Batch Scanning About 1000 Old Slides

Well, how does a non professional decide what to buy?

Using ideally, the same due diligence in buying any photographic equipment. Or anything for that matter; cars, TVs cell phones etc.

I'd find a local VAR (if they still exist these days where you live), have them show you their product line and make some scans. But today, people want to buy everything from the web and such VARs are far and few between because the time they spend helping you make a buying decision (and paying their rent), requires they charge more than mail order and everyone wants the best deal, ever if that means buying less than the best equipment for their needs.

If the question is can you buy a better film scanner than what Nikon produces, the answer is easily yes.

Unless you live in New York City, there are probably no camera stores around you and this IS the web, right? :eek:

Unless you live in New York City, there are probably no camera stores around you and this IS the web, right? :eek:

I’d be happy to provide any such tests on any number of scanners you can round up. That’s my day job: on site or in my studio. For my day rate depending on if you come to me or I come to you.

Samples of 35mm slides scanned with my Epson V600. They look pretty good on a 75" UHDTV. These are family memory shots so I'm not looking to sell professionally. But as I said earlier, you can save your sanity if you send them out to a decent place to get a decent scan.

35mm Ektachromes about 40 years old. Scuba Journey - 35mm Film

35mm Kodachromes about 50 years old Family - 35mm Kodachrome

35mm Ektachromes about 40 years old Scuba Bimini 35mm Film

 

You can see some of the above in 1080HD in Youtube.

A. It's optical resolution for smaller format film IS 6400PPI.

 

- And this has been verified how?

It would require a calibrated grating with 4 micron or finer spacing.

 

I have a Lippmann plate replica grating that goes down to 2 microns.

 

In the past I've tested an Epson scanner to find that its 'true optical resolution' (Epson's words) was nothing near to Epson's claims.

 

Sure, the scanner may output 6400 pixels per inch, but I'm betting it's empty resolution. Until I see the evidence from a calibrated resolution plate.

 

There are also drum scan samples floating around the web that claim silly resolutions in excess of 8000 ppi.... and they don't even show any film grain from 100 ISO transparencies!

I’d be happy to provide any such tests on any number of scanners you can round up. That’s my day job: on site or in my studio. For my day rate depending on if you come to me or I come to you.

 

Ok, I'm not shopping now, but if I were, here are three I'd think (by the market speak) were worth looking at. But are they?:

 

Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7200 35mm Slide/Film PRIMEFILM 7200U B&H

Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE Film Scanner 783064365345 B&H Photo

Epson Perfection V850 Pro Scanner B11B224201 B&H Photo Video

 

That's three available from B&H. There are two film scanners and the Epson 850. If I were buying today, and I wanted the scanner so I could scan my 35mm landscape work regularly, which one would give me the best looking scan -- or at least an adequate scan most people would be satisfied with?

 

Now it's important to say that all I was after was whether the scanners you could buy today would work better than the one I had (or as well). Maybe I don't understand how dpi and ppi work and how important they are in a scanner (which I can believe) but If I can't use that as a tool for identifying a good scanner, what CAN I use that I can find out in an ad or online? How can a non-expert be BETTER at choosing a scanner? What stats DO help and what do they mean? You don't have to make us an expert, but maybe you can give us a few tips on how we should be making our decisions.

 

Or barring that, look at the three scanners above a quick look and tell us how YOU would categorize them generally. Maybe we'll learn something (or maybe just I will, I don't know).

Say you are a photographer who takes pictures on film and wants to get good scans of their work to rival what digital cameras produce.

 

- Then you need to completely give up on 35mm film and shoot 6x7cm at minimum. This naturally limits your choice of scanner to something that takes medium format, and I think only Plustek, Pacific Image and Epson make such scanners these days.

 

You have to face the fact that film's 'resurgence' still makes it a niche market that no major camera company wants to invest in. I mean, where's the logic or aesthetic or economic advantage in shooting film, only to scan it and turn it into a digital file that could have been taken directly with a digital camera? Much more quickly, easily, economically and with far less ecological impact.

 

BTW, forget the Plustek you linked to. I had one and swiftly returned it. Deathly slow, no automatic film or slide feed, and soft results.

Edited October 7, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

@carbon_dragon : I know close to nothing hands on. I'd browse Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice to get an overview over the scene from one probably biased POV.

