slide/neg. scanner

[Graeme Hogan]

What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
Many thanks

[Valar]

For that kind of money, the only slide scanner you can get is a used HP
Photosmart S20 (or 20S?), barely useable as a slide scanner.





"Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> Many thanks
>
>
>

[Wise's Wilderness]

You need to add another zero...
--
Geoff Wise
Wise's Wilderness
[url]http://www.wises.com.au[/url]

Excuse the hotmail email address, too much junk mail.
"Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> Many thanks
>
>
>

[Mr Biggus,]

>Add another $150-$200 . .and get yourself a decent PrimeFilm 1800 scanner.

Any idea where in Melbourne to have a look at one of these?

Im lookin for a scanner to go through boxes and boxes of negatives
from my parents over 40 yrs!! scanning them in sheets would be so much
quicker...

Can you also scan the old ones with the cardboard boarder on them????

Thanks
Bruce

[[BnH]]

We actually sell them.
Last time [1 - 2 years ago ] our client bought them [ 5 scanners ] it was
around $450 each.

I'll find out what's the price now.

Cardboard border ? u mean the white slide mount ?
I believe so.

=bob=


"Mr Biggus," <fu_kew@hotmail.com_removenoshitmail.> wrote in message
news:6a3jfvkrjv1bnklbh2h2s269krn5qjnhud@4ax.com...

> >Add another $150-$200 . .and get yourself a decent PrimeFilm 1800

scanner.

>
> Any idea where in Melbourne to have a look at one of these?
>
> Im lookin for a scanner to go through boxes and boxes of negatives
> from my parents over 40 yrs!! scanning them in sheets would be so much
> quicker...
>
> Can you also scan the old ones with the cardboard boarder on them????
>
> Thanks
> Bruce
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003

[Mr Biggus,]

>We actually sell them.
where are you?

>Last time [1 - 2 years ago ] our client bought them [ 5 scanners ] it was around $450 each.

kewl .... ball park for the HP's Ive been lookin at.

>I'll find out what's the price now.

Sweet... Thanks!

>Cardboard border ? u mean the white slide mount ?

yes. the thing most slides came with in the 1970's...

> I believe so.

Thanks...

[Phred]

In article <o86jfv45vj46vju4af9h3a50bigajn2a9a@4ax.com>,
"Mr Biggus," <fu_kew@hotmail.com_removenoshitmail.> wrote:

>>We actually sell them.

>where are you?
>

>>Last time [1 - 2 years ago ] our client bought them [ 5 scanners ] it was

> around $450 each.
>kewl .... ball park for the HP's Ive been lookin at.
>

>>I'll find out what's the price now.

>Sweet... Thanks!
>

>>Cardboard border ? u mean the white slide mount ?

>yes. the thing most slides came with in the 1970's...
>

>> I believe so.

>Thanks...

Be careful Biggus. I really suspect you could be disappointed. My
own "searching" over recent months suggests I would need to spend in
the low thousands of dollars to get a practical slide scanner (i.e one
that produces an acceptable scan in a convenient manner).

I've got many, many boxes of Kodachromes. I'm convinced that the only
serious option for digitising them is to use one of those scanners
with an automatic slide feeder so you can just bung in a batch at a
time and walk away. Otherwise you will spend your life on the job and
give up before you've barely started.

Anyway, do a google for "PrimeFilm 1800" and check out some of the
user reviews. I only looked at one set , and the best it scored was
2 out of 5 (average 1.7). [But it seems there are different versions
of the "1800" judging by one reviewer's comments, so this set of
reviews may not apply to the one you're looking at.]
<http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_130161_3126crx.aspx>

Mind you, some journalists do rate it higher (but then the cycnic in
me says most of them just reproduce the publicity blurb from the
manufacturer). See:
<http://www.referenceguide.com/reviews/pacific1800.htm>


Cheers, Phred.

--
[email]ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVA[/email]LID

[Brenton]

otmail email address, too much junk mail.

