Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digitizing 35 mm Slides

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:14:21 PM

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

I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
time around.

Thanks, Don and Liz

More about : digitizing slides

Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:11:22 PM

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

>>>>>I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
>>>>>LS-5000.

I have to confess to simply saying that family pictures are family pictures,
and I save all my many LS-5000 family scans as jpgs. They are a lot easier
to crop and edit as jpgs (take far less time to open and save; though if
you have them as TIFFS, and can spare the time and processing power, any
cropping or editing you do won't diminish quality or add artifacts).

I usually scan to include a narrow edge of the slide frame, because you can
always crop later, but you can't add in unscanned parts of the slide later.
I use the Digital ICE feature because it does a super job of cleaning up
dust, but don't use any of the other enhancements or fixes in the scanner
software because they've not looked natural to me, and I found it better to
try to clean any problems up in post-process editing instead.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:11:23 PM

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

In article <gpUNd.39660$%s7.12294@fe07.lga>,
"Douglas W. Hoyt" <nospamthankyoumam@nada.net> wrote:


> I use the Digital ICE feature because it does a super job of cleaning up
> dust, but don't use any of the other enhancements or fixes in the scanner
> software because they've not looked natural to me, and I found it better to
> try to clean any problems up in post-process editing instead.

Second that. But, the ICE feature slows the scan and I have found that
the Polaroid dust and scratches filter works faster than the ICE feature
on a completed scan (and does a better job, and is free). Also, that
way one can fix other "defects" in the scan (for which I am using
Elements 3).

--
Panta Rei
Related resources
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:02:49 AM

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

You're right about tif (you can compress it with no loss). Size all depends
what you are going to use them for.
Printing 20mb is better 30 if you can get it with out getting too bored with
the scanner.
For digital display 5-10mb (tif) is good. If you are making slide shows you may
want to make jpeg copies, generally gets opened faster by programs.
A program such as Irfanview can batch convert whole folders at one time.

Have fun
Tom

In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
castles@yestertronics.com says...
>
>I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
>LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
>with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
>digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
>approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
>time around.
>
>Thanks, Don and Liz
>
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:14:39 PM

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

Don and Liz Campbell <castles@yestertronics.com> wrote:

> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
> Nikon LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3
> and later with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file
> size for a digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I
> was thinking of approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to
> get it right the first time around.

The optimum file size depends on how sharp the slides are, and only
you know that.

Save them as TIFF, and make sure you use a reasonably large colour
space. Adobe RGB will probably be adequate, but Wide Gamut RGB is
better. Adobe RGB is probably OK for 8-bit data, with Wide Gamut RGB
you might need to go to 12-bit data.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:16:37 PM

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

In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
castles@yestertronics.com says...
> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
> LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
> with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
> digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
> approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
> time around.
>
> Thanks, Don and Liz
>
>
>
I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
with digital media.
I would scan only those images which show signs of fading before they
get too bad and those for which you have an immediate need for display
or other use.
Go to scantips.com for good advice on scanning resolution and other
issues.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:42:03 PM

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

"Don and Liz Campbell" <castles@yestertronics.com> writes:

> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
> Nikon LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3
> and later with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file
> size for a digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I
> was thinking of approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to
> get it right the first time around.

Either that's too small, or else you don't want to commit to scanning
all of them at the same resolution.

For me, I think the second; a family slide collection has lots of
things you really won't ever want to print bigger than 4x6, but every
now and then there's something that you want to scan for every bit of
detail in the picture. (4x6 comes out to about 6.5MB).

And you might seriously want to consider archiving final copies in
jpeg. On the one hand, there's the potential for some jpeg
artifacts. On the other hand, you can get a 3x to 5x reduction in
file size without getting much in the way of artifacts.

You can always trade money for other factors :-). How big is the
slide collection? If you can seriously consider keeping the whole
thing on hard disk (and backed up on a couple of sets of DVDs) in 30MB
files, maybe it's better to go with the probable-overkill, rather than
risk regretting it later?

