scanning colour slides

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gA, Dec 26, 2006.

  1. gA

    gA Guest

    Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
    flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
    adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
    - gA
    gA, Dec 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:50:21 GMT, gA wrote:
    > Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
    > flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
    > adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.


    I suppose it depends on what 'quality' you want.
    I've had some success with inverting a slide view table and placing it
    over the slide(s) on the scanner. This was for images that were to be
    "web site material" -- i.e., not for Photo Finish Work, nor for web
    Photo Gallery purpose.

    For better results I've made my own slide adapter for one of my digital
    cameras. But, that's wasn't what you asked about. Disirregardless,
    here's the ref:
    http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm

    HNY
    Jonesy
    --
    Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
    38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
    *** Killfiling google posts: <http//jonz.net/ng.htm>
    Allodoxaphobia, Dec 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. gA

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:50:21 +0000, gA wrote:

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


    Sure, there are a number of flatbed scanners with transparency adapters.
    Epson makes several.
    ray, Dec 26, 2006
    #3
  4. gA

    gA Guest

    Thank you for your quick reply, Jonesy. I should have asked "what
    is the best and cheapest way to convert slides to digital". I saw
    your device and I am impressed by the quality of the result. Is
    there any improvement that can be made to this procedure?
    Thanks, gA

    Allodoxaphobia wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:50:21 GMT, gA wrote:
    >> Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
    >> flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
    >> adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

    >
    > I suppose it depends on what 'quality' you want.
    > I've had some success with inverting a slide view table and placing it
    > over the slide(s) on the scanner. This was for images that were to be
    > "web site material" -- i.e., not for Photo Finish Work, nor for web
    > Photo Gallery purpose.
    >
    > For better results I've made my own slide adapter for one of my digital
    > cameras. But, that's wasn't what you asked about. Disirregardless,
    > here's the ref:
    > http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm
    >
    > HNY
    > Jonesy
    gA, Dec 26, 2006
    #4
  5. "gA" <> wrote:
    > Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a flatbed
    > scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency adapter. Any
    > help appreciated. Thanks.


    It's possible, but the quality is not great. Dedicated film scanners are
    much better.

    I forget the model numbers, but for web images and prints up to 5x7, the
    current low-end Epson 4800 ppi model should do fairly well for well under
    US$200 (I don't know the exact price).

    If you are serious about image quality and want to make 8x10 or larger
    prints, the Nikon dedicated 35mm film scanners are very good.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2006
    #5
  6. gA

    jeremy Guest

    "gA" <> wrote in message
    news:NGhkh.526319$5R2.237872@pd7urf3no...
    > Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a flatbed
    > scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency adapter. Any
    > help appreciated. Thanks.
    > - gA


    Not really. Film scanners pull out much more information from film than
    flatbed scanners can. Scan a slide on both, then compare the results.
    There will be no contest--a film scanner will give much better results.
    jeremy, Dec 27, 2006
    #6
  7. gA

    jeremy Guest

    "gA" <> wrote in message
    news:wwikh.532080$R63.495673@pd7urf1no...
    > Thank you for your quick reply, Jonesy. I should have asked "what is the
    > best and cheapest way to convert slides to digital". I saw your device and
    > I am impressed by the quality of the result. Is there any improvement that
    > can be made to this procedure?
    > Thanks, gA
    >



    PrimeFilm PF3600 Pro3 Scanner. About $350 on Amazon. Digital ICE3.
    Multi-function (both slides and negs). I am unaware of anything cheaper,
    and the scanner produces very good results. 3600 x 3600 optical resolution,
    compared with Kodak PhotoCD of 3072 x 2048. DMAX of 3.6 versus Kodak
    PhotoCD of 2.2.

    There are better scanners, but not at that price point.
    jeremy, Dec 27, 2006
    #7
  8. "jeremy" <> wrote in message
    news:w6jkh.8134$kD4.5903@trndny06...
    >
    > "gA" <> wrote in message
    > news:NGhkh.526319$5R2.237872@pd7urf3no...
    > > Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a

    flatbed
    > > scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency adapter. Any
    > > help appreciated. Thanks.
    > > - gA

    >
    > Not really. Film scanners pull out much more information from film than
    > flatbed scanners can. Scan a slide on both, then compare the results.
    > There will be no contest--a film scanner will give much better results.
    >
    >


    Silly further question maybe,but,I have noticed in my old slides that many
    of them are not 100% flat in the frame. Does that matter with, resp. flatbed
    and dedicated slide scanners?

