Inexpensive film/slide scanner needed. Suggestions ??

[Ian Woodrow]

Hi

Here's the story...

I acquired a used Nikon Coolscan III (LS-30) but the results weren't so
great. The initial images are very soft in a way that would indicate
possible dust on the inside mirror. So, knowing that to get this
serviced would cost a fortune I had a look around and found a guide to
dismantling to reach the
mirror. Well, there were some screws that were just STUBBORN and would not
budge. The guide
I saw was for the LS-2000 but on trawling the good ole web I found a report
from someone who
has the LS-30 and says you can reach this mirror without totally
dismantling. Well, might as well give
it a go. NO joy. Results are still soft so it's not looking good.

I am now toying with the option of having to buy a slide/neg scanner without
paying an absolute mint.
I'm looking for something that will give me sharp results and be good for
viewing on a PC monitor or
printing maybe about A4 size. Including the possibility to crop and still
get good result.

I'm sure there are probably some out there - not of which will be ADVERTISED
as 'not great', but
ARE in fact 'not great'.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for something that does the job
well but is not in the ... 'very
expensive for something you don't really need' range. I don't really need a
slug's eyeball crop to be
pin sharp at A3.... good results cropping to half a slide frame would be
nice if sharp on screen.

ANY hints at all welcomed - APART from buy a digital SLR !!!


Cheers,


Woody, around Glasgow in Scotland

 

[Dave]

Hi

Here's the story...

I acquired a used Nikon Coolscan III (LS-30) but the results weren't so
great. The initial images are very soft in a way that would indicate
possible dust on the inside mirror. So, knowing that to get this
serviced would cost a fortune I had a look around and found a guide to
dismantling to reach the
mirror. Well, there were some screws that were just STUBBORN and would not
budge. The guide
I saw was for the LS-2000 but on trawling the good ole web I found a report
from someone who
has the LS-30 and says you can reach this mirror without totally
dismantling. Well, might as well give
it a go. NO joy. Results are still soft so it's not looking good.

I am now toying with the option of having to buy a slide/neg scanner without
paying an absolute mint.
I'm looking for something that will give me sharp results and be good for
viewing on a PC monitor or
printing maybe about A4 size. Including the possibility to crop and still
get good result.

I'm sure there are probably some out there - not of which will be ADVERTISED
as 'not great', but
ARE in fact 'not great'.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for something that does the job
well but is not in the ... 'very
expensive for something you don't really need' range. I don't really need a
slug's eyeball crop to be
pin sharp at A3.... good results cropping to half a slide frame would be
nice if sharp on screen.

ANY hints at all welcomed - APART from buy a digital SLR !!!


Cheers,


Woody, around Glasgow in Scotland

There's only one option in my opinion. That would be the Minolta Scan
Dual IV. They are available in the US from NewEgg for $220 which is
about as low as you can find for a decent scanner.

This is not a workhorse type of scanner, but it is the one I use for the
few slides and negatives I need it for. 3200 PPI is plenty for at least
8x10 IMHO.

Hope this helps,
Dave

 

[tom]

The sharpness of slide scanners is somewhat dependent on your mounting
techniques. Aztek has offered an aftermarket slide carrier for the
nikon that is wet-mount, and you can see the enormous difference in
sharpness by looking at their comparison shots here:
http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm Another alternative
is to use glass and i put up a tutorial about how to do this here:
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html Good luck!
Thomas Robinson

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

The sharpness of slide scanners is somewhat dependent on your mounting
techniques. Aztek has offered an aftermarket slide carrier for the
nikon that is wet-mount, and you can see the enormous difference in
sharpness by looking at their comparison shots here:
http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm

Typical Aztek sample. You need a warped slide and the wrong
focus spot to achieve a result like that on 35 mm slides.

I have pioneered the wet mount method on the Coolscan 8000 and
used all the tweaks to get the best results. Before Grecco and
Aztek. I can assure you that the quality gain with wet
mounting is important but the samples shown are more an
example of bad use of the normal carrier than the advantages
of wet mounting (if the good scan represents the actual
information in the film).

Ernst

--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )

 

[JuneBug]

Very nice tutorial, but not easy (possible?) to implement on a Minolta
5400 carrier. The glass from a 35mm Gepe mount is too small to put a
piece of tape on. Likewise and to a less degree, the holder also does
not have enough room for the tape. What would be nice is to have a piece
of glass that is exactly the same size as a 35mm slide mount, and can be
dropped into the slot of the holder. No taping would be required.

I ran into lots of problem with a Gepe anti-newton mount. Removing
finger prints and dust from the glass is tedious at best. What is a good
approach to do this right?

 

[RichK]

The sharpness of slide scanners is somewhat dependent on your mounting
techniques.

Well, you're addressing a question I've asked before on film/slide scanners.
How do you keep the film flat, unless you place it between two glass plates.

