scanning slides in Australia

[kerravon]

Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.

She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.

She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.

Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.

So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.

Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.

Thanks. Paul.

[Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF]

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.

Yeah, who isn't.

Post by kerravon
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.

I've got a Nikon CoolScan.

Post by kerravon
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.

Amazing, isn't it?

Post by kerravon
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.

Funny, most of my slides are still in good condition. What's happened to hers?

Post by kerravon
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.

Might be better to get the best you can get and then sell it after you're done.
At least that way, you get decent equipment and you recover some of the money.

Post by kerravon
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.

You'd need a flatbed for prints (or photograph them). My CoolScan will take neg
strips. Not sure if the newer version does. Only problem is that its all manual.
You need to go to high end commercial equipment to process them in batches.

There's also a few commercial outfits that do them but they aren't cheap. Photo
stores will outsource to them.
--

- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

[Noons]

Post by kerravon
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.

Assuming it's 35mm dedicated film scanner you want, get a Nikon Coolscan V ED on
ebay for between 500 and 1000. They are the best at that price range. If you
really want the top, go for a 5000 ED: it'll cost you around 2 grand but there
is nothing better at the moment except a 9000 (a lot more expensive!). Ignore
anyone that tells you a IV ED, 4000 or 8000 ED are the same: they are most
definitely not, much older technology. There is a very good reason Nikon came up
with the newer series.

Post by kerravon
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.

Printed stuff means using flatbed scanner. That is a totally different animal.
The best around for a good price is the Epson V750. That will scan film and
slides as well, but the two Nikon dedicated film scanners above will run rings
around the Epson for top quality in those. If you can compromise a little bit
on quality, the Epson is a good overall solution.

Be ready to invest on additional software to post-process the scans. One of the
most fundamental errors in scanning is to assume the process itself does
everything. It does not. You need good de-noiser software, a good image editor
and good sharpening software.

And lots of disk space and a good printer, if planning to put them out in
anything other than computer screens. Or else be prepared to outsource the
printing - not a bad idea either!

You can always resell a Nikon scanner on ebay, for not much less than you paid
for it: they are in constant demand. Epsons lose a bit of value, but not much
more. So you can always recoup the investment in hardware later on.

I have heaps of examples of scanned film in my gallery here:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/gallery/#_browse
I use a 9000 and a V ED. You can clearly see there how good some of the scans
can be. But I do post-processing, unlike so many others.

HTH

[Pete D]

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite good and
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF negs. If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would do you
well.

Cheers.

Pete

[Mr.T]

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite good and
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF negs. If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would do you
well.

Since the budget will easily buy one of the good Nikon film scanners, or
Canons own FS4000, I wouldn't waste my time doing more than a couple of
slides for web purposes with the MP800 or 8400F. Which is not to say the
8400F is not a good general purpose scanner if that's all the budget allowed
for, and better than the MP800 at least. The difference between a proper
film scanner and a flatbed however, makes the other choices a waste of time
and money IMO.

MrT.

[Pete D]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite good and
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF negs. If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would do you
well.

Since the budget will easily buy one of the good Nikon film scanners, or
Canons own FS4000, I wouldn't waste my time doing more than a couple of
slides for web purposes with the MP800 or 8400F. Which is not to say the
8400F is not a good general purpose scanner if that's all the budget allowed
for, and better than the MP800 at least. The difference between a proper
film scanner and a flatbed however, makes the other choices a waste of time
and money IMO.
MrT.

Depends on many things. What problems did you encounter when using the
8400F? For the low cost and a small amount of trial and error a great result
can be had. If you have only a few snaps to scan then I highly recommend it,
if you need more then I would be surprised that the OP would ask here.



Cheers.

Pete

[Mr.T]

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite good and
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF negs. If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would do you
well.

