WHICH FILM/SLIDE SCANNER TO BUY????

[HvdV]

Ask Imacon about that. The big pre-press flatbed scanner manufacturers
too. Their customers feel differently about it.



Yup. They lose 30%+/- of their light. Better mirrors are way too
expensive to use at $1000 price point.

That's a low estimate; an ordinary bathroom-type mirror is rated at ~80%
reflectivity; a good $50 mirror at 95%. The $50 is indeed probably too much,
but at high volumes it should be doable to beat that bathroom mirror.
BTW, though better avoided, even a 30% light loss doesn't mean too much in
terms of signal/noise ratio.

-- Hans

 

[Peter D]

Yup. They lose 30%+/- of their light.

How do you know this? What actual evidence do you have that this is a fact
and that it is a significant fact? And what exactly is "30% +/-"? "+/-"
what? Sorry if that comes across as hard on you, but those of us who are
trying to learn have a hard time with figures tossed out here and there to
support specious arguments, and this sure sounds like one. All it does is
distract from the potentially valid point you are trying to make.

 

[Roger]

How do you know this? What actual evidence do you have that this is a fact
and that it is a significant fact? And what exactly is "30% +/-"? "+/-"

http://www.celestron.com/starbrightxlt/coatings_overview.htm

OK... Going to the telescope industry which has more critical light
absorption/loss requirements than the scanners: I say that as in
astronomy they need every photon that can be captured. In scanning
you only need enough light to keep the signal to noise in a state
where it's not a problem.

We use "front coated" mirrors and I'd assume the photography industry
does so as well. Front coated mirrors using an Aluminum coating have
*about* 86 to 88% reflectivity. So on the low end (worst case) they
aren't quite as bad as 30% loss, but close. Silver coatings will
reduce that loss to around 10% for 90% reflectance. Coatings as
mentioned in the above article can reduce the loss to the point of
95% reflectance per surface.

I would assume (which is never safe) that the photographic industry
uses good quality front coated mirrors with good protective coatings.
It's also easier to make small mirrors optically flat compared to
large ones.

"I doubt", but don't know that the photo industry is probably running
around 90% reflectivity and not using the really expensive coatings,
but using some sort of coating for protection.

With mirrors there are two problems as far as the light loss.
The first is reflectance which *should* be of a relatively low
importance as long as enough gets through to give a satisfactory
signal to noise ration. The other problem is light scattering. This
is the important one as it can cause softening of the image (loss of
contrast) and distortion of the image, or parts of the image.

what? Sorry if that comes across as hard on you, but those of us who are
trying to learn have a hard time with figures tossed out here and there to
support specious arguments, and this sure sounds like one. All it does is
distract from the potentially valid point you are trying to make.

"In my opinion" it makes little difference as to what they do with the
light _as_long_as_the_image_ is clear and sharp, or does not suffer
from the circuitous light path. I believe the light loss would have
to be very high to become a problem depending on the source and
sensors. OTOH if you have to fix one the alignment of the optics
could be a major problem. If they are reliable, I wouldn't worry
about it.

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

 

[DenverDad]

Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides? I only recently noticed this
thread and was all ready to join in the banter regarding the alleged
deficits of certain scanners. But I figure it would be kind of rude
for me to further this topic since you really haven't gotten much
feedback yet regarding your original question (exceptions noted).

Jeff

 

[Don R.]

Don R., So did you ever get the information you were looking for, or
finally select a scanner for your slides?

Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.

I only recently noticed this thread and was all ready to join in the banter regarding the alleged
deficits of certain scanners. But I figure it would be kind of rude
for me to further this topic since you really haven't gotten much
feedback yet regarding your original question (exceptions noted).

Feel free to join in, Jeff.

Thanks.
Don R.
<[email protected]

 

[Roger]

Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.

Nikon and Canon both do a pretty good job.

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

 

[Neil Gould]

Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.

How many do you need? ;-)

At least Nikon, Minolta, Canon, and Microtek have models that will do
decently with color slides.

Regards,

Neil

 

[Pavel Dvorak]

Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.

I'd say that my CanoScan FS2720 does better job on slides than on
negatives. Of course, this is just my subjective opinion.

Pavel

 

[DenverDad]

Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.

Don,

Some of the preceding replies have unfortunately given you a very
negative and quite wrong impression about the relative quality of
scanners available today. The fact of the matter is that the common
Nikon, Canon, and Konica-Minolta models out there - the ones people are
always talking about and comparing - are capable of yielding quite nice
results! And frankly, the implication that they're somehow "all crap"
is unfair and misleading. All the unsubstantiated pejorative
descriptions like "quality suffers GREATLY", "VERY poor quality CCD",
"SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE capture quality", "TERRIBLE MTF", and so forth is
just the height of hyperbole! Sure, when you compare these scanners to
drum scanners costing 10's of thousands of dollars, they're not
quite state of the art. But there's a serious matter of diminishing
returns which needs to be considered here!

