LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  September 2012

ARSCLIST September 2012

Subject:

Re: 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days?

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:09:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (112 lines)

Hi, Randy and Tom.

Tom and I have been discussing this off-list for a while as I have 
almost completed my slide scanning project. My two sons, and I have just 
finished scanning 52,350 photographs. One of my sons, my wife, and I 
have also scanned about 11,500 pages of documents in the same time 
(2008-2012 with much time off for good behaviour--it was one of my son's 
summer jobs for 2008-2012 with 2010 taken up by an extended family trip).

Anyway, we have scanned 35 mm, 16 mm, 110, 126, 616, 4x5, and 5x7 film 
plus prints.
Of the total, almost 43,400 were 35 mm transparencies. The vast majority 
(all but a few thousand) were done on a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED with 
SF-210 feeder using the native software. The other few thousand were 
scanned in the 12-slide holder that came with the Epson V700. The V700 
was also used for all the non-35 mm formats. Somewhere around 6000 
images were from 35 mm negatives, and all of those were scanned with the 
Nikon. The document scanning was done on an older HP flatbed with 
double-sided sheet feeder for starters, but we soon realized that was 
not up to the task, so we bought a Xerox Documate 3115 and later a 
Brother MFC-J6510DW 11x17 multifunction ink-jet 
printer/scanner/copier/fax to handle the several hundred 11x17 documents 
I wanted to scan.

I agree that VueScan is an excellent choice, and I do own a license to 
it, but when it came time to evaluate it (2011 due to our switch from 
Windows XP to Windows 7), the project was well along and much of what we 
had left to scan was of less artistic importance than memory importance. 
We were all accustomed to the Nikon software and were very pleased with 
the image quality. In fact, in my limited testing I could not get 
VueScan to make scans that were as pleasing from Velvia as the Nikon 
software did--and I loved Velvia. We found a hack online for the Nikon 
software that allowed it to run on Windows 7.

Digital ICE is very useful and it makes wonderfully clean images from E4 
and E6 transparencies, but it fails horribly on Kodachrome 
transparencies which is what I think comprises the vast majority of 
Tom's collection from his description. It is also relatively unusable on 
black-and-white silver-bearing emulsions (it should work fine on the 
C41-processed black-and-white film that I have never used).

I found overall that the Digital ICE implementation in the Nikon 
software/scanner was substantially superior to that of the Epson, at 
least the results were. This could have been cockpit problems.

We made a decision early on that we were scanning for all reasonable 
family usage and some potential publication usages. We scanned the 
family negatives as 6 MP (about 2000 dpi) images and the vast majority 
of the transparencies at 3000 dpi, 8 bit per colour (36 MB each). A few 
selected transparencies were scanned at 4000 dpi 16 bit per colour. We 
saved everything as a TIF file, uncompressed, and also made a 
corresponding JPG file of the image (it is convenient that Lightroom 
automatically stacks the pair. In that way, we have, ready to go, an 
emailable version as well as a better version for whatever use.

Along with about 20,000 Nikon NEF files (most with accompanying JPGs) 
and a few thousand camera-original JPGs, the whole image store takes up 
about 2 TB. It is stored in three locations: (a) A RAID5 NAS unit in my 
house. (b) A RAID5 NAS unit in my neighbour's house (copied to every 
night with exceptions--JPGs are not over-written to protect the boys' 
images from editing and then writing over the original). (c) Three 1 TB 
2.5" USB HDDs in a steel case in third house across town. We have 100% 
backups (with a 3-4 month latency for updates) of our main 
image/document server pair and about a 30% backup of the audio, 
work-in-progress server pair in the ammo case which might even provide 
some protection against EMP and the geographic diversity is such that it 
is highly unlikely that all three houses will be affected even by a 
Goderich-style tornado (2011 and the impetus for the third backup set).

We did use Digital DEE in the Nikon software set on a very low value (8) 
to compensate for the lack of 16 bit encoding. It slightly opened up the 
shadows. Again, something that could be applied in a large-scale process 
by people who might be aspiring artists, but aren't quite ready to make 
the decisions (or have the time/interest, to be honest).

Yes, the Nikon is slow (two minutes a scan is a good estimate still), 
but in many instances you can get through 50 slides without a jam, but 
with older mounts, it is more dicey.

We all have collections of this stuff and dealing with it now is about 
as good as it gets. Too bad the Nikon is discontinued, but used ones are 
going for a good price. No, I'm not selling mine. I still have about 
1400 of my 35 mm transparencies that I saved to the end because they are 
all mixed up--they were images I submitted for publication over the 
years and, of course, they never got back in the correct places. Now I 
can physically file them mostly as a group (or drop them in with the 
other originals from the same session) but sort the files properly. 
Since these were already submitted for publication -- and a few 
published -- these are more likely to get the 4000 dpi 16 bit per colour 
scans, but it was very convenient to have all the folders (physical and 
electronic) ready to deposit these.

I also inherited perhaps 10,000 from my father's collection which also 
embodies my second mother's life prior to marrying my father. No one 
cares about what happens to these images, so they will be culled, but 
some will be scanned. My wife and I have already looked at his 1981 trip 
to Alaska and it makes, in some area, a nice complement to our 1989, 
1990, 1992, and 2007 images from Alaska. I suspect we'll probably only 
scan in the neighbourhood of 3000 or so of these images, tossing the 
rest. There was some dirty wash water and mould issues with these (as 
there was with some of mine).

Cheers,

Richard

-- 
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager