PDA

View Full Version : Scanning 35mm Slides



B.M.
20-09-2007, 01:54 PM
Have any of you good folk had any luck scanning 35mm slides?

Iíve heard of people doing it, but donít know if they purchased some gizmo to complement their scanner or manufactured something themselves,

Bantu
20-09-2007, 02:07 PM
I have an Epson 4990 Scanner and it does a nice job of slides and negatives. I scan at high resolution and save to tif.

Get a good scanner and you will get a good result, or go one better and get a film/slide scanner

Nomad
20-09-2007, 06:53 PM
I have a $900 something scanner Epson V700 which is a flatbed scanner that does 35mm to medium format (120/220) rolls and large format up to 8x10 inch size sheet film as these days film cameras have gotten so much cheaper I may get myself medium format and large format setup. I still enjoy film.

However for such a price you could really get a new Nikon dedicated scanner that does 35mm film with optional APS attachment. Minolta also does v good dedicated scanners but they have discontinued. I say go on trademe and wait and wait til you get a good price, sometimes a buy now price can be had for as less as $400. The V model is the modern one, the IV is almost just as good.

For me I would like to get a Nikon 8000 or 9000 to be able to scan medium format size as well but it doesn't do large format (sheet film).

The Epson flatbed scanners does a good job I am not convinced they will hold the same quality when blown to A3 size printed. But again for the same price as a V700 scanner get the dedicated scanner instead. It is also possible to pick up a $300-400 flatbed scanner as well that does 35mm film - negatives and positive slide film. But again if you wait you could well get a dedicated scanner at the $400 mark as well. If no buy now, the market price could actually go right up to $700.

Nomad
20-09-2007, 06:54 PM
The general thing with dedicated scanners is that they can pick up more shadow details in slide film than flatbed scanners and not as noisy/grainy.

tutaenui
20-09-2007, 07:53 PM
The best results come from a dedicated film scanner. The highly regarded
Plustek OpticFilm 7200 is available new in NZ for under $450. It is probably not worth paying the extra for the 7200i model.

Grimy
20-09-2007, 09:18 PM
I've got heaps of slides to scan and have been watching Trade Me for months. I've never heard of the Plustek OpticFilm 7200-who sells those? And is the $450 you mention new? Thanks.

Hokonui
20-09-2007, 09:37 PM
What about a commercial solution?

http://www.digitalmax.co.nz/scanPix.html

I can't speak for the ScanPix option but I've had good results from this site with other photo prints etc.

mikebartnz
20-09-2007, 09:50 PM
I have a Musrek 2400TA which does a reasonable job but I have about 300 to do for someone and was going to try projecting and then taking a digital photo to speed things up.

Nomad
20-09-2007, 11:12 PM
What about a commercial solution?

http://www.digitalmax.co.nz/scanPix.html

I can't speak for the ScanPix option but I've had good results from this site with other photo prints etc.

The problem with that place are the prices unless I missed it .. those $20 per roll I think, applies to unprocessed film .. so they can throw a whole roll into the machine and press the auto button. When film has been processed and cut into strips or to individuals it becomes much more expensive, most labs charge $1 per frame to be scanned and some places $5 and it depends on the size, if you wanted a really big file they could even charge you $100 per shot. May be diff prices per format and to a MB tier size.

Scanning is an art. Scanning is a lot more difficult than to edit a RAW digital file. I could go to a photog specialist place that sells all kinds of film and cameras .. to your $8k Nikons/Canons to your Hasselblads at $30k to sheet film cameras to fridged professional grade film, the quality of prints to me isn't that flash. However some 1hr are great from pple I know and there is also the even more pro places but again pple and myself have got scratch marks on the film itself but they don't show up in the prints.

