What about thee cool scan 8000? I thought it is a better choice?
Sent from my ringing donkey
On 18 בספט 2012, at 16:21, Randy Lane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A Nikon Coolscan 5000 is your best bet. It is really the only one to ever
> have an optional slide feeder, which will cost you an extra $300-500.
> Expensive, yes. But, they hold their value. Buy one, even used, slide your
> clooection, then resell it and you likely have very little if any loss -
> you may even sell it for more than you paid. The CoolScan 4000 will work
> also, but you MUST have a firewire port, as it does not support USB.
> There is also the flatbed option, for which slide holders capable of batch
> scanning up to 15 slides are available. My recommendation there is the
> Epson Perfection V700 or V750. Like the Nikon, both of those come with
> Digital Ice infrared scatch removal - a critical element as even the best
> slides have imperfections. Infrared scratch removal examines the surface of
> rthe slide itself for imperfections. Other solutions examine the photo
> itself to determine what is a scratch; with those solutions many items
> meant to be in the picture get mistaken for scratches or dust.
> One other recommendation - do NOT use the bundled software that comes
> withthe scanner, even SilverFast. Get VueScan (
> http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html ). I am the restoration artist in you Tom
> will be much much happier with this software. You've used enough audio
> restoration software to know that the easiest/simplest solution most always
> produces poor quality, unwanted distortions, and more. Like better audio
> restoration software, VueScan has a learning curve, but the results are
> well worth the effort. And, very importantly, VueScan lets you save the
> "RAW" scanned information without applying any correction effects, much
> like you would first record an LP and save the raw unretouched audio file
> separate from that which you apply restorative effects to later. My
> workflow with VueScan involves starting the raw scan, usually in batch
> mode as you've expressed a desire for, set to save the results to a file
> that inculdes teh infrared data embedded in the file. VueScan can then, one
> at a time with you at the helm, reload each file and apply color balancing,
> scratch removal, etc (the equivalent of DSP) and see the reults before
> saving you final file. The raw scan file can be saved and reprocessed at a
> later time (no scanner neessary, just VueScan) should you desire to revisit
> the it to apply the digital effect a little differently.
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> Hi All:
>> This kinda relates to ARSC because I'm sure all of us have dabbled in
>> multi-media at one point or another.
>> I have a bunch of 35mm slides I'd like to digitize. They are all good
>> condition and almost all are Kodachrome or whatever the film type was that
>> holds color and doesn't fade. So they are vivid and not scratched or dirty,
>> despite being 50-60 years old.
>> Back the last time I thought about this, years ago, a Nikon scanner with
>> an auto-feed mechanism cost a small fortune and took several minutes per
>> slide (this was back in the early Pentium IV days). I have a faster
>> computer now (Dell Precision Workstation T3400 with loads of memory and
>> fast hard drives), and am wondering what the recommended hardware options
>> are. I'm not wedded to Nikon, but I do want a solid scanner with an
>> excellent auto-feed mechanism. I'd love to load in a few dozen slides and
>> set-and-forget, with the scanner software writing some sort of non-lossy
>> format (PSD, TIFF or something else). I'll then look at the results in my
>> image-viewing software and decide which warrant further Photoshop work.
>> Ideally, the scanner would be unlike my Epson large-format scanner in that
>> it turns out a nicely contrasted/nicely-color-**balanced image from the
>> getgo and doesn't require Photoshop in most cases.
>> I notice there are a variety of slide scanners on the market, varying
>> widely in price. I don't have to go dirt-cheap, but I want value if I pay
>> extra, not just a brand name. I need "good quality personal-use strength"
>> not "industrial strength." Total project will be a few hundred slides, not
>> thousands and not intending to use this thing every day for years.
>> Recommendations appreciated. Thanks in advance!
>> -- Tom Fine