do I really need a negative holder to scan with vuescan?

[Guest]

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

hi,

I'm thinking of gettng a scanner that is on the vuescan compatibility
list. I want to scan some 4x5 b&w negatives. Could I just put the
negative on the flatbed and scan it with that software, or would I
have to have some kind of 4x5b negative holder?

thanks,

tracy

 

[Guest]

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

<tracym@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:deo3u05fhd5r0modmvreb4kgfbkm33spp0@4ax.com...
> hi,
>
> I'm thinking of gettng a scanner that is on the vuescan compatibility
> list. I want to scan some 4x5 b&w negatives. Could I just put the
> negative on the flatbed and scan it with that software, or would I
> have to have some kind of 4x5b negative holder?
>
> thanks,
>
> tracy
If the scanner has a transparency adapter, then the calibration slot must
not be blocked. Otherwise you may not need a holder.

If the scanner does not have a transparency adapter, putting the 4x5 on the
glass with a white sheet of paper behind it will work in reflective mode.
Not as good as a scanner with a 4x5 transparency capacity.


--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:29:54 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com>
wrote:

><tracym@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:deo3u05fhd5r0modmvreb4kgfbkm33spp0@4ax.com...
>> hi,
>>
>> I'm thinking of gettng a scanner that is on the vuescan compatibility
>> list. I want to scan some 4x5 b&w negatives. Could I just put the
>> negative on the flatbed and scan it with that software, or would I
>> have to have some kind of 4x5b negative holder?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> tracy
>If the scanner has a transparency adapter, then the calibration slot must
>not be blocked. Otherwise you may not need a holder.
>
>If the scanner does not have a transparency adapter, putting the 4x5 on the
>glass with a white sheet of paper behind it will work in reflective mode.
>Not as good as a scanner with a 4x5 transparency capacity.


I guess I need to find out if there's a 4x5 transparency adapter for
it. I'm looking at a HP 5300C right now. I kinda doubt it.

thanks,

tracy

 

[Guest]

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

> I guess I need to find out if there's a 4x5 transparency adapter for
> it. I'm looking at a HP 5300C right now. I kinda doubt it.

Even if your flatbed does not have a transparency adaptor you can do what I
did untill I got my Epson 2450 at Goodwill for $20.00.
Here is the link: http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
"They" said it couldn't be done and yet there is the proof it CAN be done if
one is carefull and skillfull.
The higher the optical resollution the better the results. In my case I did
push things a bit and went for the highest interpolated resolution I could
get.
Have fun.
Yours,
Tom Elliott
Photographer
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:34:57 -0500, "Tom Ellliott"
<1stroke@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Even if your flatbed does not have a transparency adaptor you can do what I
>did untill I got my Epson 2450 at Goodwill for $20.00.
>Here is the link: http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
>"They" said it couldn't be done and yet there is the proof it CAN be done if
>one is carefull and skillfull.
>The higher the optical resollution the better the results. In my case I did
>push things a bit and went for the highest interpolated resolution I could
>get.
>Have fun.


Oh, wow. Well what if I just tape the negative to a light box, turn it
upside down, and put the whole thing on any kind of flatbed scanner?
Would that work? I already have a small/medium light box that was
hand made.

I am not looking to make a billboard from the negative. I just want
to put the photos on my photo blog for friends.

tracy

 

[Guest]

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

Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless they
have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
scanning light.
Flatbed/transparency scanners can be had new for under $150: they scan 35mm
ugly but are fine for your uses for 4x5 materials.
Depending on the scanner and the condition of your film sometimes it seems
necessary to put a piece of glass over the film to flatten it. Flatbeds do
not autofocus so the further the material is off the glass the worse the
results

 

[Guest]

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

Well.......
"bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless they
> have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
> scanning light.

Go here and see one that works:
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
Also a few scans done with my hardware hack.

> Flatbed/transparency scanners can be had new for under $150: they scan
35mm
> ugly but are fine for your uses for 4x5 materials.

After I did my hardware hack I got a Microtek 5900 with a 4x5 builtin trans
adaptor. Then I had a little bit of luck and found an Epson 2450 with a 4x9
trans adaptor at Goodwill for $20.00!!!! I gave the original flatbed to my
kids and I now have two flatbeds that work just fine for every thing from
35mm up to 4x5. Now if I need a better scan than these two have to offer
then I get Kodaks ProPhotoCD scan. If one is carefull and knows how to use
the hardware/software combintaion then rarely do you have to send out for
either the ProPhotoCD or....a drum scan.
Seeing is believeing and it is really too bad some of the nay sayers don't
live here in the Miami area to see the brochures, newsletters, calendars,
and sunday supliments I have done with the above equipment. I mean when I
had my "little" Nikon 995 I shot corporate headshots. I now have a Nikon D70
and shoot raw.
I have had art directors that were so against 35mm I would show the pictures
first, then if they asked tell what the format was. As to 35 just look at
National Geographic Magazine - the best example of fine 35mm work.
So those of you out there on a limited hardware budget don't let the
flammers - nay sayers and hardware snobs say it can't be done, because it
can be done.

