Scanning vs. Digital Camera for Copying Slides, Negatives and Prints

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by RH Horn, May 3, 2004.

  1. RH Horn

    RH Horn Guest

    I am interested inconverting all my slides, negatives and prints to
    digital images. I have a family heritage or legacy I want to leave to
    my children.

    I was thinking once my pictures were converted I could burn a CD or
    DVD with family talking about the pictures, ad music and menu to allow
    my family to search the family photo album. This way I could burn
    copies instead of passing the photo album around.

    A friend of mine has a flatbed scanner but it seems to take him
    forever for scanning wand to move over the slide, negative or print.
    He just recently bought a device called ShotCopy when seems to work
    great! Just drop it in and click. He usese his own digital camera
    which macro focus. The ShotCopy he bougth can be found at
    http://www.shotcopy.com

    I've been watching digital cameras and they seem to be getting much
    better going from 1 to 8 mega pixels (and I've heard there are some
    out there that go to 13 mega pixels.

    My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    with a scanned image? Are there any other pitfalls I should be aware
    of if I choose to use a digital camera to copy my slides, negatives
    and prints instead of a scanner?

    Thanks for your help,

    Roberto
     
    RH Horn, May 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RH Horn

    Jim Guest

    "RH Horn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    > with a scanned image?

    None. I regularly get about 12 Megapixels with my Coolscan IV ED, and it
    only provides 2900 dpi.

    By the way, if you should decide to store the images on a CD, don't for a
    moment think that these devices are as archival as film.

    Jim
     
    Jim, May 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. In article <S4ylc.23914$>,
    says...
    >
    > "RH Horn" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    > > with a scanned image?

    > None. I regularly get about 12 Megapixels with my Coolscan IV ED, and it
    > only provides 2900 dpi.


    11.2 MP max, to be exact, but who's counting :)

    Mac
     
    Mac McDougald, May 3, 2004
    #3
  4. RH Horn

    Joe Rooney Guest

    "Mac McDougald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <S4ylc.23914$>,
    > says...
    > >
    > > "RH Horn" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    > > > with a scanned image?

    > > None. I regularly get about 12 Megapixels with my Coolscan IV ED, and

    it
    > > only provides 2900 dpi.

    >
    > 11.2 MP max, to be exact, but who's counting :)
    >
    > Mac


    I recall reading about a slide adapter for the Nikon 990 which made for a
    small package, but I tried and tried with my Olympus 3040 to get as close to
    no avail.

    I finally got a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II at B&H for a price, at the time,
    rivaled what they were going for on ebay. I recently scanned a bunch of
    Vietnam Kodachromes for a friend and it made 30meg tiffs.

    It doesn't do dark slides very well, but I firgured if I ran across the
    mother of all slides, I'd have it scanned professionally.

    Joe
    Santa Clara, California
     
    Joe Rooney, May 4, 2004
    #4
  5. RH Horn

    bmoag Guest

    Theoretically there is no reason a slide duplicating attachment for a film
    slr should not work with a digital slr. Theoretically this would be a lot
    faster than any film or flat bed scanner. Realistically the quality will not
    be as good as with a dedicated scanner but probably very good indeed.
     
    bmoag, May 4, 2004
    #5
  6. On Mon, 03 May 2004 20:38:10 GMT, "Jim" <> wrote:

    >
    >"RH Horn" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    >> with a scanned image?

    >None. I regularly get about 12 Megapixels with my Coolscan IV ED, and it
    >only provides 2900 dpi.
    >
    >By the way, if you should decide to store the images on a CD, don't for a
    >moment think that these devices are as archival as film.



    A "decent" 35 film scanner needn't set you back
    more than a few hundred $ and will probably do
    a better job than the digicam approach. That's
    my guess, anyway.

    6 million pixels works out to around 2000 dpi
    "equivalent" for scanning a 35 mm frame.
    That's OK but easy to beat with any dedicated
    film scanner.

    A 4000 dpi film scanner is will give 20 million
    "real" RGB pixels, as opposed to the digicam
    which gives 6 million RGB pixels from 1.5
    million RGBG groups.

    If you go the digicam and slide-copying route, I would
    be very interested in seeing your results, however, or
    even posting them on my site of "scan samples."


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    scan samples
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
     
    Raphael Bustin, May 4, 2004
    #6
  7. On 3 May 2004 12:10:11 -0700, (RH Horn) declaimed
    the following in soc.genealogy.computing:


    > My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    > with a scanned image? Are there any other pitfalls I should be aware


    Meaningless question.

