On 18/09/2012, Randy Lane 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.
I have a 750. Bare film in the holders is fine, but mounted slides
cannot be focussed accurately.
So I am still using the scanner for medium and large format, but using a
camera for mounted 35mm.
The other problem is that it is very slow, taking minutes for each
slide, where the camera takes about ten seconds including focussing
time. It is easy to do 100 slides in a morning on the camera.
> 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.
I don't find that scratches are very common. Dust is, and a good blow
from an aerosol dust remover or a "Rocket" blower is desirable.
Some 1960s Ektachromes are developing brown patches from fungal growth.
These can be removed in Photoshop with the paintbrush in "Color" mode.
> 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
>> multi-media at one point or another.
>> I have a bunch of 35mm slides I'd like to digitize. They are all
>> 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
>> despite being 50-60 years old.
>> Back the last time I thought about this, years ago, a Nikon scanner
>> an auto-feed mechanism cost a small fortune and took several minutes
>> slide (this was back in the early Pentium IV days). I have a faster
>> computer now (Dell Precision Workstation T3400 with loads of memory
>> fast hard drives), and am wondering what the recommended hardware
>> 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
>> format (PSD, TIFF or something else). I'll then look at the results
>> in my
>> image-viewing software and decide which warrant further Photoshop
>> Ideally, the scanner would be unlike my Epson large-format scanner
>> in that
>> it turns out a nicely contrasted/nicely-color-**balanced image from
>> getgo and doesn't require Photoshop in most cases.
>> I notice there are a variety of slide scanners on the market,
>> 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
>> 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
[log in to unmask]