Attachment for Cannon Pixma 170 Scanner

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Loony, Jun 7, 2012.

  1. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Hello Experts,

    I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going great.

    Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    on a DVD.

    Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project the
    strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm projecter
    but I have not used it for years.

    TIA
     
    Loony, Jun 7, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Loony wrote:
    > Hello Experts,
    >
    > I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going great.
    >
    > Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    > slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    > on a DVD.
    >
    > Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project the
    > strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm projecter
    > but I have not used it for years.
    >
    > TIA


    Scanners work by "reflection" or by "transmission".

    I have a scanner with two light sources. It has a CCFL tube in the
    bottom of the unit, shining upwards. Light "reflects" off plain
    paper being copied on the glass surface of the scanner.

    In transparency mode, you place a slide holder onto the glass
    surface, then the light in the lid of the scanner turns on,
    and shines light through the slides. The scanner must run at
    a much higher resolution as well, to capture all the detail
    in the slide or film strip. The lighting of my scanner works
    well, but the resolution simply isn't sufficient for the job.

    You could take the slides to a film processor, and have them
    use a slide scanner to do the job. Or, look around for a used
    slide/film strip specialized scanner, which would have sufficient
    resolution to do the job right.

    I've only processed one piece of film with my scanner, in
    transparency mode, and it was enough to tell me the resolution
    was not sufficient for film archival purposes. The color balance
    was good, and the conversion from negative colors to positive
    (print) colors worked well. Just the picture was too grainy
    due to the resolution limits. You tell the scanner the
    film type, like Kodachrome, and that's how the scanner knows
    what color transformation to use. Film would be "negative"
    colors, while a 35mm slide would be "positive" colors and
    not need translation.

    This is the kind of slide scanner that would do a good job.
    Since film is a thing of the past, you can't expect to find
    exemplary units for sale new. While scanners continue to
    offer "transparency" options, they may not have the
    resolution to do an exceptional job. Dedicated devices
    similar in appearance to this form factor, are what works best.

    http://wiki.case.edu/images/3/30/SlideScannerStep6cw.JPG

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 7, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 07/06/2012 21:14, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >> Hello Experts,
    >>
    >> I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going
    >> great.
    >>
    >> Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    >> slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    >> on a DVD.
    >>
    >> Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project
    >> the strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm projecter
    >> but I have not used it for years.
    >>
    >> TIA

    >
    > Scanners work by "reflection" or by "transmission".
    >
    > I have a scanner with two light sources. It has a CCFL tube in the
    > bottom of the unit, shining upwards. Light "reflects" off plain
    > paper being copied on the glass surface of the scanner.
    >
    > In transparency mode, you place a slide holder onto the glass
    > surface, then the light in the lid of the scanner turns on,
    > and shines light through the slides. The scanner must run at
    > a much higher resolution as well, to capture all the detail
    > in the slide or film strip. The lighting of my scanner works
    > well, but the resolution simply isn't sufficient for the job.
    >
    > You could take the slides to a film processor, and have them
    > use a slide scanner to do the job. Or, look around for a used
    > slide/film strip specialized scanner, which would have sufficient
    > resolution to do the job right.
    >
    > I've only processed one piece of film with my scanner, in
    > transparency mode, and it was enough to tell me the resolution
    > was not sufficient for film archival purposes. The color balance
    > was good, and the conversion from negative colors to positive
    > (print) colors worked well. Just the picture was too grainy
    > due to the resolution limits. You tell the scanner the
    > film type, like Kodachrome, and that's how the scanner knows
    > what color transformation to use. Film would be "negative"
    > colors, while a 35mm slide would be "positive" colors and
    > not need translation.
    >
    > This is the kind of slide scanner that would do a good job.
    > Since film is a thing of the past, you can't expect to find
    > exemplary units for sale new. While scanners continue to
    > offer "transparency" options, they may not have the
    > resolution to do an exceptional job. Dedicated devices
    > similar in appearance to this form factor, are what works best.
    >
    > http://wiki.case.edu/images/3/30/SlideScannerStep6cw.JPG
    >
    > Paul


    Thanks again Paul :)

    The following are the pieces of data from my Canon Pixma 170 :

    Doc type :
    B and W photo
    Color photo
    Color doc
    B and W doc
    Magazine color
    Text OCR

    Autodetects all sizes within an A5 L4 page
    Scanning - variable from 75 - 600 dpi
    Also can do Descreen and Unsharp mask.

    Did you exceed the 600 dpi?

    Back again soon and thanks for the help.
     
    Loony, Jun 8, 2012
    #3
  4. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:
    > On 07/06/2012 21:14, Paul wrote:
    >> Loony wrote:
    >>> Hello Experts,
    >>>
    >>> I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going
    >>> great.
    >>>
    >>> Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    >>> slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    >>> on a DVD.
    >>>
    >>> Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project
    >>> the strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm projecter
    >>> but I have not used it for years.
    >>>
    >>> TIA

    >>
    >> Scanners work by "reflection" or by "transmission".
    >>
    >> I have a scanner with two light sources. It has a CCFL tube in the
    >> bottom of the unit, shining upwards. Light "reflects" off plain
    >> paper being copied on the glass surface of the scanner.
    >>
    >> In transparency mode, you place a slide holder onto the glass
    >> surface, then the light in the lid of the scanner turns on,
    >> and shines light through the slides. The scanner must run at
    >> a much higher resolution as well, to capture all the detail
    >> in the slide or film strip. The lighting of my scanner works
    >> well, but the resolution simply isn't sufficient for the job.
    >>
    >> You could take the slides to a film processor, and have them
    >> use a slide scanner to do the job. Or, look around for a used
    >> slide/film strip specialized scanner, which would have sufficient
    >> resolution to do the job right.
    >>
    >> I've only processed one piece of film with my scanner, in
    >> transparency mode, and it was enough to tell me the resolution
    >> was not sufficient for film archival purposes. The color balance
    >> was good, and the conversion from negative colors to positive
    >> (print) colors worked well. Just the picture was too grainy
    >> due to the resolution limits. You tell the scanner the
    >> film type, like Kodachrome, and that's how the scanner knows
    >> what color transformation to use. Film would be "negative"
    >> colors, while a 35mm slide would be "positive" colors and
    >> not need translation.
    >>
    >> This is the kind of slide scanner that would do a good job.
    >> Since film is a thing of the past, you can't expect to find
    >> exemplary units for sale new. While scanners continue to
    >> offer "transparency" options, they may not have the
    >> resolution to do an exceptional job. Dedicated devices
    >> similar in appearance to this form factor, are what works best.
    >>
    >> http://wiki.case.edu/images/3/30/SlideScannerStep6cw.JPG
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > Thanks again Paul :)
    >
    > The following are the pieces of data from my Canon Pixma 170 :
    >
    > Doc type :
    > B and W photo
    > Color photo
    > Color doc
    > B and W doc
    > Magazine color
    > Text OCR
    >
    > Autodetects all sizes within an A5 L4 page
    > Scanning - variable from 75 - 600 dpi
    > Also can do Descreen and Unsharp mask.
    >
    > Did you exceed the 600 dpi?
    >
    > Back again soon and thanks for the help.


    There's a slide scanner here, that uses 7200DPI.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002DSU0IO...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B002DSU0IO

    And a properly designed one here, with a little less native resolution.
    The other one could be an extrapolated resolution. This one can
    apparently get down to the grain level. Nikon CoolScan V LS-50 ED $5000
    Lots of review comments to read etc. Who knows, maybe even references
    to ancient scanners that were better.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001DYTVW...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B0001DYTVW

    (Apparently, it's from around the year 2003.)
    http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Film-Scanners/9239/COOLSCAN-V-ED.html

    Takes two minutes per slide, three minutes for a film capture
    http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonCoolscan5ED.html

    Being Amazon, I wouldn't trust the price listed there as being
    realistic. First, the article hasn't been manufactured for a
    while, so that particular model is more likely to be found used.

    I think my desktop scanner had a native resolution of around 1200DPI,
    and the results were unusable. I wouldn't have archived any
    additional photos with a thing like that. The results looked
    like something from a cellphone camera.

    One guy used to have a web site, discussion resolution versus
    grain behavior of film, and he would blow up pictures to poster
    size, look at individual blades of grass and so on, in an effort
    to identify quality issues. So there are discussions out there,
    on what counts in a film/slide scanner. All I can relate to you,
    is that a desktop scanner with transparency adapter, is no substitute
    for a real proper scanning device. Good scanning devices, use
    more than one light source (they use a scan in the visible range,
    plus a scan in the infrared range), and they can remove scratches
    from the media using the two light sources. If you can't afford
    a proper scanner, a local film processor may be able to give you
    a price for doing the scanning for you.