> "Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> > What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> > Many thanks
> >
> >
> >

You will need to go for a flat bed scanner that can do film for that
cost (or close to that cost)
Brenton

[Auspics]

I've got a nearly new Canon 9900f scanner you can have cheap
I bought it and then because of the level of my work, decided to go for a
dedicated film scanner instead. I have scanned 35mm and 6x10 film as well as
photos for restoration and it works quite well but unfortunately, not at the
professional level Canon claim. The RRP is $799 but I'll sell it for $600
(plus freight). This is about as cheap as you'll get a good quality
slide/film scanner.

Everything is as new. The packaging, the paperwork and the scanner itself.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it either. It's in Brisbane and you
are welcome to see it working on your own film or mine.
0421 288815
Justin
-----------------------------------------
"Valar" <remove@spam.com> wrote in message
news:bdboek$677$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...

> For that kind of money, the only slide scanner you can get is a used HP
> Photosmart S20 (or 20S?), barely useable as a slide scanner.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> > What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> > Many thanks
> >
> >
> >

>
>

[Adam F]

i saw an epson 2240 (or something) at harvey norman's yesterday for $199
which had a neg/slide attachment

sure it only does 300dpi but that's good enough for 10x15cm prints from most
inkjet printer i would have thought...and more than good enough for
uploading and sharing...


adam f


"Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> Many thanks
>
>
>

[Auspics]

The problem with low cost scanners is not so much the scan quality... Most
will do a pretty good scan but the speed with which they will scan film. The
one I'm selling does supurb quality but to scan a 6x9 neg at it's highest
resolution (3200dpi) and 48 bit colour, it can take 15 minutes to finish.
It's a whole other story that PhotoShop coughs at editing 48 bit files.

God only knows where Canon got the idea this was a professional scanner.
Having said that... Canon film/flatbed scanners are pretty good at the
quality end and to scan a print for enlarging, are fast and reliable... They
just bog down at scanning serious number of slides or film.
JT

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdcd4b$r3685$1@ID-151056.news.dfncis.de...

>
> Be careful Biggus. I really suspect you could be disappointed. My
> own "searching" over recent months suggests I would need to spend in
> the low thousands of dollars to get a practical slide scanner (i.e one
> that produces an acceptable scan in a convenient manner).
>
> I've got many, many boxes of Kodachromes. I'm convinced that the only
> serious option for digitising them is to use one of those scanners
> with an automatic slide feeder so you can just bung in a batch at a
> time and walk away. Otherwise you will spend your life on the job and
> give up before you've barely started.
>
> Anyway, do a google for "PrimeFilm 1800" and check out some of the
> user reviews. I only looked at one set , and the best it scored was
> 2 out of 5 (average 1.7). [But it seems there are different versions
> of the "1800" judging by one reviewer's comments, so this set of
> reviews may not apply to the one you're looking at.]
> <http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_130161_3126crx.aspx>
>
> Mind you, some journalists do rate it higher (but then the cycnic in
> me says most of them just reproduce the publicity blurb from the
> manufacturer). See:
> <http://www.referenceguide.com/reviews/pacific1800.htm>
>
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> --
> [email]ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVA[/email]LID
>

[Phred]

In article <hLwKa.437$Py2.5334@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Auspics" <just@the.groups> wrote:

>The problem with low cost scanners is not so much the scan quality... Most
>will do a pretty good scan but the speed with which they will scan film. The
>one I'm selling does supurb quality but to scan a 6x9 neg at it's highest
>resolution (3200dpi) and 48 bit colour, it can take 15 minutes to finish.

I don't wonder! Isn't 3200 dpi about 1.5MB of "dots" per sq. cm?
Is your 6x9 in inches or centimetres? Even if the latter, we're still
looking at about 82MB of "dots" or about 490MB for the uncompressed
image at 48 bits.

>It's a whole other story that PhotoShop coughs at editing 48 bit files.
>
>God only knows where Canon got the idea this was a professional scanner.
>Having said that... Canon film/flatbed scanners are pretty good at the
>quality end and to scan a print for enlarging, are fast and reliable... They
>just bog down at scanning serious number of slides or film.
>JT
>
>"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bdcd4b$r3685$1@ID-151056.news.dfncis.de...

