Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Misc Forums > Image & Film Scanners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2005, 5:49 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4
Default

My father has decided to scan his slides (I don't know how many he has, but it is several thousand). So he has asked me to get him a scanner.

Well - I've spent some days looking around trying to get to know all this stuff (I work in print publishing, but I'm the guy waiting impatiently for the picture to be arrive so this is new to me :-)). I think some basic faq on photo scanning/printing is needed (at least I haven't found one). Stuff like what scanning resolutions suit what printing quality etc.

Anyways - unlike the hardcore photographers around here, diskspace is more of an issue than quality. The most demanding the scans will be used for is A3 prints, with the majority probably being A4. So... the question for me is what kind of quality would be reasonable with those needs.

At the moment I am leaning towards the Canon 8400F for the following reasons:
* I believe higher quality scans will give nothing towards the final prints at the size I need. (I think even less capable models would qualify) I might be wrong though, since I have hardly any experience with this...
* I believe FARE/ICE is worth the extra price with the amount and age of slides I need to scan.
* I wan't to do batches. As large as possible.
* It is cheap.

If anyone has words of wisdom, advice or stupidity they feel like sharing, please do so. The A3 printer isn't bought yet - so the exact specs aren't available, but something that can be printed in A3 and look good is what I need.
karto is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 17, 2005, 12:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

The 8400F does only 4 slides at a time and PC Magazine thought the scratch and dust removal was ineffective – most software solutions are weak. You need a true Digital Ice type hardware laser scratch and dust removal if you don't want to spend a lot of time in an image editor.

I would scan at the full 3200 PPI. There is detail to be gained to that resolution. If you are going to all of the trouble to scan the things you might as well just do it once. It is worth getting a CD or DVD burner or larger hard drive than trying to guess what quality you need for a particular image. You will use all of that resolution for an A3 and probably even see the difference in an A4 if you scan at lower resolution.

Epson has flatbed models that do 8 slides at once and have true Digital Ice for film and slides, but they are pricey. I think Canon does too but they aren't quite as good as the Epsons. Be careful of Microtek, they have some less pricey scanners with Digital Ice but it doesn't work on some models for film and slides.

His best bet of course is a dedicated film and slide scanner with a slide feeder. Those are more pricey yet.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 5:26 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks for the advice...

I was under the impression that FARE was comparable in quality to digital ICE. Is that wrong?
According to Canons description of the 8400F it has FARE level 3 (same as on the 9900F/9950F - which got high compliments for dustremoval at photo-i). Are you certain it was the 8400F that was reviewed?

4 slides at a time is a bit on the low side though - I must've missed that. That might make me go for the 9900F (8 slides, still available in Denmark) or the 9950F instead (12 slides). They are 1½ respectively 2 times more expensive though, which is a bit of a turnoff.

After reading reviews, it seems to me like Canons and Epsons scanners are of comparable quality - but with the Canons priced a bit lower. I know the Canon software has gotten a lot of flak, but I can live with that (and would probably get a quality program anyway).
karto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 6:48 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

i will say this. flatbed scanners will do a less then adequate job of scanning your history there. if the slides a kodachrome you cannot use ICE or any of the others and get results. there is a difference in the emulsion.

if you are truely trying to archive those and they areof true valueyou have little choice but to either have them professionally scanned or get a dedicated slide scanner like a Nikon series unit. they can be found used on ebay. i'll continue to use mine until there is no more film on the planet.

the nikonscan 4000ED wil bring those images back to life. in addition it has available a bulk loader that will allow the bulk individual scanning in 50 slide batches. work while you sleep or are out mowing the lawn.

yes its not going to be cheap but they are your images. they are your work and passion (i hope) they are your history

the difference between a flatbed and a dedicated slide scanning unit is the difference between looking through a clear glass of water and mud.

i have a 4000ED and i have a epson perfection photo 3200. i would never dream of putting a slide in the 3200.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 2:25 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
i will say this. flatbed scanners will do a less then adequate job of scanning your history there. if the slides a kodachrome you cannot use ICE or any of the others and get results. there is a difference in the emulsion.

if you are truely trying to archive those and they areof true valueyou have little choice but to either have them professionally scanned or get a dedicated slide scanner like a Nikon series unit. they can be found used on ebay. i'll continue to use mine until there is no more film on the planet.

the nikonscan 4000ED wil bring those images back to life. in addition it has available a bulk loader that will allow the bulk individual scanning in 50 slide batches. work while you sleep or are out mowing the lawn.

yes its not going to be cheap but they are your images. they are your work and passion (i hope) they are your history

the difference between a flatbed and a dedicated slide scanning unit is the difference between looking through a clear glass of water and mud.

i have a 4000ED and i have a epson perfection photo 3200. i would never dream of putting a slide in the 3200.
Quote:
Well, I have and Epson 4870 and it does an amazingly good job of scanning slides, even Kodachrome more than 60 years old. Far, far better than my dedicated film scanner, a Minolta Dual Scan 2. Scanning with Digital ICE, I've made clean, tack-sharp prints up to 13x19 with 30-year-old Ektachrome 35mm slides.
ocolnago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 2:25 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
i will say this. flatbed scanners will do a less then adequate job of scanning your history there. if the slides a kodachrome you cannot use ICE or any of the others and get results. there is a difference in the emulsion.