Since the budget will easily buy one of the good Nikon film scanners, or
Canons own FS4000, I wouldn't waste my time doing more than a couple of
slides for web purposes with the MP800 or 8400F. Which is not to say the
8400F is not a good general purpose scanner if that's all the budget allowed
for, and better than the MP800 at least. The difference between a proper
film scanner and a flatbed however, makes the other choices a waste of time
and money IMO.

Depends on many things. What problems did you encounter when using the
8400F? For the low cost and a small amount of trial and error a great result
can be had. If you have only a few snaps to scan then I highly recommend it,

**IF** only a "few snaps" are required then I would agree.

Post by Pete D
if you need more then I would be surprised that the OP would ask here.

Then you should simply re-read what he actually wrote!
If his sister is unhappy with the MP800, and is prepared to pay $1,000 to
$2,000 for something to do the job *properly*, then suggesting the 8400F is
stupid IMO.
I guess you have never used a proper slide scanner, or attempted to make
quality digital enlargements from them.

OTOH I do recommend the 8400F to many people who do not wish to spend too
much on a general purpose scanner, and can live with it's limitations,
especially since most are not interested in scanning slides anyway. And when
they do, a 6"x4" print is usually all they want.

MrT.

[Pete D]

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite good

and

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF
negs.
If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would do you
well.

Since the budget will easily buy one of the good Nikon film scanners, or
Canons own FS4000, I wouldn't waste my time doing more than a couple of
slides for web purposes with the MP800 or 8400F. Which is not to say the
8400F is not a good general purpose scanner if that's all the budget allowed
for, and better than the MP800 at least. The difference between a proper
film scanner and a flatbed however, makes the other choices a waste of time
and money IMO.

Depends on many things. What problems did you encounter when using the
8400F? For the low cost and a small amount of trial and error a great

result

Post by Pete D
can be had. If you have only a few snaps to scan then I highly recommend

it,
**IF** only a "few snaps" are required then I would agree.

Post by Pete D
if you need more then I would be surprised that the OP would ask here.

Then you should simply re-read what he actually wrote!
If his sister is unhappy with the MP800, and is prepared to pay $1,000 to
$2,000 for something to do the job *properly*, then suggesting the 8400F is
stupid IMO.
I guess you have never used a proper slide scanner, or attempted to make
quality digital enlargements from them.
OTOH I do recommend the 8400F to many people who do not wish to spend too
much on a general purpose scanner, and can live with it's limitations,
especially since most are not interested in scanning slides anyway. And when
they do, a 6"x4" print is usually all they want.
MrT.

Apart from the fact that you failed to answer my question the OP did not
specify what the final output needs to be used for, without that any advice
is only speculation and many answers may well be suitable. I note that the
OP has failed to give any more guidance when offered suggestions so can only
assume that they really were just trolling.

Cheers.

Pete

[Mr.T]

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite good

and

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF
negs.
If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would

do

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D
you
well.

Since the budget will easily buy one of the good Nikon film scanners, or
Canons own FS4000, I wouldn't waste my time doing more than a couple of
slides for web purposes with the MP800 or 8400F. Which is not to say the
8400F is not a good general purpose scanner if that's all the budget allowed
for, and better than the MP800 at least. The difference between a proper
film scanner and a flatbed however, makes the other choices a waste

of

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T
time
and money IMO.

Depends on many things. What problems did you encounter when using the
8400F? For the low cost and a small amount of trial and error a great

result

Post by Pete D
can be had. If you have only a few snaps to scan then I highly recommend

it,
**IF** only a "few snaps" are required then I would agree.

Post by Pete D
if you need more then I would be surprised that the OP would ask here.

Then you should simply re-read what he actually wrote!
If his sister is unhappy with the MP800, and is prepared to pay $1,000 to
$2,000 for something to do the job *properly*, then suggesting the 8400F is
stupid IMO.
I guess you have never used a proper slide scanner, or attempted to make
quality digital enlargements from them.
OTOH I do recommend the 8400F to many people who do not wish to spend too
much on a general purpose scanner, and can live with it's limitations,
especially since most are not interested in scanning slides anyway. And when
they do, a 6"x4" print is usually all they want.

Apart from the fact that you failed to answer my question the OP did not
specify what the final output needs to be used for, without that any advice
is only speculation and many answers may well be suitable. I note that the
OP has failed to give any more guidance when offered suggestions so can only
assume that they really were just trolling.

Could well be true in hindsight, BUT the OP did specify $1,000 to $2,000
range and got replies telling him to buy a $100 - $300 scanner when he was
clearly unhappy with his current cheap scanner. So on the basis that I
initially assume the post is legit at least, I still don't see the point in
offering advice that does not match the stated requirements?

MrT.

[Pete D]

Post by kerravon

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the

pictures.

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to

get

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D

Post by kerravon
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

My Canon 8400F will do 8 slides at a time, the results are quite

good

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D
and

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D
the scanner was only about $300, will also do 35mm, MF and and LF
negs.
If
all you want to do is print at say up to 8x10 then this setup would

do

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D
you
well.

Since the budget will easily buy one of the good Nikon film
scanners,
or
Canons own FS4000, I wouldn't waste my time doing more than a couple

of

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T
slides for web purposes with the MP800 or 8400F. Which is not to say the
8400F is not a good general purpose scanner if that's all the budget allowed
for, and better than the MP800 at least. The difference between a proper
film scanner and a flatbed however, makes the other choices a waste

of

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D

Post by Mr.T
time
and money IMO.

Depends on many things. What problems did you encounter when using the
8400F? For the low cost and a small amount of trial and error a great

result

Post by Pete D
can be had. If you have only a few snaps to scan then I highly

recommend

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D
it,
**IF** only a "few snaps" are required then I would agree.

Post by Pete D
if you need more then I would be surprised that the OP would ask here.

Then you should simply re-read what he actually wrote!
If his sister is unhappy with the MP800, and is prepared to pay $1,000

to

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D
$2,000 for something to do the job *properly*, then suggesting the
8400F
is
stupid IMO.
I guess you have never used a proper slide scanner, or attempted to make
quality digital enlargements from them.
OTOH I do recommend the 8400F to many people who do not wish to spend

too

Post by Pete D

Post by Pete D
much on a general purpose scanner, and can live with it's limitations,
especially since most are not interested in scanning slides anyway. And when
they do, a 6"x4" print is usually all they want.

Apart from the fact that you failed to answer my question the OP did not
specify what the final output needs to be used for, without that any

advice

Post by Pete D
is only speculation and many answers may well be suitable. I note that the
OP has failed to give any more guidance when offered suggestions so can

only

Post by Pete D
assume that they really were just trolling.

Could well be true in hindsight, BUT the OP did specify $1,000 to $2,000
range and got replies telling him to buy a $100 - $300 scanner when he was
clearly unhappy with his current cheap scanner. So on the basis that I
initially assume the post is legit at least, I still don't see the point in
offering advice that does not match the stated requirements?
MrT.

How does the OP know they need a $1000-2000 scanner, they would not, they
really need to give more info about what they must have as a finished
product and theres the problem, they have provided answers that they know
nothing about in their Project Definition Statement, really they failed in a
big way. What they should have asked is "I have some slides and want to
digitise them so that I can use the result to do XXXXXX/print 8x10, use for
web, make posters, etc, whatever", whithout this we can only guess what they
really need.

Anyway See You Next Time.

Pete

[Mr.T]

Post by Pete D
How does the OP know they need a $1000-2000 scanner, they would not

We do not know what they don't know. You are simply making assumptions.
Since *He* stated that price range, I can't see your reason for assuming he
only wanted to spend $100, and that you know far better than he does what he
should spend. Frankly when someone is unhappy with a device, I would never
tell them to spend a similar amount on another one, what they need more
often than not is a far better class of device entirely. People who
continually buy a Hyundai hoping to get a Ferrari are bound to be
disappointed IMO.
*IF* a $100-$300 scanner was anywhere near as good as a $1000 film scanner,
then maybe you would be right to point out his folly. Since they are NOT,
and since he clearly stated he was unhappy with his current cheap scanner,
then you're simply wasting everyones time as I see it.
Yes he should have followed up with more information, and since he hasn't,
us continuing to speculate seems rather pointless. Having used a range of
flatbeds and proper film scanners, I stand by my previous statements
however.

Post by Pete D
Anyway See You Next Time.

Yep I agree, time to let this one rest.

MrT.

[Pete D]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Pete D
How does the OP know they need a $1000-2000 scanner, they would not

We do not know what they don't know. You are simply making assumptions.
Since *He* stated that price range, I can't see your reason for assuming he
only wanted to spend $100, and that you know far better than he does what he
should spend. Frankly when someone is unhappy with a device, I would never
tell them to spend a similar amount on another one, what they need more
often than not is a far better class of device entirely. People who
continually buy a Hyundai hoping to get a Ferrari are bound to be
disappointed IMO.
*IF* a $100-$300 scanner was anywhere near as good as a $1000 film scanner,
then maybe you would be right to point out his folly. Since they are NOT,
and since he clearly stated he was unhappy with his current cheap scanner,
then you're simply wasting everyones time as I see it.
Yes he should have followed up with more information, and since he hasn't,
us continuing to speculate seems rather pointless. Having used a range of
flatbeds and proper film scanners, I stand by my previous statements
however.

Post by Pete D
Anyway See You Next Time.

Yep I agree, time to let this one rest.
MrT.

LOL, so you can assume that he "knew" he should buy a $1000-$2000 scanner
but you are allowed to do that, good for you.

Lets not say anything else until the OP bites back in and says what he wants
the output to be used for, that way someone can really with some clarity
give him some real advice without pretending they know what he really needs
to to the job.

Cheers.

Pete

[Mr.T]

Post by Pete D
LOL, so you can assume that he "knew" he should buy a $1000-$2000 scanner
but you are allowed to do that, good for you.

I made no assumption at all, I just read what he wrote and replied
appropriately.

MrT.

[t***@altavista.com]

Post by Pete D

Snip SNip
OTOH I do recommend the 8400F to many people who do not wish to spend too
much on a general purpose scanner, and can live with it's limitations,
especially since most are not interested in scanning slides anyway. And when
they do, a 6"x4" print is usually all they want.
MrT.

Apart from the fact that you failed to answer my question the OP did not
specify what the final output needs to be used for, without that any advice
is only speculation and many answers may well be suitable. I note that the
OP has failed to give any more guidance when offered suggestions so can only
assume that they really were just trolling.

Probably the real reason the OP has'nt been back is all the crap going on between the
different posters.

I don't think that's what they asked the question on....

Post by Pete D
Cheers.
Pete

[Pete D]

Post by t***@altavista.com

Post by Pete D

Snip SNip
OTOH I do recommend the 8400F to many people who do not wish to spend too
much on a general purpose scanner, and can live with it's limitations,
especially since most are not interested in scanning slides anyway. And when
they do, a 6"x4" print is usually all they want.
MrT.

Apart from the fact that you failed to answer my question the OP did not
specify what the final output needs to be used for, without that any advice
is only speculation and many answers may well be suitable. I note that the
OP has failed to give any more guidance when offered suggestions so can only
assume that they really were just trolling.

Probably the real reason the OP has'nt been back is all the crap going on between the
different posters.
I don't think that's what they asked the question on....

Post by Pete D
Cheers.
Pete

Actually I think the main problem is that the OP has not provided some
fairly important information and has failed to then offer that info.