> Depending on the scanner and the condition of your film sometimes it seems
> necessary to put a piece of glass over the film to flatten it. Flatbeds do
> not autofocus so the further the material is off the glass the worse the
> results

Complete agreement on that point. In fact I am looking for an AnitNewton
glass to do just that, meanwhile I put the emulsion face down and flop in
Photo Shop.
Have fun and make pictures.
Yours,
Tom Elliott Photography

 

[Guest]

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

"bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless they
> have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
> scanning light.
> Flatbed/transparency scanners can be had new for under $150: they scan
> 35mm ugly but are fine for your uses for 4x5 materials.
> Depending on the scanner and the condition of your film sometimes it seems
> necessary to put a piece of glass over the film to flatten it. Flatbeds do
> not autofocus so the further the material is off the glass the worse the
> results
>
On top of not being able to turn off the light, Mains or AC powered light
boxes have a 50 or 60 cycle flicker that show up in the scan as little black
lines.


--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

 

[Guest]

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

See my above posts and I never had the flicker problem with my hardware
hack. http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5qzEd.12837$wi2.9479@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless
they
> > have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
> > scanning light.
> > Flatbed/transparency scanners can be had new for under $150: they scan
> > 35mm ugly but are fine for your uses for 4x5 materials.
> > Depending on the scanner and the condition of your film sometimes it
seems
> > necessary to put a piece of glass over the film to flatten it. Flatbeds
do
> > not autofocus so the further the material is off the glass the worse the
> > results
> >
> On top of not being able to turn off the light, Mains or AC powered light
> boxes have a 50 or 60 cycle flicker that show up in the scan as little
black
> lines.
>
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:56:04 -0500, "Tom Ellliott"

well, I tried something pretty weird. I taped the negative to the
glass, covered it with a piece of paper, and held a cheap clip-on
lamp over it. It came out looking like an old tintype. it would be
cool, if that was the look I was going for.

tracy

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks for the tip!
The reason I went for the $25 4x5 transparency sorter is that it was in my
budget and it worked with the HP scanner I had at the time.
It is fun to experiment and show the nay sayers there is more than one way
to the mountaintop.
Thomas Edison once said he NEver had an unsuccessfull experiment for he
learned from them all...including the ones where the results were not what
he was looking for.
Have fun.
Yours,
Tom
<tracym@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:ijh6u0lpv4jcq55ipt0ml4krcflmhtd0tm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:56:04 -0500, "Tom Ellliott"
>
> well, I tried something pretty weird. I taped the negative to the
> glass, covered it with a piece of paper, and held a cheap clip-on
> lamp over it. It came out looking like an old tintype. it would be
> cool, if that was the look I was going for.
>
> tracy
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:26:04 -0500, "Tom Ellliott"
<1stroke@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Thanks for the tip!

yore welcome.

>The reason I went for the $25 4x5 transparency sorter is that it was in my
>budget and it worked with the HP scanner I had at the time.
>It is fun to experiment and show the nay sayers there is more than one way
>to the mountaintop.
>Thomas Edison once said he NEver had an unsuccessfull experiment for he
>learned from them all...including the ones where the results were not what
>he was looking for.

I love it. It helps a lot with the no-budget amateur film-making too,
no?

PS I used one of those blue daylight lightbulbs. I also tried it
with the paper taped on the lamp rather than on the glass. You have
to hold it still to avoid gettng those streaks on the scan.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
<aetoo@hotmail.com> writes
>Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless they
>have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
>scanning light.
>
I'll bet that comes as a rather irritating surprise to all of the people
who have managed it!

One of the earliest hardware jigs available to scan film on a flatbed
was simply an internally reflective corner that reflected the light from
one half of the flatbed over, across, down and through the film laid out
on the other side of the glass. Worked a treat and many people bought
them or, even better, made their own. http://tinyurl.com/6qwtc gives
instructions to build just such an adapter that is even cheaper than
Tom's $25 light box, in fact it probably costs less than 25c and works
just as well.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:21:58 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
><aetoo@hotmail.com> writes
>>Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless they
>>have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
>>scanning light.
>>
>I'll bet that comes as a rather irritating surprise to all of the people
>who have managed it!
>
>One of the earliest hardware jigs available to scan film on a flatbed
>was simply an internally reflective corner that reflected the light from
>one half of the flatbed over, across, down and through the film laid out
>on the other side of the glass. Worked a treat and many people bought
>them or, even better, made their own. http://tinyurl.com/6qwtc gives
>instructions to build just such an adapter that is even cheaper than
>Tom's $25 light box, in fact it probably costs less than 25c and works
>just as well.