(Yes, I know those last two paragraphs conflict. Depending on your
constraints, either view may be useful to you.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:43:52 PM

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

Robert Feinman <robertdfeinman@netscape.net> writes:

> In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
> castles@yestertronics.com says...
>> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
>> LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
>> with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
>> digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
>> approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
>> time around.
>>
>> Thanks, Don and Liz
>>
>>
>>
> I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
> slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
> scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
> that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
> Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
> environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
> with digital media.

I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
facility for the original film.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
February 8, 2005 3:04:21 PM

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

Having done several thousand slides I agree with the need to be
selective. However, having been in a home where the basement was
unexpectedly flooded and hundreds of venerable family photos destroyed,
had slides go unexpectedly bad, and had some thrown out by mistake or
damaged in projection I think it is a great idea to scan them at a
relatively high resolution and then archive them on multiple media,
perhaps recopying every four or five years (only takes ten minutes or
so).

You can put a disc in a safety deposit box or, as I do, keep backups in
the trunk of a car or with family members who can enjoy them at will.
If you're worried about today's cd or dvd media pick up a hard drive,
put it in a USB enclosure and archive away. Chances are that will
outlive you and maybe the next generation.

Though scanning can be pretty darn labor intensive and time consuming,
I have cut that back by getting extension tubes and a slide holder for
my OLY 5060 and can copy one every fifteen or twenty seconds at
acceptably high resolution with utter clarity and really good color. I
also have an Epson 2580 which does a fine job.

Just a few thoughts....


Robert Feinman wrote:
> In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.com>,
> castles@yestertronics.com says...
> > I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
Nikon
> > LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and
later
> > with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for
a
> > digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking
of
> > approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right
the first
> > time around.
> >
> > Thanks, Don and Liz
> >
> >
> >
> I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
> slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
> scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you
think
> that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
> Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
> environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little
experience
> with digital media.
> I would scan only those images which show signs of fading before they
> get too bad and those for which you have an immediate need for
display
> or other use.
> Go to scantips.com for good advice on scanning resolution and other
> issues.
>
> --
> Robert D Feinman
> Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
> http://robertdfeinman.com
> mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:45:55 PM

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

I'm also scanning slides, bought an HP Scanjet with a TMA, the slides come
out pretty grainy tho, I thought they were supposed to be better than film,
is it perhaps my scanner?
could I post a 500K JPEG expample?
Steven
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:45:56 PM

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

"Steven Hook" <stevenhNOT@NOTbowens.co.NOTza> wrote in message
news:cua5hq$if$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> I'm also scanning slides, bought an HP Scanjet with a TMA, the
> slides come out pretty grainy tho, I thought they were supposed to
> be better than film, is it perhaps my scanner?
> could I post a 500K JPEG expample?

Lots of grain with my Nikon Coolscan V, too, so must use my scanner's
Digital ICE4 which is preferable over trying to fix it in
postprocessing. If your scanner does not have ICE (or similar) then
yes you can fix the grain in post, ie use something like NeatImage or
the Kodak GEM plugin for Photoshop Elements or PS CS.
February 8, 2005 7:45:03 PM

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

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message

> So, my question for you or others reading this is:
> considering both my time and expense, for 500, maybe 800-
> 1,000 slides, what would be most cost & time efficient,
> buying a better scanner (ala Nikon) or shipping them off

People that hold themselves out as "Pros" don't always do a better job than
you can do yourself.

If you have the time, you'll probably be able to do a better job yourself.
Of course, scanner technology on, say, five more years might improve to the
point that you might want to scan your slides again. No one knows what the
future will bring.

I am on the side of digitizing all your images, if for no other reason than
the probability that projection equipment might not be all that common in
the future. Kodak has discontinued their 35mm slide projector line. That
should tell you something.

I'd keep the slides stored in near archival conditions, and digitize them
all, for normal viewing. Given the time and money you spent creating those
images, the cost of digitizing them seems small by comparison.

