Where get good advice?

[Mike Fox]

A bunch of us guys live in a retirement home, and together, we have 10
of thousands of 35mm slides. We want to copy the best of them to DVDs
and sent those to our kids.

Could someone tell us where to get some good advice on what equipment
and programs to buy. A bunch of us will go in on-the-buy, and we want
good equipment that's not difficult to run and will stand up to a lot
of use.

We're thinking of a good film scanner with auto-loader for slides, an
external USB 2 large hard drive, and an external DVD burner with
software to edit the image files and burn the files to DVDs in a
format that will play on TV DVD players. We have a computer lab with
some nice new computers, and we'd like to plug the equipment into the
USB ports and do our thing.


But we don't know a lot, and we don't want to buy a lot of problems--

Advice?

 

[rafe b]

A bunch of us guys live in a retirement home, and together, we have 10
of thousands of 35mm slides. We want to copy the best of them to DVDs
and sent those to our kids.

[Snip]

The Nikon LS-5000 has an optional bulk loader for slides.
Probably your best bet for now.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Surfer!]

A bunch of us guys live in a retirement home, and together, we have 10
of thousands of 35mm slides. We want to copy the best of them to DVDs
and sent those to our kids.

[Snip]

The Nikon LS-5000 has an optional bulk loader for slides.
Probably your best bet for now.

It does need a bit of nursing to feed some slides (and a slight adaption
with an old credit card), but is quick & easy compared to feeding them
one by one by hand. I found that the few Nikon 5000s that came up on
Ebay were too close to the best new price I could get one for, so I
brought mine new. However I got an SF-200 slide feeder via Ebay for
less than 50% of the best new prices.

The LS-5000 works with both the SF-200 and the SF-210. The SF-200 works
with the LS-2000 as well, but the SF-210 is LS-4000 & LS-4000 only.

 

[Don]

A bunch of us guys live in a retirement home, and together, we have 10
of thousands of 35mm slides. We want to copy the best of them to DVDs
and sent those to our kids.

Could someone tell us where to get some good advice on what equipment
and programs to buy. A bunch of us will go in on-the-buy, and we want
good equipment that's not difficult to run and will stand up to a lot
of use.

We're thinking of a good film scanner with auto-loader for slides, an
external USB 2 large hard drive, and an external DVD burner with
software to edit the image files and burn the files to DVDs in a
format that will play on TV DVD players. We have a computer lab with
some nice new computers, and we'd like to plug the equipment into the
USB ports and do our thing.

But we don't know a lot, and we don't want to buy a lot of problems--

Advice?

As Rafe and Surfer noted Nikon 5000 seems like a good bet for the job.
The choice of film scanners has been shrinking of late but Nikons have
proven to be reliable and durable which is essential for such a large
number of slides.

Another advantage of Nikons is the type of light source they use to
illuminate the slides (LEDs). They don't burn out and don't
deteriorate over time so, in that respect, the first scan you do will
be as good as the last! Other types of light sources deteriorate and
change over time.

However, there is a fly in the ointment (as always). Nikons have
trouble with some (!) Kodachromes. They scan, all right, but they may
require a little bit more work in postprocessing.

Still, all things considered, the sharpness and quality of Nikon
scanners more than compensates for any inconvenience some Kodachromes
may cause.

Finally, depending on how much quality you guys want to pull out of
film, the scanning can get quite involved. So, stick around! The
volume of messages in this group is fairly low and there are some
quite knowledgeable people around who are more than willing to help
out.

Don.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Don

However, there is a fly in the ointment (as always). Nikons have
trouble with some (!) Kodachromes. They scan, all right, but they may
require a little bit more work in postprocessing.

It's not the Nikon that has the problems, but the Digital ICE which is a
mighty fine way of removing (mostly) marks from dirt and/or scratches.
The problem is that it uses an infra-red channel (as well as RGB) but
Kodachrome is opaque in varying degrees to IR, so those bits get
interpreted as 'dirt'. The problem would arise in *any* scanner using
Digital ICE.

The problem varies with both the Kodachrome (the recipe has changed over
the years) and also the shot itself. The same problems occur with
traditional black & white film - the sort that uses silver.

One thing I'd suggest, BTW, is to make sure you can be quite sure where
to find the original slide or negative for any image you've scanned, as
if it's a real peach (for whatever reason) you might find yourselves
wanting to go back and scan it again only with a lot more care and
experimentation and maybe a higher resolution.

 

[havefun]

Don wrote:

[snip]

Finally, depending on how much quality you guys want to pull out of
film, the scanning can get quite involved. So, stick around! The
volume of messages in this group is fairly low and there are some
quite knowledgeable people around who are more than willing to help
out.

Don.

As usual, Don is right on about the quality you want and the effort it
takes to get there. If you guys are really bored and want to learn
something new, by all means buy a scanner and be ready for a steep
learning curve. Watch out for stress build up, high blood pressure,
sleepless nights, blood shot eyes, sore backs and occasional fist
fights. All are evident here at this group. (Surgeon General should make
the scanner manufactures spell out such hazards.) Do not proceed without
checking with your MDs first.

OTOH, if the scans are intended for viewing on a computer or for making
no better than 4"x6" drug store quality prints, consider getting a lab
to do the scanning for you. In the old days, Kodak's Photo CD would be
the way to go at less than $1 per slide. These days there may be other
even less expensive alternatives. Get a CD made by such an outfit and
see if it works for you.

 

[Mike Fox]

For slides with that problem, can the Digital ICE be turned off?

 

[Mike Fox]

As Rafe and Surfer noted Nikon 5000 seems like a good bet for the job.
The choice of film scanners has been shrinking of late but Nikons have
proven to be reliable and durable which is essential for such a large
number of slides.

Another advantage of Nikons is the type of light source they use to
illuminate the slides (LEDs). They don't burn out and don't
deteriorate over time so, in that respect, the first scan you do will
be as good as the last! Other types of light sources deteriorate and
change over time.

However, there is a fly in the ointment (as always). Nikons have
trouble with some (!) Kodachromes. They scan, all right, but they may
require a little bit more work in postprocessing.

Still, all things considered, the sharpness and quality of Nikon
scanners more than compensates for any inconvenience some Kodachromes
may cause.

Finally, depending on how much quality you guys want to pull out of
film, the scanning can get quite involved. So, stick around! The
volume of messages in this group is fairly low and there are some
quite knowledgeable people around who are more than willing to help
out.

Don.

I think the Nikon's can do a 4000x4000dpi scan and that should be fine
for a room sized poster, but it seems excessive for our purposes.
Does anyone have experience with scanning slides and and showing them
on big screen TVs? What dpi is needed to give a good crisp image on a
high definition big screen TV?

Mike

 

[Surfer!]

For slides with that problem, can the Digital ICE be turned off?
Yes.

 

[Surfer!]

I think the Nikon's can do a 4000x4000dpi scan and that should be fine
for a room sized poster, but it seems excessive for our purposes. Does
anyone have experience with scanning slides and and showing them on big
screen TVs? What dpi is needed to give a good crisp image on a high
definition big screen TV?

I suspect you need to look at what resolution the TV is and aim for a
final result that's the same.

However I'd still *start* from a high resolution scan, as I find any
touching up required is much, much easier to do on a 4,000dpi scan than
(say) a 1,000dpi scan. I also crop sometimes, and straighten horizons
if necessary.

BTW the 4,000dpi scan is still a little short for a room-size poster
unless you are thinking of a pretty small room - but who am I to tell
you what to decorate the toilet with?.

 

[theo]

Finally, depending on how much quality you guys want to pull out of

I think the Nikon's can do a 4000x4000dpi scan and that should be fine
for a room sized poster, but it seems excessive for our purposes.
Does anyone have experience with scanning slides and and showing them
on big screen TVs? What dpi is needed to give a good crisp image on a
high definition big screen TV?
Mike