    What size is the hypothetical scanned image? 8x10, 4x6?
    What resolution is the scanner running at?
    What is the end use of the image? Screen, photo-grade printer?

    For example, a 4x6 scanned at 600DPI can be reset to 300DPI
    (with no interpolation "resampling") to produce a photo-grade 8x12
    print.

    That same 4x6, scanned at 300DPI, will be too big to view on
    even the highest resolution monitor (it would be 1200x1800 pixels).

    This also gives you a hint of digi-cam needs -- to get the
    effect of scanning that 4x6 at 300DPI, using a digi-cam, will require a
    camera with over 1200x1800 pixels (you'll want an edge margin for
    trimming). Call it a 2.5Mpixel camera. To do that 4x6 @600DPI will
    require closer to a 9Mpixel camera.

    > of if I choose to use a digital camera to copy my slides, negatives
    > and prints instead of a scanner?


    Forget macro mode (and forget wide-angle too) -- it will add
    distortion (macro mode on common digi-cams is 2-8 inches. The best
    results for copying will occur using the telephoto and stepping back
    from the image. The less the difference between lens-to-image-center vs
    lens-to-image-corner the flatter the image will appear. Have you ever
    seen those images of a dog sniffing at a camera lens, and how the nose
    looks really huge while the ears are small... Using macro/wide-angle to
    get close to a photo will do the same thing -- the corners, which are
    further away from the lens, will look smaller relative to the center of
    the image.

    --
    > ============================================================== <
    > | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
    > | Bestiaria Support Staff <
    > ============================================================== <
    > Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
    > Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/> <
     
    Dennis Lee Bieber, May 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Dennis Lee Bieber <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 3 May 2004 12:10:11 -0700, (RH Horn)
    > declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:
    >
    >

    <SNIP items not relating to my verbose comments below :) >

    > Forget macro mode (and forget wide-angle too) -- it will add
    > distortion (macro mode on common digi-cams is 2-8 inches. The best
    > results for copying will occur using the telephoto and stepping
    > back from the image. The less the difference between
    > lens-to-image-center vs lens-to-image-corner the flatter the image
    > will appear. Have you ever seen those images of a dog sniffing at
    > a camera lens, and how the nose looks really huge while the ears
    > are small... Using macro/wide-angle to get close to a photo will
    > do the same thing -- the corners, which are further away from the
    > lens, will look smaller relative to the center of the image.


    That is in fact a function of the lens design, not the perspective
    effect.

    As long any given off-axis angle to a point on the object translates
    to the identical (or exactly proportional) off-axis angle to a point
    on the image regardless of where the point is, there will be no
    distortion. For instance, an object point 22 degrees off axis should
    give an image point 22*A degrees off axis, and an object point 39
    degrees off axis should give an image point 39*A degrees off axis,
    where A is a constant for a given lens. "A" would be 1.0 for a
    normal lens, greater than 1.0 for a true telephoto, less than 1.0
    for a retrofocus wide angle lens, and depending on focal length for
    a zoom. An example of what I mean is the fisheye lens, which is
    purposely designed to have this distortion in an extreme amount, so
    that A is not constant, but diminishes the farther from the optical
    axis you go.

    What you described is in fact an effect of the change of perspective
    with change in image distance, and happens when imaging three-
    dimensional objects. It is not dependent on lens design, but on
    plain old geometry.

    Designing a zoom lens to have this rectilinear property at all focal
    lengths, and any lens to have it at all distances, is not easy, even
    in this day of computer-aided design. In fact, it's *very*
    difficult...

    Another problem is curvature of field, which tends to be worse at
    closer distances. This is a change of focal length with the off-axis
    angle, and its main result is that the corners of a flat object will
    be out of focus when the center is OK, and vice versa. There are
    cameras whose film carriers are curved to deal with this. The
    original Minox spy camera and astronomers' original Schmidt
    telescopes (not the modern Schmidt-Cassegrains such as Celestron)
    come to mind.

    In any case, I definitely agree that stepping farther back from a
    flat object and using longer focal lengths to compensate will
    normally produce better results :0)

    BTW, expensive copy lenses are fixed-focal-length lenses which are
    designed to have (among other good things) no rectilinear distortion
    and no curvature of field. They are also typically of relatively
    long focal length and relatively small aperture, such as f:8, which
    simplifies the design problems.

