What about thee cool scan 8000? I thought it is a better choice? Shai 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 >>