Q: good flatbed scanner for photos? (USB, Win XP)

M

Mad Scientist Jr

I am looking for a good USB or USB2 flatbed scanner under $150 ($200
max) range that works with Win Xp, with solid tech support. This would
be mainly used for 35mm photos, slides, and negatives. I also have some
other format prints/slides/negatives (110, medium format, 8x10 etc).
Any recommendations?
 
D

DigitalPlay

If unable to find a scanner let Digital Play Media make life a little
easier. Check out our photos on CD section. We specialize in photo
preservation and on a CD your pictures will last at least 100 years.
Visit the Digial Play Media site today! www.digitalplaymedia.com
 
T

timeOday

If unable to find a scanner let Digital Play Media make life a little
easier. Check out our photos on CD section. We specialize in photo
preservation and on a CD your pictures will last at least 100 years.
Visit the Digial Play Media site today! www.digitalplaymedia.com

Not sure what to make of that. It's advertising, yet targeted and
appropriate to the topic instead of blanketing all of usenet. Is it
still spam or not?

I have been debating this same issue, since my dad and grandad have a
huge number of slides I never get to see, but I don't feel like
investing in a scanner just for particular job and let it gather dust.
On the other hand, the idea of sending all those slides through the mail
to a stranger gives me the heebie-jeebies. So instead I procrastinate.

What I really need is a rich friend to buy a nice scanner and let me use
it :)
 
P

Paul Mitchum

Mad Scientist Jr said:
I am looking for a good USB or USB2 flatbed scanner under $150 ($200
max) range that works with Win Xp, with solid tech support. This would
be mainly used for 35mm photos, slides, and negatives. I also have some
other format prints/slides/negatives (110, medium format, 8x10 etc).
Any recommendations?

I recently bought a Canon 8400F, which can deal with 35mm negs, slides,
and 120 rollfilm. Most any sub-$300 scanner will be pretty much the same
as any other.

I considered buying a dedicated film scanner, but decided to get the
cheapest flatbed I could live with, and if I needed top-notch scanning
done, I could find a local vendor to help me out. I'm really only
scanning for the web anyway.
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Per Mad Scientist Jr:
I am looking for a good USB or USB2 flatbed scanner under $150 ($200
max)

Most of 'em are probably good, but what I like about the CanoScan LIDE 500F I
got some months ago is that it gets it's power from the USB connection and is
*really* thin - as in as thin as a high-end notebook.

Makes it very easy to carry from home to work and back... Has some sort of
addon for film, but having a NikonScan 4000 for that I've never tried it.
 
T

theo

Do you feel lucky punk... oops... MSJ?
Several current and recent legacy flatbeds with good resolutions and DMax
and light lids available for 135 format negs strips and mounted slides,
and for snapshot size prints (<=4x6) ADFs [when they work without my
hovering attendance, they're wonderful!]. But NOBODY new in your low end
price limit.
Let me tell you about the Epson 2480LE (basic flatbed $100, settop ADF
$100]) and its film adapter templates/frames/units (hereinafter FAU [I'm
not a member of any state Bar and I feel the insult when derided as a
lawyer, but I do talk like one too often in the wrong venues.]) . For a
few dollars more [egregious promo for early Eastwood] online, get a couple
of the FAUs. GROW YOUR OWN FILM TEMPLATES. With careful measuring and
tedious slicing of boxcutter blade and smelly stroking with X-acto blade
in heat pencil (look in local crafting/scrapbooking store) on plastic,
expand the 135 size squares to accommodate your 120/828/127/126/??? format
negs or diapos. HOWSOMEVER, nobody I've read in these related newsgroup
postings has considered the 110 format worth capturing. For that format,
how lucky or adventurous do you feel?
I'm still working with my geneology's 100+ years' archives starting with
tintypes, progressing thru various archiac print ratios, cropping the
above and more yet uncategoriable formats of negs and diapos. At least my
sisters are still here to answer when I yell "WTF, Over?" because I
wasn't at their imaged event.
Regards,
Theo

I also have some other format prints/slides/negatives (110, medium format,
8x10 etc). Any recommendations?
 
?

-

If you are mainly going to do 35 mm, in the long run I think you will be
most happy if save up a tad bit more and look at a Minolta Dual Scan IV
dedicated film scanner. They are only $212 at newegg.com (reputable
seller).

Doug
 
M

Malcolm

I have been debating this same issue, since my dad and grandad have a
huge number of slides I never get to see, but I don't feel like
investing in a scanner just for particular job and let it gather dust.
On the other hand, the idea of sending all those slides through the mail
to a stranger gives me the heebie-jeebies. So instead I procrastinate.

