Professional Web Applications Themes

Scanning slides - Photography

I know it sounds strange, but if you have a digital camera and can rig up a lightbox just take high res photos of the slides. It's faster than a scanner and the quality is perfect and you don't have to buy any new equipment, although I bought a $15.00 mini tripod to make it even faster. I read about it somewhere, maybe even here. D "tranch" <tranchattglobal.net> wrote in message news:3f0a2783_4news3.prserv.net... > I hope I'm in the right NG to ask this question. If not could someone > please direct me to an NG where I could get some ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    I know it sounds strange, but if you have a digital camera and can rig up a
    lightbox just take high res photos of the slides. It's faster than a
    scanner and the quality is perfect and you don't have to buy any new
    equipment, although I bought a $15.00 mini tripod to make it even faster.

    I read about it somewhere, maybe even here.

    D


    "tranch" <tranchattglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:3f0a2783_4news3.prserv.net...
    > I hope I'm in the right NG to ask this question. If not could someone
    > please direct me to an NG where I could get some help?
    >
    > I have **many** slides from years ago that I would like to scan, put
    on
    > my computer and eventually put on CD with music, special effects, etc. I
    > know nothing about scanners for slides. I recently looked at a HP Scanjet
    > 5500c scanner and to me, the unknowing, it looked good. What are the other
    > brands of scanners for slides, and are there any recommendations from
    those
    > who do know? Nothing really expensive, I'm just going to be doing this for
    > my own use.
    >
    > Thanks for any information anyone can give me.
    >
    > Andy
    >
    >

    D Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:59:54 -0400, "D" <dsympatico.ca> wrote:
    >I know it sounds strange, but if you have a digital camera and can rig up a
    >lightbox just take high res photos of the slides. It's faster than a
    >scanner and the quality is perfect and you don't have to buy any new
    >equipment, although I bought a $15.00 mini tripod to make it even faster.
    >
    >I read about it somewhere, maybe even here.
    There are optical slide copiers used with 35 mm systems. They look
    like a good size telephoto lens with a slide holder on one end and
    contain a macro lens.. Once you get them set up, they work fairly
    well but they may take a bit of trial and error before getting things
    right. However I think you will find a good scanner will be much
    easier to use.

    A light box and macro lens would require a bracket to hold the camera
    at 90 degrees and shielding to keep out stray light.

    The hardest part is getting the camera perpendicular to the slide and
    keeping it there.

    Quality wise: The quality is limited by the digital camera, the
    quality of the slide, or negative and the users ability to get and
    keep the slide/film perpendicular to the digital camera and in focus.

    Many of the current scanners have far higher resolution than most user
    digital cameras.

    If they are only going to be displayed on a computer screen then you
    won't need the really high resolutions, current screen resolutions run
    from *roughly* 76 ppi to 120 plus. IF you plan on archiving them for
    future generations then you might want to consider higher resolutions.

    The biggest problem with slide copying is dust. I've never found a
    software utility that was satisfactory (to me). There are many good
    programs, but none are a substitute for cleaning the dust off the
    slides. That is both time consuming and tiresome work.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
    [url]www.rogerhalstead.com[/url]
    N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
    >
    >D
    >
    >
    >"tranch" <tranchattglobal.net> wrote in message
    >news:3f0a2783_4news3.prserv.net...
    >> I hope I'm in the right NG to ask this question. If not could someone
    >> please direct me to an NG where I could get some help?
    >>
    >> I have **many** slides from years ago that I would like to scan, put
    >on
    >> my computer and eventually put on CD with music, special effects, etc. I
    >> know nothing about scanners for slides. I recently looked at a HP Scanjet
    >> 5500c scanner and to me, the unknowing, it looked good. What are the other
    >> brands of scanners for slides, and are there any recommendations from
    >those
    >> who do know? Nothing really expensive, I'm just going to be doing this for
    >> my own use.
    >>
    >> Thanks for any information anyone can give me.
    >>
    >> Andy
    >>
    >>
    >
    Roger Halstead Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    "Chris Barnard" <com> wrote... 
    is, 
    fact 
    else?

    There is more to scanning than just placing the slides into holders
    and pressing the "scan" button. You probably want to correct the
    histogram and dial the saturation up before the scanner does its job.
    If you try after, you just don't have enough colour information to
    work with. Oh, and don't forget to scan the whole 48 bits.