    A good scan, makes you want to throw away the slide or negative
    strip, because it looks so good. A bad scan, leaves you thinking
    of the film or slide as the good copy, and then the scan is only
    suited for emailing to someone. And then you're left with a
    stinking pile of negatives and slides in the cupboard.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 8, 2012
    #4
  5. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 08/06/2012 21:00, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >> On 07/06/2012 21:14, Paul wrote:
    >>> Loony wrote:
    >>>> Hello Experts,
    >>>>
    >>>> I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going
    >>>> great.
    >>>>
    >>>> Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    >>>> slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    >>>> on a DVD.
    >>>>
    >>>> Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project
    >>>> the strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm projecter
    >>>> but I have not used it for years.
    >>>>
    >>>> TIA
    >>>
    >>> Scanners work by "reflection" or by "transmission".
    >>>
    >>> I have a scanner with two light sources. It has a CCFL tube in the
    >>> bottom of the unit, shining upwards. Light "reflects" off plain
    >>> paper being copied on the glass surface of the scanner.
    >>>
    >>> In transparency mode, you place a slide holder onto the glass
    >>> surface, then the light in the lid of the scanner turns on,
    >>> and shines light through the slides. The scanner must run at
    >>> a much higher resolution as well, to capture all the detail
    >>> in the slide or film strip. The lighting of my scanner works
    >>> well, but the resolution simply isn't sufficient for the job.
    >>>
    >>> You could take the slides to a film processor, and have them
    >>> use a slide scanner to do the job. Or, look around for a used
    >>> slide/film strip specialized scanner, which would have sufficient
    >>> resolution to do the job right.
    >>>
    >>> I've only processed one piece of film with my scanner, in
    >>> transparency mode, and it was enough to tell me the resolution
    >>> was not sufficient for film archival purposes. The color balance
    >>> was good, and the conversion from negative colors to positive
    >>> (print) colors worked well. Just the picture was too grainy
    >>> due to the resolution limits. You tell the scanner the
    >>> film type, like Kodachrome, and that's how the scanner knows
    >>> what color transformation to use. Film would be "negative"
    >>> colors, while a 35mm slide would be "positive" colors and
    >>> not need translation.
    >>>
    >>> This is the kind of slide scanner that would do a good job.
    >>> Since film is a thing of the past, you can't expect to find
    >>> exemplary units for sale new. While scanners continue to
    >>> offer "transparency" options, they may not have the
    >>> resolution to do an exceptional job. Dedicated devices
    >>> similar in appearance to this form factor, are what works best.
    >>>
    >>> http://wiki.case.edu/images/3/30/SlideScannerStep6cw.JPG
    >>>
    >>> Paul

    >>
    >> Thanks again Paul :)
    >>
    >> The following are the pieces of data from my Canon Pixma 170 :
    >>
    >> Doc type :
    >> B and W photo
    >> Color photo
    >> Color doc
    >> B and W doc
    >> Magazine color
    >> Text OCR
    >>
    >> Autodetects all sizes within an A5 L4 page
    >> Scanning - variable from 75 - 600 dpi
    >> Also can do Descreen and Unsharp mask.
    >>
    >> Did you exceed the 600 dpi?
    >>
    >> Back again soon and thanks for the help.

    >
    > There's a slide scanner here, that uses 7200DPI.
    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002DSU0IO...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B002DSU0IO
    >
    >
    > And a properly designed one here, with a little less native resolution.
    > The other one could be an extrapolated resolution. This one can
    > apparently get down to the grain level. Nikon CoolScan V LS-50 ED $5000
    > Lots of review comments to read etc. Who knows, maybe even references
    > to ancient scanners that were better.
    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001DYTVW...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B0001DYTVW
    >
    >
    > (Apparently, it's from around the year 2003.)
    > http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Film-Scanners/9239/COOLSCAN-V-ED.html
    >
    >
    > Takes two minutes per slide, three minutes for a film capture
    > http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonCoolscan5ED.html
    >
    > Being Amazon, I wouldn't trust the price listed there as being
    > realistic. First, the article hasn't been manufactured for a
    > while, so that particular model is more likely to be found used.
    >
    > I think my desktop scanner had a native resolution of around 1200DPI,
    > and the results were unusable. I wouldn't have archived any
    > additional photos with a thing like that. The results looked
    > like something from a cellphone camera.
    >
    > One guy used to have a web site, discussion resolution versus
    > grain behavior of film, and he would blow up pictures to poster
    > size, look at individual blades of grass and so on, in an effort
    > to identify quality issues. So there are discussions out there,
    > on what counts in a film/slide scanner. All I can relate to you,
    > is that a desktop scanner with transparency adapter, is no substitute
    > for a real proper scanning device. Good scanning devices, use
    > more than one light source (they use a scan in the visible range,
    > plus a scan in the infrared range), and they can remove scratches
    > from the media using the two light sources. If you can't afford
    > a proper scanner, a local film processor may be able to give you
    > a price for doing the scanning for you.
    >
    > A good scan, makes you want to throw away the slide or negative
    > strip, because it looks so good. A bad scan, leaves you thinking
    > of the film or slide as the good copy, and then the scan is only
    > suited for emailing to someone. And then you're left with a
    > stinking pile of negatives and slides in the cupboard.
    >
    > Paul



    Hello again Paul :)

    I found something interesting at Amazon.co.uk for £65.35.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kodak-Photo...=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=560798&s=electronics

    "Product Description
    The KODAK Personal Photo Scanner turns your old shoebox full of photos
    into digital photo files that you can upload, email, edit, and archive.
    The scanner can scan prints from wallet size up to 4 by 6 inches at a
    resolution of 600 dpi. It can also turn 35-millimeter negatives and
    mounted slides into crisp, clear digital images with a resolution of
    1200 dpi."

    I think that 1200 dpi would be enough.

    How about that?
     
    Loony, Jun 11, 2012
    #5
  6. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:
    > On 08/06/2012 21:00, Paul wrote:
    >> Loony wrote:
    >>> On 07/06/2012 21:14, Paul wrote:
    >>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>> Hello Experts,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going
    >>>>> great.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    >>>>> slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    >>>>> on a DVD.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project
    >>>>> the strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm projecter
    >>>>> but I have not used it for years.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> TIA
    >>>>
    >>>> Scanners work by "reflection" or by "transmission".
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a scanner with two light sources. It has a CCFL tube in the
    >>>> bottom of the unit, shining upwards. Light "reflects" off plain
    >>>> paper being copied on the glass surface of the scanner.
    >>>>
    >>>> In transparency mode, you place a slide holder onto the glass
    >>>> surface, then the light in the lid of the scanner turns on,
    >>>> and shines light through the slides. The scanner must run at
    >>>> a much higher resolution as well, to capture all the detail
    >>>> in the slide or film strip. The lighting of my scanner works
    >>>> well, but the resolution simply isn't sufficient for the job.
    >>>>
    >>>> You could take the slides to a film processor, and have them
    >>>> use a slide scanner to do the job. Or, look around for a used
    >>>> slide/film strip specialized scanner, which would have sufficient
    >>>> resolution to do the job right.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've only processed one piece of film with my scanner, in
    >>>> transparency mode, and it was enough to tell me the resolution
    >>>> was not sufficient for film archival purposes. The color balance
    >>>> was good, and the conversion from negative colors to positive
    >>>> (print) colors worked well. Just the picture was too grainy
    >>>> due to the resolution limits. You tell the scanner the
    >>>> film type, like Kodachrome, and that's how the scanner knows
    >>>> what color transformation to use. Film would be "negative"
    >>>> colors, while a 35mm slide would be "positive" colors and
    >>>> not need translation.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is the kind of slide scanner that would do a good job.
    >>>> Since film is a thing of the past, you can't expect to find
    >>>> exemplary units for sale new. While scanners continue to
    >>>> offer "transparency" options, they may not have the
    >>>> resolution to do an exceptional job. Dedicated devices
    >>>> similar in appearance to this form factor, are what works best.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://wiki.case.edu/images/3/30/SlideScannerStep6cw.JPG
    >>>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>
    >>> Thanks again Paul :)
    >>>
    >>> The following are the pieces of data from my Canon Pixma 170 :
    >>>
    >>> Doc type :
    >>> B and W photo
    >>> Color photo
    >>> Color doc
    >>> B and W doc
    >>> Magazine color
    >>> Text OCR
    >>>
    >>> Autodetects all sizes within an A5 L4 page
    >>> Scanning - variable from 75 - 600 dpi
    >>> Also can do Descreen and Unsharp mask.
    >>>
    >>> Did you exceed the 600 dpi?
    >>>
    >>> Back again soon and thanks for the help.

    >>
    >> There's a slide scanner here, that uses 7200DPI.
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002DSU0IO...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B002DSU0IO
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And a properly designed one here, with a little less native resolution.
    >> The other one could be an extrapolated resolution. This one can
    >> apparently get down to the grain level. Nikon CoolScan V LS-50 ED $5000
    >> Lots of review comments to read etc. Who knows, maybe even references
    >> to ancient scanners that were better.
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001DYTVW...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B0001DYTVW
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> (Apparently, it's from around the year 2003.)
    >> http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Film-Scanners/9239/COOLSCAN-V-ED.html
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Takes two minutes per slide, three minutes for a film capture
    >> http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonCoolscan5ED.html
    >>
    >> Being Amazon, I wouldn't trust the price listed there as being
    >> realistic. First, the article hasn't been manufactured for a
    >> while, so that particular model is more likely to be found used.
    >>
    >> I think my desktop scanner had a native resolution of around 1200DPI,
    >> and the results were unusable. I wouldn't have archived any
    >> additional photos with a thing like that. The results looked
    >> like something from a cellphone camera.
    >>
    >> One guy used to have a web site, discussion resolution versus
    >> grain behavior of film, and he would blow up pictures to poster
    >> size, look at individual blades of grass and so on, in an effort
    >> to identify quality issues. So there are discussions out there,
    >> on what counts in a film/slide scanner. All I can relate to you,
    >> is that a desktop scanner with transparency adapter, is no substitute
    >> for a real proper scanning device. Good scanning devices, use
    >> more than one light source (they use a scan in the visible range,
    >> plus a scan in the infrared range), and they can remove scratches
    >> from the media using the two light sources. If you can't afford
    >> a proper scanner, a local film processor may be able to give you
    >> a price for doing the scanning for you.
    >>
    >> A good scan, makes you want to throw away the slide or negative
    >> strip, because it looks so good. A bad scan, leaves you thinking
    >> of the film or slide as the good copy, and then the scan is only
    >> suited for emailing to someone. And then you're left with a
    >> stinking pile of negatives and slides in the cupboard.
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    >
    > Hello again Paul :)
    >
    > I found something interesting at Amazon.co.uk for £65.35.
    >
    > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kodak-Photo...=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=560798&s=electronics
    >
    >
    > "Product Description
    > The KODAK Personal Photo Scanner turns your old shoebox full of photos
    > into digital photo files that you can upload, email, edit, and archive.
    > The scanner can scan prints from wallet size up to 4 by 6 inches at a
    > resolution of 600 dpi. It can also turn 35-millimeter negatives and
    > mounted slides into crisp, clear digital images with a resolution of
    > 1200 dpi."
    >
    > I think that 1200 dpi would be enough.
    >
    > How about that?
    >


