Jump to content

Slide Scanner


Recommended Posts

<p>Depends on your pockets and luck. Nikon Coolscan V is wonderful, but going for crazy money used, in the $750 to $1000 range.<br>

Both models of the Minolta 5400 are good, but they're getting old enough that you may need a dedicated computer running an obsolete operating system (no security patches) that you'll need to keep off the Internet. (Same will happen with the Nikon in a few years.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>+1 on VueScan instead of worrying about OM software, usually not updated anyhow.</p>

<p>However, you can get better performance out of your Canoscan FS4000 by getting a SCSI-2 interface which it supports. It's still not fast, but is a lot faster than USB 1. I've still got my FS4000 hooked up to an old desktop machine in back of me, so it is not so onerous to reload the film/slides every so often while I am working on my newer computers. The scanner is actually a good one, aside from the slowness of the interface.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used a Polaroid 4000dpi 14bit 35mm scanner for a while and now use a Plustek 7200. The Polaroid did a good job but the Plustek is slightly better. The Eposn V700/V750 are reported to be the only flatbed scanners that will rival a 35mm dedicated scanner. </p>

<p>I would limit myself to a dedicated 35mm film scanner that has 16bit depth.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you're working with 35mm slides the Nikon Coolscan LS5000ED will get through them pretty quickly. Actual scan time (without ICE) at 4000dpi is about 20 seconds. When you add overheads like preview/autofocus/autoexposure, inserting and removing slide, etc, you can count on doing about 30 slides per hour.</p>

<p>A word of caution: some Nikon Coolscan scanners introduce unacceptable (to me anyway) flare in scans and perform poorly in shadow areas of the image. See this previous thread:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF</a></p>

<p>Keep in mind that some users report these problems, some don’t. It seems it’s a matter of luck – you might get a good example, you might not. My personal experience with my own LS500ED is that it performs very well with colour negatives (little difference if any compared to scans of the same film on my Imacon), moderately well (if you’re not too fussy) with E6 slides, and poorly with Kodachrome.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like my first gen Minolta Scan Elite 5400, dropped by Minolta though. I'm still using Windows XP, fwiw. I run it both with the OEM software and Vuescan. Mainly like the OEM software for it's genuine ICE (cleans better than Vuescan). The OEM software's focus method is more hands-on as well.</p>

<p>I have a Coolscan V as well. It seems to manage my color negative film better, and is definitely quicker, but is a step down in ultimate quality: things like highlight detail in negative film, and resolving power.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have been reasonably successful copying slides with a DSLR (Nikon D3). I use an AF 105/2.8 "Micro" set at a fixed ratio of 1:1. The camera is vertical on a tripod with an inverted column, leveled with a bubble level on the LCD. The slide is placed on a portable viewing table and centered visually and focused using live view (much more accurate than the viewfinder, and AF cannot be used at 1:1). I used the custom white balance feature. I blocked most ambient light with a small bellows (Hasselblad Pro Shade) to improve contrast.</p>

<p>I'll post an example when I get back to my desk. It's not nearly Coolscan quality, but not that bad either.</p>

<p>It would work much better if there were a device which would attach to a true macro lens and hold the slide parallel without my Rube Goldberg setup. Available fixtures use a poor quality 10 diopter, with understandably dismal results.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Canon 4000FS is a very good scanner. I don't think you will find anything much better unless you want to pay crazy money. The Nikon 5000 is not any better with respect to quality although it will allow faster scanning - be prepared to pay $$. If you use Vuescan you can scan 4 slides or 6 negs at a time.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been copying some of my slides using a "digital duplicator" slide copier and my 12MP Canon XSi. The duplicator was offered on eBay for around $55.00, and came with a +10 dioptre close up lens that screws into a camera lens. The business end has a dual slide holder, and a frosted glass behind it, towards the light source. I use it on my hobby workbench, with my circular fluorescent magifying lamp as the light source. Using the camera's live view makes it easy to frame the slide, and I can place the focus/metering point on the brighter portions of the slide for good exposure. I use a Sigma 28-70mm lens because it has a range that allows me to fill the frame with the slide image. I shoot at f/11 or so. </p>

<p>I know this setup isn't as good as a dedicated slide scanner, but it works good enough for my needs. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pick up a Minolta 5400 I or II. For slides, either is great, but the II is faster. For BW film, the I is better.<br>

Contrary to popular myth, both can be run on Windows 7 using the most excellent and easy to use Minolta software. See my post in the Digital Darkroom forum, the patch required to do this is very easy.<br>