For my own needs I understand: 2000 ppi are "a not overly realistic dream", be it by Minolta I have or by Epson I could maybe buy, compared to Leica at base ISO pixel peeping pleasure.

I respect @Ed_Ingold more than enough, to go the digitizing by camera route, if I have to, because he suggested it above.

I think Ed made the effort to shoot the same bit of landscape on good film, he scanned on a state of the domestic art machine, and on M9 and posted the "film isn't worth it" showing results in various threads here.

all I was after was whether the scanners you could buy today would work better than the one I had

Short answer, not hands on: Your scanner is most likely higher resolving than modern ones. If it breaks, I'd try to shoot your 5D tethered, with a film reproduction rig and software presets to quickly get the best out of your results.

________________________________________________________________________________

If companies like Scancafe's claims to spend 3 minutes of hand fixing on each scan, are true, I'd hire their service, because they seem to get skilled labor for $5,80/h, including shipping and machinery! - Treating 1000 slides that way is a cruel week of work! Can you happily support your lifestyle, family and government working for others at that rate with the scanner you 'd buy? - If not, it probably is no smart investment into a means of production.

 

It is of course questionable if each and every slide deserves full treatment that way. You might be happy enough with just web worthy shots of half of them as they are, 4k viewable shots of the rest and decide to put effort into just a pretty small percentage.

I haven't heard of any device or rig that permits automated digitizing of entire trays. Considering the adjustment hassle most scanners demand, I'd love to have a AF macro lens on a decent JPEGs delivering MILC, like a Fuji or a Lightroom tethered alternative, to do the job on my own, inserting each individual slide into the rig I'll use per hand. But you might end spending more time or money than you imagine to get things done.

A big issue I see is cleaning the slides. - I guess it might be nice, to have a silent compressor, to dust them.

Where is the logic in most of what people do for fun other than the enjoyment of it.

Why do millions of perfectly sane men sit in trees for hours in the cold with a bow and arrow to put meat in the freezer?

Why paint a picture when my little Canon digital will do what we all know it can do?

Why ink a fountain pen?

Why plant a garden?

People enjoy the process in the context of casual use.

- And this has been verified how?

It would require a calibrated grating with 4 micron or finer spacing.

Epson and every review is a lie sir? Provide your data.

Ok, I'm not shopping now, but if I were, here are three I'd think (by the market speak) were worth looking at. But are they?.

When you tell us your specific goals for the scans and what you'll actually scan, and when those scanners are tested, you'll know. I wouldn't buy any of them. But my goals are different hence why I owned two PMT drums, a number of Imacon's, a Leaf 35 and 45 in historical order. Not to mention the dozens of scanners I reviewed for both PEI magazine and Professional Photographer magazine (I was their tech editor and had lots of scanners in those days to review). None are made today for somewhat obvious reasons.

You want the best scan possible despite cost of scanner (used along with the equipment to run it), don't care how long it takes to scan ONE image? Get a ScanMate 5000. If you really have time and money, hard to ever beat a Tango from LinoColor. Of course, you'll gel mount all your originals on the drum, a very time consuming process alone.

Take ONE 35mm, scan it on anything you can buy at B&H photo, even a mere 2400PPI (because resolution isn't close to being the sole factor of scan quality), then send the slide to NancyScans in NY and ask for the same resolution off their drum scanner. View the differences carefully and critically and output to what media you intend for the most demanding scans.

Now depending on your goals, either may fit your needs. You want a 30x40 Lightjet print from a 35mm scan or you want to post 1020x1280 images on a web site, from images that do not carry a large degree of dynamic range? Depending on the goals and the originals, a scanner that cost less than that drum scanners, power supply will do you just as well.

Edited October 7, 2018 by digitaldog

No if I wanted the best scan possible, I'm guessing that would require equipment much fancier than you'd every buy at home, including my current Coolscan. I go out with the film cameras now and then and want a decent scan that I can post or print or have printed, say to 16x20. The coolscan, even without its original Nikon software (because they don't support it anymore) with Vuescan isn't perfect but it's fine. No I'm not printing 30x40 Lightjet prints. For one thing, my monitor is not calibrated, so I suspect that experience would be disappointing :confused:.

 

Anyway, I guess I just have to hope my scanner keeps working.