Sorry I'm late to the party, just rereading the OP in which Mike and the
other residents wish to make TV-friendly digital slide shows of the best
of their 35mm libraries to share with their progeny. Any CD or DVD slide
show disk and program will resample and reformat the film 3:2 images to
the NTSC format of 4:3, or you control the cropping manually for every
image in pre-or-post-scanning. For showing thru a standard TV processing,
a slide scanned at 8 bit/channel, 2400ppi will have enough information to
look good on the screen. Even the mini-lab industry standard of 10 years
ago, the Kodak RFS 3570, produced sufficient detail for contemporary
computers' screen slideshows. Current computer screens, i.e. full-screen
(3:2 ratio) 1200x800 pixel x16 bit (Windows High Color), give ~46Mb images
some room, but NTSC TV screens have not progressed. Also, the average
human eye is said to not discriminate hues of color deeper than 8 bits.
Notwithstanding, there are many reasons and myriad advocates for digging
the resolution shovel deeper than ~2400ppi/8bit.
Next question of choices for auto-feed or batch loader recently arose in a
related NG, where the products PS-3600 PowerSlide (Pacific Image
Electronics, cf. <scanace.com>) and the German Multi-Mag SlideScan 3600
and 4000 (US distrib <HPMarketingCorp.com>, mnfr <braun-phototechnik.de>)
were queried querulously because they have so little exposure and so
shallow fan base in the US. When the promo said circular film tray for
the 4000, several posters felt tricked because the firms did not mean the
legacy Kodak Carousel. Nevertheless, given the heritage of the antecedent
companies and their products, the fact that these use European standard
trays rather than (formerly ubiquitous now obsolete) Ansco or Kodak trays
should not deter an inquiry to the merits of these units particularly for
their 50-100 capacity magazines. Of course, the more bits and moving
parts, the more possibilities of wear, misalinements,....
Disclaimer: I liked their predecessor equipment while I was in Europe in
the mid-late '80s, but I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't own any
ADRs or stock in any of these firms.
Regards,
Theo

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

A bunch of us guys live in a retirement home, and together, we have 10
of thousands of 35mm slides. We want to copy the best of them to DVDs
and sent those to our kids.

Could someone tell us where to get some good advice on what equipment
and programs to buy. A bunch of us will go in on-the-buy, and we want
good equipment that's not difficult to run and will stand up to a lot
of use.

We're thinking of a good film scanner with auto-loader for slides, an
external USB 2 large hard drive, and an external DVD burner with
software to edit the image files and burn the files to DVDs in a
format that will play on TV DVD players. We have a computer lab with
some nice new computers, and we'd like to plug the equipment into the
USB ports and do our thing.


But we don't know a lot, and we don't want to buy a lot of problems--

Advice?

The only practical solution for that requirement is a Nikon LS-5000 and
an SF-210 adapter. Make sure you get the SF-210 since, as Surfer noted,
the older SF-200 requires a bit of coaxing with a credit card to become
reliable. Despite the typo in his post, the SF-210 is fully compatible
with the LS-5000, in fact it was introduced at the same time as it. This
version should not require any credit card adjustment.

I would caution against buying any of this stuff used from Ebay, unless
you are confident at stripping it all down and cleaning front silvered
mirrors etc. You never know how dirty used equipment is until you try
it - and, in my experience, Nikon scanners need cleaning every few years
even if they are kept clean, and much more frequently if they aren't. If
you are confident of cleaning optics - and older people seem to be more
capable of doing practical stuff like this than today's disposable
generation - you can get a real good deal on Ebay with the 4000 series.

Advice?

Buy or make a good dust plastic cover for the scanner as soon as you get
it. This should be able to seal the scanner from the environment
whenever it is not being used. Ideally a zip-lok bag with the zip over
the top of the scanner so that the entire cover just opens like a
clamshell when the scanner is in use.

Don't let anyone who smokes near your scanner. The best solution is to
take them out the back of your home and ritually stone them - that will
cure them of the filthy habit, if nothing else, but they won't mess your
scanner again. ;-)

Organise a shift rota for scanning and define a standard scan process
that everyone adheres to. The LS-5000 is fast, but 10,000 slides is
about a month of continual scanning, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. By
the time you add editing on top, you are looking at a years work every
hour of every day - more likely 5 years with sensible bodily functions
between. Nobody is going to do that on their own and you don't want Joe
Bloggs hogging the scanner because he cant get a decent scan from his
black and white image of great niece Nancy on her third birthday.