    HTH,
    Gino



    > --
    > > ============================================================== <
    > > | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
    > > | Bestiaria Support Staff <
    > > ============================================================== <
    > > Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
    > > Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/> <

    >




    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
    Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com
     
    Gene E. Bloch, May 4, 2004
    #8
  9. RH Horn

    David Chien Guest

    Re: Scanning vs. Digital Camera for Copying Slides, Negatives andPrints

    Any of the Nikon CoolPix series that swivel (eg. older 9xx series, newer
    5xxx series) that have the slide copier adapter will do.

    eg. http://www.goldendolphin.com/weblog/CP5700/CP5700.htm

    Other slide copiers:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/happenstance.html

    http://www.dcresource.com/SlideCopier/index.html

    http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=124

    http://shop.store.yahoo.com/specialtyphotographic/inforsomoca.html

    http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_main/ome-96msv.html

    ----

    You can find many other examples online -- basically, even a 2MP digital
    camera does a good enough job for most screen & 4x6" reprint purposes
    that you don't have to worry about the resolution, etc.

    Naturally, the closer you get towards 8MP and higher, the better your
    digital camera snapshots, but other than that, you do get far faster
    speed of captures vs. scanning.
     
    David Chien, May 4, 2004
    #9
  10. On 3 May 2004 12:10:11 -0700, (RH Horn) wrote:

    >I am interested inconverting all my slides, negatives and prints to
    >digital images. I have a family heritage or legacy I want to leave to
    >my children.
    >

    There are quite a few who are now doing that, including myself.
    I've started a page on this subject, but have a ways to go. I really
    haven't addressed the issues of using a camera/copy stand/slide
    duplicator yet, but I'm planning on doing so.
    http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm is the start.
    It currently should help any one considering this as a project as to
    how to start.

    I'll offer some information, but you are going to have to make your
    own decision and selection. For one, you haven't provided near enough
    information for any one to answer the questions directly.

    >I was thinking once my pictures were converted I could burn a CD or
    >DVD with family talking about the pictures, ad music and menu to allow


    This works if you don't have a lot of old family photos. In my case I
    have tens of thousands of slides and half again as many negatives.
    Then I have two very large boxes of prints dating back to a few
    tintypes as well as what is often referred to as "petrified cardboard"
    prints. I'm guessing I may have a bit over a 100 pounds in old
    prints.

    >my family to search the family photo album. This way I could burn
    >copies instead of passing the photo album around.


    If you are thinking of something on this order you want to make
    *MULTIPLE* copies to pass around and keep at least TWO
    in separate, safe places. CDs and DVDs are easily damaged and passing
    them around much is almost a guarantee they will get trashed sooner or
    later.

    >
    >A friend of mine has a flatbed scanner but it seems to take him
    >forever for scanning wand to move over the slide, negative or print.
    >He just recently bought a device called ShotCopy when seems to work
    >great! Just drop it in and click. He usese his own digital camera
    >which macro focus. The ShotCopy he bougth can be found at
    >http://www.shotcopy.com


    In my own opinion this would be a waste of time. He's making very
    low resolution copies of slides on a digicam which would be low
    resolution for even a computer screen. A "slide duplicator" probably
    cost little more and would do a much better job.

    There are a number of devices used for copying slides and old
    photographs with varying degrees of success.

    To do it justice you really need a camera and copy stand.
    For slides there are "slide duplicators" that fit cameras that take
    interchangeable lenses and do a good job.
    However the first question you need to ask, is just what kind of
    resolution do you want or need in the finished product?
    Do you want something good enough to make 8 X 10s, or are you just
    interested in images good enough to display on a computer screen?
    This one is 1280 X 1024 which for a full height image is going to be
    close to a 1.6 megapixel image and allows no room for error. In a few
    years I'd expect to see twice that resolution so with a good setup I'd
    want at least twice the resolution, or an absolute minimum of 3.2
    megapixels for images just to display on a screen.

    IF OTOH you want images good enough to make prints up to 8 X 10 that
    means at 300 dpi for the print you should be thinking of a minimum of
    2400 X 3000 for a 7.2 mega pixel sensor. Actually you can get by
    quite nicely using a 5 megapixel camera.

    Remember too that 35mm slides are 1 by 1 1/2 inches which is a
    different aspect ratio that any digital cameras with which I am
    familiar.

    Copy stands in the hands of an experienced photographer do very well,
    but again it depends on what you want for the finished product.
    One thing I do want to point out and that is you will not come near
    the resolution of the original slide with most digital cameras. OTOH
    that may not be your goal.