Get a few sample done and see if you are happy or not ...
These days I just process the film, since unlike overseas NZ's small market, they don't import chemicals other than black and white. So I just let them process them and I scan, edit and print myself off my A3+ printer.

ie .. if one takes film for reprints at diff labs .. you get sig diff print qualities. If a pro did your wedding, they would either do it themselves or use a lab they have a real working business relationship with. When you talk about print or scanning and you want good quality there is also a charge of print color matching which some labs charge more on top for this service. Which I think, they will repeat prints until the color matches provided you provide them a sample for them to work towards as a benchmark.

B.M.
21-09-2007, 08:17 AM
Hmmm, looks like an expensive operation to get anything off comercial quality.

I tried this this (http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html) but although it sort of worked on one scanner it didn't on another.

Anybody with any No.8 wire modifications? :D

tutaenui
21-09-2007, 09:26 AM
I've got heaps of slides to scan and have been watching Trade Me for months. I've never heard of the Plustek OpticFilm 7200-who sells those? And is the $450 you mention new? Thanks.

Price is for a new one. Any camera shop should be able to get you one. Mine came through Colin Kirk photographics in Wellington. They also appear on Trademe new from time to time. Actually there are a couple listed there now. If you would like to see a review take a look at http://www.justechn.com/reviews/articles/2005/02/26/opticfilm_7200.php

John H
21-09-2007, 10:45 AM
I owned a PrimeFilm 1800 slide scanner, which was subsequently shuffled off to my son. It was made by Pacific Image Electronics.

He got good results out of it, but even with the latest drivers it was really unstable (ie. it had its own ideas about if and when it would co-operate - if it did fire up, the images were really good quality). I see they have lots of later models, and they may be better than the original model that I owned.

Slide scanning is a really slow process if they are mounted. It would certainly be quicker if they were in strip form.

Nomad
21-09-2007, 07:23 PM
Hmmm, looks like an expensive operation to get anything off comercial quality.

I tried this this (http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html) but although it sort of worked on one scanner it didn't on another.

Anybody with any No.8 wire modifications? :D

I say it doesn't have to be the pro places, some 1hr labs does do a v good job and price is even cheaper but you need to know where to go.

When you do want quality archival for future enlargements, minilabs may not be that good, when you are looking at is might be CCD based scanners and for the best - drum scan services. Much of the cheap prices at even the v pro places are basically minilab machines - ie .. Kodak Noritsu or Fuji Frontier or Agfa D machines - the same one the 1hr lab uses or the Warehouse or Kmart etc. If all you want is archive some and now you are using digital its not bad but don't expect top quality printed A4. Like film, a good lab is essential or you may get color cast etc.. however you can edit yourself on the computer but from a bad scan it does limit what you can achieve. The operator can also make your images contrasty that limits it, such as making the sky too white detail lost or shadows so dark that also loses texture. Unlike RAW files changing the white balance isn't so clear cut, you can have the traditional color balances but you won't have the easy scroll bar within the RAW converter software. I think thou the $1 places are minilabs machines but they should have CCD if you want or the others may have.

The reason why a good lab using the same minilabs machines are better is b/c they have a good skilled tech behind the machine who corrects the color for each diff frame and if not ok they will redo it .. much the cheap places pharmacist, diaries, bookshops, warehouse etc., and many/most 1hr labs and even some of the standard pro places, they just press the also button and give you whatever the printer spits out.

I say for a computer geek maybe get a $400 scanner and see how that goes. Nikon scanners has been reputable used by pro's and pro's that also write books and National Geographic books - get it used or at the similar price you may get a middle model flatbed scanner that does film as well. If for $400 I would prefer the Nikon used than the Plusek ..

B.M.
21-09-2007, 10:27 PM
Thanks guys.

Iím not looking for anything of even remotely ďCommercial QualityĒ.

Itís all about "No.8 Wire" and "Baked Beans" cans. The exercise is to get a copy of a photo that the subject matter can be easily recognised. Grain etc, etc, is not a requirement.

