This Canon unit seems very popular:
It does 4 slides at a time. Not nearly as automated as I'd like, but if it's fast, I can probably
pre-cull before scanning. I think I have one working slide projector at the office.
How about Stereoscopic images (2 35mm slides in a custom frame)? Is there a 3rd party adapter for
that? I don't want to take apart the stereoscopic frames because I have two well-working viewers.
Note that I'm not trying to produce a coffeetable art book here, just get a reasonable quality scan
of family slides so they are "unlocked" for everyone's enjoyment. Most of these will never be
printed, mostly enjoyed in digital picture frames and on iPads. Convenience and efficient use of
time is my main goal, but I don't want to waste time producing crapola quality that won't be
enjoyed. The less Photoshop processing I have to do, the better. Ideally, the scan would be the
master image as long as the slide is a good image.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Dix" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days?
> If you want to go old school and have a lot of time on your hand you could try to find a leafscan
> 35 or 45.
> We have a leafscan 45 with silverfast but a scan takes very long.
> Notre Dame Archives
> On 9/19/2012 7:54 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> I don't like e-books at all. Reading on the Kindle or iPad gives me a headache. I like printed
>> on paper, call me a fossil. When I download something in PDF, I always print it out and read it
>> paper. However, I'm not knocking the idea of scanned text, it's a tremendous resource. I don't
>> printing something out, especially if it's something that was previously rare or hard to find.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:49 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days?
>>> On 19/09/2012, Roger Kulp wrote:
>>>> As much as I love records, I would be happy to see the printed book go
>>> A well printed book with good typography, ideally using letterpress
>>> printing rather than offset, is a thing of beauty in itself.
>>> If you just want to read a text file from Gutenberg, I guess a Kindle is
>>> OK. I find the resolution too low - it can't handle pen drawings well.
>>> Don Cox
>>> [log in to unmask]