On 04/04/07, David Breneman wrote:
> --- Steve Ramm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I was one of those who only took
>> slides cause they were cheaper than prints. I have thousands.
> I'm one of those who takes slides because they're better than
> prints. I also have thousands which I'm slowly digitizing
> but with the knowledge that the digitized copies are a last
> ditch preservation in case something happens to the originals
> (fire, flood, war, whatever). The slides themselves are
> still far more archivally stable than the digital copies.
>> If you do it yourself
>> it will take at least 3 minutes per slide to scan and save PLUS
>> the cost of a $100. scanner.
> Holy cats! If you know of a $100 slide scanner pass that
> information on. I'm using a Konica/Minolta DiMage scanner
> I bought right before Sony bought out their line. It was
> about $500. It will do mounted slides and unmounted film,
> but will not accommodate stereo slides unless you remove them
> from the mounts. And I'm still looking for something
> affordable than can do 120 slides and negatives.
I plan to get an Epson 750 in a month or two. It costs a good deal more
than $100, but it will do batch scanning so you can put a dozen slides
on the machine and go away and leave it.
Also it does 120 sizes, which is essential for me.
It gets good reviews but I may borrow one to test it before buying.
[log in to unmask]