Oddly enough, Iíve managed to get a couple of old Slides onto the computer using some white plastic, Selotape and staples and of course a very ordinary scanner. The odd thing is I get one, but the next slide is a disaster, although Iíve used exactly the same method. :confused:

Iím finding it an intriguing exercise. I just wish now that I had stayed awake all those years ago when my science teacher explained Reflection, Refraction, Focal Lengths and all that boring stuff. :D

So come on all you guys from ďTomorrows SchoolsĒ, help an old fellow out. :thumbs:

Nomad
21-09-2007, 10:43 PM
A not too $$ stuff .. tradeoff .. a slide thingy .. that you attach in front of camera I think it maybe illuminated, may work for strips only.. dunno. So pop this strip thing holder in front of your digital camera and fire the camera .. may get something for your std.

Nomad
21-09-2007, 10:44 PM
Alt.. geta lightbox .. those things you pop slide film on it .. you may have one already .. and then just use a digicam to capture them.

Or make your own box .. using a color corrected lightbulb with a piece of plastic of some sort on top .. just be careful that the lightis even throughout the thing ..

B.M.
21-09-2007, 10:48 PM
Alt.. geta lightbox .. those things you pop slide film on it .. you may have one already .. and then just use a digicam to capture them.

Or make your own box .. using a color corrected lightbulb with a piece of plastic of some sort on top .. just be careful that the lightis even throughout the thing ..

Now you're talking.

I'll explore the Digicam possibility. ;)

Strommer
22-09-2007, 08:54 AM
Now you're talking.

I'll explore the Digicam possibility. ;)

BM, I bought a scanner with a 35 mm film adapter, but I found a much quicker way - simply use a slide projector and a digcam.

Its so simple and the results are terrific. If you don't have a slide projector, ask around because someone will have one gathering dust in a cupboard, or you can probably hire one. You can use white artist cardboard if you do not have a screen.

I have done this with 100's of old slides. Once set up (digcam, screen, projector, a dark room) the process of copying slides goes quickly.

One day my 86 yr old father in law set up his old cheap slide projector to show us some fishing pics from the 1960's. The room wasn't perfectly dark and instead of a screen he used a wall. I popped out to the car to grab the digcam and held it not-so-perfectly to get the shots. Results? Surprisingly good - rellies asked for copies by email or CD.

If you only want to copy several slides and want technically perfect pics (e.g. for a publication), the scanner adapter is the way, but for the usual holiday family pics, slide projectors + digcam will give you near-perfect results.

BTW, you do of course have to turn off the digcam flash.

Grimy
04-10-2007, 08:24 PM
Well I've taken the plunge an bought a Plustek OpticFilm 7200 from a dealer on Trade Me ($400 new). It arrived today and if it wasn't for Bathurst I'd be getting stuck in to my pile of slides on Sunday ( I probably won't be able to resist having a go on a few anyway)!

Thomas01
05-10-2007, 10:03 AM
I had a HP scanner and one of those adapters mentioned in previous replies.
Worked fairly well but found snow scenes almost impossible.
I dumped the scanner but kept the device and have loaned it a time or two. But the results have been useless.

My replacement HP scanner came with a special powered device for negatives and slides. Results - negatives - poor, but slides - superb.

Now I use a HP combined scanner/printer - and have all my old slides scanned so will never need to worry again.

But I kept the old scanner and slide device. Just in case it came in useful.
If you live in Christchurch I could scan for you.
Nominal charge (you decide) - I'm retired and would rather do this than fish or play golf.
Tom

Cho
05-10-2007, 10:16 AM
i see that this has been resolved, might get one of those devices as well. also i want to be able to convert from old old school 8mm films to digital. would it be best to use a service or is there something i can buy that does this.

similar lines and such, its just that we have many hours of 8mm film from when my dad was a child, and half the family were not dead. sorry for the thread stealing :D

Thomas01
05-10-2007, 01:42 PM
i see that this has been resolved, might get one of those devices as well. also i want to be able to convert from old old school 8mm films to digital. would it be best to use a service or is there something i can buy that does this.