if you are truely trying to archive those and they areof true valueyou have little choice but to either have them professionally scanned or get a dedicated slide scanner like a Nikon series unit. they can be found used on ebay. i'll continue to use mine until there is no more film on the planet.

the nikonscan 4000ED wil bring those images back to life. in addition it has available a bulk loader that will allow the bulk individual scanning in 50 slide batches. work while you sleep or are out mowing the lawn.

yes its not going to be cheap but they are your images. they are your work and passion (i hope) they are your history

the difference between a flatbed and a dedicated slide scanning unit is the difference between looking through a clear glass of water and mud.

i have a 4000ED and i have a epson perfection photo 3200. i would never dream of putting a slide in the 3200.
Quote:
Well, I have and Epson 4870 and it does an amazingly good job of scanning slides, even Kodachrome more than 60 years old. Far, far better than my dedicated film scanner, a Minolta Dual Scan 2. Scanning with Digital ICE, I've made clean, tack-sharp prints up to 13x19 with 30-year-old Ektachrome 35mm slides.
ocolnago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 2:25 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
i will say this. flatbed scanners will do a less then adequate job of scanning your history there. if the slides a kodachrome you cannot use ICE or any of the others and get results. there is a difference in the emulsion.

if you are truely trying to archive those and they areof true valueyou have little choice but to either have them professionally scanned or get a dedicated slide scanner like a Nikon series unit. they can be found used on ebay. i'll continue to use mine until there is no more film on the planet.

the nikonscan 4000ED wil bring those images back to life. in addition it has available a bulk loader that will allow the bulk individual scanning in 50 slide batches. work while you sleep or are out mowing the lawn.

yes its not going to be cheap but they are your images. they are your work and passion (i hope) they are your history

the difference between a flatbed and a dedicated slide scanning unit is the difference between looking through a clear glass of water and mud.

i have a 4000ED and i have a epson perfection photo 3200. i would never dream of putting a slide in the 3200.
Quote:
Well, I have and Epson 4870 and it does an amazingly good job of scanning slides, even Kodachrome more than 60 years old. Far, far better than my dedicated film scanner, a Minolta Dual Scan 2. Scanning with Digital ICE, I've made clean, tack-sharp prints up to 13x19 with 30-year-old Ektachrome 35mm slides.
ocolnago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 2:25 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
i will say this. flatbed scanners will do a less then adequate job of scanning your history there. if the slides a kodachrome you cannot use ICE or any of the others and get results. there is a difference in the emulsion.

if you are truely trying to archive those and they areof true valueyou have little choice but to either have them professionally scanned or get a dedicated slide scanner like a Nikon series unit. they can be found used on ebay. i'll continue to use mine until there is no more film on the planet.

the nikonscan 4000ED wil bring those images back to life. in addition it has available a bulk loader that will allow the bulk individual scanning in 50 slide batches. work while you sleep or are out mowing the lawn.

yes its not going to be cheap but they are your images. they are your work and passion (i hope) they are your history

the difference between a flatbed and a dedicated slide scanning unit is the difference between looking through a clear glass of water and mud.

i have a 4000ED and i have a epson perfection photo 3200. i would never dream of putting a slide in the 3200.
Quote:
Well, I have and Epson 4870 and it does an amazingly good job of scanning slides, even Kodachrome more than 60 years old. Far, far better than my dedicated film scanner, a Minolta Dual Scan 2. Scanning with Digital ICE, I've made clean, tack-sharp prints up to 13x19 with 30-year-old Ektachrome 35mm slides.
ocolnago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 2:25 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
i will say this. flatbed scanners will do a less then adequate job of scanning your history there. if the slides a kodachrome you cannot use ICE or any of the others and get results. there is a difference in the emulsion.

if you are truely trying to archive those and they areof true valueyou have little choice but to either have them professionally scanned or get a dedicated slide scanner like a Nikon series unit. they can be found used on ebay. i'll continue to use mine until there is no more film on the planet.

the nikonscan 4000ED wil bring those images back to life. in addition it has available a bulk loader that will allow the bulk individual scanning in 50 slide batches. work while you sleep or are out mowing the lawn.

yes its not going to be cheap but they are your images. they are your work and passion (i hope) they are your history

the difference between a flatbed and a dedicated slide scanning unit is the difference between looking through a clear glass of water and mud.

i have a 4000ED and i have a epson perfection photo 3200. i would never dream of putting a slide in the 3200.
Quote:
Well, I have and Epson 4870 and it does an amazingly good job of scanning slides, even Kodachrome more than 60 years old. Far, far better than my dedicated film scanner, a Minolta Dual Scan 2. Scanning with Digital ICE, I've made clean, tack-sharp prints up to 13x19 with 30-year-old Ektachrome 35mm slides.
ocolnago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2005, 10:22 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I guess ocolnago really wanted to make his point. To confirm that flatbeds can make decent scans, this is from a review of the Epson 4870: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...870/page_7.htm The 4870 did a better job on film than his old Nikon dedicated film scanner. After some complaints from his readers he did a comparison with the Nikon 4000 and the dedicated film scanner did give better results. But the film and slide scans were far from looking through mud.

He also found the Digital Ice worked well.

The Canon 9900F has Fare level 2, which is a laser based dust and scratch removal like Digital Ice. I think the 8400 uses a software scratch and dust removal which PC Magazine found to be ineffective. You need the laser hardware scratch and dust removal to be effective.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:36 PM.