«

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/2/2010 12:44 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:57:54 -0500, Ryan McGinnis <>
> wrote:
>>
>> It'd take even longer if you had to do it at home with a Nikon Coolscan
>> or somesuch. (They produce marginally better scans, but take around a
>> minute or two per scanned image at the best settings.)
>
>
> Marginally better scans? Don't be ridiculous, the scans from a Nikon
> Coolscan are significantly better, with much higher dynamic range as
> well as greater resolution.

I dunno, my experience with a Coolscan IV vs. a Fuji minilab scanning in
maximum resolution mode gives the Coolscan a minor victory; it does
indeed have a much better dynamic range, but as far as resolving power,
they're about the same. Remember, we're talking about family slides
here, not high-end commercial work where someone is going to pixel peep
the grain. The minilab scans around 4 or 5 slides a minute and it's
some other guy, not you, who's stuck with the scanning. A Coolscan
requires a lot more time and labor that you have to invest.

If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper
attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since
the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping
each one out.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMVzk9AAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bs88H/RN2ArhwsGeO7LRPEBSSscPj
tZEco1jac9/UR/e4n1Zb2HiwA27xEgvvIAeHbV1Ua5yDNf7P4IHTG2uCrI3GX7Id
FBLVNwR2uy/v8bzx6JjSm6uqUjJGH5ns4kJ9upboLtvzavzQbkUZniz+pHFa3 dTf
CNrnTzPLvrBWK6WjYnPL87UnwFzWxpIV2addz1mMkcfvutcNdz CCNtjn+BD3Dn8X
pSbdO2/lyTJOjrT4sW6f0Taldoyba8+ObRjudWgyMEVyYwTtQVpIoabcB XY+KiQ4
6saGe3mhR9PvEzmlpazo6L+8yCr0SPBNf1VGNhZFPIM5A0xHP4 ekPghHK7G96RY=
=r7It
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Per Ryan McGinnis:
>If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper
>attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since
>the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping
>each one out.

I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks
extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed
the slides.

I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A
lot of mine aren't that wonderful.
--
PeteCresswell

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:47:16 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
wrote:
>Per Ryan McGinnis:
>>If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper
>>attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since
>>the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping
>>each one out.
>
>I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks
>extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed
>the slides.
>
>I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A
>lot of mine aren't that wonderful.


My experience also. I have the SF-210 slide feeder on my Coolscan
5000ED right next to me on my desk.

It is a waste of time and money. It jams far more often than not. It
then takes a lot longer to sort the problem out than the time the
feeder should have saved.

There are some useful ideas on the Web about how to modify it to work
more reliably. They all involve attacking it with some sandpaper or a
file to ease the passage of the slide mounts.

I can't be bothered. It's quicker to feed the slides manually.

This thread has served as a reminder to me to remove the feeder from
the scanner, put it back in its box and sell it on eBay.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:31:41 -0500, Ryan McGinnis <>
wrote:
>I dunno, my experience with a Coolscan IV vs. a Fuji minilab scanning in
>maximum resolution mode gives the Coolscan a minor victory; it does
>indeed have a much better dynamic range, but as far as resolving power,
>they're about the same. Remember, we're talking about family slides
>here, not high-end commercial work where someone is going to pixel peep
>the grain. The minilab scans around 4 or 5 slides a minute and it's
>some other guy, not you, who's stuck with the scanning. A Coolscan
>requires a lot more time and labor that you have to invest.


The scanner on a Fuji Frontier is OK for negatives but its lack of
dynamic range means that it is hopeless for slides. You need the best
dynamic range you can get with slides, otherwise the scanned images
look flat and lifeless. The Nikon Coolscan is streets ahead of the
Fuji Frontier with a claimed density range of 4.8, although I think
the results suggest something around 4.2 to 4.3. But that is still a
long way better than the Fuji which struggles to achieve anything
better than 3.0.

The Frontier also scans slowly when used at maximum resolution. There
is no chance of it achieving "around 4 or 5 slides a minute" at that
resolution. It will only scan that quickly at its lower resolutions.

You also won't find many minilabs who are prepared to have their
operator sitting around scanning hundreds of slides for very little
money. I should know, as I have a quarter share in a minilab with two
Fuji Frontier machines. We have never offered a slide scanning
service with the Frontier for that reason - we have Nikon Coolscan and
Imacon Flextight scanners for that, and two old but elegant drum
scanners for more critical work.

Inevitably, the demand for scanning is falling steadily and will
effectively disappear before too long.