    Victor


    Victor Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Scanning slides


    "Victor Bazarov" <com> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... 

    Thanks for that. I was under the impression that if I used the scanner's
    built-in software to correct the image, it would do colour-correction after
    scanning similar to how I could do it with PS - I take it that's not the
    case?
    I'm still scanning them now... I think I'm starting to get better results.

    Cheers,

    Chris.


    Chris Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    Chris Barnard writes:
     

    Slides have extraordinary density--that is, a tremendous range of
    opacity between clear film and the blackest black the slide can record.
    Many scanners have trouble with this and cannot penetrate the blackest
    areas on the slide easily (clear film obviously isn't a problem). In
    these cases, either they don't pick up shadow detail very well, or they
    pick it up but with a lot of noise (from the scanner itself, alas!), or
    both.

    Drum scanners are famous for their ability to pull detail from even the
    darkest areas on slides, but they are expensive and awkward. The best
    desktop scanners do a very good job of scanning slides nowadays,
    however. They are cheaper than drum scanners but still fairly
    expensive.
     

    PS won't work because you're missing data in the first place. You have
    to have a scan that includes all the shadow detail.

    Some scanners let you increase exposure time ("og gain" or similar
    controls), which can help with shadow detail. For best results, you
    need a dedicated film scanner of fairly high quality. If you don't want
    to spend too much money, try finding a used Nikon LS-2000; it does a
    good job on slides.
     

    No, if they look good on the light table, they're fine. It's the scan
    that is the problem.

    Note that Velvia is probably the hardest of all slide films to scan,
    too, because it has the largest density range and contrast (and
    saturation).

    Some scanners have trouble with black-and-white (silver-based)
    negatives, for exactly the same reasons.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    your right

    --
    "When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa did,
    not screaming like the passengers in his car."

    "Chris Barnard" <com> wrote in message
    news:pCATa.1348$cableinet.net... 
    >
    > Thanks for that. I was under the impression that if I used the scanner's
    > built-in software to correct the image, it would do colour-correction[/ref]
    after 



    Paul Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    Chris Barnard wrote:
     

    I've got an Epson Perfection 3200. Effective resolution: approx 2000dpi
    (not 3200dpi). Reason: contrast range reduced by presence of glass between
    film and scanner lens. I think that also effectively inhibits the
    scanner's ability to handle the range of contrast inherent in slide images.

    Solution: get a dedicated film scanner that has nothing (but air..) between
    the sensor and the film.

    I only paid &400US for this flatbed scanner, rather than several times that
    much for a dedicated scanner. Expensive lesson? Well, it does okay for
    medium format, and there are no affordable scanners for 4x5, if that's a
    reasonable rationalization.... <grin>

    Bill Tallman

    William Guest

  8. #8

    Default Scanning slides

    Several slide scanning services offer a variety of resolutions. I'm aiming at
    one that offers 4000 dpi (ppi?), with a file about 14 megs. See another that
    offers 4000 dpi and a 68 meg file. Both seem to be using the same top end Nikon
    scanner. Anyone know what gives?

    Charlie Self

    "On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation
    in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does."
    Will Rogers







    Charlie Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    A 35 mm film is 24 x 36 mm per image. At 4000 DPI this is 5669 x 3779 pixles
    or 21.5 MP . Multiply x 3 (for 3 colours)and you get 64 MB, pretty close to
    68 MB.

    I would say that one is quoting TIIF uncompressed file size and the other is
    JPEG (compressed). In fact 14 MB for a JPEG indicates very little
    compession. My 3 MP camera produces 9 MB TIFFs and 1.5 MB JPEGs with minmum
    compression.

    They probaly both so TIFF and JPEG, they have juste quoted different file
    types.


    "Charlie Self" <combleah> wrote in message
    news:aol.com... 
    at 
    that 
    Nikon 
    nation 
    does." 