The I actually goes for decent prices on e-bay, in the 300-500 range. Not sure why, amybe people dont realize this was one of the greatest 35mm film scanners ever developed.<br>

Or, a Coolscan V, 5000, or 9000. But for 35mm only, Minolta's software is better. They have a Pixel Polish image enhancement setting that does wonders. With this on, no need for photoshop afterward. Nikons version, Scan Image Enhancer simply ruins slide shots, over brightening them and shifting colors too.<br>

Neither the Plustek nor V700 approach the scan quality of the Minolta or Nikon units.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The attached slided was copied using a Nikon LS-8000 (top) and a Nikon D3 (bottom) using a Nikon AF 105/2.8 Micro. The light source was a portable light table and a custom color balance in the D3. The colors are not perfectly matched, but probably close enough after about 15 minutes of fiddling with the D3 shot. I resampled the D3 shot from 4288 to 5905 to match the scanned image.</p>

<p>I did not use the mirror pre-release with the D3, but I did use the self timer in lieu of a cable release. There is some doubling in the grain structure, which may be due to a combination of mirror bounce and resampling. The exposure was 1/125 at f/8, ISO 400. I described the physical setup earlier in this thread.</p>

<p>This is not a definitive work sample, and I could have picked a better slide. However I think this demonstrates a proof of principle. The DSLR copy is reasonably and uniformly sharp, but could have been sharper with due diligence. There is no vignetting nor curvature of field, unlike with the commercially available slide copiers.</p><div>00YG0t-334287584.jpg.1b2cc199602b3d21b9fa53f601c2a380.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The right hand panels are 100% crops from the area outlined in red. There are no blown highlights, as you could tell by checking the histogram of the attached image. The brightest pixel has a value of 243 (out of 255).</p>

<p>I don't think it would take 15 minutes to clean up each image in the future. This was the first and only time I've done this, so it took a little experimentation to match the colors and tone. A different light source would probably help - fluorescents can be quirky, even with a custom white balance. Scanners need a little "help" too, and can't always match the original slide.</p>

<p>That said, the OP is looking for a way to scan slides, and I've shown this to be a reasonable alternative, especially now that Nikon scanners have joined the dinosaurs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had to switch my FS4000 from SCSI to USB about a year ago, when I got a new computer that runs 64-bit Windows 7. No 64-bit driver exists for my decade-old SCSI card.<br /><br />I did some research and found that SCSI is just about extinct. The only SCSI cards that have 64-bit support are intended for finishing out the life of legacy hard drives in "enterprise" servers, and carry a price tag commensurate with "enterprise" budgets. I did find one card with 64-bit support for $100, but it was available only from its Taiwanese manufacturer which couldn't sell me one. <br /><br />So I tried the USB interface with VueScan. It's somewhat slower than SCSI, but surprisingly not that much slower. The scanner was slow to begin with, so its performance went from "snail" to "constipated snail." So I just surf the Web while I wait for it to scan. A little patience goes a long way. <br /><br />Unfortunately, film scanners themselves seem to have joined SCSI in Legacy Technology Hades. Nikon and Canon's marketeers have apparently concluded that everyone who has legacy film to scan has already done so, and discontinued their scanners. Those who were tardy in their Obligatory Digital Switch now have to make do with the "do-everything" flatbeds currently on offer. Pacific Imaging now seems to have filled the vacuum with their Prime scanners, but I can't say how good they are. <br /><br />For the time being, my legacy FS4000 still works well. If it takes a little bit longer to do the job with current technology, that's fine. I'm in no hurry. Patience is virtue.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Canon 5dMkII has 21 mp compared to my D3 with 12.1 mp. Thats a difference in resolution of 32%, not twice (hint - resolution is proportional to the square root of the number of pixels). With the proper setup, the OP would be able to equal or exceed the quality of a flatbed scanner. I don't recommend holding the slide up to a window. What color temperature would that be?</p>

<p>The copy took 1/125 second, not 15 minutes, compared to about 1-1/2 minutes for the scan in my LS-8000. Whether one spends time adjusting a slide scan or a DSLR copy is a separate issue. Slides are pretty easy if you create a profile, which can be done for scanners and cameras. All you need is a standard slide (e.g., IT8) with a corresponding reference table. Color negatives are going to be difficult regardless of how you make copies. Anyone who claims differently is blowing smoke at the nubes who haven't done either.</p>

<p>I'm going to leave it at that. I made my point with room to spare. The OP want's a scanner, but the good ones aren't being made any more. He has a collection of slides to copy, and a DSLR (so it's unlikely that collection is going to grow much in the future).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...