>>
>> Be careful Biggus. I really suspect you could be disappointed. My
>> own "searching" over recent months suggests I would need to spend in
>> the low thousands of dollars to get a practical slide scanner (i.e one
>> that produces an acceptable scan in a convenient manner).
>>
>> I've got many, many boxes of Kodachromes. I'm convinced that the only
>> serious option for digitising them is to use one of those scanners
>> with an automatic slide feeder so you can just bung in a batch at a
>> time and walk away. Otherwise you will spend your life on the job and
>> give up before you've barely started.
>>
>> Anyway, do a google for "PrimeFilm 1800" and check out some of the
>> user reviews. I only looked at one set , and the best it scored was
>> 2 out of 5 (average 1.7). [But it seems there are different versions
>> of the "1800" judging by one reviewer's comments, so this set of
>> reviews may not apply to the one you're looking at.]
>> <http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_130161_3126crx.aspx>
>>
>> Mind you, some journalists do rate it higher (but then the cycnic in
>> me says most of them just reproduce the publicity blurb from the
>> manufacturer). See:
>> <http://www.referenceguide.com/reviews/pacific1800.htm>
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Phred.
>>
>> --
>> [email]ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVA[/email]LID
>>

>
>

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email]ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVA[/email]LID

[Lyn]

ummm... let me see... for the sake of simplicity lets just say that a slide
is an inch wide x one inch high.
If you can the slide at 300 dots per inch you will end up with a picture
that is only 300 pixels wide x 300 pixels high.
If you print this at 300 dpi the picture will only be one inch high x one
inch wide.
If you print it at 200 dpi (believe this is the minimum that places like
Teds will do digital printing) the picture will be around 1.5 inches high by
1.5 inches wide.
Spend an extra $150 on an epson with a built in TPU and scan them at 1200
dpi, or 600 if you only want to use them on the web.

"Adam F" <asfletchNOSPAM@uts.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3efa8b34$0$31513$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...

> i saw an epson 2240 (or something) at harvey norman's yesterday for $199
> which had a neg/slide attachment
>
> sure it only does 300dpi but that's good enough for 10x15cm prints from

most

> inkjet printer i would have thought...and more than good enough for
> uploading and sharing...
>
>
> adam f
>
>
> "Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> > What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> > Many thanks
> >
> >
> >

>
>

[Adam F]

Well the Epson SAYS 1200x600 or so dpi, afaik 300dpi is a so-called "true
dpi" the shop uses to give the customer an idea of what sort of print res
they can get with it...I could be wrong (often am).


Adam F


"Lyn" <lynbrock @ optusnet.com.au (remove spaces)> wrote in message
news:3f29f318$0$11107$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> ummm... let me see... for the sake of simplicity lets just say that a

slide

> is an inch wide x one inch high.
> If you can the slide at 300 dots per inch you will end up with a picture
> that is only 300 pixels wide x 300 pixels high.
> If you print this at 300 dpi the picture will only be one inch high x one
> inch wide.
> If you print it at 200 dpi (believe this is the minimum that places like
> Teds will do digital printing) the picture will be around 1.5 inches high

by

> 1.5 inches wide.
> Spend an extra $150 on an epson with a built in TPU and scan them at 1200
> dpi, or 600 if you only want to use them on the web.
>
> "Adam F" <asfletchNOSPAM@uts.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3efa8b34$0$31513$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...

> > i saw an epson 2240 (or something) at harvey norman's yesterday for $199
> > which had a neg/slide attachment
> >
> > sure it only does 300dpi but that's good enough for 10x15cm prints from

> most

> > inkjet printer i would have thought...and more than good enough for
> > uploading and sharing...
> >
> >
> > adam f
> >
> >
> > "Graeme Hogan" <ghogan01@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3ef95323$0$24424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> > > What's the best/cheapest scanner for around $250.
> > > Many thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>