Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > scanning colour slides

Reply
Thread Tools

scanning colour slides

 
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006
I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides scanned
with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the job
or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed scanner?

"Ockham's Razor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Gregory Blank <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <NGhkh.526319$5R2.237872@pd7urf3no>,
>> gA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
>> > flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
>> > adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
>> > - gA

>>
>> You need a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter.

>
> If he values the content of the slides he is scanning he will use a
> dedicated slide/film strip scanner. There is a Nikon for about 600.00
> that beats every flat bed scanner out there. For higher level work
> there are even more capable scanners.
>
> And, use Vue Scan software.
>
> --
> "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
> carrying a cross."
> Sinclair Lewis



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
> yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
> I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides scanned
> with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
> That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the job
> or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed scanner?


Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_ with
my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium format) of
the same slide.

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

There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.

This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium format
lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember, YMMV. (In
particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than this, although I
don't.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006
Thank you all for providing answers. It's obvious, by the sanples,
that the Nikon 8000 produces the best quality. However, I feel a
little uncomfortable spending all that money (approx. $750 CAD)
for one-time conversion. I won't be taking any more slides and
once the conversion is over, I will find out that the project was
indeed an expensive proposition. Cheers,
- gA

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
>> yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
>> I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides scanned
>> with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
>> That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the job
>> or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed scanner?

>
> Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_ with
> my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium format) of
> the same slide.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
>
> There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
> terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
>
> This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium format
> lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember, YMMV. (In
> particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than this, although I
> don't.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Allodoxaphobia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:47:40 GMT, gA wrote:
> Thank you for your quick reply, Jonesy. I should have asked "what
> is the best and cheapest way to convert slides to digital".


> I saw
> your device and I am impressed by the quality of the result.


Point of order: You did not see _my_ device. That URL covered the
original work of someone else. I merely reproduced the "prior art".
But, my device does not deviate much from what yoy see at that URL.
So, FWIW, the results are reproducible.

> Is there any improvement that can be made to this procedure?


I believe the inside of the tube should be painted flat black.
You wouldn't think that *cardboard* would present a reflection problem,
but it does. Or, at least I saw it in my implementation.

GL with your project.
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: <http//jonz.net/ng.htm>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006
Thanks for taking the time to reply to this post.
Is the left view scanned with an Epson 4870 and the right view with the
Nikon 8000?

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:emsk0t$plv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
>> yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
>> I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides
>> scanned with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
>> That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the
>> job or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed
>> scanner?

>
> Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_ with
> my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium format) of
> the same slide.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
>
> There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
> terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
>
> This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium
> format lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember,
> YMMV. (In particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than
> this, although I don't.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006
What seems to be the trend is that people buy the Nikon 8000 second hand or
new Once their project is completed they sale it.


"gA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:iRkkh.526945$5R2.192515@pd7urf3no...
> Thank you all for providing answers. It's obvious, by the sanples, that
> the Nikon 8000 produces the best quality. However, I feel a little
> uncomfortable spending all that money (approx. $750 CAD) for one-time
> conversion. I won't be taking any more slides and once the conversion is
> over, I will find out that the project was indeed an expensive
> proposition. Cheers,
> - gA
>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
>>> yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
>>> I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides
>>> scanned with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
>>> That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the
>>> job or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed
>>> scanner?

>>
>> Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_
>> with my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium
>> format) of the same slide.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
>>
>> There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
>> terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
>>
>> This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium
>> format lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember,
>> YMMV. (In particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than
>> this, although I don't.)
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:qVkkh.37563$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for taking the time to reply to this post.
> Is the left view scanned with an Epson 4870 and the right view with the
> Nikon 8000?


The good side's the 8000.

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


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006
It looks that the Nikon 8000 is superior to the Epson 4890.
Too bad I just bought an Epson 4490.

Nikon.ca are showing no Nikon 8000 but instead they have a 9000 with a mrsp
of $2599.95 CAD before taxes.
They have the 5000 at $1339.95CAD and the V ED at $739.95 CAD.
In order to have a comparable match produced by the Nikon 8000 I would have
to purchase the 9000.
Or maybe the V ED at $739.95 CAD can perform the same as the 9000 which I
have some doubt?

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:qVkkh.37563$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for taking the time to reply to this post.
> Is the left view scanned with an Epson 4870 and the right view with the
> Nikon 8000?
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:emsk0t$plv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
>>> yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
>>> I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides
>>> scanned with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
>>> That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the
>>> job or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed
>>> scanner?

>>
>> Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_
>> with my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium
>> format) of the same slide.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
>>
>> There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
>> terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
>>
>> This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium
>> format lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember,
>> YMMV. (In particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than
>> this, although I don't.)
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006


gA wrote:
> Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
> flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
> adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
> - gA


What do you intend to do with the scanned images.
Like most processes, the cost of the duplication process increases
exponentially as the quality of the result.
If you don't have a whole lot of slides (say 100-300) you can send them
off and have them scanned pretty inexpensively.
See: http://www.discountdigitalart.com/slides.html
Scanning a lot of slides is a real PIA and a real time consumer.
Bob Williams

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2006

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It looks that the Nikon 8000 is superior to the Epson 4890.
> Too bad I just bought an Epson 4490.


Not at all. The 4490 should be more than you need for web and smaller
prints. You may even be happy with 8x10 prints. And you can learn about
scanning without spending gobs of money.

> Nikon.ca are showing no Nikon 8000 but instead they have a 9000 with a
> mrsp of $2599.95 CAD before taxes.


Sorry. Nikon makes two scanner lines: one for up to 24x36 mm slides, and one
for up to 56x83mm slides. The 8000 and 9000 are the big ones. I have the
8000, the 9000 is the newer model.

But if you only have 35mm slides, you don't need the 9000. You only need the
5000 or the V.

> They have the 5000 at $1339.95CAD and the V ED at $739.95 CAD.
> In order to have a comparable match produced by the Nikon 8000 I would
> have to purchase the 9000.
> Or maybe the V ED at $739.95 CAD can perform the same as the 9000 which I
> have some doubt?


Yes. The V is a good scanner. The 9000 is only expensive because it handles
much larger film.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
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
What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit? Scotius Digital Photography 6 07-13-2010 03:33 AM
How to convert old colour slides to digital form? Chris Digital Photography 19 07-05-2007 12:25 PM
scanning colour slides Jim Digital Photography 3 08-01-2005 01:14 PM
Scanning 35mm slides? Terry Pinnell Computer Support 7 03-08-2005 06:33 AM
Scanning slides Charlie Self Digital Photography 2 07-26-2003 02:04 PM



Advertisments