similar lines and such, its just that we have many hours of 8mm film from when my dad was a child, and half the family were not dead. sorry for the thread stealing :D

My experience which seems to be common to others I have chatted to is that if you are considering scanning negatives then be prepared to pay a lot of money for the equipment. Probably going commercial would be better.
Cheap equipment (including mine) will not produce acceptable results on negatives but is fine with slides.
Tom

heaton
05-10-2007, 04:11 PM
I have a fuji digital camera that has a micro macro setting and will focus down so that you can fill the frame with a 35mm slide or negative. I have rigged up a copy stand out of an old enlarger and with reflected window light can photograph negs and slides much faster than a scanner. The resolution is very acceptable to me and I have converted hundreds of family photos to digital this way and put them onto DVD's for my family.

B.M.
21-12-2007, 09:34 AM
Well I've taken the plunge an bought a Plustek OpticFilm 7200 from a dealer on Trade Me ($400 new). It arrived today and if it wasn't for Bathurst I'd be getting stuck in to my pile of slides on Sunday ( I probably won't be able to resist having a go on a few anyway)!

How are you finding it Grimy.

I just found another shoe box full of slides and negatives (Some negatives were taken with a Box Brownie of similar circa 1930) so it looks like I might have to splash out on something decent. :)

Thomas01
21-12-2007, 11:30 AM
Hm!! $400 for something to scan negatives.
It sounds marginal to me - from comments by other more experienced people I would have expected to have to pay much more for really good results. Certainly as I have mentioned before my own scanner is very good on slides -but despite the claims of HP just lousy at scanning negatives.
I suspect a lot of interest would be shown if $400 could produce what we would all like.
I hope Grimy you try it with negatives and keep us informed on your progress and results.
Tom

Grimy
21-12-2007, 09:18 PM
Oops. I could make lots of excuses, but I won't. Truth is, I haven't really used it yet!
It came with Silverfast software which had a free upgrade to a newer version, which took a bit longer to sort out than it should (supplied product key from Silverfast was wrong).
The software certainly seems to have all sorts of adjustments and tweaks, but I tried a few slides on quickscan, and they looked okay.
Will definitely get stuck into some scanning in the New Year and let you know what its like. I'm only doing slides.

digikiwi
26-01-2008, 02:16 PM
@ Grimy:


Well I've taken the plunge an bought a Plustek OpticFilm 7200 from a dealer on Trade Me ($400 new). It arrived today and if it wasn't for Bathurst I'd be getting stuck in to my pile of slides on Sunday ( I probably won't be able to resist having a go on a few anyway)!

I'd also love to hear how that unit is working out as I have a friend with limited time left in this world who has about 1000 slides to scan. We plan to put all the pics on the net as a teaching resource, but working on a budget so the Plustek might be the solution.

How has your experience with this unit been?

Cheers

Digikiwi

tutaenui
26-01-2008, 08:23 PM
I am using a Plustec 7200 unit and am scanning some 4000 slides mostly taken in the early 1960's. I was really shocked to find how much the slides had deteriorated in the last 5-7 years. Many have developed serious colour shifts despite having been stored in the dark and many are showing what I assume is a fungus attack which is effecting the emulsion surface. The Plustec has good software supplied to manipulate the scan but I prefer to have the scan open up in my photo editor and work from there. I have found the intellscan works better than the quick scan setting. I have found that a slide in good condition can be printed without any post scan processing but unfortunately I have to work on most scans due to the poor condition of the slide . At this stage I am doing only the minimum post scan processing, just removing colour casts, scratches and the effects of the emulsion breakdown. This averages 20-30 mins per slide compared to about a 30 secs to a minute for a good one. The plustec also comes with a film strip holder and I have experimental and successfully scanned colour neg and black and white film.
I am scanning at 2400dpi and end up with a 39 meg tiff file.

Grimy
26-01-2008, 08:40 PM
I still haven't started with mine yet. Sorry.