    You should be reading the Amazon customer reviews.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RU5E7CBHZ4I5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RU5E7CBHZ4I5G

    Scanning a 4x6 print with that thing, would be great.

    Scanning a strip of negative film, or scanning a (positive) 35mm slide,
    not so much.

    That thing would have much the same properties, as my scanner.

    There is a table of scanning resolutions here. 35mm Negative is listed
    with values of 1500, 2500, 4000. The purpose of "trying to capture everything",
    is so you can throw the negative away. If you capture at 1500, for the purpose
    of making a 5x7 print, then you'd probably want to hold onto the negative.
    Scanning at higher values, is so you won't have regrets later, after
    having thrown away the negative. With large hard drives, storage space
    for the large scans shouldn't be a problem. When scanning at 4000,
    the glass lens in the scanner is as much an issue as the CCD sensor.
    The lens can limit the practical resolvable detail. So if they used
    a CCD with 8000 resolution, it couldn't "pull the blades of grass apart",
    because of the properties of the lens in the scanning box. The scan at
    8000 would still work, but would contain no more real detail (when
    blown up on the LCD screen) than the scan at 4000. Eventually, the
    optics of the scanner, and the grain of the film, are an issue.

    http://www.digitalpickle.com/photo-scanning-and-restoration/photo-scanning-resolution-table.shtml

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 11, 2012
    #6
  7. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 11/06/2012 21:15, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >> On 08/06/2012 21:00, Paul wrote:
    >>> Loony wrote:
    >>>> On 07/06/2012 21:14, Paul wrote:
    >>>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>>> Hello Experts,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have had this Cannon Pixma for about 6 years and it is still going
    >>>>>> great.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Now I have a large accumulation of 35 mm strips, and a few hundred
    >>>>>> slides. I can handle the photos with the scanner. I want to put all
    >>>>>> on a DVD.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Now I am thinking of a unit with a bright lamp and a lens to project
    >>>>>> the strips and slides down to the Pixma. I have an old 35 mm
    >>>>>> projecter
    >>>>>> but I have not used it for years.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> TIA
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Scanners work by "reflection" or by "transmission".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have a scanner with two light sources. It has a CCFL tube in the
    >>>>> bottom of the unit, shining upwards. Light "reflects" off plain
    >>>>> paper being copied on the glass surface of the scanner.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In transparency mode, you place a slide holder onto the glass
    >>>>> surface, then the light in the lid of the scanner turns on,
    >>>>> and shines light through the slides. The scanner must run at
    >>>>> a much higher resolution as well, to capture all the detail
    >>>>> in the slide or film strip. The lighting of my scanner works
    >>>>> well, but the resolution simply isn't sufficient for the job.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You could take the slides to a film processor, and have them
    >>>>> use a slide scanner to do the job. Or, look around for a used
    >>>>> slide/film strip specialized scanner, which would have sufficient
    >>>>> resolution to do the job right.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've only processed one piece of film with my scanner, in
    >>>>> transparency mode, and it was enough to tell me the resolution
    >>>>> was not sufficient for film archival purposes. The color balance
    >>>>> was good, and the conversion from negative colors to positive
    >>>>> (print) colors worked well. Just the picture was too grainy
    >>>>> due to the resolution limits. You tell the scanner the
    >>>>> film type, like Kodachrome, and that's how the scanner knows
    >>>>> what color transformation to use. Film would be "negative"
    >>>>> colors, while a 35mm slide would be "positive" colors and
    >>>>> not need translation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is the kind of slide scanner that would do a good job.
    >>>>> Since film is a thing of the past, you can't expect to find
    >>>>> exemplary units for sale new. While scanners continue to
    >>>>> offer "transparency" options, they may not have the
    >>>>> resolution to do an exceptional job. Dedicated devices
    >>>>> similar in appearance to this form factor, are what works best.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://wiki.case.edu/images/3/30/SlideScannerStep6cw.JPG
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks again Paul :)
    >>>>
    >>>> The following are the pieces of data from my Canon Pixma 170 :
    >>>>
    >>>> Doc type :
    >>>> B and W photo
    >>>> Color photo
    >>>> Color doc
    >>>> B and W doc
    >>>> Magazine color
    >>>> Text OCR
    >>>>
    >>>> Autodetects all sizes within an A5 L4 page
    >>>> Scanning - variable from 75 - 600 dpi
    >>>> Also can do Descreen and Unsharp mask.
    >>>>
    >>>> Did you exceed the 600 dpi?
    >>>>
    >>>> Back again soon and thanks for the help.
    >>>
    >>> There's a slide scanner here, that uses 7200DPI.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002DSU0IO...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B002DSU0IO
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And a properly designed one here, with a little less native resolution.
    >>> The other one could be an extrapolated resolution. This one can
    >>> apparently get down to the grain level. Nikon CoolScan V LS-50 ED $5000
    >>> Lots of review comments to read etc. Who knows, maybe even references
    >>> to ancient scanners that were better.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001DYTVW...e=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B0001DYTVW
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> (Apparently, it's from around the year 2003.)
    >>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Film-Scanners/9239/COOLSCAN-V-ED.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Takes two minutes per slide, three minutes for a film capture
    >>> http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonCoolscan5ED.html
    >>>
    >>> Being Amazon, I wouldn't trust the price listed there as being
    >>> realistic. First, the article hasn't been manufactured for a
    >>> while, so that particular model is more likely to be found used.
    >>>
    >>> I think my desktop scanner had a native resolution of around 1200DPI,
    >>> and the results were unusable. I wouldn't have archived any
    >>> additional photos with a thing like that. The results looked
    >>> like something from a cellphone camera.
    >>>
    >>> One guy used to have a web site, discussion resolution versus
    >>> grain behavior of film, and he would blow up pictures to poster
    >>> size, look at individual blades of grass and so on, in an effort
    >>> to identify quality issues. So there are discussions out there,
    >>> on what counts in a film/slide scanner. All I can relate to you,
    >>> is that a desktop scanner with transparency adapter, is no substitute
    >>> for a real proper scanning device. Good scanning devices, use
    >>> more than one light source (they use a scan in the visible range,
    >>> plus a scan in the infrared range), and they can remove scratches
    >>> from the media using the two light sources. If you can't afford
    >>> a proper scanner, a local film processor may be able to give you
    >>> a price for doing the scanning for you.
    >>>
    >>> A good scan, makes you want to throw away the slide or negative
    >>> strip, because it looks so good. A bad scan, leaves you thinking
    >>> of the film or slide as the good copy, and then the scan is only
    >>> suited for emailing to someone. And then you're left with a
    >>> stinking pile of negatives and slides in the cupboard.
    >>>
    >>> Paul

    >>
    >>
    >> Hello again Paul :)
    >>
    >> I found something interesting at Amazon.co.uk for £65.35.
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kodak-Photo...=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=560798&s=electronics
    >>
    >>
    >> "Product Description
    >> The KODAK Personal Photo Scanner turns your old shoebox full of photos
    >> into digital photo files that you can upload, email, edit, and
    >> archive. The scanner can scan prints from wallet size up to 4 by 6
    >> inches at a resolution of 600 dpi. It can also turn 35-millimeter
    >> negatives and mounted slides into crisp, clear digital images with a
    >> resolution of 1200 dpi."
    >>
    >> I think that 1200 dpi would be enough.
    >>
    >> How about that?
    >>

    >
    > You should be reading the Amazon customer reviews.
    >
    > http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RU5E7CBHZ4I5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RU5E7CBHZ4I5G
    >
    >
    > Scanning a 4x6 print with that thing, would be great.
    >
    > Scanning a strip of negative film, or scanning a (positive) 35mm slide,
    > not so much.
    >
    > That thing would have much the same properties, as my scanner.
    >
    > There is a table of scanning resolutions here. 35mm Negative is listed
    > with values of 1500, 2500, 4000. The purpose of "trying to capture
    > everything",
    > is so you can throw the negative away. If you capture at 1500, for the
    > purpose
    > of making a 5x7 print, then you'd probably want to hold onto the negative.
    > Scanning at higher values, is so you won't have regrets later, after
    > having thrown away the negative. With large hard drives, storage space
    > for the large scans shouldn't be a problem. When scanning at 4000,
    > the glass lens in the scanner is as much an issue as the CCD sensor.
    > The lens can limit the practical resolvable detail. So if they used
    > a CCD with 8000 resolution, it couldn't "pull the blades of grass apart",
    > because of the properties of the lens in the scanning box. The scan at
    > 8000 would still work, but would contain no more real detail (when
    > blown up on the LCD screen) than the scan at 4000. Eventually, the
    > optics of the scanner, and the grain of the film, are an issue.
    >
    > http://www.digitalpickle.com/photo-scanning-and-restoration/photo-scanning-resolution-table.shtml
    >
    >
    > Paul


    Thanks again Paul.

