Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Old 35mm Slides

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 12:01:00 PM

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

More about : 35mm slides

Anonymous
July 4, 2004 2:42:38 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 3:20:43 PM

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)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 3:31:05 PM

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)
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:30:25 PM

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)
Anonymous
July 6, 2004 11:38:24 AM

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
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 8:08:57 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 3:05:51 AM

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)
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 1:16:14 PM

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)
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 2:10:22 PM

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
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 9:03:25 PM

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
!