Slide projectors did some compensation with the projection lens, but I have
not seen this mentioned anywhere on scanners.

I do not own a scanner yet and am considering the one Dave (here) mentioned
Minolta Scan Dual IV. But I'm still bothered how do scanners manage to
compensate for the curvature of the film/slide in order to keep the results
sharp.

Rich

 

[RichK]

Tom,

Another alternative
is to use glass and i put up a tutorial about how to do this here:
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html Good luck!

Wonder why you address Kodachrome specifically? Are not all the slide
films (basically two) the same. Or is the Kodachrome much worse than the E6
films?

Rich

 

[CSM1]

Tom,



Wonder why you address Kodachrome specifically? Are not all the slide
films (basically two) the same. Or is the Kodachrome much worse than the
E6
films?

Rich

Kodachrome is special in that it often contains un-dissolved silver in the
image. Silver is opaque to IR light. Therefore IR detection of dust and
scratches is not possible.

E6 films are dye only, no silver.

 

[RichK]

Kodachrome is special in that it often contains un-dissolved silver in the
image. Silver is opaque to IR light. Therefore IR detection of dust and
scratches is not possible.

E6 films are dye only, no silver.

Is it for the same reason that focusing is less successful? Or are you
addressing only dust detection?
Would flattening the slide help any with dust detection?

Rich

 

[CSM1]

Is it for the same reason that focusing is less successful? Or are you
addressing only dust detection?
Would flattening the slide help any with dust detection?

Rich

Flattening the slide only helps focus. The amount of curve effects how good
the focus is across the whole surface of the film. It has to do with depth
of field as to how well the focus is.

Dust detection is a different subject all together. I am not completely sure
how the dust detection works. I do know that it is a difference between
optical (red, green and blue light) and Infrared response.
Since silver blocks all Infrared light, dust detection fails.

 

[jim.hutchison]

May I jump in here? Focusing on the entire slide is the primary
challenge of shoe-box scanners, which is why their software either
focuses on the middle, or *you* choose where to focus.

This is why drum scanners are superior. They bend the tranny in one
dimension so when it passes over the CCD or CMOS chip, the distance
from the chip to the film media is perfect. Check out how Imacon
scanners work... Termed as "virtual" drum scanners, they flex the
film by sandwiching it between layers of flexible magnetic pads and
rotating it over a curve... hence keeping the film in an exact
distance from the chip as it traverses through the scanning process.

With mid-range pro-sumer film scanners, I'd go for a Nikon or top-end
Minolta. Their optical quality partly makes up for film curvature
focusing issues.

Otherwise, get your "keepers" scanned at a reputable lab on a drum
scanner. DPI ratings aren't everything.

Jim's $0.02.

 

[Surfer!]

May I jump in here? Focusing on the entire slide is the primary
challenge of shoe-box scanners, which is why their software either
focuses on the middle, or *you* choose where to focus.

This is why drum scanners are superior. They bend the tranny in one
dimension so when it passes over the CCD or CMOS chip, the distance
from the chip to the film media is perfect. Check out how Imacon
scanners work... Termed as "virtual" drum scanners, they flex the
film by sandwiching it between layers of flexible magnetic pads and
rotating it over a curve... hence keeping the film in an exact
distance from the chip as it traverses through the scanning process.

With mid-range pro-sumer film scanners, I'd go for a Nikon or top-end
Minolta. Their optical quality partly makes up for film curvature
focusing issues.

Otherwise, get your "keepers" scanned at a reputable lab on a drum
scanner. DPI ratings aren't everything.

Are you saying a drum scanner can do this with a slide that's been
mounted, which is what most of us have? Seems unlikely to me,
especially where it's a plastic mount.

<Snip>

 

[RichK]

May I jump in here? Focusing on the entire slide is the primary
challenge of shoe-box scanners, which is why their software either
focuses on the middle, or *you* choose where to focus.

I was hoping someone would jump in here This question has bothered me,
from day one, when I heard of film/slide scanners.

Unmounted filmstrip can ptentially be flattened by the scanner. But not
knowing the mechanics of any of them, I wonder if any actually do flatten
the film, and how well. There's plate in a camera to flatten the film, an
it does a reasonable job of it. Slide projectors had special lenses, but
that did not work real well either in bad cases.

This is why drum scanners are superior. They bend the tranny in one
dimension so when it passes over the CCD or CMOS chip, the distance
from the chip to the film media is perfect.

This solves majority of the curvature problem, to some extent. The surface
of the slide is not like a part of a cylinder, but a complex surface. The
only way to get it 100% flat, would be to remove the film from a mount and
place it between two glass sheets.

With mid-range pro-sumer film scanners, I'd go for a Nikon or top-end
Minolta. Their optical quality partly makes up for film curvature
focusing issues.

