mikef7

thanks @glen_h and everyone here ... @AlanKlein did you address the question of V600 software cutting off the tops of slide images? Perhaps you didn't know about it, or perhaps you monitored results and it wasn't any sort of problem for you?

Alan, those are really great. Here's an example of pretty good detail from one of mine... I didn't spend much time looking for a great slide (for clarity of resolution), but I did avoid sucky ones (which could have happened for any number of reasons, such as camera movement). Click on it to enlarge. It's 3425 x 2385 at 2400 dpi on my V600. How'd you get around the issue of the Epson software automatically cutting off the top of slide images sometimes? (see my OP if not familiar with this issue - it's why all mine have large borders)

Thank you everyone for your many useful tips and notes. I am deeply into comparing the possible routes I might take. This is a work in progress, but if anyone wants to see, here are my thoughts at the moment: It might have been great to use a Nikon Coolscan 4000 (or better), but I don't want to deal with something long out of production that might need special parts or have dated-PC-driver surprises. It's a machine I've never dealt with. It seems to start at $300 on eBay (though the cheaper ones may be gorked or incomplete), up to $2000 for one on Amazon. Anyway - it seems out, relative to my feelings on other options. It seems clear that a DSLR setup is definitely a way to get high quality myself ... BUT I'd practically have to take up a new hobby (of DSLRs), including spending probably several thousand just to get started (a Nikon D810 sells for ~$2k without any lens or other accessories). It would force me to be awash in details like how to get images to my cloud account, how exactly to setup the focus etc. when I've never used an SLR (not since the 1980s). And past all that, there is no bulk feeder at all, as I understand it. It does seem like it can handle imaging the mounts, too, but that would be even more time for every one of the thousand slides. I am trying to grapple with whether the Epson V800 (or more likely V850) might be viable. It certainly seems like it will be better than the V600. But whether it's good enough to be worth doing everything all over again, I don't know. I will probably start another thread here asking about V800/850 vs V600. But not today. I'm going to call a few slide services (thanks @AlanKlein), to cover all bases. I see where DigMyPics can do 4000 dpi on a Nikon Coolscan 9000, for 69 cents each. At $690 for a thousand slides, it would be cheaper than even a V800 (and probably better quality, even if the operator doesn't pay complete attention). But I don't know if they can do things like scan the mounts, too ... maybe I will just do those by hand. Which my existing V600 can do fine; heck, 600 dpi or even 300 is enough just to see the mounts themselves, and any notes and exposure dates and numbers, on the mounts. I could just lay a bunch of slides flat on the 11" x 8.5", then turn them over, then crop them apart and stitch the halves together. I can get 4 x 6 = 24 slides on the flatbed. (I already numbered all slides' mounts in pencil by hand, so there shouldn't be any mix-ups, if I do it carefully... And the service follows my slide numbers, which they pledge to do on their site.) To quote @andylynn's quote, “Good, cheap or fast? You can pick two.” - seems very appropriate! I hope I don't seem to be shutting anyone out. I really appreciate everyone's ideas here. But I have to pick something that is neither an ungodly amount of money or of time. And at 60 years old, I am trying very hard to not pick up entirely new avocations. Instead, I'm trying to finish the hundreds of projects I've already started, lol ... like scanning the old family slides. A couple of other notes: Thanks for getting that info from Epson on the V600's sensor, @digitaldog. While I don't understand it all, I think it supports my personal observation that I noticed clarity improvement going from 1200 to 2400 dpi, but anything higher turned into a questionable muck where it wasn't clear that there was any improvement. To me, that means it wasn't enough to matter. (It also means my practical max resolution on the V600 was somewhere between 1200 and 2400, but I didn't try to test just where.) I saw a fascinating YouTube by Geoffrey Byers on . In particular, it showed his DSLR result directly compared to an Epson V700 at 4800 dpi (compare the video at times 4:13 and 4:27), and the DSLR was impressive ... incredibly, it even showed individual fibers in the clothes of someone a few feet away (but the V700 didn't). (This also makes me wonder whether the V800/850 will really be worth it, to scan everything again. It's my understanding that it's just an incremental improvement of the V700.) The idea of scanning the slide mounts separately was from another thread (where I also flailed around). Thanks @AJG and @Robin Smith! Anyway ... thanks again, all. I'll keep thinking it through.

