MF scanning solution

[j. rivera]

I think I�ve solved the scanner question, at least for me. I want to

get the most bang for the buck, realizing that whatever I buy will be

outdated in 6-12 months. I�m thinking the Canon 1200s (1200x1200 dpi

dmax 3.3) for MF which is streeting for $120-140. I will attempt to

make a transparency adapter, otherwise I�ll be out an additional

$275. For 35mm, I�ll get the Minolta with 2400 dpi (Dual scan?) for

$360 form B&H. This gets me out the door for under $775 for both MF

and 35mm. I should be able to make nice 7.5x11�s from the 35mm and

nice 9x9� from the MF outputed to a 1270 or 2000p (haven't decided

yet).

 

My question? Does this make sense? How hard is it to make a

transparency adapter? I think black matte board, an exacto knife,

and a small light box should do the trick.

 

Any thoughts?

[peter_randall]

I just can't imagine one can get great scans from such inexpensive

scanners Perhaps someone has experience with them. Polaroid has just

announced a MF scanner (up to 6x9) with a dmax of 3.9. It will be be

a couple thousand dollars, but that will make grear scans.

 

Pet

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

I am afraid it won't be that simple. For one, how would you turn off the beam coming out of the scanner bed? If you want to use a lightbox, then use a scanner which has a provision for it. It is not really worth the effort of making a lightbox and trying to adapt the scanner controls. But it would be a nice exercise by itself.

 

I have HP ScanJet 6300C which is an excellent 1200dpi scanner. I use it with an accessory slide adapter which allows me to scan any slide upto 5"x5" in size at 1200dpi! This lightbox cost me about $110. That has worked well for my 4x5 transparencies. I have been able to make some 8x10 prints out of 120 slides also. But I feel this resolution is not satisfactory for 35mm slides. I have tried that, but results would be much better with 2400dpi or higher.

 

That said, I am not proposing that my system will give results at par with high end scanners or tools. This system works for informal presentations.

[j. rivera]

I'm hoping for machine print quality, no better, for personal use. The good stuff will be handled by a lab.

 

So tranny adapters work with the light from the bed. Hmmm, maybe an optical quality mirror in place of the light box? Just thinking out loud. Yes the easy thing to do would be either buy the damn adapter or get a scanner with a cheaper adapter. Trouble is, most similarly priced scanners (scanner only) have a poorer dmax, or don't list dmax at all. The Canon seems like such a good way to go if you can get around the $275 tranny adapter.

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

Jeff, if you wanted to scan just a 35mm slide, then there is a slide adapter which comes free with HP ScanJet 6300C. It has a mirrored surface in it. And that mirrored light falls on the slide from top. It is a triangular piece of gadget.

 

The 5"x5" adapter accessory I mentioned has its own light. There is no mirror in it. It turns off the lamp in the scanner bed. The scanner is aware of it, and waits till this adapter lamp has been warmed up and then startes the scan. It comes with couple of other registration sheets which need to be placed on the bed. I don't know why they are needed, but without it I get bad results.

[j. rivera]

Lakhinder,

 

What's the dmax for the HP scanner you have? If it doesn't list a spec, what's your gut feeling? How does it handle shadow detail for slides? That's my greatest concern. Most consumer scanners have a dmax of 3.0 or less and have difficulty scanning slides.

 

thanks,

[christian deichert]

<i><blockquote>if you wanted to scan just a 35mm slide, then there is a slide adapter which comes free with HP ScanJet 6300C. It has a mirrored surface in it. And that mirrored light falls on the slide from top. It is a triangular piece of gadget.</i></blockquote><p>

 

You forgot to mention that the HP 35mm slide adapter is an absolute piece of crap. I bought an HP 5200C last summer (1999) and tried using the adapter; the result were awful. I had trouble figuring out why they were so grainy until I looked at the adapter and realized that the reflective surfaces were made of some sort of sheet metal that, for some reason, had a grain to it similar to wood. The grain in the reflective surface actually showed up in the scans. I was so disgusted that I returned the entire thing and bought a Minolta Scan Dual, which has been just what I've needed.