Just my 2-cents'.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:27:42 PM

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

Don Dunlap commented courteously ...

> I haven't used these people yet, but 500 slides
> should cost about $260 or so:
>
> http://www.slideplus.com/slidecd/index.htm
>
> I plan on trying them for 500 slides pretty soon.
> If you do use them, give us an indication of how it
> works out.
[snip]

Thanks for the link, Don. This site says that scans are 49
cents each plus a "setup" fee of $9.99 per CD created.
And, it strongly suggests UPS to ship your slides to them.
Haven't read the fine print to find out the DPI they scan
at or the average file size for the JPEG, but I'd guess
they'd be in the range of 2MB apiece.

So, I could get maybe 350 slides per CD, so I'd need 4 to
do my estimated 1,000 slides. The all-up price would then
be $537 plus an known amount for the multiple UPS sends.
The web site says 500 slides but they have no real way to
determine that until they do the scans, since JPEG sizes
can vary widely due to slide-to-slider differences in what
I call "image complexity".

I have exactly one data point in my research of "pro"
scanning services: Ritz Camera, which may be local chain
in southeast Michigan.

Their price was 75 cents/slide with no setup fee. I asked
what DPI they scan at and the guy didn't know since they
job it out. But, he said that the files average 2MB.

I'm obviously going to do more research, although I'm in
no hurry. My slides have been languishing in the basement
for 30 years, they'll wait another month or two. <grin>

Even at 75 cents, which seems high to me, I could do 1,000
(if that's really the number) for $750 and not have to do
anything except pull them out of the trays and truck 'em
to the store. Since this is literally a one-time thingy
for me (never going back to film), $750 is very cost
effective for me compared to something like a $600+ Nikon
scanner. And, I'm not a slave to a scanner for months and
months.

Plus, you and I may have different opinions, but I would
*never* ship off my slides to some place out-of-state
location. I imagine I'm taking a risk even doing this
locally, without the vagueries of UPS or a place I can't
talk to when they conveniently "lose" my slides.

Please be clear, I'm not disputing you nor am I casting
aspersions at a scanner service I've not talked to. Let's
just say that I'm a life-long pessimest and let it go at
that.

Thanks again for the link.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
February 8, 2005 8:27:43 PM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link, Don. This site says that scans are 49
> cents each plus a "setup" fee of $9.99 per CD created.
> And, it strongly suggests UPS to ship your slides to them.
> Haven't read the fine print to find out the DPI they scan
> at or the average file size for the JPEG, but I'd guess
> they'd be in the range of 2MB apiece.
>
> So, I could get maybe 350 slides per CD, so I'd need 4 to
> do my estimated 1,000 slides. The all-up price would then
> be $537 plus an known amount for the multiple UPS sends.


2MB JPGs are about what you can get out of a good digicam with a slide
adapter. Not sure if that's an option with your setup but inexpensive
and much faster than scanning.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:38:14 PM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:14:21 +0000, Don and Liz Campbell wrote:

> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
> LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
> with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
> digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
> approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the
> first time around.
>
I am also scanning my slides (family & travel pix) into digital images.
First thing is to determine what the digital images will be used for. For
me, they are only for viewing on the PC screen. Saves the trouble of
setting up the slide projector, screen, etc. I can also see any of the 600
or so family shots without searching for them through the slide albums.
For that sort of purpose scanning at anything over 600 dpi is probably
adequate. I tried out from 300 to 3600 dpi, 8 & 16 bit colour, jpg & tiff,
in various combinations and have settled for 900 dpi, 16 bit colour & jpg
format. Higher resolution & tiff format produced no better on screen show.
900 dpi allowes me to crop the margins freely.

If you want to print them, then of course higher the dpi the better. But
for me, if I want to get prints, I shall use the original slides.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:41:42 AM

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

paul commented courteously ...

> 2MB JPGs are about what you can get out of a good
> digicam with a slide adapter. Not sure if that's
> an option with your setup but inexpensive and much
> faster than scanning.