Always scan at the maximum resolution of the scanner - it only takes a
couple of minutes on the LS-5000 anyway - and THEN downsample with
Photoshop to the resolution you want to put on your kids' DVDs. If you
get Photoshop, you can automate this and do complete directories at a
time, ready to burn to DVD. However, always store your originals at the
full resolution on DVD as well. You never know when your kids are going
to come back and tell you they want to send your picture to National
Geographic because they heard they are doing an article on how they did
things in the old days - and you certainly don't want the pesky little
brats telling the world that your photos look soft because your eyesight
was bad even then! ;-) So save originals at 4000ppi, even if you do
this on jpg with high quality. For slide shows, 640x480 is usually as
good as TVs get, but a good digital projector can go up to 1600x1200
these days, so that is probably a sensible size to save disposables at.

Use NikonScan to make batch scans with the SF-210 - don't use the TWAIN
interface to your image editor. NikonScan writes files to disk after
batch scanning, while most other applications keep the files in memory -
crashing the application after only a few scans and losing your data.
With NikonScan, you can top up the SF-210 with more slides indefinitely
- great if you are saving them to a networked drive, then you can edit
them on a completely different machine as they pop out without
disturbing the scanner process.

Do use the adjustments on NikonScan to set up default scan parameters,
such as black point, white point, gamma and colour etc. then scan as
16-bit data. Some argue against this, but they have never produced any
evidence that the lost information as a consequence of the up-front
processing is worth retaining.

Make sure you switch ICE off when scanning Kodachrome batches or black
and white negatives. ICE sometimes works with Kodachrome, but is
unpredictable, so only try it on single Kodachrome slides. If dust is a
problem, and it sounds like it probably is, use the software methods in
Photoshop to fix it or try scanning bad slides as singles. Kodachrome
usually says Kodachrome on the slide mount so if it doesn't say
Kodachrome on the mount, try ICE on a one off sample.

When your 10,000 scans are complete sell your LS-5000 and SF-210 on Ebay
and buy a barrel of beer with the proceeds.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Kennedy McEwen

I would caution against buying any of this stuff used from Ebay, unless
you are confident at stripping it all down and cleaning front silvered
mirrors etc. You never know how dirty used equipment is until you try
it - and, in my experience, Nikon scanners need cleaning every few
years even if they are kept clean, and much more frequently if they
aren't. If you are confident of cleaning optics - and older people seem
to be more capable of doing practical stuff like this than today's
disposable generation - you can get a real good deal on Ebay with the
4000 series.

It was the slide feeder I got on ebay and so far as I am aware it
doesn't contain any mirrors or optics!

It was the scanner I brought new as the price of an LS5000 on ebay was
much too high compared to a new scanner with guarantee, and the one
LS4000 I brought was DOA and got returned for a refund.

Don't let anyone who smokes near your scanner. The best solution is to
take them out the back of your home and ritually stone them - that will
cure them of the filthy habit, if nothing else, but they won't mess
your scanner again. ;-)

I don't let anyone smoke in the house! I also live in a rural area with
excellent air quality, though I guess moving to provide a better
environment for the scanner is a bit much...

(I didn't BTW)

If dust is a problem, and it sounds like it probably is,

Clean the slides before scanning with a soft brush and/or a blower - but
don't blow on them with your mouth. You always end up spitting on the
best slide in the box...

Kodachrome usually says Kodachrome on the slide mount so if it
doesn't say Kodachrome on the mount, try ICE on a one off sample.

All my Kodachrome says so on the mount. A lot are old card mounts, some
are the newer plastic mounts. Towards the end of my film days I was
using Fujichrome, which scans a treat. Shame about the content!

When your 10,000 scans are complete sell your LS-5000 and SF-210 on
Ebay and buy a barrel of beer with the proceeds.

You have to be sure you have really good scans of all the important
images before selling the scanner etc....

 

[tom]

I suggest a digital camera with macro lens, and a light table. You can
do 90 of these slides an hour and the quality will be perfect for your
stated purposes. I have been doing this for years. Most of the images
on my website are digital camera captures of negatives and slides.
Tom Robinson

 

[Don]

It's not the Nikon that has the problems, but the Digital ICE which is a
mighty fine way of removing (mostly) marks from dirt and/or scratches.

I was actually refering to the fact that Nikons actually have a
problem with Kodachromes because of the non-linear Kodachrome
characteristic film curve.