[Mary Anglesea]

We have an EPSON STYLUS PHOTO RX510 and have copied slides and negatives
quite successfully. We bought this multi function printer (for around $300
at Harvey Norman) a couple of years ago and it is still working
beautifully. It would be worth checking if epson still has these or even an
updated version.
Hope this helps, Mary

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

[k]

"kerravon" <***@w3.to> wrote in message news:5173bd0b-8fb5-49c2-a105-***@d39g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
| Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
|
| She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
|
| She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
| area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
|


before you blow any money on hardware, try downloading Vuescan
http://www.hamrick.com/ and giving it a go. It'll give you access to the
hardware layer of the scanner rather than being forced to access it through
the software (which can do dumb things like crop, clip curves and other
nasty things) - Vuescan also lets you do multipass scans. yay :)


My first attempts at driving the incredibly sharp Canon FS4000US were
nothing short of dissapointing using Canons software, and it made all the
Nikons of the day look really good. Once I loaded Vuescan and tried all the
scanners again on the same images, the Canon outshone everything. Canon
made such a dogs breakfast of the scanner software that the scanner was all
but useless out of the box.

If Vuescan solves the problem, but the standard version and you'll never
look back. Being able to use the same software to drive almost any scanner
streamlines workflow enormously - and you *may* find you have access to more
of the film area than the Canon software gives you.





After that, try Polaroids free 'Dust and Scratch Removal Tool' and see how
it goes 'repairing' images. That can save a lot of time and does a very
good job for a free product. You can still go nuts clone stamping every
last scratch manually if you want, but after the first few weeks, you might
find the tool will stave off insanity.
http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html



Neatimage will clean up the rest http://www.neatimage.com/ . The free tool
only does one image at a time, batching capabilities available with the
commercial version - and get the standalone version not the PS plugin. No
point having Adobe hogging your resources when you all you want to do is
clean images, all it'll do is slow you down. Build a profile for your
images and you can automate noise removal and sharpening. If you're lazy,
have a look for the free to download profiles already created by users.
Some of them are pretty good http://www.neatimage.com/profiles.html

[Billy]

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.

Its quicker and the results are not much different if you just copy the
slides with a camera.

I use a diffused tungsten light source and a colour correction filter.
DSLR and macro lens all on a copy stand.

Slides are not very good compared to a digital camera image.

Have a look at a EU3C Filmscan35 II - Adeal are the importer. very
cheap and would be sufficient. $99 USD don't have an australian price
but ***@adeal.com.au will have and they have heaps of distributors
around Australia and Brisbane. www.adeal.com.au

[Mr.T]

Post by Billy
Its quicker and the results are not much different if you just copy the
slides with a camera.
I use a diffused tungsten light source and a colour correction filter.
DSLR and macro lens all on a copy stand.

Works, but will cost nearly as much as a slide scanner, assuming you already
have a high quality DSLR, unless you also have the macro lens already.

Post by Billy
Slides are not very good compared to a digital camera image.

In fact good slides from a good quality SLR are comparable to a similar
digital image from a DSLR costing more money. I suggest you find a good
slide and have it professionally drum scanned so you can make a real
comparison.
(not that a good DSLR isn't far more convenient these days however)

Post by Billy
Have a look at a EU3C Filmscan35 II - Adeal are the importer. very
cheap and would be sufficient.

"Sufficient" for who? Maybe for you, but I doubt the OP would agree from
what he wrote.
Using such a cheap scanner is obviously the reason you think slides are so
poor compared to digital camera's.
(only 5 Mpixels, and no mention of Dmax, probably because it's woeful, along
with the optics I bet )
Do you also think a $100 P&S digital camera is "sufficient" for everyone?
Even they do more than 5Mpixels these days.
IF you only want to put a few slide "snaps" on the web, it would be fine,
but probably cheaper, easier and better to just have the slides scanned for
you.

MrT.