Didn't know there was such a thing, Paul. Since I don't
have a clue can you give me a mini tut or point me to a
couple places to read about them?

Wallowing as I am in ignorance, the last time I did slide-
to-slide photography (i.e., duping), I borrowed a bellows
and slide adapter for my 1969 Nikon FTN, and shot at 1:1.

Do these digigan adapters mount to the lens on something
like my Nikon 5700, or what? I think a lot of my 5700's
sharpness but I wouldn't think it could match 2600 DPI of
a "good" scanner with Digital Ice. I know from my feeble
attempts 2 years ago with my cheapie slide scanner that
2MB is in the range of a minimally compressed JPEG slide
scanned at 2600 DPI.

Thanks in advice for any hints and advice.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
February 9, 2005 1:41:43 AM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:
> paul commented courteously ...
>
>
>>2MB JPGs are about what you can get out of a good
>>digicam with a slide adapter. Not sure if that's
>>an option with your setup but inexpensive and much
>>faster than scanning.
>
>
> Didn't know there was such a thing, Paul. Since I don't
> have a clue can you give me a mini tut or point me to a
> couple places to read about them?
>
> Wallowing as I am in ignorance, the last time I did slide-
> to-slide photography (i.e., duping), I borrowed a bellows
> and slide adapter for my 1969 Nikon FTN, and shot at 1:1.
>
> Do these digigan adapters mount to the lens on something
> like my Nikon 5700, or what? I think a lot of my 5700's
> sharpness but I wouldn't think it could match 2600 DPI of
> a "good" scanner with Digital Ice. I know from my feeble
> attempts 2 years ago with my cheapie slide scanner that
> 2MB is in the range of a minimally compressed JPEG slide
> scanned at 2600 DPI.
>
> Thanks in advice for any hints and advice.

I was looking at a "toiletpaper tube" with a closeup diopter & slide
bracket for $65 attached to any 80mm ~120mm lens (DSLR) but the link
changed from my bookmarks. I'm sure it's not extraordinary quality but a
convenient way to get a bunch of images good enough for screen display.
If there were any really important to print, they could be scanned special.

I've not heard any big problems with such devices. 'Slide Adapter' is
the correct term to search I think.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 8:57:02 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>>I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
>>slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
>>scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
>>that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
>>Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
>>environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
>>with digital media.
>
>
> I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
> facility for the original film.

So you can't provide the necessary enviroment for digital media
preservation either! :-(

--
chidalgo
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:25:05 AM

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

chidalgo <chidalgo@bla.bla.bla> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>> I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
>>> slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
>>>scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
>>>that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
>>>Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
>>>environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
>>>with digital media.
>> I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
>> facility for the original film.
>
> So you can't provide the necessary enviroment for digital
> media preservation either! :-(

CDs aren't either as temperature or as humidity sensitive as film.
Long-term low-humidity storage for film needs to be *below freezing*.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 5:44:10 AM

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

Nikon has a slide adapter for their Coolpix cameras called the ES-E28
Slide Copier. It works on most Coolpixs with an adapter.
I used the ES-E28 recently but found too much distortion shooting the
slides at wide/macro.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:47:51 AM

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

> Nikon has a slide adapter for their Coolpix cameras
> called the ES-E28 Slide Copier. It works on most
> Coolpixs with an adapter. I used the ES-E28 recently
> but found too much distortion shooting the slides
> at wide/macro.

I didn't know that, but then, I didn't search in that
direction for my particular spin on this issue. In
daylight or available light, I think my 5700 is a fine
camera. It could be sharper and perhaps less noisy, but it
certainly meets my needs.

But, even though it could theoretically "scan" in the
2,500 "DPI" range if I were to use an adapter as you
mention, I don't think I'd get the quality I would expect
from a competant dedicated slide/neg scanner.

Having said that, if someone's intent was to do a 90% good
job, accept some distortion as you noted, and get a
moderate-to-large number of slides "scanned" quickly and
easily, an adapter strikes me as an excellent idea.