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

Jeff I don't have a clue as to what is its Dmax. Maybe the HP website would help, but I have never looked it up. I would not mind knowing the number myself. I did scan a few slides, and you can see them in my folder here at photo.net. I am new to the digital world, and most of these scans are quick hacks rather than a diligent approach to learn and do the best.

[anthony_harrison]

Jeff, I would be wary of assuming that the el-cheapo Canon has a genuine dmax of 3.3, despite its paper specs - at that sort of price it seems unlikely. A cliche, but true: you get what you pay for. I've just accepted considerable compromises when buying a cheap scanner, purely for producing scanned imges for the web; I got the Microtek Scanmaker 4, which claims only a dmax of 3, but it has an integral tranny adaptor for 35mm and MF which, so far, seems to work really well. Check out the Canon carefully before you buy.

Anthony

[Spearhead]

This makes no sense as a way to do what you want to do.

 

Buy the Scanmaker 4 (or the Agfa DuoScan that I believe is identical), you will get negative scanning for both mf and 35mm, along with flatbed scanning, and you won't have a kluged solution that will never work well.

[don_feinberg2]

>>Buy the Scanmaker 4 (or the Agfa DuoScan that I believe is identical), you will get negative scanning for both mf and 35mm, along with flatbed scanning, and you won't have a kluged solution that will never work well. <<

 

No, DON'T buy a Scanmaker 4. I have one, and would not recommend it for serious work. Fine for web publishing, but if you want to make display prints? No way.

 

It's almost hopeless from 6x6. I can get decent results from 4x5. 35 mm is strictly for the web. And the film holders are expensive, to boot.

 

Plus -- the scanner I have is the third one I got. The first two were DOA; I had to pay shipping back for two dead scanners. Of course, your mileage will vary ...

 

Don Feinberg

donf@cybernex.net

[Spearhead]

I would agree that the quality will be low for good prints. But in the price range being discussed, everything is.

[Marc453]

I broke down and got the Epson 1200 for $200 and later bought the transparency adapter for $86 at buy.com. It was well worth the purchase as I can do up to 4X5 negs with now problem. The scanner twain driver for Epson says it can do 2400 dpi, but the most I've ever done was 240 to print out on my ink jet printer (8X10). Also I've used one or two images on the web, but then I kept the dpi at 72. Still everything looked good. I usually do 6X4.5 color negs and with my imperfect vision and lack of color perfection the Epson seems like a good value. They've also improved on this model and have a new one called the 1600 which will do an 8X10 negative (if I remember correctly.) There is also a 1640, but neither of these are cheap.

[ethan_fuster]

I use a umax 4000u with the (full-bed) transparency adaptor for MF scans (and some 35 too with ok results) - it does 1200 natively and does a pretty fine job. Its not a drum scanner, of course, but using the right twain client (not the kiddie-like bundled version) yields decent results, good enough at least for my primary output device (epson 1270).

 

Ethan

[bill_storm]

Has anyone tried the HP 5370Cse? The specs look reasonably good for MF and 4x5. Also a recent review indicated that the reflected scans were outstanding.

[j. rivera]

Bill, I don't know much about the HP scanners.

 

I ended up with the Acer 1240UT. It comes with the tranny adaptor for around $130. Getting good scans from cheap equipment is difficult. I think I should be able to produce decent 8x8's with practice. I'll post some results when I get it sorted out.

 

cheers,

[j_rgen_cullmann]

I´m writing from Germany. I use a Mikrotec ArtixScan 2500. It has an optical resolution until 2500 x2500 dpi for trannies. The results i reach with are exciting, near by those from a drumscan. Enlargements from 35mm-slides until 24x30cm don´t make any problems. Enlargements from 6x6 negs or trannies until 40x40cm are near by trad. silverprints.

[karl_hardenbol]

For what it's worth:

I have the HP Scanjet 5370C with transparency adapter which I use to scan my 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 Rolleiflex slides to my Corel Photo program where I can adjust color, brightness, hue, saturation, contrast, etc. etc. if needed. I print on my Epson Stylus Photo 870, use premium glossy photo paper and get sharp colorful 8 x 10 prints.

The only pain (in the you know where) is to position the slides (which I keep uncut)firmly positioned. Wish somebody invented a "2 1/4 slide feeder" of some sort. I'm thinking of making one myself.