There's a nice Eizo 22.5 incher on eBay that ought to suit your needs well:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM, John Schroth
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Thanks Carl:
> What I failed to mention and Carl briefly touches base on, is your
> display. Without a high quality monitor, calibration hardware/software and
> a good understanding of color management, any adjustments you make to an
> image is a shot in the dark. A high quality monitor will reproduce and
> display the full range (or almost full range) of the image's color spectrum
> and the color space format you are scanning to (ie: Adobe RGB). Without the
> ability to see the full gamut or range of the color spectrum on a monitor
> and without that monitor being calibrated properly you cannot reproduce a
> faithful color representation of the image, actually sometimes what you
> create is a mess. A high-end monitor for doing image work is akin to a good
> set of headphones and/or monitor speakers when working with audio.
> A good example was when I was first getting into the scanning business. I
> was scanning 35mm slides for a well-known photographer here in Rochester.
> He worked for Kodak for many years and took many of the Colorama photos one
> would see on display in Grand Central Station in NYC. We were sending files
> of the 35mm slide scans out to a stock photo house in Colorado. The owner
> of the stock photo house sent him an email after receiving the first batch
> of samples telling him to dump the company doing the scanning work as they
> had not a clue what they were doing. The images had color banding issues,
> color noise and the color balance was way off. The images looked fine on my
> computer CRT display (which I thought was a good one at the time) and on my
> client's Apple Mac display. We were both scratching our heads. I invested
> in an Eizo Coloredge color monitor and calibration hardware/software and as
> soon as we dialed in the monitor and put some of the samples up on the
> display we were both embarrassed and shocked at what we saw.
> I guess where I'm going with this is, if you only have a small collection
> of slides and want a really good quality scan, you're better off sending
> them out. Then again, if you want to have the capability of a decent/good
> scanner and like working with images it's important to know that a good
> scanner is only part of the equation. Your scans will only be as good as,
> not only what the scanner can deliver, but how you can see/view the data
> and how the entire chain is calibrated, so that you can make accurate
> adjustments. Throw in some time for a learning curve and it's definitely
> rewarding on the back end.
> One last bit of advice for people looking to get into scanning images.
> First, come up with a plan and do a lot of testing before you actually
> begin any scanning project. Richard's post noted a lot of details about
> file format type, resolutions and bit depths. Obviously he took careful
> consideration of what type of file formats and settings he was using for
> his project. You don't want to get half way into the project to find out
> you should have been scanning to some other option or different setting.
> The second is the importance of keeping one set of original raw (as in
> untouched) scans without adjustment. That way if you find you want to go
> back to the original because adjustments you made to the scan were less
> than perfect, you can. Third, after making any adjustments to an image, you
> want to back the adjustments off slightly. When you look at an image and
> make adjustments, persistence of vision comes into play. The longer you sit
> there and stare an an image, the more acceptable your changes become to
> your eyes. Even with professionals - I too-often see oversharpening,
> oversaturation, over compensation. Most often less is more (and better).
> Happy scanning!
> John Schroth
> Media Transfer Service, LLC
> On 9/18/2012 11:36 AM, Carl wrote:
>> I've been doing film scanning for over a decade; not professionally, but
>> seriously. With both the LS-30 and Coolscan 4000, Vuescan worked great and
>> I join the chorus in recommending it. Best $80 I've ever spent on sw.
>> If this isn't an ongoing pursuit, I'd take John's message seriously and
>> send them out. There is a learning curve, which could take 200 images to
>> climb. Most of my stuff is on color negative, which is more challenging
>> than slides, as you have no reference for color balance. But, slides can
>> also be tough as the narrower contrast range of print or screen display
>> requires interpretation. That takes time and practice. Add to that the
>> effort of perfecting a scanning workflow, which can vary in its details
>> from one system platform to another, and the time adds up significantly. A
>> cheap scanner that won't handle the higher densities will multiply your
>> editing time and potential frustration. Working with pictures in Photoshop
>> (or whatever) is great fun, but scanning isn't!