In practical terms this means that all Kodachromes scanned on Nikons
have a distinct blue cast in some areas (actually it's absence of
red). This varies widely as Kodachromes (and their curves) have
changed drastically over the years. This may result in scans ranging
from virtually invisible blue cast (but it's there if you look hard
enough) to a massive blue mess.

That's why on latter models Nikon provided a Kodachrome option in
addition to Positive. However, because there is no one Kodachrome this
option never seem to go far enough and more work is needed later.

The problem is that it uses an infra-red channel (as well as RGB) but
Kodachrome is opaque in varying degrees to IR, so those bits get
interpreted as 'dirt'. The problem would arise in *any* scanner using
Digital ICE.

Yes, ICE has problems with Kodachromes but that's a different issue.
The reason ICE can't do Kodachromes is the same ICE can't do (some)
negatives. Both contain small silver particles which infrared can't
penetrate so ICE is fooled into thinking those silver particles are
dust or scratches which need to be removed.

As I say Kodachromes have changed a lot over the years so how well ICE
does depends on that as well as on exposure. I have some Kodachromes
from mid-1980s which are impenetrable to ICE but one or two severely
overexposed shots clean up quite nicely. That's because there all of
the silver has been washed out.

The problem varies with both the Kodachrome (the recipe has changed over
the years) and also the shot itself. The same problems occur with
traditional black & white film - the sort that uses silver.

That's it!

Don.

 

[Don]

As usual, Don is right on about the quality you want and the effort it
takes to get there. If you guys are really bored and want to learn
something new, by all means buy a scanner and be ready for a steep
learning curve. Watch out for stress build up, high blood pressure,
sleepless nights, blood shot eyes, sore backs and occasional fist
fights. All are evident here at this group. (Surgeon General should make
the scanner manufactures spell out such hazards.) Do not proceed without
checking with your MDs first.

LOL! I second that whole heartedly! ;o)

Don.

 

[Don]

I think the Nikon's can do a 4000x4000dpi scan and that should be fine
for a room sized poster, but it seems excessive for our purposes.
Does anyone have experience with scanning slides and and showing them
on big screen TVs? What dpi is needed to give a good crisp image on a
high definition big screen TV?

Both Surfer and Theo have again outlined some very good points! And,
as always, most of all Kennedy!

I'd just add one thing which you guys may want to consider. Yes, doing
things at maximum resolution a scanner is capable of may seem like an
overkill at first blush, but there is a method to the madness... ;o)

Namely, developments don't stand still and both monitor and TV
resolutions will go up. Ever increasing monitor resolutions are self
evident and HDTV will become standard in not too distant future.

So, one thing you may consider is scanning for "archival purposes"
also known as "scanning raw" which is my personal favorite hobby
horse... ;o)

In essence, you scan at maximum resolution the scanner is capable of
and without any editing (but with ICE or exposure adjustments, where
applicable). This is also known as your "digital negative" and people
usually archive this on DVDs. You then edit a copy to produce an image
for whatever output device you're aiming at. That way when, in the
future, new devices come out you can always go back to your "digital
negative" and start again. Make another "virtual print", so to speak.

The reason this is a good idea it twofold. First, you don't have to
scan all over again, so you save time - and it's easier on the scanner
too! Second, film constantly deteriorates no matter how well you store
it. Therefore, getting the most out of film now is always better than
waiting and doing it (again) later. Of course, handling film only once
is also easier on it because there's less danger of accidental damage.

Finally, this may raise one obvious question: Won't scanners advance
too and offer higher resolutions in future?

Well, possibly but not likely. Minolta goes up to 5400, but they are
out of the scanner business now. However, higher resolutions don't
gain much. That's because at 4000 dpi you're pulling out everything
from the film and increasing resolutions will not give you any more
meaningful data out of regular 35mm film. Maybe (and it's a big maybe)
if you have a perfect shot taken with a tripod using very fine grained
film, you may be able to pull out a little bit more data at 5400, but
for practical purposes 4000 is where things level off.

Don.

 

[Don]

Don't let anyone who smokes near your scanner. The best solution is to
take them out the back of your home and ritually stone them - that will
cure them of the filthy habit, if nothing else, but they won't mess your
scanner again. ;-)

It's also absolutely essential to torture them extensively first!!! I
mean really torture them, not this sissy Spanish Inquisition stuff!