My 35mm's have been languishing in the basement for as
long as 30 years. It's just in the last week that I got a
wild hair up my ass again and started thinking about
scanning them. I hadn't thought any more about it since my
abortive attempts to scan them with a device called a
SmartScan 2600, which I bought 2 years ago for $250, but
turned out to be less than useless.

My investigation into sources of "profession" scanning is
just beginning, but so far it looks like 75 cents/slide
locally is going to be a good ball park figure. I've found
plenty of places on the Web for 50 cents and under but I
don't want to UPS my precious babies to an unknown source
in BFE.

Ultimately, I will pick 2 or 3 local services and bring
them a couple dozen slides which represent the range of
subjects and lighting conditions that are typical of my
large collection. I can then "calibrate" the
sharpness/detail, color balance,
brightness/contrast/saturation, and degree of dust-caused
noise (to whatever extent the service does that).

Once I see some results, I can figure out how long it
might take in PSP 9 to "get it right". I'll go with the
best overall compromise.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
February 14, 2005 2:49:57 AM

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

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:25:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>chidalgo <chidalgo@bla.bla.bla> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>> I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
>>>> slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
>>>>scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
>>>>that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
>>>>Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
>>>>environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
>>>>with digital media.
>>> I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
>>> facility for the original film.

A cool area out of the sun (darker is better) is sufficient for most
films and prints.

>>
>> So you can't provide the necessary enviroment for digital
>> media preservation either! :-(
>
>CDs aren't either as temperature or as humidity sensitive as film.
>Long-term low-humidity storage for film needs to be *below freezing*.

I've kept unexposed film for years (over 5) at refrigerator temps and
could see no degradation. Properly processed film should last
generations if kept out of direct sunlight and elevated temperatures.
I have slides that are over 50 years old, that have been run trough
projectors many times and other than needing a good cleaning are in
excellent shape. I have old negatives that are in good shape as well.
I also have examples of each that are less than 10 years old that are
in pretty poor shape. That has to be almost entirely due to the
processing and specifically the fixing and washing cycles. If slides
and negatives are not properly fixed and thoroughly washed they will
live very short lives. Properly done they should last 50 years with
no discernable deterioration.

OTOH we really don't know how long CDs and DVDs will last as they've
not been around long enough to be sure. All life data is from
accelerated age testing.

We do know that some storage conditions will greatly hasten the aging
of both CDs and DVDs. Store them on edge, in jewel cases not paper
sleeves, keep them out of direct sunlight, and away from elevated
temperatures.

Some solvents used in marking pens will hasten the deterioration of
the top layer (the data is actually on the bottom of this layer and
not on the clear side). Flexing is not good for CDs and can be
particularly bad for DVDs which are assembled in layers. Take them
out of the case by pressing down in the center and never pulling up on
the edges.
Don't forget to handle both by the edges. perspiration and body oils
are corrosive and can really hasten the demise of a disk and might be
able to get between the layers on a DVD.

Other things to take into consideration are the material for the
recording medium such as Gold, aluminum, and alloys. The dyes used as
filters in the transparent layer are also important.

Some unknowns have popped up such as the recording layer separating
from the disk, corrosion, and even de lamination and corrosion in the
layers of a DVDs. I've never seen it, but I've read a number of posts
from those who have. Whether those problems came from the storage
environment, handeling, or quality control during manufacturing? I
don't think any one knows as yet.

And ... Do not use R/W (rewritable) disks of either type for long term
storage. They may be good temporary storage, or for transferring from
machine to machine, but with write only CDs and DVDs being *cheap*,
why settle for less. The last 50 CDs I purchased were free with the
rebate. The last DVDs cost me all of 33 cents each in a batch of 50.

I know of no information as to life on the new dual layer DVDs, but
they are still *expensive* at something like 3 for $15 on sale, but I
expect to see them come down a bit soon.

