 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / March 2005Trying to improve 35mm slide scans w/1200 dpi scanner
I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. I've been using one of these multi-tube fluorescent bulbs and experimenting with various diffuser materials and the light at different distances from the diffuser. I tried a homemade 90-degree slide-scanning gadget that uses the reflected light of the scanner bar and a couple of battery powered fluorescent lights but seem to get the best results with the multi-bulb extended horizontally over the slide. Gives well lit scans with minimal need for enhancing the contrast/brightness. I have the slides sitting on a sheet of black construction paper with a slot cut that's the same size as the photo portion of the slide, with the diffuser over that. I've been able to get scans that I would describe as okay after scanning with the Epson scan software and tweaking with Paintshop Pro ver 7, the color is actually pretty decent but they fall way short of the super sharpness of the slides. Here's an example of scans make with a Plustek OpticPro 9636T which is also a 1200 dpi scanner, on someone's website that look far better than mine. http://www.krausehouse.com/plustek.htm Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to begin with? Any input will be appreciated. > I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 > rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Any input will be appreciated. If you are going to scan slides, you should be using a film scanner, not a flatbed scanner, and you should have an optical resolution of at least 2000 dpi to start (unless you will be satisfied with small scans for use on the web). Actually, I would aim for something around 4000 dpi optical resolution, if possible. If you have 35mm negatives, the same applies. When I have negatives, I prefer to scan the negative over scanning a print.  Signature* * * To reply, remove numbers from address. Stan, New Orleans http://www.neworleansphotographs.com http://www.atneworleans.com http://www.sbeckart.com/sbeck Hi, You mean that's scanner for negatives? As it will scan the negatives into color jpg? If this is possible, where can I find such scanners? Cos it will be much cheaper for me than shooting on slide. thanks yewyee >> I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 >> rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > If you have 35mm negatives, the same applies. When I have negatives, I > prefer to scan the negative over scanning a print. > >> I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 > >> rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > thanks > yewyee Most film scanners and even many flatbed scanners have software that allows you to scan negatives. If you have a scanner then check the options in the twain driver setup screen (not auto scan). Film best, me `me` said, and I quote directly - "Most film scanners.. have software that allows you to scan negatives." Note the word MOST. Well, I never. I thought ALL film scanners allowed negative scanning, but `me` would certainly know, so I must be wrong. `me`, could you please name a film scanner that won't scan negatives? And then I will admit my error. Otherwise...... Just keeping you on the straight and narrow, 'coz you wouldn't want to post a mistake, Chrlz. > `me` said, and I quote directly - > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 'coz you wouldn't want to post a mistake, > Chrlz. Hey dude, I'm bored with your feud, So it would be cool to stop actin' the fool, Next time I read back, just give me your feedback, On the important questions that are asked in all seriousness. P.S. I am crap at rap, but I ain't no pap (arazzi) >> `me` said, and I quote directly - >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >P.S. I am crap at rap, but I ain't no pap (arazzi) ..terrible. Did I see you on American Idle last week? -- Owamanga! > > `me` said, and I quote directly - > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > P.S. I am crap at rap, but I ain't no pap (arazzi) Hi Unspam: The question is *who* will stop first? chrlz has sworn to continue and I see no reason why I should remain silent especially since I didn't start the feud. If chrlz will agree to cease and desist permanently I will consider a truce. Remember, it takes at least two for a feud. Sign, me >>> `me` said, and I quote directly - >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Sign, > me Hip hip hooray, that sounds ok. I wonder if I can post permanently in rhyme, let's give it time, I'll try and be sublime. >> > `me` said, and I quote directly - >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Sign, >me Why don't you all just try and grow up, it is becoming tedious and a total waste of every ones time. > >> > `me` said, and I quote directly - > >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why don't you all just try and grow up, it is becoming tedious and a > total waste of every ones time. Dear No One: I agree with you. I offered a truce to chrlz and I again offer it now. I can do nothing more, the ball is in his court. Sign, me I posted just once, and asked a perfectly civil question - Which film scanners don't do negatives? I'm genuinely interested. ..waiting... > `me` said, and I quote directly - > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 'coz you wouldn't want to post a mistake, > Chrlz. [chomp] My dear pet chrlz: Can a dog spell pedantic? You can't be serious. I give you food, shelter, clean newspaper and this is how you repay me? What kind of a life could you possibly have without the solace and succor I prove you? Your Loving Master me Please don't waste bandwidth with new posts. It looks like you are attention seeking. > Please don't waste bandwidth with new posts. Did you say please? Does that mean you're considering my offer? Look I even removed my comment from the title of this post. What do you say to my truce? > It looks like you are attention seeking. The OP cross posted and I replied to a recent poster. Sign, me > `me` said, and I quote directly - > > "Most film scanners.. have software that allows you to scan > negatives." Chrlz, quit feeding the trolls. PLEASE. :) I have this dork killfiltered, but that hardly matters if folks like you keep replying to him. > Note the word MOST. Well, I never. I thought ALL film scanners > allowed negative scanning, but `me` would certainly know, so I must be > wrong. `me`, could you please name a film scanner that won't scan > negatives? And then I will admit my error. Otherwise...... He's actually right, you know. I mean, all scanners will literally scan a negative (they'll scan any damned thing you put on the glass), but many of them weren't designed to scan negatives and won't do it very well if you force the issue, especially the ones without a backlight to shine through the negative. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> `me` said, and I quote directly - >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > force the issue, especially the ones without a backlight to shine through > the negative. Ha! ha! (in the style of Nelson from the Simpsoms) > > `me` said, and I quote directly - > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mike Kohary My name is *me* and I officially endorse Mike's message. Film best, me PS: Dear Mike, chrlz is my loyal and faithful pet, please let me feed him otherwise he may become confused and go off his feed. Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my post. You were describing flatbeds, yes? But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done. If you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky entering conversations that you only half-see? > Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my > post. You were describing flatbeds, yes? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky > entering conversations that you only half-see? Your obsession with me is worsening, please seek help, while there's still time. Sign, me > Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my > post. You were describing flatbeds, yes? Ah yes, sorry, I missed that. > But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film > scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done. > If you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky > entering conversations that you only half-see? You're right, I shouldn't have responded to the point at all, which distracted from my main purpose in responding in the first place, which was to ask you not to feed the troll. I shan't do it again. Having said that, I wish you'd stop responding to him altogether. I may not see his posts, but I see your replies, so killfiling him does little to stop cluttering the group. If people would just stop responding to him altogether, then he'd get bored and go away. He long ago mauled his chance to be a constructive part of the group, and he shouldn't be rewarded for abusing his right to free speech. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my > > post. You were describing flatbeds, yes? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > part of the group, and he shouldn't be rewarded for abusing his right to > free speech. FREE SPEECH? YOU F#CKING HYPOCRITE! You above all people as a full fledged member of the alt.photography NG gang have no room whatsoever to preach about free speech. No one has done more to ridicule and attack others than you and the other gang members of this NG. Film best, me PS: You may look forward to reading responses to my posts for sometime to come. Enjoy! The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a photography knowledge like his - ie, completely flawed and limited to his tiny experience. I think it IS worthwhile to point out his errors, in detail. Maybe I go overboard sometimes, but I find it hard to understand how someone can just blandly post an error (eg errors like - `not all film scanners scan negatives` - `moving a camera lens away from the body of a camera isn't like an extension tube` - `all lenses have independently moving front elements` - `Agfa Ultra 100 is a great all-purpose film` ..(I could go on and on) ..and then, instead of simply admitting error or listening to alternative advice or saying `Sorry, I may have misled you`, he turns it into a torrent of abuse, and tries to twist out of the errors and misinformation in a manner somewhat like Houdini, but nowhere near as entertaining. Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping beginners. Over to `me` now - have the last word by all means. Note the folowing post as a good example (Mike, fyi - you were called a `F#CKING HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang mentality, naturally) > The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not > know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang > mentality, naturally) You have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder chrlz, with medication and counseling your condition can be treated. Film best, me >The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not >know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping >beginners. I think this is a sound method, ignore 'me's stupid posts about truces and dogs etc and only respond to those posts directly related to photography. His photography related posts are usually wrong and shouldn't stand unchallenged. >Over to `me` now - have the last word by all means. Note the folowing >post as a good example (Mike, fyi - you were called a `F#CKING >HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang >mentality, naturally) Yes, the gang stuff should probably be ignored too. -- Owamanga! > His photography related posts are usually wrong and shouldn't stand > unchallenged. muhahahaha!!! Sorry couldn't resist. :-) > > His photography related posts are usually wrong and shouldn't stand > > unchallenged. > > muhahahaha!!! Sorry couldn't resist. :-) Before you became obsessed with me didn't you use to take photos? Sign, me > Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping > beginners. I understand what you're saying. I guess it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. If you stop responding, maybe he goes away after a while, but in the meantime he misleads newcomers and perhaps other people respond to him, nullifying your own effort. But if you keep responding, he's guaranteed to keep coming back (and of course, you'll never win the "arguments"). > Over to `me` now - have the last word by all means. Note the folowing > post as a good example (Mike, fyi - you were called a `F#CKING > HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang > mentality, naturally) I don't care. He's full of nonsense, which concerns me not at all. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If the input of a recent lurker is worth anything, keep responding to the motivation to assist others. I appreciate it. > > Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping > > beginners. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't care. He's full of nonsense, which concerns me not at all. > > > Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping > > > beginners. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If the input of a recent lurker is worth anything, keep responding to the > motivation to assist others. I appreciate it. I intended no conflict with you Peter but you are incorrect about his motivations which in reality are mutual masturbation and familial ego stroking. Film best, me PS: The alt.photography gang hate it when I say film best. They first attacked me on 10/29/04 in "Camera for my Wife": http://tinyurl.com/5brkq > > Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping > > beginners. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't care. He's full of nonsense, which concerns me not at all. Prevaricator, your post invalidates everything you say. Film best, me PS: The alt.photography gang hate it when I say film best. They first attacked me on 10/29/04 in "Camera for my Wife": http://tinyurl.com/5brkq Chrlz! To the best of my knowlege the best scans are produced by very expensive drum scanners. If your shots are valuable you might look into an outside service. Another problem is that every technician that operates the scanning equipment may not be the best. Trial and error should satisfy you (i hope) john > The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not > know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang > mentality, naturally) Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. If your space/life would be better/warmer/happier without any reminder of his existence, don't killfile only his messages. Also killfile any messages that contain references to him. It avoids the need for anyone to Net-Nanny and leaves the choice of your reading to you. HTH PS If you need assistance with your filters, you need only ask. > > Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my > > post. You were describing flatbeds, yes? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > part of the group, and he shouldn't be rewarded for abusing his right to > free speech. >Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. > >If your space/life would be better/warmer/happier without any reminder of >his existence, don't killfile only his messages. Also killfile any messages >that contain references to him. Don't you think I thought of that? Alas, it's going to be pretty difficult to effectively killfile messages that contain references to "me" in the body, don't you think? If you have a brilliant idea of how to do it, I'd love to hear it. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "me" in the body, don't you think? If you have a brilliant idea of > how to do it, I'd love to hear it. Filter anything with "anonymous@_.com" in the main body of text. Most newsreaders print the original users email address when replying to a post. This should filter any immediate replies to "me"s trolls. The 'me'tard has nothing to offer this group, but will probably hang around like a bad smell anyways. He is now killfiled on both my machines, and I guess I will filter as mentioned above as well because people ( including myself - oops ) keep replying to his posts. grol > > >Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > grol I'm always amazed at people who self-righteously ride up on their white horse and impale their foe with the label "troll". I have come to see that the use of this word is nothing more than another way to defame the comment or the commentator. Even if the label troll had retained it's original meaning what does it say about the culpability of it's user? Are they not equally guilty of trolling? How does impaling their foe with this label elevate them above their enemy? To my enemies I say: You may, with my blessing, continue to troll along behind me impaling me whenever you please. Sign, me > Don't you think I thought of that? Alas, it's going to be pretty > difficult to effectively killfile messages that contain references to > "me" in the body, don't you think? If you have a brilliant idea of > how to do it, I'd love to hear it. You couldn't killfile messages containing references based on the message headers, but once all of the messages were retrieved, you could use Agent's Global Search (most important options are "Find All" and "Visible Messages Only") to search the message bodies for the desired text. When the search finishes, click the View All button, making it easy to select all the headers (type <Control>A) and then delete them. It goes way beyond simple searches, using Forte's slightly idiosyncratic form of regular expressions familiar to many users of unix tools, such as grep, etc. It may not be worth the effort though. More information can be found in Agent's Help (Index or Find) if you type in "regular". > >Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "me" in the body, don't you think? If you have a brilliant idea of > how to do it, I'd love to hear it. Sure. you could start by extending your current filter into the body text of any message. that would catch all/most of the messages that are replies to him. " "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message", etc. > > >Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > any message. that would catch all/most of the messages that are replies to > him. " "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message", etc. Peter, you misunderstand, this has been explained to Mike and the other alt.photography NG gang members long ago. They *want* to see my posts so they can claim justification for applying their vacuous label to me. Film best. me >>> Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > text of any message. that would catch all/most of the messages that > are replies to him. " "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message", etc. Ok, thanks, that will work, and I wasn't smart enough to think of that myself. ;) Thanks also grol and BillB, who suggested the same. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my > > > post. You were describing flatbeds, yes? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and leaves the choice of your reading to you. > HTH The truth is Peter they have OCD. > PS If you need assistance with your filters, you need only ask. Take pity on them Peter, they need all the help they can get. Sign, me >>>>I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > Film best, > me i will start testing plustek optic pro st-64, its 5x7(13x18cm). i will use it with a special wet-scan kit called holder(from julio). i will compare it with epson perfection 4990. i will buy the pro-version with silverfast ai6. there is no better scanner/software-combination around for small and large negatives for so little money. epson f-3200 filmscanner is another option. or any other higher priced 24x36 or larger filmscanner. forget all the combinations you mentioned. you will only loose your spare time. on the minolta-scanners there is a special holder. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thanks > yewyee Nikon, Canon, Minolta all sell film scanners that scan both 35mm slides and negatives. grol The heck with mirrors, photofloods, try this; http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > If you have 35mm negatives, the same applies. When I have negatives, I > > prefer to scan the negative over scanning a print. scanning slides on a 1200dpi scanner is a guaranteed exercise in frustration, made more so by the end result---an incredibly small image. A 35mm slide is about 1 x 1.5 inches. Thus, 1200 pixel per inch scan is only going to give you a 1200 x 1800 pixel image. Even printing at only 240dpi, the bare minimum for a photorealistic print, the final result is 5 x 7.5 inches without any cropping. Also, the Stylus CX5200 is realy meant for documents to copy or fax, rather than photographs. At its highest setting it is going to be very electically noisy---all scanners are at their highest setting. This is not normally a problem for documents, which can be easily postprocessed and are probably scanned by default at 300dpi (for copy) or 200dpi (for fax) anyway. I think you have answered your own question---you are swimming upstream. On the other hand, it is fun to experiment, and if you can get something decent out of that setup you will be very well-educated by the time you buy something truly useful. I think far too many people buy expensive scanners, get crappy results, and blame it on the scanner because they did not do the due diligence of figuring out how the things work. As for upgrading, if you want to stay with flatbeds I would recommend a refurb Epson 3170 from Epson at a great price---$124*. Of if you can find a 2450 in good condition it will probably be under $100. Last year I bought a film scanner (Acer Scanwit) on eBay for $99 that is truckloads better than any flatbed. The point is, upgrading doesn't have to be outrageously expensive. Good luck, and keep experimenting! *<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oi d=45471984> or go to epson.com and click on Clearance Center > Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could > be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to > begin with? > I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 > rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Any input will be appreciated. forget this type of 1200 dpi-scanner completely for 35mm and buy a used 2700 dpi-one instead. maybe epson perfection 4990 will do even better tha 2700 dpi ones. we will see when it will be available. > I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 > rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Any input will be appreciated. Months ago I scanned over 800 35mm slides taken from the 1950's to early 70's using an Espon 4870 photo scanner, optical res 4800. I scanned them at 1200. Amazingly good results! I then transfered them to a DVD slide show with music using Ulead software and distributed them around the globe (made them region free) to relatives to view on their TV's. Took me about 2 weeks (working at night) to complete. What a project! Frank >> I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 >> rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > What a project! > Frank you could have saved a lot of time be using a batch-scanner with feeder. and getting better results using a 35mm scanner. I didn't get too bad results with my Epson 1240U flatbed which has a separate light hood for slides and negs. Its supposed to have resolution 1200 x 2400 but in practise a setting of 1200 is the same as setting 2400 but the latter file is much bigger. Got a secondhand Canon FS4000US film scanner with 4000 dpi which got good reviews. Problem is most film looks grainy when scanned on this which tends to spoil the fine detail blow-ups. Neatimage does a good job and only a very little detail is lost. I am currently experimenting with a light source diffuser (Scanhancer). Initial results show a very slight reduction in grain but nowhere near significant however I have much more to do with testing. The worst film is my old 126 Kodak 'Instamatic' cartridges which is very grainy > I didn't get too bad results with my Epson 1240U flatbed which has a > separate light hood for slides and negs. Its supposed to have resolution [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The worst film is my old 126 Kodak 'Instamatic' cartridges which is very > grainy Before you blame too much on grain, remember that digital scanners (like cameras) generate digital noise. Sometimes, they both look similar. I have had that problem. I also use Neat Image, and it improves my scans quite a bit. Remember, also, that 4000 dpi film scanners that cost $2000 are still low end devices compared with professional drum scanners (which give better results, and are priced out of reach). Signature* * * To reply, remove numbers from address. Stan, New Orleans neworleansphotographs.com, atneworleans.com, sbeckart.com/sbeck x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD > I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200 > rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Any input will be appreciated. As several others have said, you won't get great results at 1200 dpi, but you can still make small prints from the scans and use the images on a Web site and for slide shows ot view on a computer or CD. I experimented by placing a negative on a scanner, with a mirror on top of it. The results weren't entirely bad. I was trying to scan some old negatives, and the resolution on the scans was good enough to show the dirt that accumulated on the negatives over the years when they were stored in less than optimal conditions. The next step will be to clean the nagatives, but I haven't gotten around to it. The cleaning is needed even if I eventually get a film/slide scanner for my large collection of slides. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.