Scanning negatives

[Charlie Klatzkin]

I would like to digitize my family pictures. I can either scan the 4 x 6 or
the 35mm negative strip. I do not have any experience in scanning
negatives, but I have an HP ScanJet IIcx that just performs wonderful for a
flatbed. I am thinking about buying an Epson 4180 ($200 USD after mir) My
HP has been wonderful for the last 10+ years, but the new HP scanners don't
appear to do a good job with negatives. (The cool factor is up there with
their see through models, just not their specs) I really do not want to buy
a dedicated film scanner because of their price.

Any comments?

 

[Jim]

I would like to digitize my family pictures. I can either scan the 4 x 6 or
the 35mm negative strip. I do not have any experience in scanning
negatives, but I have an HP ScanJet IIcx that just performs wonderful for a
flatbed. I am thinking about buying an Epson 4180 ($200 USD after mir) My
HP has been wonderful for the last 10+ years, but the new HP scanners don't
appear to do a good job with negatives. (The cool factor is up there with
their see through models, just not their specs) I really do not want to buy
a dedicated film scanner because of their price.

Any comments?

A dedicated film scanner will give better images than a flat bed. Of
course, everybody has budget constraints...
Jim

 

[Chris Street]

A new low priced dedicated 35mm film scanner is the true optical
resolution 7200dpi Plustek OpticFilm 7200- looks excellent value at
£170 incl.vat. Has anyone tried it out on 35mm?
http://tinyurl.com/4a3h2

Chris Street

 

[Charlie]

A dedicated film scanner will give better images than a flat bed. Of
course, everybody has budget constraints...
Jim

Most people (me included) think you get a better image scanning a
print than scanning a 35 mm negative on a flat bed scanner.... so my
personal opinion is that you won't imporve your images any by getting
a new flat bed scanner. Save the $200, or if you want a small
imporvement in quality, buy a used HP Photosmart scanner. It will do a
decent job on 35 mm negatives... not quite as good as a good 35 mm
scanner, but better than a flat bed.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[RSD99]

"Charlie" posted:
"Most people (me included) think you get a better image
scanning a
print than scanning a 35 mm negative on a flat bed
scanner.... so my
personal opinion is that you won't imporve your images any
by getting
a new flat bed scanner. ..."

Excuse me ... but that doesn't look like a "flatbed scanner"
to me ...

Question:
Any test reports or reviews?

 

[degrub]

WHat do you want to do with the scanned images ? How large of a print
from the scanned image ?

Frank

 

[Charlie]

"Charlie" posted:
"Most people (me included) think you get a better image
scanning a
print than scanning a 35 mm negative on a flat bed
scanner.... so my
personal opinion is that you won't imporve your images any
by getting
a new flat bed scanner. ..."

Excuse me ... but that doesn't look like a "flatbed scanner"
to me ...

Question:
Any test reports or reviews?

"What" doesn't look like a flat bed scanner? The Epson 4180 "is" a
flat bed scanner, even if you define "is" the way Bill Clinton does.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[Charlie Klatzkin]

My main purpose to store my pictures (or negatives) on an optical media. I
know film (and paper) don't last forever, but on CD-R it should last for a
longer time. I know the life of a CD-R is limited by it environment and
use, but so is film and paper.

With scans on CD-R, I could reproduce pictures anytime. Or have TV
slideshows. Probably the largest hardcopy would be a standard 4x6 or 5x7.

 

[Charlie Klatzkin]

One last point. I have a bunch of pictures. Probably a negative for each
picture. Scanning a picture at a time would take a longer than scanning
10-12 35mm negatives at a time.

 

[degrub]

Either way, it sounds like you are better off with a decent flatbed.
Scanning prints is generally more straightforward than scanning
negatives, even though there is more information on the negative. If you
can make a go of it, you might consider a flat bed that has a
tranparency adapter that can do a decent job on negatives/slides. i
think most of the newer upper end Epsons can resolve enough detail to
support a 5 -6 X blow up of a negative (5x7 to 6x7.5 inch) for printing.

Frank

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Most people (me included) think you get a better image scanning a
print than scanning a 35 mm negative on a flat bed scanner....

Speak for yourself Charlie, you certainly aren't most people and I
suspect that most owners of the Epson 4180 would not agree with that at
all. Specifically it depends on the size of the print you are comparing
the 35mm negative with. 4x6" prints will never produce as good
resolution on that scanner as a direct scan of the original 35mm
negative that produced them. You would be hard pressed to get similar
performance from an 8x6 print and many 10x8s. And that is just on the
resolution front. In terms of dynamic range, there is far more
information in the negative than can is ever reproduced on a print. So
if you use the print as your original you are limiting yourself to only
the range of intensities that the original printer selected, cutting out
a lot of the information that the negative contains - and the Epson 4180
will easily tell the difference.

 

[RSD99]

My mistake ... I posted to the wrong thread.

I thought I was replying to a posting in the thread (above)
about the Plustek 7200.

 

[Hecate]

My main purpose to store my pictures (or negatives) on an optical media. I
know film (and paper) don't last forever, but on CD-R it should last for a
longer time. I know the life of a CD-R is limited by it environment and
use, but so is film and paper.

AN archival print will last far longer than any CDR. Indeed, many
people are complaining that their CDRs are unusable after 2 or 3
years.

You would have better luck with a DVD, but there's no information to
show that even those will last anywhere near as long as an archival
print.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

AN archival print will last far longer than any CDR. Indeed, many
people are complaining that their CDRs are unusable after 2 or 3
years.

I am sure this is a matter of storage and abuse. All of the failed CDs
I have ever seen have had physical damage to them or have had labels
stuck on them. As a matter of good practice, the only part of the CD I
ever write on is the transparent hub and I never use labels. It might
be a coincidence that I have CDs recorded about 8 years ago that are
still readable. If only the software that decodes the information on
them ran on a modern OS they would be fine. ;-)

 

[Thomas F. Unke]

I am sure this is a matter of storage and abuse. All of the failed CDs
I have ever seen have had physical damage to them or have had labels
stuck on them.

I believed so too until I have experienced a failure of a rather new
CD-R (one year or so). There was no scratch, no storage abuse, no
dust. I tried several CD-drives too.

Since that experience, I'm careful with CD-Rs. I also don't buy the
cheapies anymore (the failed CD-R was a cheapie)

BTW: CD-RWs fail really often!

 

[Hecate]

I am sure this is a matter of storage and abuse. All of the failed CDs
I have ever seen have had physical damage to them or have had labels
stuck on them. As a matter of good practice, the only part of the CD I
ever write on is the transparent hub and I never use labels. It might
be a coincidence that I have CDs recorded about 8 years ago that are
still readable. If only the software that decodes the information on
them ran on a modern OS they would be fine. ;-)

LOL!.

I have seen problems caused with the dye layers, and have read
reports of mould damage in hot, wet climates. I'm sure some of it has
to do with damage, but some of it has to do with poor manufacturing
standards for no-name disks.

DVDs do seem more reliable because of the method of manufacture.

 

[Mike Engles]

I believed so too until I have experienced a failure of a rather new
CD-R (one year or so). There was no scratch, no storage abuse, no
dust. I tried several CD-drives too.

Since that experience, I'm careful with CD-Rs. I also don't buy the
cheapies anymore (the failed CD-R was a cheapie)

BTW: CD-RWs fail really often!

Hello

Also don't record at too high a speed. There is a optimum speed for any
combination of CDR blank and CD writer. If you have a Plextor drive it
comes with analysis software that wil do error checks.

Mike Engles