    >
    >I've been watching digital cameras and they seem to be getting much
    >better going from 1 to 8 mega pixels (and I've heard there are some
    >out there that go to 13 mega pixels.


    IF you are talking high resolution you are talking a lot more than a
    simple Point and shoot (P&S) camera. You are talking money from both
    the camera and computer standpoint. Large, high resolution images
    take up a lot of space on hard drives and when put on CDs or DVDs.

    >
    >My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    >with a scanned image? Are there any other pitfalls I should be aware
    >of if I choose to use a digital camera to copy my slides, negatives
    >and prints instead of a scanner?


    This is kinda, sorta, an open ended question, but I can understand
    asking in this fashion. It's just that to properly answer it will
    take a lot of space.

    First, comparing cameras to scanned images. "It's very difficult to
    do". Scanners come in a wide variety of resolutions (dots per inch or
    dpi) and a considerable range of costs.

    Most of today's flat bed scanners will scan 2400 dpi. In general that
    is a useless resolution as it's rare to find something to scan in a
    flat bed that has that kind of detail.

    For example, if you scan a 4 X 5 inch print at 2400 dpi that is 9600
    by 12,000, or 115,200,000 (115 megapixels) and would take several
    hundred megabytes of Hard drive space at an 8 bit color depth. That
    is roughly 4 or 5 images on a CD. You will find few people who could
    afford a camera that could do that.

    So, from that approach you can not find a practical equivalent camera,
    BUT you don't need that kind of resolution even for large prints.

    Again, without knowing your goal as far as the final product it is
    almost impossible to answer in specific terms, but "in general you
    don't need to scan over 300 dpi on a flat bed. That makes a 4 X 5
    1200 by 1500 pixels or about the same as a high resolution screen
    display. Don't expect to scan a small image at high resolution and
    then create a high quality enlargement. Physics just doesn't work that
    way.

    I have seen a number of flat beds that come with a film strip adapter.
    My HP 5470c has one, but I've yet to see one I cared for. I use a
    Nikon LS 5000 ED scanner, but it is a tad more than most want to spend
    of scanning the "old family slides". It's also 4000 dpi which results
    in a TIFF of about 64 megs for each image. I have a bulk feeder for
    slides and it took me 6 weeks to get most of the slides scanned in
    which take up well over 100 Gig. That is approximately 25 DVDs.

    When it comes to using a copy stand you need to get it all properly
    aligned, the camera precisely leveled and the old photos aligned
    precisely at right angles to the camera lens axis. Although the
    process works very well you need a way to position the old prints
    properly, two and preferably four photo floods to light the old prints
    and a good size piece of non reflective glass to cover them. The glass
    holds the photos flat and helps to eliminate reflections from the
    room.

    Although your friend's flat bed may seem slow, setting up and using a
    copy stand can make it look blazingly fast.

    Using my flat bed I can copy about 4 prints a minute. The LS 5000 ED
    will do a slide including preview in about 20 seconds although I
    figure about 30 seconds. Then any post processing adds to that, but
    it does a fantastic job of "fixing" old, faded slides.

    There is a wide variety of dedicated slide and film strip scanners.
    The prices vary from cheap to pretty steep. The quality also varies.
    HOWEVER Unless you are aiming for the ultimate in resolution and want
    to archive the most information available in the images you really
    don't need the best on the market.

    You can purchase a very nice flat bed large enough to do legal
    documents and even a half way decent job on slides with resolutions on
    the order of 2400 dpi for a few hundred dollars. Say $200 to $300
    USD

    In the same price range you can purchase a very nice dedicated slide
    and film scanner.

    Look over the scanners and then look up the reviews on them and spend
    some time in the scanner news groups to see what people think of these
    scanners.

    There are some pros and cons. For one, regardless how it looks,
    *overall* scanning will be faster. OTOH although slower you can
    combine the functions and have a very nice digital camera for the same
    money.

    Myself, I much prefer the scanners when doing this kind of work. If
    very many slides and photos are involved it can be a long, tedious
    process that will require a lot of dedication to finish.
    In my case I figure I have at least another 6 months of scanning in
    negatives now that I have the slides scanned and then maybe as a
    kinda, sorta, SWAG another 3 months to do the old photos on the flat
    bed. Overall I'm looking at something on the order of a years project
    and I've been spending close to 3 hours a day on it and I have good,
    fast equipment.