    Gerrit
    Gerrit 't Hart, Dec 27, 2006
    #8
  9. In article <NGhkh.526319$5R2.237872@pd7urf3no>,
    gA <> wrote:

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


    You need a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter.
    --
    George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.
    Gregory Blank, Dec 27, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Gregory Blank <> wrote:

    > In article <NGhkh.526319$5R2.237872@pd7urf3no>,
    > gA <> wrote:
    >
    > > Is it possible to scan colour slides into a digital format, with a
    > > flatbed scanner? I have a Umax Astra 4000U without a transparency
    > > adapter. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
    > > - gA

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


    If he values the content of the slides he is scanning he will use a
    dedicated slide/film strip scanner. There is a Nikon for about 600.00
    that beats every flat bed scanner out there. For higher level work
    there are even more capable scanners.

    And, use Vue Scan software.

    --
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
    carrying a cross."
    Sinclair Lewis
    Ockham's Razor, Dec 27, 2006
    #10
  11. gA

    Guest Guest

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

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

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

    >
    > If he values the content of the slides he is scanning he will use a
    > dedicated slide/film strip scanner. There is a Nikon for about 600.00
    > that beats every flat bed scanner out there. For higher level work
    > there are even more capable scanners.
    >
    > And, use Vue Scan software.
    >
    > --
    > "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
    > carrying a cross."
    > Sinclair Lewis
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
    #11
  12. <> wrote:
    >I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
    > yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
    > I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides scanned
    > with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
    > That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the job
    > or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed scanner?


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

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

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

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

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2006
    #12
  13. gA

    gA Guest

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

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

    >
    > Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_ with
    > my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium format) of
    > the same slide.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
    >
    > There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
    > terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
    >
    > This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium format
    > lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember, YMMV. (In
    > particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than this, although I
    > don't.)
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    gA, Dec 27, 2006
    #13
  14. On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:47:40 GMT, gA wrote:
    > Thank you for your quick reply, Jonesy. I should have asked "what
    > is the best and cheapest way to convert slides to digital".


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


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

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


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

    GL with your project.
    Jonesy
    --
    Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
    38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
    *** Killfiling google posts: <http//jonz.net/ng.htm>
    Allodoxaphobia, Dec 27, 2006
    #14
  15. gA

    Guest Guest

    Thanks for taking the time to reply to this post.
    Is the left view scanned with an Epson 4870 and the right view with the
    Nikon 8000?

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

    >
    > Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_ with
    > my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium format) of
    > the same slide.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
    >
    > There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
    > terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
    >
    > This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium
    > format lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember,
    > YMMV. (In particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than
    > this, although I don't.)
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
    #15
  16. gA

    Guest Guest

    What seems to be the trend is that people buy the Nikon 8000 second hand or
    new Once their project is completed they sale it.


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

    >>
    >> Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_
    >> with my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium
    >> format) of the same slide.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    >> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325
    >>
    >> There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
    >> terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.
    >>
    >> This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium
    >> format lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember,
    >> YMMV. (In particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than
    >> this, although I don't.)
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Tokyo, Japan
    >>
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
    #16
  17. David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2006
    #17
  18. gA

    Guest Guest

    It looks that the Nikon 8000 is superior to the Epson 4890.
    Too bad I just bought an Epson 4490.

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

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

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

    >
    >
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
    #18
  19. gA

    Bob Williams Guest

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


    What do you intend to do with the scanned images.
    Like most processes, the cost of the duplication process increases
    exponentially as the quality of the result.
    If you don't have a whole lot of slides (say 100-300) you can send them
    off and have them scanned pretty inexpensively.
    See: http://www.discountdigitalart.com/slides.html
    Scanning a lot of slides is a real PIA and a real time consumer.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Dec 27, 2006
    #19
  20. <> wrote:
    > It looks that the Nikon 8000 is superior to the Epson 4890.
    > Too bad I just bought an Epson 4490.


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

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


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

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

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


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

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2006
    #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. Terry Pinnell

    Scanning 35mm slides?

    Terry Pinnell, Mar 7, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,699
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Mar 8, 2005
  2. Tor Lillqvist

    Colour blindness, photography and colour management

    Tor Lillqvist, May 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,087
    Waldo
    May 24, 2004
  3. Jim

    scanning colour slides

    Jim, Jul 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    289
  4. Chris

    How to convert old colour slides to digital form?

    Chris, Jul 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    751
  5. Scotius
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    919
    krishnananda
    Jul 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page