    I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my photos
    and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon A-1 and I
    have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom. When I first
    had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives were developed and
    almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left the photos behind
    and started with 35mm slides. I still have all those negatives and
    photos. So my task is to get the images from the films and from the
    slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be happy with 2500.
    I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.

    I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many hundreds of
    slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and Negative
    Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)
     
    Loony, Jun 12, 2012
    #7
  8. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:

    >
    > Thanks again Paul.
    >
    > I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my photos
    > and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon A-1 and I
    > have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom. When I first
    > had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives were developed and
    > almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left the photos behind
    > and started with 35mm slides. I still have all those negatives and
    > photos. So my task is to get the images from the films and from the
    > slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be happy with 2500.
    > I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >
    > I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many hundreds of
    > slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and Negative
    > Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)


    Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?

    Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.

    I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    that's no way to shop.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 12, 2012
    #8
  9. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Thanks again Paul.
    >>
    >> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon
    >> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives were
    >> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left
    >> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all those
    >> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the films
    >> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be
    >> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>
    >> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many hundreds of
    >> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)

    >
    > Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?


    Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday near
    Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    shops around. I will check further afield.

    > Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    > bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    > if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.


    That would be a good test.

    > I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    > years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    > And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    > any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    > several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    > I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    > keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    > that's no way to shop.


    Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops - an
    economic downturn?
    Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    always the best product.

    > Paul


    Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I have
    only one :)
     
    Loony, Jun 12, 2012
    #9
  10. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:
    > On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    >> Loony wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks again Paul.
    >>>
    >>> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >>> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon
    >>> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >>> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives were
    >>> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left
    >>> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all those
    >>> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the films
    >>> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be
    >>> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>>
    >>> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many hundreds of
    >>> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >>> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)

    >>
    >> Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?

    >
    > Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday near
    > Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    > shops around. I will check further afield.
    >
    >> Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    >> bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    >> if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.

    >
    > That would be a good test.
    >
    >> I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    >> years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    >> And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    >> any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    >> several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    >> I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    >> keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    >> that's no way to shop.

    >
    > Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops - an
    > economic downturn?
    > Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    > always the best product.
    >
    >> Paul

    >
    > Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I have
    > only one :)


    Here's an interesting comparison I found, between "home scanned" and
    "scanned at a film store".

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...m_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0&isremote=0

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ldqWmD7L.jpg

    The image on the left, is made with a $100 flatbed scanner, claiming
    4800 DPI optical (native) resolution.

    From a reviewer on Newegg

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838110038

    "Other Thoughts: Scanned almost 4000 35mm slides and over 1000 photos
    in the month or so that we've had it."

    And the person doesn't even manage to say how good a job it does...

    Best Buy also sells that scanner, but it's listed as "online only",
    so probably isn't on display at their store.

    One thing a reviewer notes about that unit, is it isn't mechanically
    very strong. But it is relatively cheap. It has the standard
    "$100 price" for a scanner.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 13, 2012
    #10
  11. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 13/06/2012 12:57, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >> On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    >>> Loony wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks again Paul.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >>>> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon
    >>>> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >>>> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives were
    >>>> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left
    >>>> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all those
    >>>> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the films
    >>>> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be
    >>>> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many hundreds of
    >>>> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >>>> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)
    >>>
    >>> Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?

    >>
    >> Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday near
    >> Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    >> shops around. I will check further afield.
    >>
    >>> Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    >>> bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    >>> if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.

    >>
    >> That would be a good test.
    >>
    >>> I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    >>> years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    >>> And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    >>> any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    >>> several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    >>> I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    >>> keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    >>> that's no way to shop.

    >>
    >> Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops -
    >> an economic downturn?
    >> Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    >> always the best product.
    >>
    >>> Paul

    >>
    >> Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I have
    >> only one :)

    >
    > Here's an interesting comparison I found, between "home scanned" and
    > "scanned at a film store".
    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...m_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0&isremote=0
    >
    >
    > http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ldqWmD7L.jpg
    >
    > The image on the left, is made with a $100 flatbed scanner, claiming
    > 4800 DPI optical (native) resolution.
    >
    > From a reviewer on Newegg
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838110038
    >
    > "Other Thoughts: Scanned almost 4000 35mm slides and over 1000 photos
    > in the month or so that we've had it."
    >
    > And the person doesn't even manage to say how good a job it does...
    >
    > Best Buy also sells that scanner, but it's listed as "online only",
    > so probably isn't on display at their store.
    >
    > One thing a reviewer notes about that unit, is it isn't mechanically
    > very strong. But it is relatively cheap. It has the standard
    > "$100 price" for a scanner.
    >
    > Paul



    Thanks again Paul. Great job of finding them.

    I have found a large UK list of variants on the Epson:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...n Perfection V330 Photo Scanner (B11B200211)

    Finding and choosing a robust Epson will be a bit tough.

    £1 = $1.55.
     
    Loony, Jun 13, 2012
    #11
  12. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 13/06/2012 22:56, Loony wrote:
    > On 13/06/2012 12:57, Paul wrote:
    >> Loony wrote:
    >>> On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    >>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks again Paul.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >>>>> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon
    >>>>> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >>>>> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives were
    >>>>> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left
    >>>>> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all those
    >>>>> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the films
    >>>>> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be
    >>>>> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many hundreds of
    >>>>> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >>>>> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?
    >>>
    >>> Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday near
    >>> Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    >>> shops around. I will check further afield.
    >>>
    >>>> Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    >>>> bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    >>>> if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.
    >>>
    >>> That would be a good test.
    >>>
    >>>> I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    >>>> years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    >>>> And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    >>>> any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    >>>> several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    >>>> I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    >>>> keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    >>>> that's no way to shop.
    >>>
    >>> Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops -
    >>> an economic downturn?
    >>> Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    >>> always the best product.
    >>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>
    >>> Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I have
    >>> only one :)

    >>
    >> Here's an interesting comparison I found, between "home scanned" and
    >> "scanned at a film store".
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...m_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0&isremote=0
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ldqWmD7L.jpg
    >>
    >> The image on the left, is made with a $100 flatbed scanner, claiming
    >> 4800 DPI optical (native) resolution.
    >>
    >> From a reviewer on Newegg
    >>
    >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838110038
    >>
    >> "Other Thoughts: Scanned almost 4000 35mm slides and over 1000 photos
    >> in the month or so that we've had it."
    >>
    >> And the person doesn't even manage to say how good a job it does...
    >>
    >> Best Buy also sells that scanner, but it's listed as "online only",
    >> so probably isn't on display at their store.
    >>
    >> One thing a reviewer notes about that unit, is it isn't mechanically
    >> very strong. But it is relatively cheap. It has the standard
    >> "$100 price" for a scanner.
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    >
    > Thanks again Paul. Great job of finding them.
    >
    > I have found a large UK list of variants on the Epson:
    >
    > http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...n Perfection V330 Photo Scanner (B11B200211)
    >
    >
    > Finding and choosing a robust Epson will be a bit tough.
    >
    > £1 = $1.55.


    Hello again Sir Paul :)

    I think I may have found what I want and need :)

    My Canon Pixma scanner is 7 years old and never had a problem except for
    the maximum of 600 dpi.

    I found the Canon LiDE 700F photo (9600dpi Advanced CCD technology),
    film and document Scanner at:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-9600d...6W/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1339830369&sr=8-15

    Price: £88.29 = $138.

    What do you think Paul?
     
    Loony, Jun 16, 2012
    #12
  13. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 16/06/2012 08:29, Loony wrote:
    > On 13/06/2012 22:56, Loony wrote:
    >> On 13/06/2012 12:57, Paul wrote:
    >>> Loony wrote:
    >>>> On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    >>>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks again Paul.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >>>>>> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon
    >>>>>> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >>>>>> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives
    >>>>>> were
    >>>>>> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left
    >>>>>> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all
    >>>>>> those
    >>>>>> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the films
    >>>>>> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be
    >>>>>> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many
    >>>>>> hundreds of
    >>>>>> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >>>>>> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?
    >>>>
    >>>> Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday
    >>>> near
    >>>> Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    >>>> shops around. I will check further afield.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    >>>>> bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    >>>>> if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.
    >>>>
    >>>> That would be a good test.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    >>>>> years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    >>>>> And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    >>>>> any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    >>>>> several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    >>>>> I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    >>>>> keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    >>>>> that's no way to shop.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops -
    >>>> an economic downturn?
    >>>> Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    >>>> always the best product.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>> Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I have
    >>>> only one :)
    >>>
    >>> Here's an interesting comparison I found, between "home scanned" and
    >>> "scanned at a film store".
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...m_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0&isremote=0
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ldqWmD7L.jpg
    >>>
    >>> The image on the left, is made with a $100 flatbed scanner, claiming
    >>> 4800 DPI optical (native) resolution.
    >>>
    >>> From a reviewer on Newegg
    >>>
    >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838110038
    >>>
    >>> "Other Thoughts: Scanned almost 4000 35mm slides and over 1000 photos
    >>> in the month or so that we've had it."
    >>>
    >>> And the person doesn't even manage to say how good a job it does...
    >>>
    >>> Best Buy also sells that scanner, but it's listed as "online only",
    >>> so probably isn't on display at their store.
    >>>
    >>> One thing a reviewer notes about that unit, is it isn't mechanically
    >>> very strong. But it is relatively cheap. It has the standard
    >>> "$100 price" for a scanner.
    >>>
    >>> Paul

    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks again Paul. Great job of finding them.
    >>
    >> I have found a large UK list of variants on the Epson:
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...n Perfection V330 Photo Scanner (B11B200211)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Finding and choosing a robust Epson will be a bit tough.
    >>
    >> £1 = $1.55.