[Billy]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy
Its quicker and the results are not much different if you just copy the
slides with a camera.
I use a diffused tungsten light source and a colour correction filter.
DSLR and macro lens all on a copy stand.

Works, but will cost nearly as much as a slide scanner, assuming you already
have a high quality DSLR, unless you also have the macro lens already.

That is what I have and use, its optional for others, its not advice of
must have and never intended that way. Its just shared information.

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy
Slides are not very good compared to a digital camera image.

In fact good slides from a good quality SLR are comparable to a similar
digital image from a DSLR costing more money. I suggest you find a good
slide and have it professionally drum scanned so you can make a real
comparison.

I can imagine going out and having 500 slides drum scanned yep. The
bloke with that old drum scanner would be laughing all the way to the
bank. Yes I know the quality off a drum.

Post by Mr.T
(not that a good DSLR isn't far more convenient these days however)

Post by Billy
Have a look at a EU3C Filmscan35 II - Adeal are the importer. very
cheap and would be sufficient.

"Sufficient" for who? Maybe for you, but I doubt the OP would agree from
what he wrote.

Now if you scan slides its only for reference and good or the best maybe
worth a good scan.

Being either placed up on a computer screen or made into a print these
can/are used at much lower resolution to achieve acceptable results.

Post by Mr.T
Using such a cheap scanner is obviously the reason you think slides are so
poor compared to digital camera's.
(only 5 Mpixels, and no mention of Dmax, probably because it's woeful, along
with the optics I bet )
Do you also think a $100 P&S digital camera is "sufficient" for everyone?
Even they do more than 5Mpixels these days.
IF you only want to put a few slide "snaps" on the web, it would be fine,
but probably cheaper, easier and better to just have the slides scanned for
you.
MrT.

BTW I do have a 120 film scanner 3200/4800dpi

have a collection of slide/trans/neg images in the range of 50-80,000
maybe more. I know how they have been used over the last 5 years. (Not
much) How they have deteriorate over time.

so as of interest.

In your collection of slides/transparencies what percentage have you
used in the last 3 years?

When was the last time you accessed then.

Do you have them all drum scanned and cataloged so there readily
available for use.

Things have changed.

[Mr.T]

Post by Billy

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy
Slides are not very good compared to a digital camera image.

In fact good slides from a good quality SLR are comparable to a similar
digital image from a DSLR costing more money. I suggest you find a good
slide and have it professionally drum scanned so you can make a real
comparison.

I can imagine going out and having 500 slides drum scanned yep. The
bloke with that old drum scanner would be laughing all the way to the
bank. Yes I know the quality off a drum.

Who said anything about 500? ONE is sufficient to prove your claim wrong.

Post by Billy

Post by Mr.T
(not that a good DSLR isn't far more convenient these days however)

Post by Billy
Have a look at a EU3C Filmscan35 II - Adeal are the importer. very
cheap and would be sufficient.

"Sufficient" for who? Maybe for you, but I doubt the OP would agree from
what he wrote.

Now if you scan slides its only for reference and good or the best maybe
worth a good scan.

Nope, my slide scanner has allowed me to produce many good enlargements.

Post by Billy
Being either placed up on a computer screen or made into a print these
can/are used at much lower resolution to achieve acceptable results.

As I said, what is acceptable for your purposes has nothing to do with the
OP's requirements.

Post by Billy
BTW I do have a 120 film scanner 3200/4800dpi

So that $100 scanner you recommend as "sufficient", was actually not
sufficient for you?
(me either)

Post by Billy
In your collection of slides/transparencies what percentage have you
used in the last 3 years?

Not many, just enough to justify a decent scanner.

Post by Billy
Do you have them all drum scanned and cataloged so there readily
available for use.

Nope, I wouldn't need a slide scanner if I had them all drum scanned. I
seriously doubt anyone with a reasonable collection will ever do that. The
point is to scan all those worth saving, at a quality sufficient for *your*
current and future needs. A $100 film scanner may be all YOU need, and yet
it appears it was not.