Now to be fair, I think most in this group will agree that scanning
film will require a bit of effort on your part - maybe even more than
you would like - as you try to develop a consistent workflow, get
consistent results, and as you try to eek out the last bit of quality
you can possibly get from them. It can take up a lot of your time and
there are a number of pitfalls. But basically what I would like to say
is that with some effort, you CAN get good results scanning film with
the scanners which are out there today. I hope you will continue to
pursue this path.

If it hasn't been mentioned before, you will probably want to stick
to dedicated film scanners (as opposed to flatbeds) if you want to get
results as good or better than what a lab will do for you. For
reference, some of the more popular models which photo hobbyists talk
about these days include:

Nikon Coolscan V $550
Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II $570
Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED $959
(B&HPhoto prices)

And there are more too, which I'm sure others will comment on. Of
course, it all depends on how good is "good enough", and without
knowing your needs, there may be lower cost alternatives out there
which would work well for you.

My scanner happens to be a Canon Canoscan FS4000 which I use for both
negatives and slides, and find does a great job overall. This scanner
is no longer being made, but when I bought it new (maybe a year ago?)
it was about $400. You can probably pick one up used for even less
than this. I couldn't disagree more with the one previous poster
and all his criticisms about this scanner! It was (and is) a scanner
roughly comparable to those from Nikon and Konica-Minolta, at a very
good price. Maybe a little better in some aspects, and a little worse
in others (much of which is a topic for another thread!), but overall
one of the contenders, I would say.

Another suggestion which comes to mind is to see if you can get someone
to scan one of your slides for you so you can see how well a particular
scanner performs. If you're lucky, you might be able to find someone
near you willing to do this. If not, you might be able to get someone
from this listing to scan it for you. I'm sure there are many - myself
included - who would be more than happy to show you what their favorite
scanner is capable of!

Jeff

 

[Don]

Not really. My impression is there aren't many scanners which will do
a decent job on 35 mm color slides.

There are basically 1.5 ;o) issues when scanning slides.

The first is dynamic range. Nominally, a scanner needs to have about
12.5 bits to cover the dynamic range of slides. Unfortunately, that's
the theory and in practice things are somewhat different. Depending on
the slides themselves (e.g. underexposed slides or Kodachromes)
considerably more dynamic range may be needed. My personal empirical
tests suggest about 18-bits to cover the full range, but take that
with a grain of salt. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

One other thing. Even though single-pass multi-scanning may suggest it
puts a few bits on top of the scanner rating this doesn't really work
as well as expected. For example, a 16-bit scanner used with 4x
multi-scanning should, in theory, be equivalent to an 18-bit scanner.
In reality, it's not and similar results can be achieved by simply
applying a small amount of Gaussian Blur to the shadow areas. This is
most evident when comparing such multi-scanned image to a high dynamic
range image.

Finally the 0.5 issues. ) This is somewhat specific and may not
apply but - as fantastic as they are for everything else - Nikons
generally don't get along with Kodachromes. This depends on the
Kodachromes too. Can't speak for other vintages but my LS-50 intensely
dislikes 1982 & early 1983 Kodachromes (heavy blue cast). End of 1983
and beginning of 1984 was a weird period (transition?) but by late
1984 things improve considerably. I'm now into 1989 and so far so
good. There's still a faint blue cast but it's certainly acceptable.

But, as I say, that Nikon-Kodachrome combo is very specific and may
not be relevant, hence "0.5 issues".

Don.

 

[Don R.]

How many do you need? ;-)

At least Nikon, Minolta, Canon, and Microtek have models that will do
decently with color slides.

I only need one. ;-)

Could you be specific as to the models? And, maybe the price range?

Thanks.
Don R.
<[email protected]

 

[Don R.]

Another suggestion which comes to mind is to see if you can get someone
to scan one of your slides for you so you can see how well a particular
scanner performs. If you're lucky, you might be able to find someone
near you willing to do this. If not, you might be able to get someone
from this listing to scan it for you. I'm sure there are many - myself
included - who would be more than happy to show you what their favorite
scanner is capable of!

Thanks, Jeff, for some very appreciated input. I'll check wround town
here and see if there's anyone with an appropriate scanner. I'll be
surprised if there is; I'm in quite a small west coast town, north of
Vancouver, on the mainland of BC. Takes 2 ferry rides to get here.

