Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Scanning 35mm Slides

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 13, 2005 1:51:04 AM

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

I have about 4k high quality 35mm slides that I want scan into jpg files.
What is the best way (equipment) to transfer these into jpg files.

thanks,

Tom D.

More about : scanning 35mm slides

Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:23:23 AM

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

Hi

Minolta Elite 5400 is a great scanner, OD=4, 5400 dpi etc.

But I can echo earlier comments about not just pressing go and coming
back. I am scanning nearly 1000 of my late father in laws pics from the
50s and 50s and nearly all require some 'assistance'

PS The Minolta doesn't mind glass/glassless as you can focus at scan

DB


pjruiz(nospaam) wrote:
> Hans,
>
> If you think you're going to put your scanner on auto, go to bed and
see
> finished products in the morning, I believe you're going to be
> disappointed. I've scanned a few thousand cardboard mounted 35mm
slides,
> some dating back to the 1960s, and I've found that about 95% need
> personal attention in one way or another. Color or exposure
correction,
> tone curve, levels, register adjustment for full frame etc. And I
still
> don't regard many of these as finished and ready to print. If I want
to
> make a high quality print, I'm going to go back and try to "perfect"
the
> scan. As they are, I regard them as somewhere between a proof and
> presentable. Its great to have the thumbnail catalog, and they're
> adequate quality for a family slide show.
>
> The scanner is a DiMAGE Scan Dual III, admittedly on the low end of
the
> price range. There are much better and more expensive scanners on the

> market, but I doubt that they are so much more automated that they
won't
> require your attention, unless you just want a thumbnail catalog.
>
> For viewing thumbnails of the slides and digital photos I've been
using
> Picasa. It allows you to see thumbnails in all of your folders
> simultaneously. You can scroll rapidly from one set to the next or
jump
> to a folder via a link. It's a little quirky as to the sequence it
wants
> to place the folders in for view, but once you understand how it
thinks,
> it's easily managed. Hope this helps.
>
> Paul
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 3:53:59 PM

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

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:51:04 -0500, "Tom"
<anntomdo@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>I have about 4k high quality 35mm slides that I want scan into jpg files.
>What is the best way (equipment) to transfer these into jpg files.

Tom,

glass or glassless? I'm in a similar situation with most slides
under glass. Any hints for me, anyone?

Glassless is probably easy. Just get a slide scanner with a
magazine that can pull in 50 slides and scan them overnight at
high quality.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
January 13, 2005 3:54:00 PM

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

The slides are glassless. What is the best scanner to use and approximate
cost?

Thanks,

Tom D.
"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message
news:l7ocu0he8pjn0k8979psj1a9bq52372gdk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:51:04 -0500, "Tom"
> <anntomdo@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>I have about 4k high quality 35mm slides that I want scan into jpg files.
>>What is the best way (equipment) to transfer these into jpg files.
>
> Tom,
>
> glass or glassless? I'm in a similar situation with most slides
> under glass. Any hints for me, anyone?
>
> Glassless is probably easy. Just get a slide scanner with a
> magazine that can pull in 50 slides and scan them overnight at
> high quality.
>
> Hans-Georg
>
> --
> No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 3:54:00 PM

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

Hans,

If you think you're going to put your scanner on auto, go to bed and see
finished products in the morning, I believe you're going to be
disappointed. I've scanned a few thousand cardboard mounted 35mm slides,
some dating back to the 1960s, and I've found that about 95% need
personal attention in one way or another. Color or exposure correction,
tone curve, levels, register adjustment for full frame etc. And I still
don't regard many of these as finished and ready to print. If I want to
make a high quality print, I'm going to go back and try to "perfect" the
scan. As they are, I regard them as somewhere between a proof and
presentable. Its great to have the thumbnail catalog, and they're
adequate quality for a family slide show.

The scanner is a DiMAGE Scan Dual III, admittedly on the low end of the
price range. There are much better and more expensive scanners on the
market, but I doubt that they are so much more automated that they won't
require your attention, unless you just want a thumbnail catalog.

For viewing thumbnails of the slides and digital photos I've been using
Picasa. It allows you to see thumbnails in all of your folders
simultaneously. You can scroll rapidly from one set to the next or jump
to a folder via a link. It's a little quirky as to the sequence it wants
to place the folders in for view, but once you understand how it thinks,
it's easily managed. Hope this helps.

Paul
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:46:06 PM

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:14:25 -0500, "Tom"
<anntomdo@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The slides are glassless. What is the best scanner to use and approximate
>cost?

Tom,

don't ask for the best, because few people will want to afford
it.

A friend of mine uses a Nikon 4000 ED, which I will take over
from him. It cost ¤2,000 in Europe, probably over $2,000 in the
US at the time it was bought.

A problem with all these scanners is that they overstate their
linear resolution by a factor of more than 2. In other words,
the pictures are unsharp. Don't expect too much from these
scanners.

You can test this by scanning a sharp black-white edge (like a
piece of paper). The edge should be grey and one pixel wide. You
will find scanned edges of three or more pixels in width.

So you can usually safely scan at a somewhat lower resolution
after some testing.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:46:08 PM

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:07:49 -0600, "pjruiz(nospaam)"
<"pjruiz(nospaam)"@charter.net> wrote:

>If you think you're going to put your scanner on auto, go to bed and see
> finished products in the morning, I believe you're going to be
>disappointed.

A friend of mine did just that, but I can't be sure about his
personal tolerance.

I may be able to report back with my own experiences later this
year.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:46:10 PM

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

On 13 Jan 2005 08:23:23 -0800, digiboy@mailinator.com wrote:

>The Minolta doesn't mind glass/glassless as you can focus at scan

Do you mean it automatically focuses for each scan? I'd expect
that from every slide scanner, but some are not good when it
comes to glass-framed slides.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:15:14 PM

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

yes, theres a focus before scan check box

I've not had any focus failures yet, of course theres always a first
time, and it has manual focus if I need



Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2005 08:23:23 -0800, digiboy@mailinator.com wrote:
>
> >The Minolta doesn't mind glass/glassless as you can focus at scan
>
> Do you mean it automatically focuses for each scan? I'd expect
> that from every slide scanner, but some are not good when it
> comes to glass-framed slides.
>
> Hans-Georg
>
> --
> No mail, please.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 7:50:28 PM

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:53:59 +0000, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:51:04 -0500, "Tom" <anntomdo@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I have about 4k high quality 35mm slides that I want scan into jpg
>>files. What is the best way (equipment) to transfer these into jpg
>>files.
>
> Tom,
>
> glass or glassless? I'm in a similar situation with most slides under
> glass. Any hints for me, anyone?

Presently using a PF3650Pro3 slide scanner for a set of photomicrography
slides. It is a manual scanner - i.e, each slide needs to be fed by hand.
I am quite happy with the results for both glass mounted (including
anti-Newton glass) & glassless mounts. I saw no difference even when the
images were projected on a 4 m screen. At the highest quality setting (DPI
3600, minimum compression, 16 bit colour & quality mode scanning) it takes
about 3 minutes to scan each slide. The scanner has some extra noise &
blemish reduction features (Ice, Roc & Gem) which are useful on occasions.

It is a slow process to feed the slides one by one though. If you are in a
hurry - it is not for you. But the scanner is on the cheap side - 265UKP
in UK.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
!