Genius, you guys are all geniuses!

tracy

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks for the compliment. In reality we just like to play and make money at
the same time...which is also to have been said that having fun and making
money is impossible. Tell that to the late George Burns who attributed his
long life to only doing what he wanted to do.
Cheers Tracy it is a great big sand box out there.
Yours,
Tom
<tracym@askme.net> wrote in message
news:46c8u0hbj77bj9at7mjpjhivnakio8398n@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:21:58 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
> <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
> ><aetoo@hotmail.com> writes
> >>Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless
they
> >>have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
> >>scanning light.
> >>
> >I'll bet that comes as a rather irritating surprise to all of the people
> >who have managed it!
> >
> >One of the earliest hardware jigs available to scan film on a flatbed
> >was simply an internally reflective corner that reflected the light from
> >one half of the flatbed over, across, down and through the film laid out
> >on the other side of the glass. Worked a treat and many people bought
> >them or, even better, made their own. http://tinyurl.com/6qwtc gives
> >instructions to build just such an adapter that is even cheaper than
> >Tom's $25 light box, in fact it probably costs less than 25c and works
> >just as well.
>
>
> Genius, you guys are all geniuses!
>
> tracy
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:21:58 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
><aetoo@hotmail.com> writes
>>Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless they
>>have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
>>scanning light.
>>
>I'll bet that comes as a rather irritating surprise to all of the people
>who have managed it!
>
>One of the earliest hardware jigs available to scan film on a flatbed
>was simply an internally reflective corner that reflected the light from
>one half of the flatbed over, across, down and through the film laid out
>on the other side of the glass. Worked a treat and many people bought
>them or, even better, made their own. http://tinyurl.com/6qwtc gives
>instructions to build just such an adapter that is even cheaper than
>Tom's $25 light box, in fact it probably costs less than 25c and works
>just as well.


the thing about it is, that as I'm understanding, the width of the box
would have to be a t least 4", probably more to comfortably cover a
4x5 negative.

Why not just cut out the front face of the cereal box, and line that
with foil?

hmm...I'll try it.

tracy

 

[Guest]

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

Keep up the spirit of experimentation.
Thomas Alva Edison would have loved to have you as partner.
Yours,
Tom
<tracym@askme.net> wrote in message
news:hq1eu0tdkto2ja9df72939k5jfv615emjd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:21:58 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
> <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <ZKxEd.386$8Z1.1@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
> ><aetoo@hotmail.com> writes
> >>Flatbed scanners will not work attached to a light box because unless
they
> >>have transparency scanning capabilities there is no way to turn off the
> >>scanning light.
> >>
> >I'll bet that comes as a rather irritating surprise to all of the people
> >who have managed it!
> >
> >One of the earliest hardware jigs available to scan film on a flatbed
> >was simply an internally reflective corner that reflected the light from
> >one half of the flatbed over, across, down and through the film laid out
> >on the other side of the glass. Worked a treat and many people bought
> >them or, even better, made their own. http://tinyurl.com/6qwtc gives
> >instructions to build just such an adapter that is even cheaper than
> >Tom's $25 light box, in fact it probably costs less than 25c and works
> >just as well.
>
>
> the thing about it is, that as I'm understanding, the width of the box
> would have to be a t least 4", probably more to comfortably cover a
> 4x5 negative.
>
> Why not just cut out the front face of the cereal box, and line that
> with foil?
>
> hmm...I'll try it.
>
> tracy

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:55:44 -0500, "Tom Ellliott"
<1stroke@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Keep up the spirit of experimentation.
>Thomas Alva Edison would have loved to have you as partner.
>Yours,
>Tom


ah, thank you very much. I'm afraid it didn't work.

 

[Guest]

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

Oh well, it was still a succesfull (spelling??) test for you found out what
Did Not work.
Keep on trucking.
Yours,
Tom
<tracym@askme.net> wrote in message
news:nk6eu059q8s1igbruuc83hog93mrk97pb3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:55:44 -0500, "Tom Ellliott"
> <1stroke@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Keep up the spirit of experimentation.
> >Thomas Alva Edison would have loved to have you as partner.
> >Yours,
> >Tom
>
>
> ah, thank you very much. I'm afraid it didn't work.

 

[mpa]

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

tracym@pipeline.com wrote:

> hi,
>
> I'm thinking of gettng a scanner that is on the vuescan compatibility
> list. I want to scan some 4x5 b&w negatives. Could I just put the
> negative on the flatbed and scan it with that software, or would I
> have to have some kind of 4x5b negative holder?
>
> thanks,
>
> tracy
diacover in munich has genious scanplates.

 

[Guest]

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

Many thanks for the link to the Munich site.
GREAT!!
"MPA" <europanorama@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:cs9t1o$m3e$2@news.hispeed.ch...
> tracym@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > I'm thinking of gettng a scanner that is on the vuescan compatibility
> > list. I want to scan some 4x5 b&w negatives. Could I just put the
> > negative on the flatbed and scan it with that software, or would I
> > have to have some kind of 4x5b negative holder?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > tracy
> diacover in munich has genious scanplates.