Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A slide scanner or a copier

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:20:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am a complete newbie for digital photography. My problem is that I need
to convert some 600 transparencies into digital images. These are all
photomicrographs of human blood cells & tissues. I took them using high
resolution transparencies, Kodachrome 25, Agfachrome 50L & some older ones
with 16 ASA Kodak photomicrography film (is my age showing :-)). I use the
slides for teaching and presentation in meetings & conferences. The
digital images will be projected at high maginification, on 6 - 12 feet
(2-4 m) wide screens. So, I need to get their resolution as high as
possible.

I have got two different advices. One is that I should get a good slide
scanner with DPI 3600 and scan them all. I looked in the available ones &
it appears that PF3650Pro3 (marketed in UK by Jessops under their own
badge) is reasonably priced & has that degree of resolution. The other
advise is that I should use a good digital SLR with a slide copier to
convert the slides into digital images. Incidentally, my son has just
bought me a Canon 300D for the Christmas (according to him - to drag me
into the third millenium). I think I can fit my old slide copier to it
with a suitable T2 mount.

My questions are

(1) Which option would produce higher quality images ? Quality is the most
important point here as I have to use those images, with Powerpoint or a
similar program, for lectures, etc.

(2) Copying slides on a camera with a slide copier is a rather cumbersome
technique & I guess, would be quite time consuming. Jessops shop assistant
told me that their slide scanner can scan a slide in less than a minute.
If it proves reasonably painless, I shall probably convert some/all of my
other transparencies into digital images as well. So would a scanner be
the better choice for 600 slides ?

(3) For the copier option I shall have to get only a T2 mount worth £10.
For the scaner option it would be £280. Is the outlay worth for the
purpose ?

Thanks for the advice.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com

More about : slide scanner copier

Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:38:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:07:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...
> For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.
>

Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful, I
suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In any
event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider it?
Related resources
December 28, 2004 1:07:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:

> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...
>
>>For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.
>>
>
>
> Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful, I
> suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
> scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In any
> event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider it?


Here's a $65 adapter for ($2,000) DSLRs:
http://www.panwebi.com/default.asp?sp=1177172
It's basically a cheap macro adapter. I wonder how bad that is for a
decent DSLR? It sure would be quicker & convenient to have matching file
sizes. My old slides aren't that great that I need 100MB tiffs of each
one. I remember reading the adapeters for a smaller digicam were really
bad losing a lot of range in the pictures. For the original poster, his
digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
projector budget.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:5s-dnTpzlOLeA03cRVn-rw@speakeasy.net...
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> > "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...
> >
> >>For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful,
I
> > suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
> > scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In
any
> > event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider
it?
>
>
> Here's a $65 adapter for ($2,000) DSLRs:
> http://www.panwebi.com/default.asp?sp=1177172
> It's basically a cheap macro adapter. I wonder how bad that is for a
> decent DSLR? It sure would be quicker & convenient to have matching file
> sizes. My old slides aren't that great that I need 100MB tiffs of each
> one. I remember reading the adapeters for a smaller digicam were really
> bad losing a lot of range in the pictures. For the original poster, his
> digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
> projector budget.

While that may be true, it is ONLY a limitation if/when he is viewing the
image full-size. If he has a higher res image, he can, and most likely
WOULD simply zoom in on the image--which would allow him to see real detail
even on the projector as he looks at PORTIONS of each image more closely.

I do this all the time when viewing images on my own 1024x768 projector.
You can pan or zoom to portions ofthe image that you want to inspect. It is
very effective for this.

So... Larger file sizes are indeed useful...even on a limited res
projector.
-Mark
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:24:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
> projector budget.

A piece of information I had long forgotten. So...that changes everything.
Save money and time and use the camera...it will still be too large for the
projector.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 7:07:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<< (3) For the copier option I shall have to get only a T2 mount worth £10. >>

Gautam-

Depending on the optics of your slide copier, it might produce comparable
results to the slide scanner. As others have suggested, it may be a lot
faster.