    Good Luck and best wishes.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >
    >Thanks for your help,
    >
    >Roberto
     
    Roger Halstead, May 4, 2004
    #10
  11. RH Horn

    RSD99 Guest

    "Roger Halstead" posted:

    "... If you are thinking of something on this order you want to make
    *MULTIPLE* copies to pass around and keep at least TWO
    in separate, safe places. CDs and DVDs are easily damaged ..."

    YES!

    Also ... Don't forget that dye-based CDs & DVDs actually have a poor life expectancy.
    Metal-based CDRs and DVDs are *much* better.

    See
    http://www.inkjetart.com/kodak_cd.html

    One other possibility is to use CD-RW disks, and record them as standard ISO-9660 CDs
    (i.e., not using the CD-RW "Packet Writing" software). I believe they also use a metal
    reflective layer.
     
    RSD99, May 4, 2004
    #11
  12. RH Horn

    Dave Hinz Guest

    On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:25:39 GMT, RSD99 <> wrote:
    >
    > Also ... Don't forget that dye-based CDs & DVDs actually have a poor life expectancy.
    > Metal-based CDRs and DVDs are *much* better.


    And yet, the film that you're copying from is good for centuries rather
    than decades. Digitizing it is fine, great, makes for convenient
    distribution of the pictures, but please, _PLEASE_ don't destroy the
    originals. 20 years from now, the CD, DVD, or whatever you make
    today is going to be like trying to read open-reel data tape is
    today (not so likely), while 20 years from now, the photographs
    you copied to the computer will still be human readable, without
    trying to find hardware and OS to read it.

    > One other possibility is to use CD-RW disks, and record them as standard ISO-9660 CDs
    > (i.e., not using the CD-RW "Packet Writing" software). I believe they also use a metal
    > reflective layer.


    Unless you're going to arrange for generations of your descendants to
    have access to the right hardware and software to use the data, all
    they're going to find is a bunch of shiny disks they can't do anything
    with. Any data format needs to be renewed every decade at most, or
    it'll become worthless.

    It's a great distribution format, but a lousy archival one.

    Dave Hinz
     
    Dave Hinz, May 4, 2004
    #12
  13. On 4 May 2004 20:35:30 GMT, Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:25:39 GMT, RSD99 <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Also ... Don't forget that dye-based CDs & DVDs actually have a poor life expectancy.
    >> Metal-based CDRs and DVDs are *much* better.

    >
    >And yet, the film that you're copying from is good for centuries rather
    >than decades. Digitizing it is fine, great, makes for convenient
    >distribution of the pictures, but please, _PLEASE_ don't destroy the
    >originals. 20 years from now, the CD, DVD, or whatever you make


    This is a very good point. The life of film "in general" is very
    long, BUT much of that life depends on how it was processed and how it
    has been stored. I have prints that are a 100 years old and still
    look reasonably well, but I also have color slides (both Kodachrome
    and Ektachrome) that have faded badly. In another 20 years some of
    those will be past the point of recovery/restoration.

    Today there is a problem. Some would say it's almost panic in
    recovering microfilm and rare photos. *Some* and I emphasize the
    "some" vital records are becoming unreadable and there is a big push
    to get it digitized before it is lost.

    Unlike analog images, if a digital image can be read (depending on
    format) it can be copied to a new medium with relatively little
    effort. The idea is to keep the digital data refreshed and on
    up-to-date media.

    >today is going to be like trying to read open-reel data tape is
    >today (not so likely), while 20 years from now, the photographs
    >you copied to the computer will still be human readable, without
    >trying to find hardware and OS to read it.


    There are no hard and fast rules. I would liken the CDs to the old
    vinyl records ( 45, 78 and LP). They are still playable today
    although not many have good turntables anymore.

    >
    >> One other possibility is to use CD-RW disks, and record them as standard ISO-9660 CDs
    >> (i.e., not using the CD-RW "Packet Writing" software). I believe they also use a metal
    >> reflective layer.


    RW disks be they CD or DVD are not know for their long life for data
    retention or reliability. They are really magneto-optical, or I
    believe most are. In general RW disks are recommended for short term
    storage only and are not even recommended for short term back-ups.

    >
    >Unless you're going to arrange for generations of your descendants to
    >have access to the right hardware and software to use the data, all
    >they're going to find is a bunch of shiny disks they can't do anything
    >with. Any data format needs to be renewed every decade at most, or
    >it'll become worthless.