The true resolution of an Epson V700/800 series flatbed gets close to 2400-2800 spi, with optimum holder height and ANR glass for flatness. Some claim wt-mounting increases the resolution, but I think it just makes for cleaner scans which "look sharper".

Why scan film at all? Many of us have hundreds (thousands) of old slides which have never been scanned. Scanning is a way to preserve them from the ravages of time, and to make their distribution and viewing more accessible. Although I have a Nikon film scanner (two, actually), the task of scanning old slides, at up to 2 minutes each, is daunting if not prohibitive. Others may still shoot film because they like the challenge, or prefer the color rendering. Surprisingly, slides copied with a digital camera are fairly true to the film colors.

 

Apart from dust spotting, very little post-processing is needed when camera-scanning slides. I use an anti-static brush on the side facing downward. A high-intensity desk lamp at an oblique angle is used to inspect the results. You can see particles as small as 2 microns in this manner. I set the white balance from the empty holder, and the ISO at 400 or less to keep noise at an acceptable level.

 

Since I'm using a FF camera (Sony A7Riii), reproduction is close to 1:1. Focusing is critical at that magnification. In fact, the sensor to slide distance at 1:1 is a minimum, so ordinary focusing doesn't work. You must focus by adjusting the length of the assembly. That's a PITA, so I get the best focus I can at 1:1 by adjusting the length, extend it about 1 mm, and fine-tune focusing with the lens focusing ring. That's not 1:1, but close enough for government work. If you use a DX camera (1:1.5), focusing is easy, even auto-focus.

 

The results are comparable to those obtained using a Nikon Coolscan film scanner. The Coolscan has better resolution, in theory, because it uses a linear, monochromatic array and RGB LEDs for color separation - each sensor produces all three colors. There are three parallel arrays, which speed scanning but may introduce banding in low-contrast areas (e.g., blue sky). There is a fine scan option which uses only one array, with little or no banding, but taking 3x as long. Dust is detected using infrared light from a 4th LED, and optionally removed using ICE processing (which degrades resolution).

 

Imacon Flextite scanners use a similar imaging array, but without mirrors used to make the Coolscan smaller. Those mirrors tend to collect dust, which reduces the contrast of the scan, and are nearly impossible to access for cleaning. Imacon scanners are still being made, but sell for up to $26,000, compared to a Coolscan 8000/9000, which sells used for roughly its new price of $3000.

 

Drum scanners use a beam-splitter and a single photo-multiplier tube for each color. The results are extremely clean, but slow and expensive ($15 to $100 each). Most other film scanners, new and legacy, use a Bayer filter array for color separation.

 

I've written extensively on this topic in PNET, however the examples are buried in history. If I come across them, I'll re-post in this thread.

"...the "Bowens Illumitran" sort of device (on the lower right) is the best of the 'camera' solutions, I think."

 

- I have one, and beg to differ!

 

Differ all you want, I only have the Repronar.

Set up, all aligned when constructed, known light source, etc. beats home brew pretty much all the time.

Anyway, I guess I just have to hope my scanner keeps working.

The 'good news' is if and when it dies, finding a replacement used, that cost a lot less than when produced will likely exist.

You don't want to know what a ScanMate or Imacon cost in the late 1990's compared to what one can be purchased for today.

Scanners are kind of a dead market to be kind. There's a ScanMate F8 flatbed on Ebay for $900! And an Imacon for $5K.

If it was me, and I have done quite a bit of scanning with my Minolta Dimage Elite Scan 5400, I would seriously consider sending them to one of the better scanning services, Scancafe will send your slides to India for scanning and do a very good job. My personal preference would be digmypix.com in Arizona. Both excellent option, reasonably priced and very good work from both. Good luck.

As a PN newbie sensitive to the occasionally high level of criticism I've observed here, I've hesitated to suggest my slide scanning method. But after reviewing a few hundred of my archived files, I'm happy enough with it to put it out there. Those whose aesthetic sensibility is offended can flame away - I'm old enough to be impervious to insult :)

 

In the old days, I copied slides with thread-in bellows system on a macro lens. But when I went digital, I started scanning them with a flatbed that had a slide & strip film attachment with its own light source. The quality was barely acceptable to me & it took forever - so I gave up & stored all my slides without copying any for years. When we retired & downsized to a condo apartment, my emulsion images were taking up space we could put to better use, so I decided to try the Ivation for $100.