Basically CDs and DVDs should last a very long lifetime given
reasonable care as should film. I don't think any one has come up
with concrete answers as to why *some* CDs and DVDs have failed
prematurely. It's not totally out of the question that high speed
drives may play some part. Only time will tell.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
February 14, 2005 6:32:18 AM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:42:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>"Don and Liz Campbell" <castles@yestertronics.com> writes:
>
>> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
>> Nikon LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3
>> and later with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file
>> size for a digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I

If you really mean optimized as in the maximum resolution that might
allow for restoration and manipulation you are talking of scanning at
4000 dpi, or the equivalent or 24 megapixels.

>> was thinking of approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to
>> get it right the first time around.
>
I sure with the original of this thread would show up on my server.

If you are using an LS 5000 ED as I do you are looking at files on the
order of 50 to 60 megs each as Tiffs at 8 bit color depth and 128 megs
at 16 bits. If not, then you spent too much money on a good scanner.

This is my take on the decision making process for "Scanning the Old
Family Slides": http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm It covers
the decision making process from deciding what to scan, at what
resolution, archiving, and more.

>Either that's too small, or else you don't want to commit to scanning
>all of them at the same resolution.
>
>For me, I think the second; a family slide collection has lots of
>things you really won't ever want to print bigger than 4x6, but every

My collections has a lot that I will never print at all, but some day,
some one may. Then again some day, some one may throw them all out.

>now and then there's something that you want to scan for every bit of
>detail in the picture. (4x6 comes out to about 6.5MB).
>
>And you might seriously want to consider archiving final copies in
>jpeg. On the one hand, there's the potential for some jpeg

I can't imagine archiving in JPG. printing and viewing...yes, but
anything that might be considered important and with the old family
history which could be most anything I archive at full resolution
(4000 dpi) Tiffs.

>artifacts. On the other hand, you can get a 3x to 5x reduction in
>file size without getting much in the way of artifacts.

I never use more than 2X. If I want a file to view on the computer I
save it at screen resolution, but as I said, for archiving I use full
resolution.

>
>You can always trade money for other factors :-). How big is the
>slide collection? If you can seriously consider keeping the whole
>thing on hard disk (and backed up on a couple of sets of DVDs) in 30MB
>files, maybe it's better to go with the probable-overkill, rather than
>risk regretting it later?

I have over 20,000. I use the LS 5000 ED with the SF210 feeder. I also
use the scanner for negatives of which I have many.

So far I have two sets of nearly 80 DVDs each for archiving. I have
"on line" about 1 1/2 terabytes between 4 computers. This one alone
has 600 Gig of HD space. This one is a 3.4 Gig 64 Bit Athlon with one
gig of RAM and 600 Gig of HD space. Two others are similar and one is
only a 2 Gig XP+ with almost 500 Gig of HD space and is used mainly
for system backups.

I don't expect most people to get quite so serious about the computers
nor do they need to. I did this for a living and still do a lot of
programming and photography. My wife also is a heavy computer
resource user. OTOH it takes very little in the way of scanning to
get a computer to start page file swapping and the LS5000 is quite
capable of causing this monster to do that with just 4 negatives in a
film strip.

Add Photoshop CS, or even Jasc Paint Shop Pro, a word processor, and a
few other apps and you can slow even something of this size.
Typically I have more apps than that up and running.

I cull my work, but not the old family slides and negatives.

>
>(Yes, I know those last two paragraphs conflict. Depending on your
>constraints, either view may be useful to you.)

I would add again what others have said before. Scanning more than a
few slides and negatives takes a *lot* of time. I've been working on
my project since last March. So I have less than a month to go and
it'll be a year. I have a long way to go to finish up the negatives
and then comes several hundred pounds of prints that go all the way
back to tintypes.

Good luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:11:44 PM

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

Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> writes:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:25:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>chidalgo <chidalgo@bla.bla.bla> writes:
>>
>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
>>>>> slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
>>>>>scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
>>>>>that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
>>>>>Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
>>>>>environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
>>>>>with digital media.
>>>> I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
>>>> facility for the original film.
>
> A cool area out of the sun (darker is better) is sufficient for most
> films and prints.