    According to Kodak and several other disk manufacturers their data
    would not need to be refreshed for many decades, but the stuff should
    be inspected periodically.

    >
    >It's a great distribution format, but a lousy archival one.


    Actually the Kodak Gold disks and several others make very good
    archival media. The very large corporation from which I retired used
    optical disks for archiving data. They also used it for back-ups in
    what is called a rolling back-up. They even changed from the magnetic
    tape back-ups to optical disks, yet maintained a huge library of tapes
    that were continually refreshed. It was interesting to watch the
    robot shuttling back and forth moving tapes to reader and back.

    Industry in general is moving to optical for archival work so the
    media is good. It's just the cheap stuff is relatively poor. Also CDs
    and DVDs are mechanically fragile and suffer from improper handeling.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    >
    >Dave Hinz
     
    Roger Halstead, May 6, 2004
    #13
  14. On Thu, 06 May 2004 04:14:20 GMT, Roger Halstead
    <> wrote:

    >On 4 May 2004 20:35:30 GMT, Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:25:39 GMT, RSD99 <> wrote:
    >>>

    A couple points I'd like to add about handeling CDs, DVDs and
    longevity.

    There are a number of things, as there are with film that determine
    how long a particular image may last.

    First, there is the quality of the base material.
    Newer materials does not necessarily mean better. Probably the best
    on the market *was* the Kodak gold disk. One of the reasons metal
    disks deteriorate is a poor coating over the top. Aluminum exposed to
    air oxidizes rapidly. Gold does not! The top of the CD (the part
    with the writing and logo) is the fragile part, not the clear side
    that most expect to be fragile. Actually the clear side can take a
    lot of abuse before problems develop, while the so called back side is
    very fragile. It is nothing more than a coat of a lacquer like
    substance over the metal used for burning the data. That surface can
    be damaged by stacking disks (like they are on spindles), or flexing
    as when they are removed from jewel cases. They some times flex a
    remarkable amount from a stubborn jewel case.

    Another thing that shortens the life, or can even ruin CDs is writing
    on the back surface with anything other than a felt tip marking pen
    with an alcohol based ink. Most pens exert enough force to damage the
    surface, or start the process of premature failure.

    Another don't is labels. Do not put adhesive labels on the surface.
    They may last for years, but again the industry says the adhesive
    materials can cause premature failure, IE hasten the aging process.

    DVDs (there is a good article on excite about this very topic) are
    usually much more rugged, BUT they come with their own weaknesses. One
    major weakness is flexing. DVDs are quite often created with the
    metallic surface, or surfaces, between two transparent layers. So
    you'd think they'd be very rugged, but flexing can cause premature
    separation of the layers and damage to the actual storage medium.

    CDs and DVDs should be stored in cool, dry locations. They should also
    be stored on edge, not horizontally, or stacked. (I'm going to need
    to turn my storage racks on their sides).

    Depending on the materials *some* DVDs and CDs can take a remarkable
    amount of heat and survive. Whether it hastens, or brings on early
    failure is pretty much conjecture for *some*. OTOH for most DVDs and
    CDs excessive heat is probably an early death sentence.

    It's too bad the really good ones such as the Kodak Gold are no longer
    available, or at least I can no longer locate any.

    I would like to find a *CURRENT* study of what is available brand and
    material wise and the expected life times. Something that compares
    the tested, or accelerated lifetime testing across the industry.

    It used to be if they were gold, or gold tinted you could expect
    quality, while green and blue meant relatively short lifetimes.

    As the Excite article mentioned, you can not depend on most brand
    names to provide the same material and quality from year to year, or
    possibly month to month. This is now a mass discount business dealing
    in quantity and narrow profit margins.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, May 6, 2004
    #14
  15. RH Horn

    RSD99 Guest

    "Roger Halstead" posted:
    "... Actually the Kodak Gold disks and several others make very good
    archival media. ..."

    True ... but AFAIK Kodak no longer furnishes them ... at least I cannot find any place to
    actually BUY them! [PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, and provide a source URL, etcetera
    ....]








    "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 4 May 2004 20:35:30 GMT, Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:25:39 GMT, RSD99 <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Also ... Don't forget that dye-based CDs & DVDs actually have a poor life expectancy.
    > >> Metal-based CDRs and DVDs are *much* better.