Take a look at this to see what I did:
http://tinyurl.com/c2et8

Might just suit your needs. Copying slides is very fast.

Malcolm
 
C

cjcampbell

Anything over 1800 dpi is a waste of money. Other than that, all of the
flatbed scanners work pretty much the same way.
 
T

timeOday

Malcolm said:
Take a look at this to see what I did:
http://tinyurl.com/c2et8

Might just suit your needs. Copying slides is very fast.

Malcolm

Interesting. I wonder how the results compare to simply running a
normal slide show and photographing the screen. That way you could use
a mild telephoto to reduce distortion and dust visibility. Set the
camera to snap a shot every couple of seconds, then just sit there and
push the "advance" button on the projector.
 
M

Malcolm

Interesting. I wonder how the results compare to simply running a
normal slide show and photographing the screen. That way you could use
a mild telephoto to reduce distortion and dust visibility. Set the
camera to snap a shot every couple of seconds, then just sit there and
push the "advance" button on the projector.

I haven't tried photographing a screen, but my gut feel tells me that this
method is far superior. Photograhing a screen would get rid of the barrel
distortion, though.

Malcolm
 
P

Peter D

timeOday said:
Not sure what to make of that. It's advertising, yet targeted and
appropriate to the topic instead of blanketing all of usenet. Is it
still spam or not?

It's not "Spam" by any appropriate definition -- "Spam" tends to be thrown
at messages/messengers as a reflexive response to "what I don't want to see
here" (not suggesting that includes you). I've heard the label leveled at
all non-private commercial posts, all commercial posts regardless of the
poster's business or other interests, and not at helpful posts posted by
commercial entities.

I think the best way to distinguish between an appropriate posting and the
pink stuff is to look at the _content_ not the poster -- after all
_messages_, not people/entities are "Spam" -- they are "spammers" -- or
"scum of the earth", your choice. :).

It's not off-topic content*, nor is it cross-posted to off-topic groups.
Unless the charter for this group specifically prohibits all non-private
commercial postings, all commercial postings, or something in between, it's
not Spam. I cannot find the original charter (if there ever was one) for
"comp.periphs.scanners" (where I'm reading/posting) and in the absence of
such a charter and a clear statement regarding permitted content, I'd have
to let it pass. Other groups in the cross-post list may have charters
forbidding the content. If so, it's Spam there and not here.

*As an interesting aside, if a long off-topic discussion results from your
comment, your post may well be considered "Spam".

All that said, I think it's a possible solution to all the "I need to find a
scanner to scan my slides, negs, etc." posts (including mine). I'd like to
hear form them. they can reach me at scanners at dolman period ca -- ca, not
com. Hopefully it wasn't a drive-by automated posting and a human is indeed
monitoring responses (I'll let you know if I hear from them).
 
P

Paul Furman

I tried, it does not work well. For one thing you get reflection & a hot
spot in the middle, and the contrast is ruined.
 
D

Djon

I use a Nikon V for 35mm...it's exceptionally good and the Ice/infared
is very important for color films.

If you're only concerned with silver B&W (Vs C41 B&W) I'd suggest the
Minolta IV, which lacks Ice.

Ice/infared is a great time saver, dustwise.

For medium/ format I use a vintage Epson 3200 flatbed with "Doug's"
antinewton glass carrier...it records more detail than 35mm with my
film only scanner...but would be massively sharper with an enlarger.
Whereas the Nikon is "grain sharp," the Epson is not..but on 6X9 film
there's plenty of info without worrying about grain. And with these
bigger negs the need for Ice is reduced because magnification factors
are smaller.

In other words, this good flatbed isn't as incredible as a film only
scanner, but it's as good as an enlarger up to at least 11X14 with
medium format (whereas the Nikon V is better than a fine condenser
enlarger in sharpness/color/even-ness to my own printing maximum ,
which is 12X18" on 13X19.
 
K

Kate

If unable to find a scanner let Digital Play Media make life a little
easier.
------------ bullshit snipped------------

For the price he'd pay you guys to convert his media, he can probably buy 5
top of the line scanners ;)
 
J

jjs777_fzr

yeah what theo said....

I have the epson 2480LE and paid a unbelievable low price when epson was
doing a promo rebate. Paid liek $60 after the rebate....
this thing came with two lids - one of which does the autofeed for up to 4x6
prints

and yeah it does slides-positives/negatives etc

and its fast
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top