In article <>, Bruce <> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:57:54 -0500, Ryan McGinnis <>
>wrote:
>>
>>It'd take even longer if you had to do it at home with a Nikon Coolscan
>>or somesuch. (They produce marginally better scans, but take around a
>>minute or two per scanned image at the best settings.)
>
>
>Marginally better scans? Don't be ridiculous, the scans from a Nikon
>Coolscan are significantly better, with much higher dynamic range as
>well as greater resolution.
>

Agreed, and the Digital ICE feature helps immensly on older, scratched or
dusty slides.


>Until recently, the best way to proceed would have been to buy a good
>quality scanner, digitise the slides yourself then sell the scanner on
>eBay. Unfortunately, used prices for Nikon Coolscan scanners have
>gone through the roof since production of the 35mm scanners ended, so
>the economics of doing it yourself are no longer quite so predictable.
>
>There are very cheap scanners available but the results are poor.
>Probably the best compromise would be to buy something like a Plustek
>OpticFilm 7600i which has good resolution and reasonably good dynamic
>range. It is relatuvely easy to use and doesn't cost a fortune - a
>new 7600i is a fraction of the cost of a used Nikon Coolscan V. The
>output quality is good, and more than adequate for all but the most
>critical user.
>
>Here's a review:
>http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/PLTK7600/7600.HTM
>

In article <i36mml$mpe$>, Dave Cohen <> wrote:
>On 8/2/2010 3:04 AM, Skylamar Jones wrote:
>> Hi. I'm new to this group so I don't know if someone posted a similar
>> question recently.
>>
>> My mom has 3000 slides taken by my dad, who has passed away. Because of
>> the space the slides take up in her home, my mom is weeding through
>> them, looking at them manually using a slide projector.
>>
>> She isn't that computer savvy but she told me that Costco charges 29
>> cents per slide for digitizing them. For 3000 slides that's $870 which
>> is more than my mom wants to spend.
>>
>> I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for other ideas for
>> digitizing slides such as using a company that's cheaper/better than
>> Costco or a buying/renting good scanner that my mom can use at home.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sky
>I used a dedicated slide/negative duplicator that sells for around $100.
>It worked fairly well for negatives but was unsatisfactory for color
>slides, so avoid that.
>Flat bed scanners may do better. If I had to do it, I would play with
>the camera solutions suggested in other threads. The commercial camera
>accessory shown made by Soligor looks interesting but you need a camera
>that will work with that.



This little scanner is a fine alternative to a Nikon Coolscan IV or V and also
has the DIGITAL ICE capabilities. I see them used on ebay all the time and I
got mine for less than $50 at auction.

http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250u.php

The new PrimeFilm 7250u Film scanner offers 7200 dpi resolution at an
affordable price. This model incorporates KADC - Kodak Austin Developments
processing tools:

-Digital ICE™ - Hardware based Dust and Scratch removal with infrared sensors
and automatic Software correction.

-DigitalROC™ - Color Restoration; Image color is reconstructed and optimized
with Digital ROC Technology

-DigitalGEM™ - Grain Management; minimize grain to restore the image’s
sharpness.

Film Type: Negative and positive filmstrips (35mm) or mounted slides
· Opt. Resolution: 7200 x 3600 dpi
(approximate pixel size of a positive image after cropping
9360 x 6528 Pixels)
· Scanning Area: 24.3 x 36.5 mm
· Color Depth: 48 Bit
· Dynamic Range: 3.2 Dmax
· Image Sensor: Linear Color CCD
· LightSource: LED Array
· Interface: USB 2.0/1.1

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:39:29 +0100, Bruce
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:47:16 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
>wrote:
>>Per Ryan McGinnis:
>>>If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper
>>>attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since
>>>the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping
>>>each one out.
>>
>>I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks
>>extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed
>>the slides.
>>
>>I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A
>>lot of mine aren't that wonderful.
>
>
>My experience also. I have the SF-210 slide feeder on my Coolscan
>5000ED right next to me on my desk.
>
>It is a waste of time and money. It jams far more often than not. It
>then takes a lot longer to sort the problem out than the time the
>feeder should have saved.
>
>There are some useful ideas on the Web about how to modify it to work
>more reliably. They all involve attacking it with some sandpaper or a
>file to ease the passage of the slide mounts.
>
>I can't be bothered. It's quicker to feed the slides manually.
>
>This thread has served as a reminder to me to remove the feeder from
>the scanner, put it back in its box and sell it on eBay.


If it's the corners of the mounts that are causing the
problem (due to being frayed, slightly de-laminated, etc.),
the pincher-style fingernail clippers work amazingly well to
trim back to terra-firma.

