases.

    Good Luck,

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    >
    >Chief
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:20:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk>

    >Stick with the Nikon that you first considered - at least if the slides
    >are 35mm. That scanner includes a facility called ICE which will detect
    >and conceal some, if not all, of the deterioration damage you refer to,
    >and this can save hours of time on each scan. It uses an extra channel
    >which is sensitive to infrared to distinguish between the defects and
    >the image. Unfortunately, Kodachrome is still fairly opaque to
    >infrared, especially dense shadows, so it is not as reliable with that
    >film and it would be be worth checking the film type first. You might
    >also want to look for the newer Coolscan V (LS-50) which is about the
    >same price and has better resolution, or the Minolta Dimage 5400 which
    >is a little more expensive but again more resolution.

    Briefly, what is best overall please - Coolscan V LS-50 or Minolta Dimage
    5400.....?

    David,
    Sydney NSW Australia.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    In article <072mh0lb6be5rgfkjpkic3buigjbn7ic54@4ax.com>, David
    Springthorpe <david.springthorpeGOAWAY@idx.com.au> writes
    >On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:20:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk>
    >
    > >Stick with the Nikon that you first considered - at least if the slides
    > >are 35mm. That scanner includes a facility called ICE which will detect
    > >and conceal some, if not all, of the deterioration damage you refer to,
    > >and this can save hours of time on each scan. It uses an extra channel
    > >which is sensitive to infrared to distinguish between the defects and
    > >the image. Unfortunately, Kodachrome is still fairly opaque to
    > >infrared, especially dense shadows, so it is not as reliable with that
    > >film and it would be be worth checking the film type first. You might
    > >also want to look for the newer Coolscan V (LS-50) which is about the
    > >same price and has better resolution, or the Minolta Dimage 5400 which
    > >is a little more expensive but again more resolution.
    >
    >Briefly, what is best overall please - Coolscan V LS-50 or Minolta Dimage
    >5400.....?
    >
    Briefly, the Minolta.

    It is a 16-bit 5400ppi scanner with single pass multiscanning, while the
    Nikon is a 14-bit 4000ppi scanner which does not intrinsically support
    multiscanning. The Minolta also has a neat trick called a grain
    dissolver - it doesn't remove grain from the image, but it does stop it
    being exaggerated in the scanning process, which is often a problem, but
    the downside is it slows the scan speed a lot when it is used.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    In article <8i1oh0hi18sv27la2tm47dpip68i4t1h1e@4ax.com>, David
    Springthorpe <david.springthorpeGOAWAY@idx.com.au> writes
    >
    >I don't visit this newsgroup often, and I'm still on a learning curve, so what
    >is the definition of "multiscanning" (scanning lots of slides at once ?) please
    >?
    >
    Multiscanning is the process of taking many samples of each pixel and
    averaging them to reduce the noise in the final pixel.

    The scanner will always add a small amount of random noise to the image
    it scans. In the shadows this is usually a combination of analogue
    noise from the CCD and circuits while in the mid tones and highlights it
    is a statistical noise caused by the random arrival of the photons from
    the lamp and the limited storage capacity of the CCD. Longer exposure
    times would reduce these noises relative to the signal, but the CCD
    would saturate. So several scans are made and the results added
    together instead. The end result is divided by the number of scans to
    keep everything in the same scale as the original single scan, but
    reduce the noise level. By making these multiple scans in a single
    pass, the scan head does not move relative to the film as each sample is
    captured, so the process does not create any blurring of the image, it
    just reduces the noise. Using multiscanning it is possible to achieve
    scans that are almost limited only by the dynamic range of the data, not
    the noise floor of the scanner. In other words, they are almost perfect
    digital noise free representations of the image. The downside of this
    is that each scan takes a lot longer to perform, so it is usually
    something that is use controlled, rather than being fixed in the
    scanner, and can be switched on when the very best results are
    important.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:05:51 +0100, Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk>

    >Briefly, the Minolta.
    >
    >It is a 16-bit 5400ppi scanner with single pass multiscanning, while the
    >Nikon is a 14-bit 4000ppi scanner which does not intrinsically support
    >multiscanning. The Minolta also has a neat trick called a grain
    >dissolver - it doesn't remove grain from the image, but it does stop it
    >being exaggerated in the scanning process, which is often a problem, but
    >the downside is it slows the scan speed a lot when it is used.

    I don't visit this newsgroup often, and I'm still on a learning curve, so what
    is the definition of "multiscanning" (scanning lots of slides at once ?) please
    ?

    Thanks,
    DS
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

    David Springthorpe wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:20:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk>
    >
    > >Stick with the Nikon that you first considered - at least if the slides
    > >are 35mm. That scanner includes a facility called ICE which will detect
    > >and conceal some, if not all, of the deterioration damage you refer to,
    > >and this can save hours of time on each scan. It uses an extra channel
    > >which is sensitive to infrared to distinguish between the defects and
    > >the image. Unfortunately, Kodachrome is still fairly opaque to
    > >infrared, especially dense shadows, so it is not as reliable with that
    > >film and it would be be worth checking the film type first. You might
    > >also want to look for the newer Coolscan V (LS-50) which is about the
    > >same price and has better resolution, or the Minolta Dimage 5400 which
    > >is a little more expensive but again more resolution.
    >
    > Briefly, what is best overall please - Coolscan V LS-50 or Minolta Dimage
    > 5400.....?
    >
    > David,
    > Sydney NSW Australia.


    Hello

    By some accounts, the Minolta might be better, because of its method
    of illumination. Also I have read that ICE can be more effective on the
    Minolta,using Kodachrome.

    Basically it really depends on how dark your slides are. Well exposed
    ones are usually fine. Any that have been underexposed are a real
    problem on a Nikon.

    Mike Engles
Ask a new question

Read More

Scanners Peripherals Product