This will never compensate for all the horrors smokers inflict on
everyone around them but at least it will give some satisfaction to
all the innocent victims! ;o)

Don.

 

[Roger]

A bunch of us guys live in a retirement home, and together, we have 10
of thousands of 35mm slides. We want to copy the best of them to DVDs
and sent those to our kids.

Could someone tell us where to get some good advice on what equipment
and programs to buy. A bunch of us will go in on-the-buy, and we want
good equipment that's not difficult to run and will stand up to a lot
of use.

We're thinking of a good film scanner with auto-loader for slides, an
external USB 2 large hard drive, and an external DVD burner with
software to edit the image files and burn the files to DVDs in a
format that will play on TV DVD players. We have a computer lab with
some nice new computers, and we'd like to plug the equipment into the
USB ports and do our thing.

OK... Having been this route and I think I've read most of the answers
you've received there's been some good advice in there and
some...maybe not quite as good.

For a big scanning job I'd recommend you read :
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm which covers the things you
need to do such as developing a good filing system for both the
negatives/slides and images as well as storage. It does not cover
scanning techniques or the selection of the specific equipment.

Once you have decided on the route, I think one of the best scanners
for a reasonable price (every thing is relative) is the Nikon
LS5000-ED along with the SF210 bulk slide feeder.

However do not expect to load the feeder with 50 slides and walk away.
There are a number of things that will cause it to jam such as warped
slides, paper mounts that have the edges "belled" out be they inside
or outside edges. Some plastic slide mounts have to be fed upside down
or backwards to prevent the lip from catching but the images can be
rotated in virtually any processing program.

The 5000 does not have a problem with Kodachromes. ALL scanners have
problems with *some* Kodachrome slides as the infrared cleaning (ICE)
does not work with them. However not all Kodachrome slides are created
equal and ICE may or may not work with them. OTOH I've never had
leaving the IR cleaning on create a problem.

Dust has never been a problem with my LS5000. I do blow it out with
"canned air" periodically as my cat likes to sleep behind the monitor
and against the scanner. Big cat
( http://www.rogerhalstead.com/cat_files/Lunch.htm ) I've posted
that link before. He's grown a bit since then.

Also, this is one dusty room even with an air filter running most of
the time. I have several computers running that move a lot of air. So
the dust collects under the desks, or any place not regularly wiped
off. I have to vacuum under the desks weekly and the amount and size
of the "dust bunnies" is unbelievable. Still, no problems with the
LS50000.


Some mentioned using a digital camera for copying the slides. This
usually does not produce results near the quality of a good scanner.
OTOH I do have the proper equipment for doing this. It's a slide copy
attachment for a 35mm camera that goes in place of the lens and
produced some reasonable results. I'd not use it for digitizing a
large number of slides although it is easy to operate. Just slip the
slide into the slot and push the shutter release.

But we don't know a lot, and we don't want to buy a lot of problems--

What's one person's problems is another persons fun. Scanning large
numbers of slides and negatives is very time consuming, but it can be
very rewarding.

Advice?

Good Luck,

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

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Roger

Dust has never been a problem with my LS5000. I do blow it out with
"canned air" periodically

Do you think it makes a difference the the LS500 lives upright or on
it's side?

as my cat likes to sleep behind the monitor
and against the scanner. Big cat
( http://www.rogerhalstead.com/cat_files/Lunch.htm ) I've posted
that link before. He's grown a bit since then.

Lovely photo, super cat but unless you mean he's grown in girth I hate
to think how big he is now!

What's one person's problems is another persons fun. Scanning large
numbers of slides and negatives is very time consuming, but it can be
very rewarding.

I've found it a real trip down memory lane. The places I've been, the
people I met, the clothes we wore and so on. I also have some people
patiently waiting for copies on CD when I'm done. Since the slides are
mostly Kodachrome so Digital ICE is off for those, I'm making sure that
if they want better quality (e.g. less dusty) scans of any of them that
I know from the name of the file where to find the original.

Not looking forward to scanning the film through - it's all in strips of
4 having been cut when it was processed.