>> Carl (John, I'm a fellow Rochesterian)
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Schroth <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Sep 18, 2012 10:22 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days?
>>> Hello Tom:
>>> Part of my business includes slide scanning services. Here's my opinion.
>>> If you only have 200 slides, this is a very small amount. If you really
>>> want to get a good quality scan, and you don't feel you'll be scanning a
>>> ton of slides in the future - send the slide out to a service for
>>> scanning. The time and money you will spend trying to fit out
>>> hardware/software and testing will not be worth it. If you will be doing
>>> more scanning in the future and/or you still want to get a scanner, then
>>> read below:
>>> I've tried and tested many options. I have not found any flatbed
>>> scanners to be acceptable for scanning small format transparencies,
>>> including 35mm slides. Flatbeds just can't match small gauge dedicated
>>> CCD imaging. I have a Epson VM-750 pro flatbed and any transparency
>>> scans in or near the 35mm size class does not look nearly as good as
>> >from a dedicated small format transparency scanner. A company in town
>>> that also offers slide scanning services uses a very high-end flatbed
>>> scanner for slides and they still look crappy. You just can't get the
>>> resolution and density range.
>>> I agree with Randy - For the money, based on your needs as you described
>>> below, if you're looking for better than a flatbed, the Nikon Coolscan
>>> 5000 with the bulk film loader offers the best quality. The 5000 was the
>>> only one to take a bulk film loader. With all my testing, the only other
>>> option that scans at better quality than the Nikon is Hasselblad but
>>> you're looking at a price point of more than $10,000 over the cost of
>>> the Nikon, for minimal gains only at very high resolution scans. The
>>> unfortunate issue is that Nikon stopped making these units, they are not
>>> available new, and can only be found used. I've had several contacts I
>>> know buy the used Nikon 5000's on Ebay, as long as the seller guaranteed
>>> the item, the buyer was protected. Both of the units that I know of that
>>> were purchased through Ebay worked out fine. I believe you can still get
>>> the bulk loader attachment through B&H Photo.
>>> I know of one person who has purchased a Pacific Imaging Powerslide
>>> 5000. They say that the bulk loading mechanism jams (though so too does
>>> the Nikon bulk loader - but I've worked out modifications to this and it
>>> works fairly reliably now). They said that the quality of the scans from
>>> the Powerslide were good and they were pleased with the end results,
>>> though they were not a professional scanning service with a discerning
>>> eye and a really good monitor, so I'm not sure how the quality compares
>>> to the Nikon. My guess is that the Nikon is better.
>>> The Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the Pacific Imaging Powerslide 5000 are the
>>> only two scanners that I know of that have good-excellent ratings that
>>> can handle bulk slide scanning.
>>> There is no type of software that I know of that offers "good" results,
>>> for automatic, accurate exposure and color balance during the scan.
>>> Believe me, if there was, I'd be using it - as I get many projects
>>> through the door that are several thousand slides. The bottom line, you
>>> really have to "touch" each slide in Photoshop after the scan to
>>> accurately represent exposure and color balance. The closest I can come
>>> to an automated adjustment is using Viewscan pro software and setting up
>>> for an automatic white balance setting, with a safe/conservative fixed
>>> adjustment for the white and black points so that both the top and
>>> bottom point of the histogram are not clipped during the scan. Then you
>>> can batch process the scans in Photoshop using auto color correct
>>> adjustment only, then using a 25-30% fade on the adjustment as part of
>>> the batch scan. This will get you close. Even at that, I still prefer to
>>> make all my adjustments by hand and not batch process anything.
>>> The best scanning software you can get is Viewscan. It will work with
>>> almost any scanner and offers many more options for your scanner than
>>> the native GUI will. I can't say enough about this software and the
>>> support they have after the sale.
>>> Let me know if you have any additional questions.
>>> John Schroth
>>> Media Transfer Service, LLC
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5275 - Release Date: 09/18/12