    Dick Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    Charlie Self writes:
     

    One is the JPEG size, the other is the TIFF size. Those are the file
    sizes I get in my own scans, for JPEGs (usually about 14 MB) and 8-bit
    TIFFs (usually about 68 MB) respectively. A 16-bit TIFF is twice that
    size, or about 128 MB.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  11. #11

    Default Scanning slides

    Ok, you were all so helpful when I asked about scanning photos for my
    website....now I have another dilemma. I have a few slides that I have
    to scan to add to a website. When I scan them at 300dpi, I get a nice
    sized image. But when I reduce the resolution to 75dpi (using
    Photoshop), the image goes back to the size of the slide. Is there a way
    to get the resolution down, while leaving the size of the image big
    enough to use on a website in a photo gallery?

    Thanks :)

    Carole Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Scanning slides


    "Carole" <com> wrote in message
    news:bmio1q$nancl$news.uni-berlin.de... 

    Don't reduce the resolution, at least not to one-fourth of the scan. The
    image on the Web will show up at 72 dpi by default. Even at 300 dpi, your
    scans will miss a lot of detail in a photographic slide. Slides and
    negatives need to be scanned at a much higher resolution than do prints, to
    catch all the detail.


    Marvin Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Scanning slides



    Marvin Margoshes wrote:
     

    I actually noticed that the default on the scanner for slides was 400
    dpi, but then how do I get the file sizes down so that it won't take a
    long time for the page to load? I know people don't wait more than 30
    seconds on the average for a page to load.

    Carole Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    Carole wrote: 

    I can see what the problem is. When you change the resolution
    (assuming it's for the internet, in that case it should be 72dpi)
    make sure that the "resample image" button (in the "image size"
    pop-up menu) is UNCHECKED. That way the image will stay
    exactly the same size, even though the resolution has changed
    nominally.


    Paolo Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Scanning slides


    "Carole" <com> wrote in message
    news:bmk4jk$nslie$news.uni-berlin.de... [/ref]
    The [/ref]
    your [/ref]
    to 
    >
    > I actually noticed that the default on the scanner for slides was 400
    > dpi, but then how do I get the file sizes down so that it won't take a
    > long time for the page to load? I know people don't wait more than 30
    > seconds on the average for a page to load.
    >[/ref]
    You can increase the compression. That reduces the file size, but not the
    number of pixels. The limit is the effect on image quality. Some software
    allows you to preview the image as you adjust the compression. I use Paint
    Shop Pro.


    Marvin Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    stop smoking crack. Marvin.

    Never use compressed images

    when you are in photoshop and you reduce the image to 75dpi photoshop will
    adjust the ONSCREEN scaling. all you need to do is press control(pc) or
    Command (mac) and the plus key on your number pad to zoom back into the
    image.

    the titlebar in photoshop should show 100% when you are at 1:1
    magnification.

    "Marvin Margoshes" <net> wrote in message
    news:supernews.com... [/ref]
    > The [/ref]
    > your [/ref][/ref]
    prints, 
    > >
    > > I actually noticed that the default on the scanner for slides was 400
    > > dpi, but then how do I get the file sizes down so that it won't take a
    > > long time for the page to load? I know people don't wait more than 30
    > > seconds on the average for a page to load.
    > >[/ref]
    > You can increase the compression. That reduces the file size, but not the
    > number of pixels. The limit is the effect on image quality. Some[/ref]
    software 
    Paint 


    Shadowboxer Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Scanning slides


    "Shadowboxer" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 

    And why do you have to be cutely insulting?

    Carefully done compression does less damage than resizing. "Never" do
    something or other is useless advice. It is a rule with many exceptions.
     
    > > The [/ref][/ref]
    dpi, [/ref]
    > prints, 
    > > You can increase the compression. That reduces the file size, but not[/ref][/ref]
    the 
    > software 
    > Paint 
    >
    >[/ref]


    Marvin Guest

  18. #18

    Default Scanning slides

    Is there hardware or software that will allow me to scan or upload color
    slides (transparancies) to my computer or to my scanner?

    Thanks very much.

    Charles Duncan


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/2003


    Charles Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Scanning slides

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:42:57 -0600, "Charles Duncan"
    <com> wrote:
     

    A film scanner will scan slides and get them into your computer.

    Jud Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Ruby-slides;
    By Armin Roehrl in forum Ruby
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 14th, 08:04 PM
  2. Slides
    By Peg keeney in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 30th, 11:41 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 12:44 AM
  4. Old 5247 slides
    By Jeremy in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 10th, 02:54 PM
  5. Are Slides obsolete
    By John in forum Photography
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 7th, 02:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139