--
croy

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:35:23 -0700, croy <>
wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:39:29 +0100, Bruce
><> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:47:16 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
>>wrote:
>>>Per Ryan McGinnis:
>>>>If you do go the Coolscan route, BTW, I'd reccomend a slide hopper
>>>>attachment that Nikon sells. Should cut down on the labor a bit, since
>>>>the slides will auto-load in batches and not require manually swapping
>>>>each one out.
>>>
>>>I've got the hopper (I think it was about two hundred bucks
>>>extra) and mine jams so often that it's easier to just hand-feed
>>>the slides.
>>>
>>>I suspect it's at least partially a matter of the slide mounts. A
>>>lot of mine aren't that wonderful.
>>
>>
>>My experience also. I have the SF-210 slide feeder on my Coolscan
>>5000ED right next to me on my desk.
>>
>>It is a waste of time and money. It jams far more often than not. It
>>then takes a lot longer to sort the problem out than the time the
>>feeder should have saved.
>>
>>There are some useful ideas on the Web about how to modify it to work
>>more reliably. They all involve attacking it with some sandpaper or a
>>file to ease the passage of the slide mounts.
>>
>>I can't be bothered. It's quicker to feed the slides manually.
>>
>>This thread has served as a reminder to me to remove the feeder from
>>the scanner, put it back in its box and sell it on eBay.
>
>
>If it's the corners of the mounts that are causing the
>problem (due to being frayed, slightly de-laminated, etc.),
>the pincher-style fingernail clippers work amazingly well to
>trim back to terra-firma.


The problem is with the feeder, It was poorly designed and never
properly developed. If it is unable to cope with typical variation
between slide mounts - and I am not referring to damage or severe wear
and tear - then it should never have been marketed.

It has been offered for years, first as the SF-200 then as the SF-210.
Yet the SF-210, which should have benefitted from the years of
experience with the SF-200, has exactly the same fundamental problem.

On Aug 2, 7:08*am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:16:49 -0400, John McWilliams
>
>
>
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Ofnuts wrote:
> >> On 02/08/2010 09:04, Skylamar Jones wrote:
> >>> Hi. I'm new to this group so I don't know if someone posted a similar
> >>> question recently.
>
> >>> My mom has 3000 slides taken by my dad, who has passed away. Because of
> >>> the space the slides take up in her home, my mom is weeding through
> >>> them, looking at them manually using a slide projector.
>
> >>> She isn't that computer savvy but she told me that Costco charges 29
> >>> cents per slide for digitizing them. For 3000 slides that's $870 which
> >>> is more than my mom wants to spend.
>
> >>> I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for other ideas for
> >>> digitizing slides such as using a company that's cheaper/better than
> >>> Costco or a buying/renting good scanner that my mom can use at home.
>
> >> Digitizing slides at home is extremely labor intensive, unless you have
> >> one of these very expensive Nikon scanners with all their expensive
> >> options that make it just plain labor intensive.
>
> >> I'm facing the very same problem (except I'd be the one doing the
> >> scanning) but I'm taking another route: reduce my Dad's 3000 slides to a
> >> set of 100-200 worth passing to the next generations.
>
> >My first thought, too. Go through them with her, make notes and mark the
> >ones really worth keeping.
> >Good luck!
>
> I think most of us of a certain age have gone through this with either
> their own slides or slides taken by a parent. *I did, and I culled the
> slides down to about 10% "keepers" and scanned them myself.
>
> The process of weeding them out is quite enjoyable. *Going through the
> slides brings back a lot of memories. *The process of scanning is less
> enjoyable, but can be done over a period of time.
> --


Agreed.

We have been doing this with a cheaper slide scanner. We don't want
prints of them, so we don't need the highest quality. Just a way to
preserve the images and pass them to future generations. It does take
a lot of time, but you can do some every day, and while it scans, work
on something else, so it is just a side thing going on.

My scanner does 4 slides at a time, so I just put 4 slides in, have it
scan, and come back later, switch out another 4, and repeat. After
awhile, I sit down and save all the open files. So, it isn't something
I sit and work at. And my only cost was the scanner ($100) which gets
used for other things as well.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:53:39 +0100, Bruce
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:35:23 -0700, croy <>
>wrote:

>>If it's the corners of the mounts that are causing the
>>problem (due to being frayed, slightly de-laminated, etc.),
>>the pincher-style fingernail clippers work amazingly well to
>>trim back to terra-firma.


>The problem is with the feeder, It was poorly designed and never
>properly developed. If it is unable to cope with typical variation
>between slide mounts - and I am not referring to damage or severe wear
>and tear - then it should never have been marketed.

>It has been offered for years, first as the SF-200 then as the SF-210.
>Yet the SF-210, which should have benefitted from the years of
>experience with the SF-200, has exactly the same fundamental problem.

Ouch! Glad I didn't buy one. I was tempted.

--
croy