    >
    > Hello again Sir Paul :)
    >
    > I think I may have found what I want and need :)
    >
    > My Canon Pixma scanner is 7 years old and never had a problem except for
    > the maximum of 600 dpi.
    >
    > I found the Canon LiDE 700F photo (9600dpi Advanced CCD technology),
    > film and document Scanner at:
    >
    > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-9600d...6W/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1339830369&sr=8-15
    >
    >
    > Price: £88.29 = $138.
    >
    > What do you think Paul?



    Yet another find:
    Canon CanoScan LiDE 210 Scanner
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-CanoScan-LiDE-210-Scanner/dp/B00400OK4I/ref=dp_cp_ob_computers_title_0

    £63.13 & this item Delivered FREE in the UK

    It seems to me to be a great deal.

    Product Features and Technical Details
    Product Features
    Maximum scan size: 216 x 297 mm
    Scan type: Flatbed
    Optical scanning resolution: 4800 x 4800 DPI
    Colour: Y
    Scan speed: 10 sec/page
    High image quality and accurate colours with 4800 x 4800dpi resolution
    and 48-bit colour
    Ultra-fast, A4 scanning at 300dpi in approximately 10 seconds
    5 EZ buttons for Auto Scan, Copy, Email and 2xPDF
    Upright scanning
    Dust and scratch reduction using supplied software
    Technical Details

    Type
    Type - Desktop Colour Flatbed Scanner
    Scanner Functions
    Scanning element - CIS
    Light source - 3-colour (RGB) LED
    Optical resolution - 4800 x 4800 dpi
    Selectable resolution - 25 - 19200 dpi
    Interface - Hi-Speed USB
    Scanning Gradation
    Colour - 48 bit input - 48 or 24 bit output
    Greyscale - 16 bit input - 8 bit output
    Maximum document size - A4 / Letter [216 x 297 mm]
    Scanning Speed
    Preview speed (Colour A4) - Approx 9 sec
    Scan speed (Colour A4 300dpi) - Approx 10 sec
    Colour - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 33.2 msec per line (4800dpi)
    Greyscale - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 11.1 msec per line (4800dpi)
    Black and White - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 11.1 msec per line (4800dpi)
    Power supply - Supplied via USB port
    Power Consumption
    In operation (maximum) - Approx 2.5 W USB Powered
    Stanby - Approx 1.4 W
    Suspend - Approx 11 W
    Scanner (EZ buttons) - 5 buttons (PDF, FINISH PDF, AUTO SCAN, COPY, E-MAIL)
    Dimensions - 250 x 365 x 39 mm
    Weight - Approx 1.6 Kg
    Operating Range
    Temperature - Operating environment: 5º -35ºC
    Humidity - 10 % - 90 % RH (no dew condensation)
    Operating System Requirements - Windows 7: 1 GHz or faster cpu, 1 GB RAM
    (32bit) or 2 GB RAM (64bit), Windows Vista, Vista SP1/ SP2: 1 GHz or
    faster cpu, 512 MB RAM, Windows XP SP2/SP3: 300 MHz or faster cpu, 128
    MB RAM, Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher, CD-ROM drive, Display SVGA
    800x600, Mac OS X v.10.4.11: Intel, PowerPC G5, G4 or G3 processor. 256
    MB RAM, Mac OS X v.10.5: Intel, PowerPC G5, or G4 processor. 512 MB RAM,
    Mac OS X v.10.6 Intel processor. 1 GB RAM, Safari 3, CD-ROM drive,
    Display XGA 1024x768, Mac OS Extended (Journalled) or Mac OS format hard
    drive
    Software Included - ScanGear, Solution Menu EX, MP Navigator EX
     
    Loony, Jun 16, 2012
    #13
  14. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:
    > On 16/06/2012 08:29, Loony wrote:
    >> On 13/06/2012 22:56, Loony wrote:
    >>> On 13/06/2012 12:57, Paul wrote:
    >>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>> On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    >>>>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Thanks again Paul.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >>>>>>> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the Canon
    >>>>>>> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >>>>>>> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives
    >>>>>>> were
    >>>>>>> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I left
    >>>>>>> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all
    >>>>>>> those
    >>>>>>> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the films
    >>>>>>> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I would be
    >>>>>>> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many
    >>>>>>> hundreds of
    >>>>>>> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >>>>>>> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday
    >>>>> near
    >>>>> Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    >>>>> shops around. I will check further afield.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    >>>>>> bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    >>>>>> if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That would be a good test.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    >>>>>> years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    >>>>>> And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    >>>>>> any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    >>>>>> several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    >>>>>> I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    >>>>>> keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    >>>>>> that's no way to shop.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops -
    >>>>> an economic downturn?
    >>>>> Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    >>>>> always the best product.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Paul
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I have
    >>>>> only one :)
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's an interesting comparison I found, between "home scanned" and
    >>>> "scanned at a film store".
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...m_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0&isremote=0
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ldqWmD7L.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>> The image on the left, is made with a $100 flatbed scanner, claiming
    >>>> 4800 DPI optical (native) resolution.
    >>>>
    >>>> From a reviewer on Newegg
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838110038
    >>>>
    >>>> "Other Thoughts: Scanned almost 4000 35mm slides and over 1000 photos
    >>>> in the month or so that we've had it."
    >>>>
    >>>> And the person doesn't even manage to say how good a job it does...
    >>>>
    >>>> Best Buy also sells that scanner, but it's listed as "online only",
    >>>> so probably isn't on display at their store.
    >>>>
    >>>> One thing a reviewer notes about that unit, is it isn't mechanically
    >>>> very strong. But it is relatively cheap. It has the standard
    >>>> "$100 price" for a scanner.
    >>>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks again Paul. Great job of finding them.
    >>>
    >>> I have found a large UK list of variants on the Epson:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...n Perfection V330 Photo Scanner (B11B200211)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Finding and choosing a robust Epson will be a bit tough.
    >>>
    >>> £1 = $1.55.

    >>
    >> Hello again Sir Paul :)
    >>
    >> I think I may have found what I want and need :)
    >>
    >> My Canon Pixma scanner is 7 years old and never had a problem except for
    >> the maximum of 600 dpi.
    >>
    >> I found the Canon LiDE 700F photo (9600dpi Advanced CCD technology),
    >> film and document Scanner at:
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-9600d...6W/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1339830369&sr=8-15
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Price: £88.29 = $138.
    >>
    >> What do you think Paul?

    >
    >
    > Yet another find:
    > Canon CanoScan LiDE 210 Scanner
    > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-CanoScan-LiDE-210-Scanner/dp/B00400OK4I/ref=dp_cp_ob_computers_title_0
    >
    >
    > £63.13 & this item Delivered FREE in the UK
    >
    > It seems to me to be a great deal.
    >
    > Product Features and Technical Details
    > Product Features
    > Maximum scan size: 216 x 297 mm
    > Scan type: Flatbed
    > Optical scanning resolution: 4800 x 4800 DPI
    > Colour: Y
    > Scan speed: 10 sec/page
    > High image quality and accurate colours with 4800 x 4800dpi resolution
    > and 48-bit colour
    > Ultra-fast, A4 scanning at 300dpi in approximately 10 seconds
    > 5 EZ buttons for Auto Scan, Copy, Email and 2xPDF
    > Upright scanning
    > Dust and scratch reduction using supplied software
    > Technical Details
    >
    > Type
    > Type - Desktop Colour Flatbed Scanner
    > Scanner Functions
    > Scanning element - CIS
    > Light source - 3-colour (RGB) LED
    > Optical resolution - 4800 x 4800 dpi
    > Selectable resolution - 25 - 19200 dpi
    > Interface - Hi-Speed USB
    > Scanning Gradation
    > Colour - 48 bit input - 48 or 24 bit output
    > Greyscale - 16 bit input - 8 bit output
    > Maximum document size - A4 / Letter [216 x 297 mm]
    > Scanning Speed
    > Preview speed (Colour A4) - Approx 9 sec
    > Scan speed (Colour A4 300dpi) - Approx 10 sec
    > Colour - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 33.2 msec per line (4800dpi)
    > Greyscale - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 11.1 msec per line (4800dpi)
    > Black and White - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 11.1 msec per line (4800dpi)
    > Power supply - Supplied via USB port
    > Power Consumption
    > In operation (maximum) - Approx 2.5 W USB Powered
    > Stanby - Approx 1.4 W
    > Suspend - Approx 11 W
    > Scanner (EZ buttons) - 5 buttons (PDF, FINISH PDF, AUTO SCAN, COPY, E-MAIL)
    > Dimensions - 250 x 365 x 39 mm
    > Weight - Approx 1.6 Kg
    > Operating Range
    > Temperature - Operating environment: 5º -35ºC
    > Humidity - 10 % - 90 % RH (no dew condensation)
    > Operating System Requirements - Windows 7: 1 GHz or faster cpu, 1 GB RAM
    > (32bit) or 2 GB RAM (64bit), Windows Vista, Vista SP1/ SP2: 1 GHz or
    > faster cpu, 512 MB RAM, Windows XP SP2/SP3: 300 MHz or faster cpu, 128
    > MB RAM, Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher, CD-ROM drive, Display SVGA
    > 800x600, Mac OS X v.10.4.11: Intel, PowerPC G5, G4 or G3 processor. 256
    > MB RAM, Mac OS X v.10.5: Intel, PowerPC G5, or G4 processor. 512 MB RAM,
    > Mac OS X v.10.6 Intel processor. 1 GB RAM, Safari 3, CD-ROM drive,
    > Display XGA 1024x768, Mac OS Extended (Journalled) or Mac OS format hard
    > drive
    > Software Included - ScanGear, Solution Menu EX, MP Navigator EX
    >