Seems the only way to compensate would be to measure the distance to the
film with every snapshot of the scanner, but the sensing device can be as
wide as the film, so that would not work.

Otherwise, get your "keepers" scanned at a reputable lab on a drum
scanner. DPI ratings aren't everything.

I agree with you that DPI is not everything, this is why I raised this
question. It's never addressed in literature or discussions.

Rich

 

[jim.hutchison]

I was hoping someone would jump in here This question has bothered me,
from day one, when I heard of film/slide scanners.

Unmounted filmstrip can ptentially be flattened by the scanner. But not
knowing the mechanics of any of them, I wonder if any actually do flatten
the film, and how well. There's plate in a camera to flatten the film, an
it does a reasonable job of it. Slide projectors had special lenses, but
that did not work real well either in bad cases.


This solves majority of the curvature problem, to some extent. The surface
of the slide is not like a part of a cylinder, but a complex surface. The
only way to get it 100% flat, would be to remove the film from a mount and
place it between two glass sheets.


Seems the only way to compensate would be to measure the distance to the
film with every snapshot of the scanner, but the sensing device can be as
wide as the film, so that would not work.


I agree with you that DPI is not everything, this is why I raised this
question. It's never addressed in literature or discussions.

Rich

Actually, it is addressed: take a look at Imacon's scanner here:
http://www.imacon.dk/sw323.asp

A picture is worth a 1000 words. Play the movie, and you'll see how
in fact bending the film does guarantee a consistent distance to the
lens/CCD assembly.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

This solves majority of the curvature problem, to some extent. The surface
of the slide is not like a part of a cylinder, but a complex surface. The
only way to get it 100% flat, would be to remove the film from a mount and
place it between two glass sheets.

The objective of the exercise isn't to get the slide flat but to have
the surface of the slide maintain a known profile. On a drum scanner,
which scans a single point at a time on a cylindrical surface, the film
is deliberately bent in one axis to match the curvature of the drum.
This action ensures that the other axis is maintained "flat", so that as
the drum rotates and the spot gradually progresses across the slide, it
stays at a fixed distance from the optics. If you bend a sheet of
flimsy paper into a cylindrical section, you can see the same effect as
the drum scanner achieves - in the other axis from the bend, the paper
is flat and rigid. So you don't need two glass sheets to achieve good
flatness.

However, Jim's comment is only partially correct. Whilst this is
certainly how a drum scanner works it doesn't mean that it is the only
way of getting consistent film flatness. If you look through the film
feed of the SA21 or SA-30 adapters for the Nikon scanners, you will
notice that you cannot see straight out of the aperture at the back of
the scanner (if it is an x000 bulk model). The reason for this is that
the film path is not straight. The film is deliberately bent on either
side of the frame aperture and, just as with the drum scanner, this has
the effect of flattening the film curvature in the other axis. Rubber
rollers also ensure the film is taut across the aperture, keeping it
fairly flat in that axis as well. It doesn't work perfectly and some
seriously curved films still present problems, but I have heard of some
films that won't lie flat on the drum either.

As Surfer mentioned though, neither of these techniques work with
mounted film, which relies on the mount to keep it flat, which is
generally the least successful of all.

 

[RichK]

The objective of the exercise isn't to get the slide flat but to have
the surface of the slide maintain a known profile. On a drum scanner,
which scans a single point at a time

To understand this correctly, you must be referring to a line, rather than
point. Perhaps the data is acquired, one point at a time, but the sensor is
made like a line, is it not?

on a cylindrical surface, the film
is deliberately bent in one axis to match the curvature of the drum.
This action ensures that the other axis is maintained "flat",

Follow that, yes.

As Surfer mentioned though, neither of these techniques work with
mounted film, which relies on the mount to keep it flat, which is
generally the least successful of all.

Agree, but a quick look at a mounted slide, even with a naked eye, will show
that mounted slides are not flat at all. This is what I was referring to as
complex surface. So unless you unmount the slide, no scanner will do a good
job. The drum scanner is of no help, unless the mount is removed.

RichK

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

To understand this correctly, you must be referring to a line, rather than
point. Perhaps the data is acquired, one point at a time, but the sensor is
made like a line, is it not?

Not on a proper drum scanner. The slide is placed on a glass or perspex
drum that spins around and the point scans one line for each revolution
of the drum, creating a scan line in one axis. The drum is mounted on a
screw thread so that as it spins the slide gradually moves past the scan
point to produce the scan in the other axis.

Agree, but a quick look at a mounted slide, even with a naked eye, will show
that mounted slides are not flat at all. This is what I was referring to as
complex surface. So unless you unmount the slide, no scanner will do a good
job. The drum scanner is of no help, unless the mount is removed.

That is exactly what I said - the whole point of the slide mount is to
keep the slide flat, but it is not very successful in doing that, much
less so than either the Nikon adapter or the drum scanner.