Post by Billy
Things have changed.

Sure, and the OP knows what he wants and is prepared to spend better than
you it seems.
(although he has gone strangely silent, so the whole argument appears to be
moot)

MrT.

[Billy]

Mr.T wrote:

Dribble deleted

Not worth the discussion.

No wonder this NG is stuffed.

[Dyna Soar]

Post by Billy
Dribble deleted
Not worth the discussion.
No wonder this NG is stuffed.

Translation... Mr T whipped Billy's arse!
ROFL.

[µØ¹Ž€é³ø]

I think this mid price film scanner might satify you.

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4094.htm

Post by Dyna Soar

Post by Billy
Dribble deleted
Not worth the discussion.
No wonder this NG is stuffed.

Translation... Mr T whipped Billy's arse!
ROFL.
--
Dyna
All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

[Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF]

Post by µØ¹Ž€é³ø
I think this mid price film scanner might satify you.
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4094.htm

They seem to have a bunch at varying prices -

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category511_1.htm
--
http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

[k]

"Billy" <***@comcast.com> wrote in message news:gumg54$he0$***@aioe.org...
| Mr.T wrote:
|
| Dribble deleted

got to say, T is very argumentative, and falls to denigrating people at
almost every turn.

[Mr.T]

Post by k
got to say, T is very argumentative, and falls to denigrating people at
almost every turn.

Maybe you should research the difference between "denigrating someone" "ad
hominem attacks" etc. and simply disagreeing with their line of argument.
You will search long and hard for an instance where I have made a personal
attack, except in response to one.
However I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's point of view,
if you do then perhaps Usenet is not the best place for you?

MrT.

[k]

"Mr.T" <***@home> wrote in message news:4a0fc434$0$3321$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
|
| "k" <***@PING.com> wrote in message
| news:4a0f9ccf$0$24370$***@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| > got to say, T is very argumentative, and falls to denigrating people at
| > almost every turn.
|
| Maybe you should research the difference between "denigrating someone" "ad
| hominem attacks" etc. and simply disagreeing with their line of argument.
| You will search long and hard for an instance where I have made a personal
| attack, except in response to one.
| However I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's point of view,
| if you do then perhaps Usenet is not the best place for you?
|

sigh..


you're a snide little fcker, arent you?

did you get beaten up in school?


see?

like that.

[Mr.T]

Post by k
you're a snide little fcker, arent you?
did you get beaten up in school?
see?
like that.

You appear to be the only one making snide personal remarks. If you don't
have anything to add ON topic, why bother with inane comments?

MrT.

[k]

"Mr.T" <***@home> wrote in message news:4a1122c0$0$3321$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
|
| "k" <***@PING.com> wrote in message
| news:4a11108f$0$24375$***@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| > you're a snide little fcker, arent you?
| >
| > did you get beaten up in school?
| >
| > see?
| >
| > like that.
|
| You appear to be the only one making snide personal remarks. If you don't
| have anything to add ON topic, why bother with inane comments?





before you blow any money on hardware, try downloading Vuescan
http://www.hamrick.com/ and giving it a go. It'll give you access to the
hardware layer of the scanner rather than being forced to access it through
the software (which can do dumb things like crop, clip curves and other
nasty things) - Vuescan also lets you do multipass scans. yay :)


My first attempts at driving the incredibly sharp Canon FS4000US were
nothing short of dissapointing using Canons software, and it made all the
Nikons of the day look really good. Once I loaded Vuescan and tried all the
scanners again on the same images, the Canon outshone everything. Canon
made such a dogs breakfast of the scanner software that the scanner was all
but useless out of the box.

If Vuescan solves the problem, but the standard version and you'll never
look back. Being able to use the same software to drive almost any scanner
streamlines workflow enormously - and you *may* find you have access to more
of the film area than the Canon software gives you.