    > >
    > >And yet, the film that you're copying from is good for centuries rather
    > >than decades. Digitizing it is fine, great, makes for convenient
    > >distribution of the pictures, but please, _PLEASE_ don't destroy the
    > >originals. 20 years from now, the CD, DVD, or whatever you make

    >
    > This is a very good point. The life of film "in general" is very
    > long, BUT much of that life depends on how it was processed and how it
    > has been stored. I have prints that are a 100 years old and still
    > look reasonably well, but I also have color slides (both Kodachrome
    > and Ektachrome) that have faded badly. In another 20 years some of
    > those will be past the point of recovery/restoration.
    >
    > Today there is a problem. Some would say it's almost panic in
    > recovering microfilm and rare photos. *Some* and I emphasize the
    > "some" vital records are becoming unreadable and there is a big push
    > to get it digitized before it is lost.
    >
    > Unlike analog images, if a digital image can be read (depending on
    > format) it can be copied to a new medium with relatively little
    > effort. The idea is to keep the digital data refreshed and on
    > up-to-date media.
    >
    > >today is going to be like trying to read open-reel data tape is
    > >today (not so likely), while 20 years from now, the photographs
    > >you copied to the computer will still be human readable, without
    > >trying to find hardware and OS to read it.

    >
    > There are no hard and fast rules. I would liken the CDs to the old
    > vinyl records ( 45, 78 and LP). They are still playable today
    > although not many have good turntables anymore.
    >
    > >
    > >> One other possibility is to use CD-RW disks, and record them as standard ISO-9660 CDs
    > >> (i.e., not using the CD-RW "Packet Writing" software). I believe they also use a

    metal
    > >> reflective layer.

    >
    > RW disks be they CD or DVD are not know for their long life for data
    > retention or reliability. They are really magneto-optical, or I
    > believe most are. In general RW disks are recommended for short term
    > storage only and are not even recommended for short term back-ups.
    >
    > >
    > >Unless you're going to arrange for generations of your descendants to
    > >have access to the right hardware and software to use the data, all
    > >they're going to find is a bunch of shiny disks they can't do anything
    > >with. Any data format needs to be renewed every decade at most, or
    > >it'll become worthless.

    >
    > According to Kodak and several other disk manufacturers their data
    > would not need to be refreshed for many decades, but the stuff should
    > be inspected periodically.
    >
    > >
    > >It's a great distribution format, but a lousy archival one.

    >
    > Actually the Kodak Gold disks and several others make very good
    > archival media. The very large corporation from which I retired used
    > optical disks for archiving data. They also used it for back-ups in
    > what is called a rolling back-up. They even changed from the magnetic
    > tape back-ups to optical disks, yet maintained a huge library of tapes
    > that were continually refreshed. It was interesting to watch the
    > robot shuttling back and forth moving tapes to reader and back.
    >
    > Industry in general is moving to optical for archival work so the
    > media is good. It's just the cheap stuff is relatively poor. Also CDs
    > and DVDs are mechanically fragile and suffer from improper handeling.
    >
    > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    > www.rogerhalstead.com
    > >
    > >Dave Hinz

    >
     
    RSD99, May 6, 2004
    #15
  16. RH Horn

    Toby Guest

    None of the optics for digicams (unless you go with a very expensive model
    to which you can attach a macro lens with bellows and slide adapter) is well
    corrected for copying, nor are the file sizes comparable to what you get out
    of a modest film scanner.

    Toby

    "RH Horn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am interested inconverting all my slides, negatives and prints to
    > digital images. I have a family heritage or legacy I want to leave to
    > my children.
    >
    > I was thinking once my pictures were converted I could burn a CD or
    > DVD with family talking about the pictures, ad music and menu to allow
    > my family to search the family photo album. This way I could burn
    > copies instead of passing the photo album around.
    >
    > A friend of mine has a flatbed scanner but it seems to take him
    > forever for scanning wand to move over the slide, negative or print.
    > He just recently bought a device called ShotCopy when seems to work
    > great! Just drop it in and click. He usese his own digital camera
    > which macro focus. The ShotCopy he bougth can be found at
    > http://www.shotcopy.com
    >
    > I've been watching digital cameras and they seem to be getting much
    > better going from 1 to 8 mega pixels (and I've heard there are some
    > out there that go to 13 mega pixels.
    >
    > My question is, what digital camera should I buy that would equate
    > with a scanned image? Are there any other pitfalls I should be aware
    > of if I choose to use a digital camera to copy my slides, negatives
    > and prints instead of a scanner?
    >
    > Thanks for your help,
    >
    > Roberto
     
    Toby, May 6, 2004
    #16
  17. "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > It's too bad the really good ones such as the Kodak Gold are no longer
    > available, or at least I can no longer locate any.