Joe Blogs
26-01-2008, 10:41 PM
If you are into mucking around and adapting a bit of gear you can make an adapter for your camera and then just re photograph them. I made an adapter using an old koken filter holder. The results were quite reasonable or at least ok. Have a look here: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/taniwha1/slidecapture.jpg

digikiwi
26-01-2008, 11:08 PM
Cool, thanks for the heads up tutaenui (great handle by the way, LMAOROTF), and may one of those handy "round-to-it"s land in your court soon Grimy :)

Digikiwi

B.M.
27-01-2008, 11:46 AM
If you are into mucking around and adapting a bit of gear you can make an adapter for your camera and then just re photograph them. I made an adapter using an old koken filter holder. The results were quite reasonable or at least ok. Have a look here: http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/taniwha1/slidecapture.jpg

You've got me interested in that Joe. :thumbs:

Those photos are good enough for me.

Would you have time to explain in a little more detail? :)

peter pan
28-01-2008, 09:51 AM
Have a look at this link and build your own attachment to scan slides
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=scan+slides&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

when you open the search page.choose the backlighter link.

B.M.
28-01-2008, 10:52 AM
Have a look at this link and build your own attachment to scan slides
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=scan+slides&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

when you open the search page.choose the backlighter link.

Thanks Peter, yes I've tried that see (post 10 in this thread) but the results were poor.

I even tried it with a different scanner but no luck there either.

I'm still looking for an old slide projector so I can just photograph the screen with my digicam but haven't been able to find one at a reasonable cost.

One will turn up sooner or later.

Thomas01
28-01-2008, 11:19 AM
Thanks Peter, yes I've tried that see (post 10 in this thread) but the results were poor.

I even tried it with a different scanner but no luck there either.

I'm still looking for an old slide projector so I can just photograph the screen with my digicam but haven't been able to find one at a reasonable cost.

One will turn up sooner or later.

I would have thought that with the low cost of scanners these days it really isn't worth the bother of trying to bodge something up that might work.
My old (now retired) HP with slide and negative attachment worked really well on slides. Not good on negative. My first HP scanner had one of those odd little mirror devices that was reasonable on slides.
Of course the snag is that once you have done all your slides then the particular equipment becomes redundant.
So if there are not many slides then probably Hanafins service is the answer.

Joe Blogs
28-01-2008, 12:23 PM
Would you have time to explain in a little more detail? :)

For a start you will need a camera with a filter tread and a good closeup or macro.

Get a koken filter holder (available from most photograph retailers) and then build a slide holder for the slide. The holder in the photo was simple just using rubber bands to hold the slide in place but I later made one so the slide simply dropped in.

You will need to experiment with backgound and lighting.
I put the camera on a tri-pod and found the sky on a bright but hazy day worked fine but a light box would be easy to build and more practical for consistent results.

It was a fast way of copying slides it worked well enough, with images just needing a bit of cropping and cleaning up with photoshop.

Grimy
28-01-2008, 03:02 PM
I've had a quick play today with my Plustek 7200.
I scanned a box of 36 slides using the Silverfast software. Making the files 5mb Tiff, at 600dpi and 200% of original slide size and only using the automatic image correction option it took just on an hour.

Most of these slides (20 years old) are in poor condition. The first few had a lot of specks/spots/etc on them and I started trying to do the whole colour/spot correction thing, but realised it was going to take too long (I have thousands of slides to do), so went the small file/auto route.
The Silverfast software has plenty of screens and adjustments, but I've not used any other proper photo correction software to be able to make a comparison. My slides are Kodachrome 64, which I've read can be tricky to scan.
I decided that at least this way, I'll get them onto the computer, and if there are any I really want, then I can spend the time messing around later. Most I'll probably never look at again, but at least the job is now started.
Certainly easier and quicker than my old HP scanjet 3570c with it's transperancy adapter.