 

 

It's really quite good. Yes, it's plastic. Yes, the display is useless for anything but making sure you've got the full image in the field before pushing "scan". Yes, it's a compromise. But it easily & quickly captures good image quality, as long as you make sure the light source is clean (it's easily brushed through the slot for the slide holder) and use pristine slides. I've taken excellent care of mine, so there's very little foreign material on them. In fact, the main source of artifact is damage done to the emulsion (and occasionally to the backing) by the camera shop that processed most of them. Now I really wish I'd done them all myself!

 

As we say in surgery, only outcomes matter - so here are three typical files, all untouched except for cropping. What may appear to you as dust or dirt is actually how the finish on an actively raced car looks because there's a fair amount of dirt flying around to chip & scratch paint & polish. The track surface is kept as clean as possible, but wind and the occasional off course excursion blow it back before a lap is completed. These were all shot on Ektachrome with an Olympus OM1 or OM2n.

 

Here's one of the Huffaker Specials built from '59 to the mid '60s, this one with a small block Chevy V8.

 

Many of us in amateur racing have to innovate to get the job done. Here's a typical repair & maintenance kit:

 

I restored this '63 LeGrand Mk III sports racer that I noticed lying in a garage I passed as I drove to work.

 

I strongly suggest that you try this device. I got mine from Amazon, planning to return it immediately if the images were poor. But I'm very happy with it & expect it to last until I finish the 2000 or so slides still unscanned. All I can say is "respect the plastic" & it'll probably make most of you happy.

I've scanned my old 35mm slides and scan current 120 film with a $200 Epson V600 flatbed scanner. It's OK for the web and for making slide shows for 75" UHDTV. A little soft but still impressive because it is 75". If I really wanted to make a large print of a couple of special shots, then I would send them out to a pro scanner who does work on a drum scanner.

As a PN newbie sensitive to the occasionally high level of criticism I've observed here, I've hesitated to suggest my slide scanning method. But after reviewing a few hundred of my archived files, I'm happy enough with it to put it out there. Those whose aesthetic sensibility is offended can flame away - I'm old enough to be impervious to insult :)

 

In the old days, I copied slides with thread-in bellows system on a macro lens. But when I went digital, I started scanning them with a flatbed that had a slide & strip film attachment with its own light source. The quality was barely acceptable to me & it took forever - so I gave up & stored all my slides without copying any for years. When we retired & downsized to a condo apartment, my emulsion images were taking up space we could put to better use, so I decided to try the Ivation for $100.

 

[ATTACH=full]1266154[/ATTACH]

...

 

You know, it wouldn't be a bad way just to be able to "review" your negatives either. Pretty hard to see the color in a color negative but with this, it would make a positive for you.

The 'good news' is if and when it dies, finding a replacement used, that cost a lot less than when produced will likely exist.

You don't want to know what a ScanMate or Imacon cost in the late 1990's compared to what one can be purchased for today.

Scanners are kind of a dead market to be kind.

 

Most of the actual film scanners that are still working are selling for either the original cost, or even more. The flatbeds like the Canon 9000F are much lower resolution, tho' adequate for internet posts. Certainly not adequate for archival scanning.

You know, it wouldn't be a bad way just to be able to "review" your negatives either. Pretty hard to see the color in a color negative but with this, it would make a positive for you.

The IQ of the onboard "screen" is terrible. But if you connect the USB output to a PC, you can access the SD card in the scanner as a drive on the computer and view its contents on your monitor. A slide scan only takes a few seconds, so reviewing is almost real time.

I bought a similar device, no own screen, no SD slot just USB cable light source, film or slides tray, brush, some software CD at my local supermarket and a 2nd copy on clearance sale for less than 20€. I'm sure it utilizes some web or phone camera module inside and results seem good enough for thumbnail sharing on the web be it here or illustrating a blog post.

It is up to everyone to define what they demand of their digitized film. Such a bugger can serve well to get a digital catalog of a physical archive and gets your memories on a laptop or tablet screen. OTOH: Why spend on it if you are after significantly more to maybe print out centerfolds? Also: If you have a half decent digital camera, why should it not produce even better images than such a budged wonder? - Looking through Amazon reviews of the cheaper variants sold there I didn't see enough praise to mention them here.