I highly recommend that you get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for your 300D. It is
inexpensive and is quite a good lens. However, if you use it with your slide
copier, the 50mm may not capture the whole slide. Because of the 1.6 crop
factor of the 300D, 50mm covers the field of an 80mm lens on a 35mm body.

Fred
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:20:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gautam Majumdar" <gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:q8_zd.13106$0W6.479@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I have got two different advices. One is that I should get a good slide
> scanner with DPI 3600 and scan them all. I looked in the available ones &
> it appears that PF3650Pro3 (marketed in UK by Jessops under their own
> badge) is reasonably priced & has that degree of resolution. The other
> advise is that I should use a good digital SLR with a slide copier to
> convert the slides into digital images. Incidentally, my son has just
> bought me a Canon 300D for the Christmas (according to him - to drag me
> into the third millenium). I think I can fit my old slide copier to it
> with a suitable T2 mount.
>

If you already have a DSLR and an adapter why not just try it out on a few
of your slides and see what result you get?

Also take those same slides to the shop and ask them to demonstrate the slde
scanner. You can then compare.

A third thing I would do is to take the samer slides to a commercial copying
service and ask them to do a sample batch together with a quote for the lot.

If you compare the resultant files and have the details of cost, time,
convenience, etc you can make an informed decision.

And please when you are done let us know what the results were and the
decision you have made. Then we can learn too.

Thanks

Gerrit - Oz
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:42:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:20:42 +0000, Gerrit 't Hart wrote:


> "Gautam Majumdar" <gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:q8_zd.13106$0W6.479@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> I have got two different advices. One is that I should get a good slide
>> scanner with DPI 3600 and scan them all. I looked in the available ones
>> & it appears that PF3650Pro3 (marketed in UK by Jessops under their own
>> badge) is reasonably priced & has that degree of resolution. The other
>> advise is that I should use a good digital SLR with a slide copier to
>> convert the slides into digital images. Incidentally, my son has just
>> bought me a Canon 300D for the Christmas (according to him - to drag
>> me into the third millenium). I think I can fit my old slide copier to
>> it with a suitable T2 mount.
>>
>>
> If you already have a DSLR and an adapter why not just try it out on a
> few of your slides and see what result you get?
>
> Also take those same slides to the shop and ask them to demonstrate the
> slde scanner. You can then compare.
>
> A third thing I would do is to take the samer slides to a commercial
> copying service and ask them to do a sample batch together with a quote
> for the lot.
>
> If you compare the resultant files and have the details of cost, time,
> convenience, etc you can make an informed decision.
>
> And please when you are done let us know what the results were and the
> decision you have made. Then we can learn too.
>
>
Good advice Gerrit. I have already made some inquiries on those lines.
Some general photographic shops in UK have slide scanning service which
would come to about £0.50 per slide; they told me that the resolution
would be in the 3000-3600 DPI range. The service does not include anything
other than scanning the slides into a digital image in jpeg format. For
600 slides, the cost would be more than the scanner itself. I am not in a
rush to convert all the slides in one go - I shall be happy to do them all
over 3-6 months. The professional slide scanning services I inquired about
would be too costly. I was quoted a figure of around £5 per slide for the
lot which would include retouching, etc. The resolution would be
determined by them but may go up to 8000 DPI. They would do sample service
but the cost would be prohibitive for me and I am not persuing that line.
Unfortunately, the shops are not keen to show the results of the scanner I
have in mind by using it on the spot. They showed me only the pictures in
the brochure :-(.