    It has Pros and Cons.

    http://reviews.cnet.com/scanners/canon-canoscan-lide-700f/4852-3136_7-33577140.html?tag=mncol

    "Negative scanning speed - 7 minutes for maximum quality; 1:30 for 4x6 quality
    Calibration non-intuitive"

    "Good quality scans
    Excellent negative scanning for price (you'll pay several thousand $ for
    anything better)"

    "Generally, anytime you move the scanner from one location to another, due
    to jostling, etc, you will have to re-calibrate for scanning negatives"

    "After a few months of light use, stripes start to appear on images when
    scanning negatives."

    It's not clear to me, why "stripes" should appear if the thing is
    mechanically jostled, or the drive train wears a little bit. These things
    have a stepper motor, which moves the head assembly. There could be a belt
    and gear for propulsion. But I don't see what a "calibration" would involve,
    to fix this. If I understood what the calibration did, it would make
    it easier to understand whether this is a "killer issue" or not.
    As in, at what point will the calibration not be enough to pull it
    back into operation again ?

    So the big unknown is, will it stand up long enough to finish all
    the scans ?

    My scanner takes about 2 minutes for the average scan, and if
    you're doing a bunch of scans, that gets on your nerves. I can't
    imagine what it's like waiting 7 minutes for a scan to finish.

    *******

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352831,00.asp

    "Cons

    Film scan doesn't work for slides.

    Scans only one frame of film at a time. Film scanning is extremely cumbersome."

    Eek! Does that mean, if I insert a 4 negative strip, it takes 7 minutes
    times four scans to finish it ?

    *******

    You can see what looks like a film strip adapter here.

    http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/38-111-033-S09?$S640W$

    *******

    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu..._negative_scanners/canoscan_lide_700f#Reviews

    "Cons

    * Flimsy Construction(4)
    * Difficult to use(2)
    * can't do 35mm slides(1)
    * mechanical failure 3 months out of warranty(1)
    * needs an adaptor kit for 35mm slides(1)"

    "Can't scan 35mm slides, they must be removed from mounts
    to even be in focus. 35mm negative scans are slooooowwww.
    But the quality is okay."

    So the problem with slides then, is they don't sit flat on the
    scanner. Removing the paper around the slide itself, would
    make it possible to scan them, as then it's in focus.

    This brings up the topic of "depth of field" on scanners. My
    scanner has good depth of field, in that even if a book
    doesn't sit completely flat on the scanner, the scanner
    can still "see" it. Mine uses a CCD sensor. The LiDE 700F
    is CIS. And that explains to some degree, why
    there'd be a "focus" problem if a color slide didn't
    sit flat on the unit, at just the right level.

    http://www.scantips.com/chap3c.html

    "CCD or CIS sensors
    ...

    The "compact" and "ultra thin" scanners use a very different
    CIS chip (Contact Image Sensor). These CIS units are small and
    inexpensive, having no optical system (no lens, mirrors, lamp, and
    no A/D chip). CIS chips often have LED light sources integrated in
    the chip with the sensor. The CIS sensors are full size, extending
    over the full bed width. They work by simply being extremely near
    the paper being scanned (as "in contact"). This means that there is
    zero depth of field above the scanner glass, anything not actually
    touching the glass is too distant to be sharp
    "

    So I'd say the 700F will handle your film negatives. But I
    don't know if pulling the slides apart is the answer.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Canon also makes the 9000F. What's weird, is the description
    makes it sound like another CIS design. But it seems to
    be a bit more flexible when it comes to scanning.

    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...canners/canoscan_9000f#SuppliesAndAccessories

    OK, the description here says CCD, which is why it's not as
    sensitive to positioning. The unit is "thicker" as well.
    No longer in stock at Newegg.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838111054&Tpk=9000f

    It's listed at $183 here. There are reviews. This might
    do the job for you.

    http://www.amazon.com/Canon-CanoSca...qid=1339857632&sr=8-1&keywords=CanoScan 9000F

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    CanoScan LiDE 210

    This one is a CIS as well. Thin unit. So should have more of a
    depth of field problem. There is no film holder or slide holder,
    so it's likely intended as a document (paper) scanner.

    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/suppo...noscan_series/canoscan_lide210#Specifications

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838111057&Tpk=CanoScan LiDE 210

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 16, 2012
    #14
  15. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 16/06/2012 16:02, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >> On 16/06/2012 08:29, Loony wrote:
    >>> On 13/06/2012 22:56, Loony wrote:
    >>>> On 13/06/2012 12:57, Paul wrote:
    >>>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>>> On 12/06/2012 12:21, Paul wrote:
    >>>>>>> Loony wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Thanks again Paul.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I have had 35mm cameras for many decades now, so almost all of my
    >>>>>>>> photos and negatives are from a 35mm. My present camera is the
    >>>>>>>> Canon
    >>>>>>>> A-1 and I have 3 lenses, 50 mm, a 2x-B extender and a 200 mm zoom.
    >>>>>>>> When I first had a camera (a Zeiss Contaflex) the 35 mm negatives
    >>>>>>>> were
    >>>>>>>> developed and almost always the photo images were 4"x6". Then I
    >>>>>>>> left
    >>>>>>>> the photos behind and started with 35mm slides. I still have all
    >>>>>>>> those
    >>>>>>>> negatives and photos. So my task is to get the images from the
    >>>>>>>> films
    >>>>>>>> and from the slides. I am not a perfectionist, so I think I
    >>>>>>>> would be
    >>>>>>>> happy with 2500. I would keep them on a HD and put copies on DVDs.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I have no interest at all in making prints and I have many
    >>>>>>>> hundreds of
    >>>>>>>> slides and photos. Too bad about that Kodak 4x6 Photo Slide and
    >>>>>>>> Negative Scanner for the images. Thank you for the alert :)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Do you have any stores nearby, that have scanners on display ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Normally I live in mid California but I am taking a longish holiday
    >>>>>> near
    >>>>>> Belfast, in Northern Ireland. I am in a suburb and there are no photo
    >>>>>> shops around. I will check further afield.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Perhaps you could get a salesman to give you a demo, and
    >>>>>>> bring along a test strip of negatives to test with. See
    >>>>>>> if you can pull a decent image from a test strip.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That would be a good test.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I used to have a store like that here (Computer City),
    >>>>>>> years ago, but they went out of business and disappeared.
    >>>>>>> And I'm not sure the likes of Best Buy, even have scanners
    >>>>>>> any more. Our last "good" computer store here, went bankrupt
    >>>>>>> several months ago. (They had six stores and expanded too fast.)
    >>>>>>> I'm left with just one store I trust, and they don't
    >>>>>>> keep any stock (almost everything, is ordered in). And
    >>>>>>> that's no way to shop.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Are the problems with other stores the same as with the photoshops -
    >>>>>> an economic downturn?
    >>>>>> Costco may have something and they usually have good prices but not
    >>>>>> always the best product.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Paul
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Once more Paul, I thank you. It seems like you have 10 eyes and I
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>> only one :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here's an interesting comparison I found, between "home scanned" and
    >>>>> "scanned at a film store".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...m_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0&isremote=0
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ldqWmD7L.jpg
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The image on the left, is made with a $100 flatbed scanner, claiming
    >>>>> 4800 DPI optical (native) resolution.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> From a reviewer on Newegg
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838110038
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Other Thoughts: Scanned almost 4000 35mm slides and over 1000 photos
    >>>>> in the month or so that we've had it."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And the person doesn't even manage to say how good a job it does...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best Buy also sells that scanner, but it's listed as "online only",
    >>>>> so probably isn't on display at their store.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One thing a reviewer notes about that unit, is it isn't mechanically
    >>>>> very strong. But it is relatively cheap. It has the standard
    >>>>> "$100 price" for a scanner.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks again Paul. Great job of finding them.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have found a large UK list of variants on the Epson:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...n Perfection V330 Photo Scanner (B11B200211)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Finding and choosing a robust Epson will be a bit tough.
    >>>>
    >>>> £1 = $1.55.
    >>>
    >>> Hello again Sir Paul :)
    >>>
    >>> I think I may have found what I want and need :)
    >>>
    >>> My Canon Pixma scanner is 7 years old and never had a problem except for
    >>> the maximum of 600 dpi.
    >>>
    >>> I found the Canon LiDE 700F photo (9600dpi Advanced CCD technology),
    >>> film and document Scanner at:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-9600d...6W/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1339830369&sr=8-15
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Price: £88.29 = $138.
    >>>
    >>> What do you think Paul?

