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. Advertisements

  2. 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:

    Allodoxaphobia, Dec 26, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. gA

    ray Guest

    Sure, there are a number of flatbed scanners with transparency adapters.
    Epson makes several.
    ray, Dec 26, 2006
  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
    gA, Dec 26, 2006
  5. 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
  6. gA

    jeremy Guest

    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
  7. gA

    jeremy Guest

    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
  8. 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 't Hart, Dec 27, 2006
  9. You need a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter.
    Gregory Blank, Dec 27, 2006
  10. 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.
    Ockham's Razor, Dec 27, 2006
  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?
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
  12. 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.

    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

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2006
  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
    gA, Dec 27, 2006
  14. 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.
    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.
    Allodoxaphobia, Dec 27, 2006
  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?
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
  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.
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
  17. The good side's the 8000.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2006
  18. gA

    Guest Guest

    It looks that the Nikon 8000 is superior to the Epson 4890.
    Too bad I just bought an Epson 4490. 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?
    Guest, Dec 27, 2006
  19. gA

    Bob Williams Guest

    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.
    Scanning a lot of slides is a real PIA and a real time consumer.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Dec 27, 2006
  20. 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.
    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.
    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
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.