so now that film is dead..........

[SwampYankee]

What is he best film/slide scanner I could get on ebay for a reasonable
price? Got lots of Kodachrome and film negatives. Running Vista on a
core duo with 2gb ram. Don't want to spend a fortune but I think maybe I
could get something I could only dream about a few years ago. How about:
somewhat fast
great resolution
Vista compatible
what say you group

 

[babaloo]

You are probably aware Kodachrome is problematic for film scanners.
When you see a unit you are interested in research reviews on the web for
the unit's ability to handle Kodachrome.

 

[Roger S.]

For 35mm the Nikon Coolscan V remains pretty much the only game in
town. Should be usable for Kodachrome if you're patient and take the
time to get each scan right.

 

[MoiMoi]

You are probably aware Kodachrome is problematic for film scanners.
When you see a unit you are interested in research reviews on the web for
the unit's ability to handle Kodachrome.

The only real problem "handling" Kodachrome is that ICE (and FARE, I
guess) have probs with it. So you'll generally do all your dust and
scratch cleanup by hand, although VueScan clean function does a pretty
credible job on certain vintages of Kodachrome, if it was processed
properly in the first place.

MM

 

[SwampYankee]

The only real problem "handling" Kodachrome is that ICE (and FARE, I
guess) have probs with it. So you'll generally do all your dust and
scratch cleanup by hand, although VueScan clean function does a pretty
credible job on certain vintages of Kodachrome, if it was processed
properly in the first place.

MM

No problem with the hand cleanup. I find the work satisfying and it lets
me spend quality time with these fond memories. Even if I don't do the
cleanup now, I'd rather have a great digital scan in the bank and I'll
'get to it' sometime.
Most of my stuff is on Kodachrome 25 (and on a tripod, a bitch at the
time, but looks great now!) and has held up well. What are the specific
problems with getting a good scan of Kodachrome.

 

[tomm42]

No problem with the hand cleanup. I find the work satisfying and it lets
me spend quality time with these fond memories. Even if I don't do the
cleanup now, I'd rather have a great digital scan in the bank and I'll
'get to it' sometime.
Most of my stuff is on Kodachrome 25 (and on a tripod, a bitch at the
time, but looks great now!) and has held up well. What are the specific
problems with getting a good scan of Kodachrome.

Problem with Vista, only the more recent scanners have drivers, don't
know how Vista handles SCSI either, suspect not well. The Nikon V or
LS5000 are good scanners, but not that cheap. Also look at the Epson
V700, an excellent flatbed/film scanner, the first one to come in the
range of stand alone slide scanners. Digital Ice 4 will handle
Kodachrome, all three of the above scanners have it. The only drag
about DI is that it takes twice the scanning time of a non DI scan.If
your slides are relatively clean don't bother with it, if you have old
dusty slides it is an incredible tool.

Tom

 

[David Blanchard]

Most of my stuff is on Kodachrome 25 (and on a tripod, a bitch at the
time, but looks great now!) and has held up well. What are the
specific problems with getting a good scan of Kodachrome.

If you check the archives of this newsgroup you will find an immense
amount of information pertaining to the problems folks have had
scanning Kodachrome. Some scanners are better than others; newer
models are better than older models.

As already mentioned, Digital ICE does not always work with
Kodachrome. Also, some scanners have difficulty penetrating the
emulsion and result in dark scans. Some scanners would have a bluish
cast to all scans.

My personal experience is that scanning Kodachrome with the Nikon
LS-2000 was time-consuming and not always satisfactory. Digital ICE
did not always work, the scans were often dark, and there was a color
cast. Since upgrading to the Nikon 5000 ED, the results are
substantially improved. Better scans, ICE works well, the bluish cast
is gone.

Save yourself some time and frustration and spend some extra money for
a higher-end, better quality scanner.

-db-

 

[Barry Watzman]

Re: "My personal experience is that scanning Kodachrome with the Nikon
LS-2000 was time-consuming and not always satisfactory. Digital ICE did
not always work, the scans were often dark, and there was a color cast.
Since upgrading to the Nikon 5000 ED, the results are substantially
improved. Save yourself some time and frustration and spend some extra
money for a higher-end, better quality scanner."