After that, try Polaroids free 'Dust and Scratch Removal Tool' and see how
it goes 'repairing' images. That can save a lot of time and does a very
good job for a free product. You can still go nuts clone stamping every
last scratch manually if you want, but after the first few weeks, you might
find the tool will stave off insanity.
http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html



Neatimage will clean up the rest http://www.neatimage.com/ . The free tool
only does one image at a time, batching capabilities available with the
commercial version - and get the standalone version not the PS plugin. No
point having Adobe hogging your resources when you all you want to do is
clean images, all it'll do is slow you down. Build a profile for your
images and you can automate noise removal and sharpening. If you're lazy,
have a look for the free to download profiles already created by users.
Some of them are pretty good http://www.neatimage.com/profiles.html

[Mr.T]

Post by k
before you blow any money on hardware, try downloading Vuescan
http://www.hamrick.com/ and giving it a go.

I first started using it about a decade ago. But thanks for the tip :-)
Vuescan will compliment a good scanner, rather than turn pebbles into pearls
however.

MrT.

[Noons]

Post by k
Neatimage will clean up the rest http://www.neatimage.com/ . The free tool
only does one image at a time, batching capabilities available with the
commercial version - and get the standalone version not the PS plugin. No
point having Adobe hogging your resources when you all you want to do is
clean images, all it'll do is slow you down. Build a profile for your
images and you can automate noise removal and sharpening. If you're lazy,
have a look for the free to download profiles already created by users.
Some of them are pretty good http://www.neatimage.com/profiles.html

I'll second the hint for Neat Image: no way I'd consider
scanning any film image without it included in the
post-processing. And the batch feature works a treat to
kick the grain out of an entire 35mm film in only a few
minutes. Usually takes me longer to get tea done than
to clean up 36 or so scans.

Another I wouldn't live without is Focus Magic.
Look it up. The best sharpening tool bar none.
No way USM gets anywhere as good as this. Not
in the same timeframe, anyway.

[Noons]

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy
Slides are not very good compared to a digital camera image.

In fact good slides from a good quality SLR are comparable to a similar
digital image from a DSLR costing more money. I suggest you find a good
slide and have it professionally drum scanned so you can make a real
comparison.

I can imagine going out and having 500 slides drum scanned yep. The
bloke with that old drum scanner would be laughing all the way to the
bank. Yes I know the quality off a drum.

Who said anything about 500? ONE is sufficient to prove your claim wrong.

Wrong. Two. He said: "slides". That means two at least.

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy
BTW I do have a 120 film scanner 3200/4800dpi

So that $100 scanner you recommend as "sufficient", was actually not
sufficient for you?
(me either)

Bingo.

Post by Mr.T

Post by Billy
In your collection of slides/transparencies what percentage have you
used in the last 3 years?

Not many, just enough to justify a decent scanner.

Around 80% here.

Post by Mr.T
(although he has gone strangely silent, so the whole argument appears to be
moot)

LOL! Was that a troll or what?

[starbuck]

http://www.dealsdirect.com.au/p/5-megapixel-negative-film-slide-scanner/?utm_source=dealsnewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&utm_campaign=DealsNewsletter20090522

Post by kerravon
Hi. My sister (in Brisbane, Australia) is scanning slides.
She is using a Canon MP800 and it is cropping some of the pictures.
She rang the Canon help desk and they told her that the scanning
area can't be enlarged. I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, given the amount of slides she needs to scan, and
the amount of work that entails, and she wants to correct damage
to the slides over the (30) years at the same time, I thought it
would probably be worth investing in proper equipment for the
job.
So what is available for say $1000-$2000? I don't want to spend
$2000 if $1000 will do nearly as good a job, but I don't want to get
a reasonable job for $1000 when you can get a fantastic,
near-perfect job for $2000.
Scanning other things like 35mm film or APS film or printed
photos is also a possibility for the future.
Thanks. Paul.