bgef, you are seeing the complexity. In one sense I have the first hurdle solved - I have each slide numbered. Many of the things you make sense. In theory, they're mostly in packs. In practice, a given slide can be anywhere. You advocate PE DAM for organizing? okay What I really need is a simple system any of the sibs can drop in to find theirself as a baby in 1971, or whatever. You're saying DAM allows for infinite tags, as it were. Coolio. You have not said anything about actual hardware or realistic dpi. I don't want to do this all over again unless it's going to be wonderfully re-scanned. I will have a lot of fields, including actual exposure date, and then, time and place, on top of the rest. macro scans of frames will help here.

Robin, what you say makes lots of sense. I don't care about file size or storage - it's now or never, and storage costs are a footnote to any future-minded discussion. Do you know anyone of a serious archival mind (like you) I can hire?

Hi everyone here - thanks for all your help - I have been struggling with archiving almost a thousand old family slides from the 1940s to the 1980s, and wanting it done really well, perhaps much better than any service can do. I've had some real help here on Photo.net, but it also helped me realize I wasted real time and money using a poor platform (an Epson V600) in what I can now only regard as a "first pass" - SIGH. For a summary, see this thread. I've had a number of suggestions for how to do things better in a second pass, but it seems really thorny: @andylynn suggested "Rig up a high res DSLR or mirrorless with a macro lens, a light source and something to hold it all together, and photograph the slide frames". I've never had a DSLR and don't want to make a career of this. I just want slide images. @AlanKlein said I should send it to a service or I'd go crazy. But what service not only does a great 35mm image, but also scans the frame mount, front and back? (Not at as high rez as the 35mm images, but still ... read on) I have also asked, what is the actual functional maximal resolution from 35mm slides. @JDMvW was very helpful here - except for pinpointing which particular hardware is available now that might work best for a thousand slides, for a newbie. (Thanks so much JDMvW! Please say a little more in terms of what I can do, minimizing my own time and/or money?) I hope I don't seem too groping in the dark. Here is what I would like to have answered, or do, ultimately: Is there a consensus on what actual practical resolution can be had from any hardware platform, relative to simple consumer-grade 35mm slides from the 1940s to the 1980s? I understand that most (all?) devices you can buy now grossly overstate their actual resolution ... the Epson V600 I bought and had my son scan the thousand slides on, was comically inadequate (long story here). Past hardware overstating their bounds, what are the realistic bounds? And what hardware might do it? If I were to get a service, they would have to not only scan the slide images, but also the mounts themselves. This is important for reconstructing five decades of slides mixed together ... it's like a huge jigsaw puzzle. The mounts themselves help piece together "these were shot at approximately the same time". Do any slide services get both images and actual mounts, both sides of the mounts? (The mounts don't have to be high resolution, of course) Are any of you here willing to help, getting both the mounts and the images? I can pay. You could upload them to Google Drive. I hope I'm not crossing a boundary in asking. You can private-message me. I don't want to make my own DSLR rig and I don't want to hire a service that is wham-bam image only. If someone wants to refer others to me, or direct message me, that's great. I hope that this message doesn't sound too ... flailing around. But I want it done well. And I am flailing.

Yes thanks, these are from old family albums. In most other peoples' situations, there are crap slides. But the opposite is true here: After 50 years, and many showings, and Dad giving many away in his later years, we (me and sibs) are left with many gaps - the crap slides long gone, and only the bottom of the barrel of what's good is left. So most every slide counts. Also FWIW you're stating the ultimate conundrum - you have to scan it to know if it's worth scanning, smile. I found that out the hard way by spending $200 on an Epson V600 and found its hardware AND software sucks for slides. AFTER I paid my son to scan a thousand slides. Oh well, at least the money stays in the family, lol. In case any newcomer is reading this - don't get a V600 unless you don't have a budget for more, or time for more. It really sucks for slides. Alan, if you can suggest some pros who can also capture both sides of the slide frame/mount (at lower rez), and the image at best resolution, that will be cool. I don't know anyone that does that. What do you think is the max dpi resolution realistically usable for 35mm slides?