I have ordered a T2 mount and shall try the camera-slide copier
combination first. The copier has reasonably good optics, I have copied
many slides with it with satisfactory results. I shall probably get the
scanner as well and shall compare the results. And of course, I shall let
all of you know the outcome.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:51:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:35:39 +0000, Mark² wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:5s-dnTpzlOLeA03cRVn-rw@speakeasy.net...
>> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>
>> > "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
>> > news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...
>> >
>> >>For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.
>> >>
>> > Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being
>> > truthful,I
>> > suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer
>> > to scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a
>> > while. In any
>> > event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why
>> > consider it?
>>
>> For the original poster, his
>> digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
>> projector budget.
>
> While that may be true, it is ONLY a limitation if/when he is viewing
> the image full-size. If he has a higher res image, he can, and most
> likely WOULD simply zoom in on the image--which would allow him to see
> real detail even on the projector as he looks at PORTIONS of each image
> more closely.
>
> I do this all the time when viewing images on my own 1024x768 projector.
> You can pan or zoom to portions ofthe image that you want to inspect. It
> is very effective for this.
>
> So... Larger file sizes are indeed useful...even on a limited res
> projector.

Well, I shall have no control what so ever over the quality of the
projector and I am sure it will vary widely. I shall use whatever
equipment is provided by the organiser of the lecture, conference,
meeting, etc. But some of them do have the highest quality professional
equipment though. So, I would like to have the quality of my images as
good as possible within the financial constraints.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
December 28, 2004 2:38:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Another thing I just thought of is the camera solution probably
introduces wierd curvature which would look awful with text and diagrams.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 8:14:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fred McKenzie wrote:

> I highly recommend that you get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for your 300D. It is
> inexpensive and is quite a good lens. However, if you use it with your slide
> copier, the 50mm may not capture the whole slide. Because of the 1.6 crop
> factor of the 300D, 50mm covers the field of an 80mm lens on a 35mm body.

If he wants to use a 50mm lens for copying the slides, he'll need an
extension ring for making the lens able to focus very closely (the 12mm
isn't adequate, I think - he'll have to go for a 25mm ring at least).

A slide copier has to drawback (due to the 1.6x magnification ratio)
that a big part of the original slide will be cropped out.

Best regards from Athens,
Nick Fotis
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:39:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Gautam,

Both solutions you have mentioned will work for you. But, I suspect that
for the best results a professional lab will do the best work. I would
investigate the cost of having your slides scanned at a pro lab and how they
might deliver the files to you. I suggest this as the images you want to
use are of considerable value and I assume you want the very best results.
It will cost you a bit more, but you will have the images digitized and you
can then distribute them as you see fit, as well as use them for teaching
and so on. The originals could then be stored archivally for the future.
Film scanners are expensive and likely more than the cost of having a lab do
that work.

Something to think about.

Talk to you soon, Gautam,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




> I am a complete newbie for digital photography. My problem is that I need
> to convert some 600 transparencies into digital images. These are all
> photomicrographs of human blood cells & tissues. I took them using high
> resolution transparencies, Kodachrome 25, Agfachrome 50L & some older ones
> with 16 ASA Kodak photomicrography film (is my age showing :-)). I use the
> slides for teaching and presentation in meetings & conferences. The
> digital images will be projected at high maginification, on 6 - 12 feet
> (2-4 m) wide screens. So, I need to get their resolution as high as
> possible.
>
January 4, 2005 12:39:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WRONG ANSWER

ProLab rates start at a buck a slide.
Many familys have THOUSANDS of slides up in the attic.
Cost would be unreasonable.

There are probably BILLIONS of slide-shots in storage,
left over from the golden age of Kodachrome.

With such a potential market,
I'm surprised that some enterprising company
hasn't come up with a reasonably priced
"hobby slide scanner"


On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:39:06 -0500, "Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com>
wrote:

>Greetings Gautam,
>
>Both solutions you have mentioned will work for you. But, I suspect that
>for the best results a professional lab will do the best work. I would
>investigate the cost of having your slides scanned at a pro lab and how they
>might deliver the files to you. I suggest this as the images you want to
>use are of considerable value and I assume you want the very best results.
>It will cost you a bit more, but you will have the images digitized and you
>can then distribute them as you see fit, as well as use them for teaching
>and so on. The originals could then be stored archivally for the future.
>Film scanners are expensive and likely more than the cost of having a lab do
>that work.
>
>Something to think about.
>
>Talk to you soon, Gautam,
>
>Ron Baird
>Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>
>
>> I am a complete newbie for digital photography. My problem is that I need
>> to convert some 600 transparencies into digital images. These are all
>> photomicrographs of human blood cells & tissues. I took them using high
>> resolution transparencies, Kodachrome 25, Agfachrome 50L & some older ones
>> with 16 ASA Kodak photomicrography film (is my age showing :-)). I use the
>> slides for teaching and presentation in meetings & conferences. The
>> digital images will be projected at high maginification, on 6 - 12 feet
>> (2-4 m) wide screens. So, I need to get their resolution as high as
>> possible.
>>
>

<rj>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:47:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:45:45 -0700, <RJ> wrote:

> Path: be05!c01.usenetserver.com!sjc1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!nf3.bellglobal.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!4.24.21.153!newsfeed3.dallas1.level3.net!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: "<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: A slide scanner or a copier
> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:45:45 -0700
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <d9elt0l33eea3kslaoa0n7u0orqmchku2e@4ax.com>
> Reply-To: baranick@localnet.com
> References: <q8_zd.13106$0W6.479@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> <cre9js$3dv$1@news.kodak.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.92/32.572
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 55
> Xref: c01.usenetserver.com rec.photo.digital:1143022
>
>
> WRONG ANSWER
>
> ProLab rates start at a buck a slide.
> Many familys have THOUSANDS of slides up in the attic.
> Cost would be unreasonable.
>
> There are probably BILLIONS of slide-shots in storage,
> left over from the golden age of Kodachrome.
>
> With such a potential market,
> I'm surprised that some enterprising company
> hasn't come up with a reasonably priced
> "hobby slide scanner"
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:39:06 -0500, "Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Greetings Gautam,
>>
>>Both solutions you have mentioned will work for you. But, I suspect that
>>for the best results a professional lab will do the best work. I would
>>investigate the cost of having your slides scanned at a pro lab and how they
>>might deliver the files to you. I suggest this as the images you want to
>>use are of considerable value and I assume you want the very best results.
>>It will cost you a bit more, but you will have the images digitized and you
>>can then distribute them as you see fit, as well as use them for teaching
>>and so on. The originals could then be stored archivally for the future.
>>Film scanners are expensive and likely more than the cost of having a lab do
>>that work.
>>
>>Something to think about.
>>
>>Talk to you soon, Gautam,
>>
>>Ron Baird
>>Eastman Kodak Company
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am a complete newbie for digital photography. My problem is that I need
>>> to convert some 600 transparencies into digital images. These are all
>>> photomicrographs of human blood cells & tissues. I took them using high
>>> resolution transparencies, Kodachrome 25, Agfachrome 50L & some older ones
>>> with 16 ASA Kodak photomicrography film (is my age showing :-)). I use the
>>> slides for teaching and presentation in meetings & conferences. The
>>> digital images will be projected at high maginification, on 6 - 12 feet
>>> (2-4 m) wide screens. So, I need to get their resolution as high as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>
>
> <rj>

I have a Minolta, Dimage 3 that cost me about $250. It produces a 6
Mega-Pixel Tiff file. I have run over 1,000 slides through mine and it
works like a charm. It is a bit slow taking a couple of minutes per slide.
It also alows a small amount of editing, color, contrast and light
correction at the time of scanning. The results have better resolution
than any projector that I have used. I would think with a good digital
project you would get better resolution than you got when you projected
them
jake
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:45:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> I am a complete newbie for digital photography. My problem is that I need
>> to convert some 600 transparencies into digital images.

You could buy a new Nikon CoolScan V ED for about $550, scan your slides,
then sell the machine. This would be cheaper (but more time consuming) than
paying the average ~$1.00 per scan at a lab. As a bonus, you could make any
color corrections, crops, etc. you wanted....

Good shooting,
Bob Scott
!