Cost of an LS-2000 in mint condition, cleaned, lubricated & tested with
accessories: About $160, give or take. (yes, you can find them for $60,
untested, uncleaned, unlubricated and minus accessories. Very few of
them in that condition work at all, for anything, and that's what you
get for that price .... I repair them)

Cost of a 5000 ED: $1,000 (give or take)

Damn, it should be better. It costs about 6 times more.

Granted, a device that won't do the job is no bargain at any price, but
lots of people can't afford a $1,000 device for this purpose.

 

[Roger S.]

Cost of a 5000 ED: $1,000 (give or take)

Granted, a device that won't do the job is no bargain at any price, but
lots of people can't afford a $1,000 device for this purpose.

Then they should find a new or used Coolscan V which is the next best
thing. That cuts the price in half.
Otherwise I'd send my slides to a place like digitalslides.net that's
able to afford decent hardware and spend my time on post-processing
the scans.

 

[Alan Browne]

What is he best film/slide scanner I could get on ebay for a reasonable
price? Got lots of Kodachrome and film negatives. Running Vista on a
core duo with 2gb ram. Don't want to spend a fortune but I think maybe I
could get something I could only dream about a few years ago. How about:
somewhat fast
great resolution
Vista compatible
what say you group

I've scanned a bunch and found the Minolta 5400 (not the II) to be
reliable (well over 5000 scans over 3 years) and usually easy to get
proper colors in both the Minolta and VueScan. Resolution was mostly
beyond the film. ICE was great. Scan speed a bit slower than the
Nikon's. Use Firewire. It scanned Kodachrome well (ICE not used).
Best used with Firewire and a fast processor (like an Athlon 4200
DualCore). This makes ICE scanning a lot faster.

The Nikon 9000 ED (replaced my Minolta 5400) is much faster than the
Minolta. I only got it to do MF, otherwise I would still have the
Minolta. I don't know how well it does K-chrome.

All that to say:
Look for:
Minolta 5400, but not the "II" version which has a poor reliability record.
Nikon V, 5000

The Nikons, at slightly less res than the Minolta's are faster at scanning.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[DenverDad]

What are the specific
problems with getting a good scan of Kodachrome.

Unlike what some have reported, I haven't ever had a problem with my
scanner not being able to "penetrate" a Kodachrome slide or the scans
coming out particularly dark (relative to other emulsions). For me,
scanning Kodachorme is pretty much like scanning any other positive
film, at least in that respect. Instead, the big issue whith
Kodachrome is the effectiveness of infrared dust cleaning (FARE in my
case, as I have a Canon scanner), which tends to produce strange
artifacts. It seems that the infrared "sees" crystal patterns in the
emulsion and tries to correct them, as if they were dust. The
resulting artifacts, if too pronounced, tend to make the IR cleaning
not worth the effort. But the problem varies a lot. Some report that
it depends on the specific Kodachorme emulsion you have and it may
even vary from one slide to the next in a given roll. In some cases
the IR cleaning will render the scan unusable, while in others the
artifacts may so minimal as to be insignificant. I think the bottom
line is that it really depends on how dirty your slides are, and how
much custom spotting you are willing to do. It may also depend
somewhat on the resolution of your scan and how much detail you are
trying to bring out (you probably won't see the artifacts at lower
resolution).

Hope that helps!

Jeff

 

[jeremy]

Unlike what some have reported, I haven't ever had a problem with my
scanner not being able to "penetrate" a Kodachrome slide or the scans
coming out particularly dark (relative to other emulsions). For me,
scanning Kodachorme is pretty much like scanning any other positive
film, at least in that respect. Instead, the big issue whith
Kodachrome is the effectiveness of infrared dust cleaning (FARE in my
case, as I have a Canon scanner), which tends to produce strange
artifacts.

My understanding is that ICE4 (not ICE3), which is available on some Nikon
scanners, has a better capability to scan Kodachrome slides. If one is
planning to scan lots of Kodachromes, that may be an important factor to
consider when making a buying decision.