I have slides I shot myself and prints my mother shot that are *badly*
faded. They've been stored in the dark, at room temperature, all this
time. (I'm 50 years old, my own faded slides are from the 1970s).

More generally, the rated life of most *modern* chromagenic materials
is in the 30-50 year range. And the older materials were much less
permanent.

>>> So you can't provide the necessary enviroment for digital
>>> media preservation either! :-(
>>
>>CDs aren't either as temperature or as humidity sensitive as film.
>>Long-term low-humidity storage for film needs to be *below freezing*.
>
> I've kept unexposed film for years (over 5) at refrigerator temps and
> could see no degradation. Properly processed film should last
> generations if kept out of direct sunlight and elevated temperatures.

Not color film.

> I have slides that are over 50 years old, that have been run trough
> projectors many times and other than needing a good cleaning are in
> excellent shape. I have old negatives that are in good shape as well.
> I also have examples of each that are less than 10 years old that are
> in pretty poor shape. That has to be almost entirely due to the
> processing and specifically the fixing and washing cycles. If slides
> and negatives are not properly fixed and thoroughly washed they will
> live very short lives. Properly done they should last 50 years with
> no discernable deterioration.

That's not what Wilhelm found with color films, especially older color
films.

> OTOH we really don't know how long CDs and DVDs will last as they've
> not been around long enough to be sure. All life data is from
> accelerated age testing.

Yes, of course that's true. That's mostly true for films, too -- the
films we're using now aren't the same as the films of 100 years ago.

> We do know that some storage conditions will greatly hasten the aging
> of both CDs and DVDs. Store them on edge, in jewel cases not paper
> sleeves, keep them out of direct sunlight, and away from elevated
> temperatures.

Yes, all are important.

> Some solvents used in marking pens will hasten the deterioration of
> the top layer (the data is actually on the bottom of this layer and
> not on the clear side). Flexing is not good for CDs and can be
> particularly bad for DVDs which are assembled in layers. Take them
> out of the case by pressing down in the center and never pulling up on
> the edges.
> Don't forget to handle both by the edges. perspiration and body oils
> are corrosive and can really hasten the demise of a disk and might be
> able to get between the layers on a DVD.
>
> Other things to take into consideration are the material for the
> recording medium such as Gold, aluminum, and alloys. The dyes used as
> filters in the transparent layer are also important.
>
> Some unknowns have popped up such as the recording layer separating
> from the disk, corrosion, and even de lamination and corrosion in the
> layers of a DVDs. I've never seen it, but I've read a number of posts
> from those who have. Whether those problems came from the storage
> environment, handeling, or quality control during manufacturing? I
> don't think any one knows as yet.

Getting them out of the case without flexing is my biggest problem --
I don't find pushing down on the hub actually releases the disk, or if
it does, it grabs again when I take my finger out of the way to lift
it out of the case.
>
> And ... Do not use R/W (rewritable) disks of either type for long term
> storage. They may be good temporary storage, or for transferring from
> machine to machine, but with write only CDs and DVDs being *cheap*,
> why settle for less. The last 50 CDs I purchased were free with the
> rebate. The last DVDs cost me all of 33 cents each in a batch of 50.
>
> I know of no information as to life on the new dual layer DVDs, but
> they are still *expensive* at something like 3 for $15 on sale, but I
> expect to see them come down a bit soon.

They're also much slower to write. And while I don't know anything
about the lifespan either, my first guess is that it will be
definitely less than the single-layer version.

> Basically CDs and DVDs should last a very long lifetime given
> reasonable care as should film. I don't think any one has come up
> with concrete answers as to why *some* CDs and DVDs have failed
> prematurely. It's not totally out of the question that high speed
> drives may play some part. Only time will tell.

Some of the early music CD delaminations are blamed on manufacturing
errors. And we always have to worry about those happening to us.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!