    Kodak stopped producing them.

    > I would like to find a *CURRENT* study of what is available brand and
    > material wise and the expected life times. Something that compares
    > the tested, or accelerated lifetime testing across the industry.


    I can't offer an independent study, but do hear a lot of favorable things
    about the MAM (Mitsui Advanced Media Manufacturing) CDs (Phthalocyanine dye
    and Gold reflective layer).
    http://www.xdr2.com/CDR-Info/Dye.htm
    http://www.mam-e.com/web/mam-e_cd-r_golden_dye.phtml
    http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/biblio.html

    Bart


    > It used to be if they were gold, or gold tinted you could expect
    > quality, while green and blue meant relatively short lifetimes.
    >
    > As the Excite article mentioned, you can not depend on most brand
    > names to provide the same material and quality from year to year, or
    > possibly month to month. This is now a mass discount business dealing
    > in quantity and narrow profit margins.
    >
    > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    > www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 6, 2004
    #17
  18. RH Horn

    RSD99 Guest

    "Toby" posted
    "... None of the optics for digicams (unless you go with a very expensive model
    to which you can attach a macro lens with bellows and slide adapter) is well
    corrected for copying, ..."

    True.

    That would probably be a PhaseOne or Betterlight "Scanning" back on a high-end studio view
    camera, with a corresponding high-end lens (such as a Schneider Apo Symmar or a "process"
    lens). Figure on the cost being roughly the same as a new car ... and *not* an economy
    car!


    http://www.betterlight.com/

    http://www.digital-photography.org/PhaseOne_4x5_in_digital_cameras/PhaseOne_Digital_Camera
    ..htm

    http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/camera_scanner_accessories/digital_camera_PhaseOne.h
    tm
     
    RSD99, May 6, 2004
    #18
  19. On Thu, 06 May 2004 06:54:01 GMT, "RSD99" <>
    wrote:

    >"Roger Halstead" posted:
    >"... Actually the Kodak Gold disks and several others make very good
    >archival media. ..."
    >
    >True ... but AFAIK Kodak no longer furnishes them ... at least I cannot find any place to
    >actually BUY them! [PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, and provide a source URL, etcetera


    Sorry,

    Unfortunately I mistyped and forgot to say that the gold disks are no
    longer available, which is pretty much due to the market being a bulk
    item with narrow profit margins now days.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, May 6, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <>, Delete-
    says...
    > On Thu, 06 May 2004 06:54:01 GMT, "RSD99" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Roger Halstead" posted:
    > >"... Actually the Kodak Gold disks and several others make very good
    > >archival media. ..."
    > >
    > >True ... but AFAIK Kodak no longer furnishes them ... at least I cannot find any place to
    > >actually BUY them! [PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, and provide a source URL, etcetera

    >
    > Sorry,
    >
    > Unfortunately I mistyped and forgot to say that the gold disks are no
    > longer available, which is pretty much due to the market being a bulk
    > item with narrow profit margins now days.


    A word on these...I bought a couple hundred of them from Kodak at
    discount when they were phasing them out.

    One drawback...they are only certified for a certain write speed (maybe
    8x?) Not sure...I still have old 4x SCSI burner, so haven't worried about
    it yet. Stilll have maybe 150 of them left.

    But dig this. I had some in a CD portfolio, one of those GoreTex like
    thingies with plastic page holders. Along with maybe 40 non Kodak Gold
    ones. Several of the Kodaks stuck to the plastic on the top side, where
    you write. Peeled off top surface of the CD in splotches. Ruined them.
    And the case never was in really hot situation, maybe 80 degrees for
    short durations.

    Mac
     
    Mac McDougald, May 7, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy

    Scanning black & white negatives

    Andy, Feb 6, 2004, in forum: Scanners
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,570
  2. Lew
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    553
  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Koch?=

    Problem Scanning Negatives with Agfa Snapscan 1236 and Scanwise

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Koch?=, May 17, 2004, in forum: Scanners
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    530
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Koch?=
    May 17, 2004
  4. Roger Halstead

    Scanning thin negatives and Vuescan

    Roger Halstead, Jul 20, 2004, in forum: Scanners
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,266
    Billman
    Jul 20, 2004
  5. im5150too

    Old prints and negatives

    im5150too, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Scanners
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    248
    im5150too
    Sep 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page