Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Scanning

Reply
Thread Tools

Scanning

 
 
m Ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006
I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
units.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
miles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006
m Ransley wrote:
> I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
> to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
> from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
> dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
> can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
> Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
> units.


I have yet to see any home color printer capable of producing excellent
results at a price equal to or lower than a photo shop. The paper and
ink costs are still just too high. I just use a scanner and take the
images to a photo shop to be printed. Much cheaper with great results.

Another option depending on your camera is to get a 35mm slide mount for
it to convert to digital.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
m Ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006
I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print
machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as
I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of
Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006

"m Ransley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
> scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print
> machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as
> I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of
> Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines


Flatbeds are getting better, but they're not there yet. Here's the Epson
4870 vs. the Nikon 8000.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

Kodachrome is, apparently, hard to scan, but the latest Nikon scanners (V,
5000, 9000) are claimed to do better than earlier scanners.

If your old film is worth scanning, you'd probably be happiest with either a
Nikon 5000 or Konica-Minolta 5400, but Konica-Minolta is getting out of the
photography business, so it's not clear what's happening with that scanner.
The Nikon V would be a close second.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven Toney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006
speaking of scanner flim/slide

I have many hundreds to thousand of slides to scan for myself and from a few
friends

I have KM Dimage dual Scan IV -- that does ok for 4 slides at a time

but for doing many I think I'm going to buy something that can do more
slides at a batch
thoughts on the

Braun Multimag 4000 scanner or the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED with the 50 slide
batch accessory

the 1st is roughly 1250$ and the Nikon stuff is 980$ + 450$ for the batch
slide add-on

so the nikon is 200-300 more



"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dqtk0k$u59$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "m Ransley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
>> scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print
>> machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as
>> I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of
>> Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines

>
> Flatbeds are getting better, but they're not there yet. Here's the Epson
> 4870 vs. the Nikon 8000.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
>
> Kodachrome is, apparently, hard to scan, but the latest Nikon scanners (V,
> 5000, 9000) are claimed to do better than earlier scanners.
>
> If your old film is worth scanning, you'd probably be happiest with either
> a Nikon 5000 or Konica-Minolta 5400, but Konica-Minolta is getting out of
> the photography business, so it's not clear what's happening with that
> scanner. The Nikon V would be a close second.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
tomm42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006

m Ransley wrote:
> I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
> to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
> from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
> dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
> can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
> Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
> units.


All depends on what you need, the Epson 4990 will do a good job if you
are not printing over 8x10. If you want max detail then then Minolta
5400 or Nikon 5000 is your answer. The Epson is a flatbed scanner and
can do 12 slides at a time. The Minolta 5400 can do 4 and I'm not
ertain about the Nikon. Kodachrome may be a problem, as the emulsion
structure is very different from Ektachrome type slide film.
Printing is a whole different question, good home printing has a little
learning curve. Some folks are happy going the Walmart/Cosco route. I
have never been happy with their prints. Depending on how many you are
going to print, I don't print many so I'm happy to do my own. Printers
such as the Epson R1800/R800, 2400, and the HP designjet series do a
great job and are worth looking into.

Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
m Ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006
A scanner that sounds good at 600$ is the MicroTek Scan Maker i900 dual
scan bed 3200dpi Dmax @4.2. It comes with Scan Wizard pro, Digital Ice.
LaserSoft SilverFast Ai6 and Kodack color management. I think it does 12
slides at a time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
rafe b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2006
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:27:21 -0600, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley)
wrote:

> A scanner that sounds good at 600$ is the MicroTek Scan Maker i900 dual
>scan bed 3200dpi Dmax @4.2. It comes with Scan Wizard pro, Digital Ice.
>LaserSoft SilverFast Ai6 and Kodack color management. I think it does 12
>slides at a time.



If your interest is in slides, avoid the Microtek.

Get yourself a Minolta 5400, or a Dimage film
scanner. The Microtek is not in the same league.
Trust me on this.

If the appeal of the Microtek is the ability to
scan several slides at a time, consider the
Epson 4990. It holds eight slides at a throw,
or four 35mm filmstrips. It's rated at 4800
dpi, and I'd say "realistically" delivers about
half that. It's around $400 at places like Amazon.

The Epson also comes with Silverfast.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tesco News
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2006
"m Ransley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
> to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
> from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
> dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
> can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
> Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
> units.
>


Hi.

An "All in One" is by definition a Compromise.

If you want quality results you need a Film Scanner. If you want to produce
good Quality Prints from your scans you need a Quality Photo Printer.
Neither of these will be cheap.

You may also need a flatbed scanner for generating Faxes from documents, or
scanning the odd Print or two, but neither of these functions require high
quality, so you should be able to get one of these for very little cost.

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
m Ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2006
Should each slide be scanned individualy , will a batch film scaner not
give optimum results since no two photos are equal. I would think
negatives batch scanned would be best. Scanning 1000 old slides
individualy will take forever.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning Wireless Lans =?Utf-8?B?WmVyb2JpYXM=?= Wireless Networking 0 10-19-2005 11:31 AM
Perl, Email, and Scanning Anthony Papillion II Perl 1 11-11-2004 04:41 AM
Re: Built an document scanning application Steve Haigh ASP .Net 0 04-08-2004 12:11 PM
Scanning Ajit ASP .Net 1 09-02-2003 11:53 PM
Re: Image Scanning - TWAIN equivalent Brendan Duffy ASP .Net 0 07-24-2003 08:29 AM



Advertisments