    >>
    >>
    >> Yet another find:
    >> Canon CanoScan LiDE 210 Scanner
    >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-CanoScan-LiDE-210-Scanner/dp/B00400OK4I/ref=dp_cp_ob_computers_title_0
    >>
    >>
    >> £63.13 & this item Delivered FREE in the UK
    >>
    >> It seems to me to be a great deal.
    >>
    >> Product Features and Technical Details
    >> Product Features
    >> Maximum scan size: 216 x 297 mm
    >> Scan type: Flatbed
    >> Optical scanning resolution: 4800 x 4800 DPI
    >> Colour: Y
    >> Scan speed: 10 sec/page
    >> High image quality and accurate colours with 4800 x 4800dpi resolution
    >> and 48-bit colour
    >> Ultra-fast, A4 scanning at 300dpi in approximately 10 seconds
    >> 5 EZ buttons for Auto Scan, Copy, Email and 2xPDF
    >> Upright scanning
    >> Dust and scratch reduction using supplied software
    >> Technical Details
    >>
    >> Type
    >> Type - Desktop Colour Flatbed Scanner
    >> Scanner Functions
    >> Scanning element - CIS
    >> Light source - 3-colour (RGB) LED
    >> Optical resolution - 4800 x 4800 dpi
    >> Selectable resolution - 25 - 19200 dpi
    >> Interface - Hi-Speed USB
    >> Scanning Gradation
    >> Colour - 48 bit input - 48 or 24 bit output
    >> Greyscale - 16 bit input - 8 bit output
    >> Maximum document size - A4 / Letter [216 x 297 mm]
    >> Scanning Speed
    >> Preview speed (Colour A4) - Approx 9 sec
    >> Scan speed (Colour A4 300dpi) - Approx 10 sec
    >> Colour - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 33.2 msec per line (4800dpi)
    >> Greyscale - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 11.1 msec per line (4800dpi)
    >> Black and White - 2.2 msec per line (300dpi), 11.1 msec per line
    >> (4800dpi)
    >> Power supply - Supplied via USB port
    >> Power Consumption
    >> In operation (maximum) - Approx 2.5 W USB Powered
    >> Stanby - Approx 1.4 W
    >> Suspend - Approx 11 W
    >> Scanner (EZ buttons) - 5 buttons (PDF, FINISH PDF, AUTO SCAN, COPY,
    >> E-MAIL)
    >> Dimensions - 250 x 365 x 39 mm
    >> Weight - Approx 1.6 Kg
    >> Operating Range
    >> Temperature - Operating environment: 5º -35ºC
    >> Humidity - 10 % - 90 % RH (no dew condensation)
    >> Operating System Requirements - Windows 7: 1 GHz or faster cpu, 1 GB
    >> RAM (32bit) or 2 GB RAM (64bit), Windows Vista, Vista SP1/ SP2: 1 GHz
    >> or faster cpu, 512 MB RAM, Windows XP SP2/SP3: 300 MHz or faster cpu,
    >> 128 MB RAM, Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher, CD-ROM drive, Display
    >> SVGA 800x600, Mac OS X v.10.4.11: Intel, PowerPC G5, G4 or G3
    >> processor. 256 MB RAM, Mac OS X v.10.5: Intel, PowerPC G5, or G4
    >> processor. 512 MB RAM, Mac OS X v.10.6 Intel processor. 1 GB RAM,
    >> Safari 3, CD-ROM drive, Display XGA 1024x768, Mac OS Extended
    >> (Journalled) or Mac OS format hard drive
    >> Software Included - ScanGear, Solution Menu EX, MP Navigator EX
    >>

    >
    > It has Pros and Cons.
    >
    > http://reviews.cnet.com/scanners/canon-canoscan-lide-700f/4852-3136_7-33577140.html?tag=mncol
    >
    >
    > "Negative scanning speed - 7 minutes for maximum quality; 1:30 for 4x6
    > quality
    > Calibration non-intuitive"
    >
    > "Good quality scans
    > Excellent negative scanning for price (you'll pay several thousand $ for
    > anything better)"
    >
    > "Generally, anytime you move the scanner from one location to another, due
    > to jostling, etc, you will have to re-calibrate for scanning negatives"
    >
    > "After a few months of light use, stripes start to appear on images when
    > scanning negatives."
    >
    > It's not clear to me, why "stripes" should appear if the thing is
    > mechanically jostled, or the drive train wears a little bit. These things
    > have a stepper motor, which moves the head assembly. There could be a belt
    > and gear for propulsion. But I don't see what a "calibration" would
    > involve,
    > to fix this. If I understood what the calibration did, it would make
    > it easier to understand whether this is a "killer issue" or not.
    > As in, at what point will the calibration not be enough to pull it
    > back into operation again ?
    >
    > So the big unknown is, will it stand up long enough to finish all
    > the scans ?
    >
    > My scanner takes about 2 minutes for the average scan, and if
    > you're doing a bunch of scans, that gets on your nerves. I can't
    > imagine what it's like waiting 7 minutes for a scan to finish.
    >
    > *******
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352831,00.asp
    >
    > "Cons
    >
    > Film scan doesn't work for slides.
    >
    > Scans only one frame of film at a time. Film scanning is extremely
    > cumbersome."
    >
    > Eek! Does that mean, if I insert a 4 negative strip, it takes 7 minutes
    > times four scans to finish it ?
    >
    > *******
    >
    > You can see what looks like a film strip adapter here.
    >
    > http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/38-111-033-S09?$S640W$
    >
    > *******
    >
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu..._negative_scanners/canoscan_lide_700f#Reviews
    >
    >
    > "Cons
    >
    > * Flimsy Construction(4)
    > * Difficult to use(2)
    > * can't do 35mm slides(1)
    > * mechanical failure 3 months out of warranty(1)
    > * needs an adaptor kit for 35mm slides(1)"
    >
    > "Can't scan 35mm slides, they must be removed from mounts
    > to even be in focus. 35mm negative scans are slooooowwww.
    > But the quality is okay."
    >
    > So the problem with slides then, is they don't sit flat on the
    > scanner. Removing the paper around the slide itself, would
    > make it possible to scan them, as then it's in focus.
    >
    > This brings up the topic of "depth of field" on scanners. My
    > scanner has good depth of field, in that even if a book
    > doesn't sit completely flat on the scanner, the scanner
    > can still "see" it. Mine uses a CCD sensor. The LiDE 700F
    > is CIS. And that explains to some degree, why
    > there'd be a "focus" problem if a color slide didn't
    > sit flat on the unit, at just the right level.
    >
    > http://www.scantips.com/chap3c.html
    >
    > "CCD or CIS sensors
    > ...
    >
    > The "compact" and "ultra thin" scanners use a very different
    > CIS chip (Contact Image Sensor). These CIS units are small and
    > inexpensive, having no optical system (no lens, mirrors, lamp, and
    > no A/D chip). CIS chips often have LED light sources integrated in
    > the chip with the sensor. The CIS sensors are full size, extending
    > over the full bed width. They work by simply being extremely near
    > the paper being scanned (as "in contact"). This means that there is
    > zero depth of field above the scanner glass, anything not actually
    > touching the glass is too distant to be sharp
    > "
    >
    > So I'd say the 700F will handle your film negatives. But I
    > don't know if pulling the slides apart is the answer.
    >
    > -----------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Canon also makes the 9000F. What's weird, is the description
    > makes it sound like another CIS design. But it seems to
    > be a bit more flexible when it comes to scanning.
    >
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...canners/canoscan_9000f#SuppliesAndAccessories
    >
    >
    > OK, the description here says CCD, which is why it's not as
    > sensitive to positioning. The unit is "thicker" as well.
    > No longer in stock at Newegg.
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838111054&Tpk=9000f
    >
    > It's listed at $183 here. There are reviews. This might
    > do the job for you.
    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/Canon-CanoSca...qid=1339857632&sr=8-1&keywords=CanoScan 9000F
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > CanoScan LiDE 210
    >
    > This one is a CIS as well. Thin unit. So should have more of a
    > depth of field problem. There is no film holder or slide holder,
    > so it's likely intended as a document (paper) scanner.
    >
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/suppo...noscan_series/canoscan_lide210#Specifications
    >
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838111057&Tpk=CanoScan LiDE 210
    >
    >
    > Paul


    Once again Paul :)

    I had a rapid response from Canon :

    "Thank you for contacting Canon product support regarding scanning film.
    We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to
    assist you.