Thanks, Ed... the Epson V600 cost me $206 from Amazon on 7/25/18. It's be more than enough for documents versus my old Xerox DocuMate 515. But not slides or negatives, I now see. You think 35mm slides have 4000 dpi max? Please note, I am not asking you what it is possible to buy. I am asking you, what you think the max resolution of slides might reasonably be. These are only consumer-grade 35 mm slides that my Dad made.... Kodak rolls bought from any stores from the 1940s to the 1980s. You're saying I'd need to put down $1k+ to get something better than the ~1800 dpi that the V600 can realistically do? Or send the slides to a specialized service? No, I won't consider sending slides to a consumer service - not unless someone advises me of a serious one. I would like not only the slide image at best realistic resolution, but also metadata on the slide cardboard frame/mount. Optimally including images of the slide's frame/mount both front and back (but of course, it doesn't have to be nearly as high rez as the image itself). Do you know any shop that takes that kind of care? Thanks ... I'm trying to get all these thousand slides in order, and do them justice... and trying to learn here. I paid my son a pretty penny to image all a thousand. He did everything I asked. And what I found is that the V600 sucks for slide resolution and borders, and I have no images of the frame/mount.

Thanks Andy, Gosh guy ... I'm way out on a limb just trying to scan old slides. Now you'd recommend I look into DSLRs, macro lenses, a light source, and something else to hold it all together? I appreciate the time you took to respond. But it would be good if folks can keep responses simpler for me. I've already sunk tons of money and time into just understanding and playing with a flatbed scanner, which turned out to be a bust. I'm sure you know DSLRs backwards and forwards, but I literally haven't touched one. Ever. Can you go into more detail on your option #1 option? I do appreciate your time. But ... gosh. I have a hundred other things in the fire. I'm not trying to make a career out of these slides.

Hi everyone, I and my son recently tried scanning a bunch of old 35mm slides on an Epson V600, and were highly disappointed with the results. It claims a resolution up to 6400 x 9600, but for practical purposes (including using a SilverFast USAF 1951 target resolution slide), I found it only capable of ~2400 dpi. Its software also had some SERIOUS issues with automatically recognizing the boundaries of slides, forcing us to manually create boundaries for each and every slide, in their tiny Preview window whose zoom can't be adjusted. (Read: My son gave every single slide a non-trivial big black border around the image. Because I, as an amateur photo-editing software guy, didn't want to do any post processing if I could help it. Any time I crop a JPG, I bet it's losing a little more resolution.) Here's more on Epson flatbed scanners' sucky software for slides at Epson Scan crops 35mm slides, Document Size doesn't help So, to make a long story short: What would you say is the maximal real resolution a 35mm slide can impart? I have heard it might be as much as 9000 dpi (see post #13 at and of this Photo.net thread: Something common to test fine resolution on my scanner?) Any recommendations on a scanner to buy, for a ton of slides and photos? A thousand slides. Hundreds of photos. I'm willing to spend a few hundred. Will that get it? Thanks if you can help!