Grimy
28-01-2008, 06:40 PM
To add to my post above. I think you have to consider 5Mb Tiff files as thumbnails/email files. Although a lot of what I scanned seems fine, when I came to some mountain photos I needed to go to 50Mb and more ideally, 80Mb to get the detail in the rock. On the lower resolution I ended up with some weird crystal formations instead of rock and gravel.
An 80 mb scan is still only a few miutes with auto adjustments, but 4 boxes of 36 has now taken about 6 hours, and only the last one was with the big file sizes.
Time for some BIIIIIIG external hard drives!

B.M.
28-01-2008, 09:15 PM
To add to my post above. I think you have to consider 5Mb Tiff files as thumbnails/email files. Although a lot of what I scanned seems fine, when I came to some mountain photos I needed to go to 50Mb and more ideally, 80Mb to get the detail in the rock. On the lower resolution I ended up with some weird crystal formations instead of rock and gravel.
An 80 mb scan is still only a few miutes with auto adjustments, but 4 boxes of 36 has now taken about 6 hours, and only the last one was with the big file sizes.
Time for some BIIIIIIG external hard drives!

Very interesting Grimy. :thumbs:

Keep us up to date.:thumbs:

Nomad
28-01-2008, 10:43 PM
I still use film .. I like it not saying its better. Mostly .. that no LCD .. you enjoy the environment more and shoot less as film is not free. No need to recharge batteries that much .. and you have a hard copy ..

How I use it:
I have a Epson scanner, with the Epson scanner I auto scan the film and it auto scans all the frames for you and saves a JPG or TIF for each frame in a folder. You can specify the size up to 8,000 dpi if you want but filesize may reach 100MB per picture. I scan mine into 1024x768 so its small for previewing and if I need it more I may scan higher when I need it.

Cos its takes long time and big HDD space.
If I scan 4000 dpi I get a file around 50-75MB per frame. For a roll of film that is 2GB. For 10 rolls that is 20GB.

For the scans try out diff software with your scanner and determine which is best. For my one I like Epson software over Silverfast which was provided for free. Some films may also not scan that well with your combination.

If you do a search they may say that flatbed scanners cannot compete with serious scanners and if you took the discontinued Minolta and current Nikons they can be a huge improvement over Plusek and etc scanners but they do cost a fair amount. They say medium format film may enlarge to A4 only in a really good quality and they say 35mm film may be good to 5x7 only or 6x4. I have used 35mm and printed 8x10 and I am happy although its not as sharp as my 6MP digital SLR and probably not as good as a good Nikon scanner.

Nomad
28-01-2008, 10:45 PM
With ICE turned on can take a longer time.

tutaenui
29-01-2008, 08:35 PM
if you took the discontinued Minolta and current Nikons they can be a huge improvement over Plusek and etc scanners
I think your judgement is a little harsh here. True the Nikon is the best scanner and this is illustrated by being "best in test" in many comparative reviews. Interesting in many of the same reviews the Plustek comes out scoring "best value" Actually the Plustek spec betters the Nikon in Optical resolution. Were the Nikon shines is in Optical density, this means the Nikon scans have more contrast than the Plustek. Also the Nikon is considerably faster than the Plustek, Typically 40sec V's 3 minutes per scan. I would like a Nikon but can't justify the additional cost. The Plustek does all I expected of it albeit slowly.

Thomas01
30-01-2008, 11:08 AM
I am using a Plustec 7200 unit and am scanning some 4000 slides mostly taken in the early 1960's. I was really shocked to find how much the slides had deteriorated in the last 5-7 years. Many have developed serious colour shifts despite having been stored in the dark and many are showing what I assume is a fungus attack which is effecting the emulsion surface.


My slides were also mainly taken in the 1960s and are still in perfect condition.
For the benefit of others who may be storing old slides I suggest mine have kept good because I have always had the use of a good cold garage where I stored them.
I worry when I see Classic Motorcycle mags etc advising people a warm dry atmosphere is needed for storage. NO! warmth means faster chemical reactions - hence more corrosion.
Keep them cold is my advice.
Tom