Failing that, I may take you up on your offer.

Thanks again.
Don R.
<[email protected]

 

[Don R.]

There are basically 1.5 ;o) issues when scanning slides.

The first is dynamic range.Nominally, a scanner needs to have about
12.5 bits to cover the dynamic range of slides. Unfortunately, that's
the theory and in practice things are somewhat different. Depending on
the slides themselves (e.g. underexposed slides or Kodachromes)
considerably more dynamic range may be needed. My personal empirical
tests suggest about 18-bits to cover the full range, but take that
with a grain of salt. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

Afraid you're a bit over my head, technically.

The slides I have are of mid-1950 to about 1965 vintage. Some
developed by Kodak, some by Technicolor, etc.. I'm sure some are
either over-exposed and under-exposed. I'm still a very amateurish
photographer now that I'm in the digital mode.

Thanks.

Don R.
<[email protected]

 

[DenverDad]

The slides I have are of mid-1950 to about 1965 vintage. Some
developed by Kodak, some by Technicolor, etc.. I'm sure some are
either over-exposed and under-exposed. I'm still a very amateurish
photographer now that I'm in the digital mode.

How many slides do you have to scan? Also, what is the final goal for
the scans? By that I mean are you going to make prints or just view
them on the computer? And if you are going to make prints, what
maximum print size do you anticipate? The reason I ask is that the
quality of the scanner required and the amount of effort involved can
vary greatly depending on what your final output goals are.

Jeff

 

[Don]

Afraid you're a bit over my head, technically.

The above basically means that the scanner is not always able to scan
everything on the film in the following sense:

The difference between the brightest and darkest point in a slide
("dynamic range") is bigger than what the scanner can capture.
Therefore, the scanner has to compromise and "clip" something.
Usually, the scanner exposure is based on the brightest points which
means that the darkest points come up short and are "clipped" i.e. not
captured properly.

In practical terms this means that when you look at the scanned image
the shadows are "noisy" (random pixels of various colors). This can be
"fixed" in a number of different ways and may not be a problem in the
big scheme of things if all you want, for example, is to put them up
on the web. But some people are picky, like yours truly. ;o)

The slides I have are of mid-1950 to about 1965 vintage. Some
developed by Kodak, some by Technicolor, etc.. I'm sure some are
either over-exposed and under-exposed. I'm still a very amateurish
photographer now that I'm in the digital mode.

In that case it's likely that some fading has occurred which causes a
color shift so you may need to do some work afterwards to pep them up
a little.

It's also important to decide what one wants to do with the image
after it's scanned. Some people only want to print them or view them
on the screen. In either of those two cases virtually any scanner
today will produce very good results.

Others scan to "archive" meaning they want to squeeze every last drop
out of film before it deteriorates any further. This results in huge
files (100 MB per picture and more!). In such a case all the things I
wrote above play an important part and come into consideration.

Don.

 

[Don]

Could you be specific as to the models? And, maybe the price range?

Nikon Coolscan V (also known as LS-50) and Minolta 5400 Mark II (note
the Mark *II*) should go for about $800 in Canadian pesos if you shop
around. Either one (although they're different) will probably do.

Both have ICE which is an automatic way of cleaning up dust and
scratches (saves tons of time!). However, ICE doesn't work on B&W
negatives and Kodachromes.

Don.

P.S. Just did a quick search on Google. I'm not a fan of ebay but:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nikon-COOLSCAN-V-ED-Brand-New_W0QQitemZ7554783018QQcategoryZ15223QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/KONICA-MINOLTA-D...itemZ7554527055QQcategoryZ15223QQcmdZViewItem

 

[Neil Gould]

I only need one. ;-)

Could you be specific as to the models? And, maybe the price range?

Better would be to visit a photo store site, e.g. B&H
(http://www.bhphotovideo.com/), and look at the available options. Any of
the named manufacturers have at least two models capable of scanning 35 mm
films, and the rest depends on your intended use of the scans.

Neil

 

[Don R.]

How many slides do you have to scan? Also, what is the final goal for
the scans? By that I mean are you going to make prints or just view
them on the computer? And if you are going to make prints, what
maximum print size do you anticipate? The reason I ask is that the
quality of the scanner required and the amount of effort involved can
vary greatly depending on what your final output goals are.

Jeff

Possibly there about 500 slides. I suspect the majority would simply
be for viewing on a computer, stored on a CD or DVD. A few could end
up being printed. I don't think I'm looking for perfection; just a way
to get them off the slides onto a later, more permanent storage
format, such as CD or DVD.

Not planning on spending a bundle on them.

Thanks.
Don R.
<[email protected]