    If you are scanning 35mm film/slides, you may want to look at the PIXMA
    MG5220. Below is a link:

    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/cusa/..._in_one_inkjet_printers/pixma_mg6220#Overview

    Please let us know if we can be of further assistance."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    About PIXMA MG6220
    Average Rating4

    Read all Reviews (17) Write a Review
    87 Questions | 96 AnswersRead all the Q&As
    Wireless Inkjet Photo All-In-One
    Item Code: 5292B002
    Estimated Retail Price: $199.99†

    My opinions About PIXMA MG6220 are :

    1 I don't like WiFi.
    2 I have no interest in putting images on paper.
    3 My main interest is in getting films and slides
    into DVDs


    Printer
    Print Resolution (Up to) Color:Up to 9600 x 2400 dpi3
    Black:Up to 600 x 600 dpi3

    Scanner
    Scanner Type Flatbed
    Scanning Element Contact Image Sensor (CIS)
    Max. Resolutions Optical:4800 x 4800
    Interpolated: 19,200 x 19,200 dpi

    I'm a bit doubtful about this.
     
    Loony, Jun 18, 2012
    #15
  16. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:

    >
    > "If you are scanning 35mm film/slides, you may want to look at the PIXMA MG5220"
    >
    >
    > I'm a bit doubtful about this.


    *******

    This can't possibly be a good choice. The box does not include
    accessories for film or slide scanning. The sensor is CIS, so
    you need a holder that will hold the work where needed.

    "What's in the Box

    # PIXMA MG6220 Wireless Inkjet Photo All-In-One
    # CD/DVD Printing Tray

    # Document Kit:
    # Cross Sell Sheet
    # Getting Started
    # Important Information Sheet
    # Networking Troubleshooting Guide
    # Safety Environment Information

    # Setup Software & User's Guide CD-ROM

    # Warranty Card

    # Ink Tanks:
    # PGI-225 Pigment Black
    # CLI-226 (Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black/Gray)
    # Power Cord
    # Print Head"

    The unit may not even have a transparency scanner in it,
    and it could be a reflective type scanner only. You need
    "transmitted light" to shine through a negative or 35mm slide,
    to scan it.

    The only thing that *might* be good for, is scanning a 4"x6" print.
    It's not a slide scanner.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 19, 2012
    #16
  17. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 19/06/2012 05:01, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "If you are scanning 35mm film/slides, you may want to look at the
    >> PIXMA MG5220"
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm a bit doubtful about this.

    >
    > *******
    >
    > This can't possibly be a good choice. The box does not include
    > accessories for film or slide scanning. The sensor is CIS, so
    > you need a holder that will hold the work where needed.
    >
    > "What's in the Box
    >
    > # PIXMA MG6220 Wireless Inkjet Photo All-In-One
    > # CD/DVD Printing Tray
    >
    > # Document Kit:
    > # Cross Sell Sheet
    > # Getting Started
    > # Important Information Sheet
    > # Networking Troubleshooting Guide
    > # Safety Environment Information
    >
    > # Setup Software & User's Guide CD-ROM
    >
    > # Warranty Card
    >
    > # Ink Tanks:
    > # PGI-225 Pigment Black
    > # CLI-226 (Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black/Gray)
    > # Power Cord
    > # Print Head"
    >
    > The unit may not even have a transparency scanner in it,
    > and it could be a reflective type scanner only. You need
    > "transmitted light" to shine through a negative or 35mm slide,
    > to scan it.
    >
    > The only thing that *might* be good for, is scanning a 4"x6" print.
    > It's not a slide scanner.
    >
    > Paul


    I had my doubts Paul and I can guess why Canon directed me in that wrong
    direction - at about double the price. Ouch!

    I guess I'll have to struggle along.

    Once more, THANKS to YOU!!
     
    Loony, Jun 19, 2012
    #17
  18. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 19/06/2012 08:59, Loony wrote:
    > On 19/06/2012 05:01, Paul wrote:
    >> Loony wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "If you are scanning 35mm film/slides, you may want to look at the
    >>> PIXMA MG5220"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I'm a bit doubtful about this.

    >>
    >> *******
    >>
    >> This can't possibly be a good choice. The box does not include
    >> accessories for film or slide scanning. The sensor is CIS, so
    >> you need a holder that will hold the work where needed.
    >>
    >> "What's in the Box
    >>
    >> # PIXMA MG6220 Wireless Inkjet Photo All-In-One
    >> # CD/DVD Printing Tray
    >>
    >> # Document Kit:
    >> # Cross Sell Sheet
    >> # Getting Started
    >> # Important Information Sheet
    >> # Networking Troubleshooting Guide
    >> # Safety Environment Information
    >>
    >> # Setup Software & User's Guide CD-ROM
    >>
    >> # Warranty Card
    >>
    >> # Ink Tanks:
    >> # PGI-225 Pigment Black
    >> # CLI-226 (Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black/Gray)
    >> # Power Cord
    >> # Print Head"
    >>
    >> The unit may not even have a transparency scanner in it,
    >> and it could be a reflective type scanner only. You need
    >> "transmitted light" to shine through a negative or 35mm slide,
    >> to scan it.
    >>
    >> The only thing that *might* be good for, is scanning a 4"x6" print.
    >> It's not a slide scanner.
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > I had my doubts Paul and I can guess why Canon directed me in that wrong
    > direction - at about double the price. Ouch!
    >
    > I guess I'll have to struggle along.
    >
    > Once more, THANKS to YOU!!


    I had an interesting response yesterday.

    In normal use the Pixma170 showed the maximum of 600 dpi. Well, the
    machine was fibbing and a helpful Canon expert, Thomas, gave me the
    following info for that machine:

    On 19/06/2012 11:08, Canon Support - Scanner wrote:
    >
    > Dear Looney:
    >
    > Thank you for writing back to us.
    >
    > In regards to your PIXMA MP170, you can select a scan resolution

    higher than 600 dpi. The optical resolution of the PIXMA MP170 is 1200
    x 2400 dpi and interpolated dpi is 19,200 x 19,200. To select a higher
    dpi, please follow these steps:
    >
    > 1. Start, point to (All) Programs, Canon Utilities, MP Navigator EX

    and then click MP Navigator EX.
    >
    > 2. Click on the Scan with Scanner Driver button in the lower left

    hand corner.
    >
    > 3. When ScanGear MP appears, please click on the Advanced Mode tab

    in the upper right hand corner.
    >
    > 4. Next to Output Resolution, choose a dpi from the drop down list

    or type a value in the 25-19200 dpi range (in 1 dpi increments).
    >
    > 5. Click Preview.
    >
    > 6. Make any necessary adjustments.
    >
    > 7. Click Scan.
    >
    > The image will be scanned with the higher dpi.
    >
    > Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with your

    PIXMA MP170.
    >
    > Thank you for choosing Canon.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Thomas
    >
    > Technical Support Representative


    With the PIXMA MP170 is 1200 x 2400 dpi and interpolated dpi is 19,200 x
    19,200. I have had no experience of these values so I hope that I can
    get a good comparison of them soon.
     
    Loony, Jun 19, 2012
    #18
  19. Loony

    Paul Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    Loony wrote:

    >
    > With the PIXMA MP170 is 1200 x 2400 dpi and interpolated dpi is 19,200 x
    > 19,200. I have had no experience of these values so I hope that I can
    > get a good comparison of them soon.


    What counts is optical resolution, which is the first number.

    "Interpolated", doesn't add any information to the picture.

    I've never scanned at higher than the optical resolution of
    my scanner, which is 1200 DPI. Because above that level,
    they'd be "fake" pixels.

    If you want to make your own "interpolated", you can scan at 1200 DPI,
    then use Photoshop to redefine the resolution and change it to 19200 DPI.
    Photoshop will add the extra pixels, but the pixels cannot have any
    extra "sharpness". When you zoom out enough so you can see the whole
    image, it looks the same as the original 1200 DPI scan. Having the
    scanner do the interpolation, doesn't change the impact as far
    as the user is concerned. It's still only 1200 DPI worth of info.
    It just makes the file a lot larger.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 20, 2012
    #19
  20. Loony

    Loony Guest

    Re: Attachment for Canon Pixma 170 Scanner

    On 20/06/2012 01:12, Paul wrote:
    > Loony wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> With the PIXMA MP170 is 1200 x 2400 dpi and interpolated dpi is 19,200
    >> x 19,200. I have had no experience of these values so I hope that I
    >> can get a good comparison of them soon.

    >
    > What counts is optical resolution, which is the first number.
    >
    > "Interpolated", doesn't add any information to the picture.
    >
    > I've never scanned at higher than the optical resolution of
    > my scanner, which is 1200 DPI. Because above that level,
    > they'd be "fake" pixels.
    >
    > If you want to make your own "interpolated", you can scan at 1200 DPI,
    > then use Photoshop to redefine the resolution and change it to 19200 DPI.
    > Photoshop will add the extra pixels, but the pixels cannot have any
    > extra "sharpness". When you zoom out enough so you can see the whole
    > image, it looks the same as the original 1200 DPI scan. Having the
    > scanner do the interpolation, doesn't change the impact as far
    > as the user is concerned. It's still only 1200 DPI worth of info.
    > It just makes the file a lot larger.
    >
    > Paul



    OK Paul, I have many other things to do but I'll try to squeeze the
    films and slides onto my HD. If the transfers are successful it's very
    likely that I will be satisfied with the 1200 dpi. Huuugggeee!!! THANKS
    again to you Paul :)
     
    Loony, Jun 20, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    PQI Memory Intelligent Stick Pro 170 512MB

    Silverstrand, Dec 15, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
    Silverstrand
    Dec 15, 2005
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    8,361
  3. Mike Russell

    Statue of Liberty with the Sigma 170-500

    Mike Russell, Jan 4, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    390
    Cynicor
    Jan 5, 2008
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,822
    PeeCee
    Apr 3, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    960
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page