Hi everyone, Sorry for the delay - I tested more based on your replies above back then, but then I got sidetracked... First, for John Wheeler - I am trying to get the best resolution I can for posterity. I imagine disk space will get ever cheaper in the future, but no one may ever scan these pictures again. So, never mind current disk space or even current intent IF I am getting worthwhile information at higher resolution. (Are you in Atlanta, by chance? I know a JW there.) Rodeo Joe, I suspected something like that might be the case - people cranking out mass-produced "master" target images that aren't actually any such thing. So I didn't want to drop $79 when, even if it was for real, I'd only need it for tests of only a few hours. That's why I made this thread. Still, it would be great if there were reliable high-resolution scan targets for cheap. Now I know that there probably aren't. On to the meat of the matter - Ed Ingold, I ran with your idea, and put a bunch of... well basically, thin trash that might have sharp edges ... on my scanner: Some plain old paper - part of a NetFlix envelope A common plastic tan grocery bag (in the southeast U.S.). The idea was, it's so thin, hopefully it will have a hard edge A cut-out of the nutrition label from a bag of chips. (Washed, of course.) A nutribar faux foil wrapper (I think it's actually super-thin plastic with metallic spray) I scanned at various resolutions, all the way from 300 to 6400 dpi and above. First, the grocery bag seemed fruitful. I even saw teeny tiny hairlets from a nylon mitten I'd been wearing! But the microscopic hairs were too curly and had no real edge to hold onto, for testing resolution... The NetFlix paper, including a little tear, was interesting to see. But not ultimately useful. Next, I thought the nutribar foil's edge would be super-precise ... but really, it was just an edge. Not sure how much I can do with that. But the thing that ultimately seemed to have the most coherence was actually the rounded edge of the nutrition labelling's ink (a corner of the printed frame around it), on the chip bag. Why? I suppose because, when you are super-magnifying things and they may be subject to all kinds of whatever, you're not sure if a straight line is still in focus ... but a curve gives your mind more to work with. On to the actual question - There was a clear point where, from very low rez to ~4800dpi, it became increasingly less blocky (sort of like pixelation). Then above 6400dpi, it started to become softer, out of focus. I know anything above 6400 dpi must be interpolated (the scanner's specs say so). It was sort of like a U-shaped curve... first very blocky, then more precise, then ultimately... going to less in focussed or blurry. As one moved from 300 to 2400 to 4800 to 6400 and beyond. So: 1) Some of you have said 2400dpi is the max on a "flatbed" unless I get a "Plustek". Have you actually used/tested an Epson V600 or similar scanner rated at 6400 dpi? Can you show me side-by-side scans from a Plustek vs something like a V600 at a stated 6400 dpi? I don't believe you until you can demonstrate it. Thanks. 2) I interpret what I saw as a U-shaped curve, going from blocky to clear to blurry, where the true resolution is either 4800 or 6400 dpi. Does this make sense? Thanks for all your input! This is so helpful. Who needs a fake $80 target image when you've got a bag of chips anyway?

Hi everyone, My first post! I know scanners are not Photo.net's focus per se, but this forum seems really active, and I couldn't find anything related and very active on the net... I bought a new Epson V600 scanner to digitize almost a thousand old family slides. The scanner's specs say it has a hardware resolution up to 6400dpi, and up to 19200dpi with interpolation. In testing on slides, zoomed up close on the scans produced, I found that the best scans were at resolutions of 4800 and 6400dpi, but I couldn't really tell the difference between them. (There are some very subtle differences, but whether they matter, I don't know.) Anything higher showed clear signs of interpolation, so that's out. Of course, scans at 4800dpi are a little faster, and the resulting pics are smaller in size. I'm trying to make a decision about what to use for the thousand slides, before I start. Realistically, it will probably never be done again. So I'd like to get the best scans I can, once and for all. These old slides (typical family pictures) aren't the best thing for testing viable resolution. It's hard to tell what might even be a true hard edge or whatever. So I flailed around on the net and found, e.g., the Silverfast resolution target (USAF 1951). But I'd rather not pay $69 plus $10 for shipping on something I'll basically only use once. I'm not even sure it's what I really need here. With cameras, it's a little different ... you can always get farther away from, e.g., a printed target, etc. Not true with a scanner ... it has to actually be something of super-fine resolution (clear edges for something 6400 dpi or better, for my purposes). I tried to print, e.g., some test charts I found on my 1200 dpi printer. But as expected, 1200dpi wasn't good enough to show any difference. Okay, all of this leads to my question... Surely there's some sort of thing found naturally in most homes that could be used as some sort of resolution test? Hair ... magnetic shavings ... something? Of course, it won't provide any sort of absolute metric ... but it ought to let me see if there's really a difference between 4800 and 6400dpi on my scanner. Any thoughts, anyone? Thanks! And thanks for having your forum. Mike Atlanta GA USA