Post by: jb on February 12, 2009, 02:15:47 PM
Googling the subject, I can only find scanners that require Windows and I don't have an Intel iMac. Mine is an iMac G5.
May be some of you know of one that would be reasonably priced, around 100$ or so.
Thanks.
jb
Post by: gunug on February 12, 2009, 02:37:06 PM
Post by: RNKIII on February 12, 2009, 03:20:21 PM
I tried a number of the low-end stand-alone slide scanners and for my money... all are slow, most are noisy, and all gave poor results for the time and effort put in.
That said, I've seen slide scanners to terrific work.... but they were in the $us1500.00 - $us2300.00 range.
I know that Wal-Mart's photo department has the capability (don't know about the expertise) to copy slides to cd/dvds... at about $us.25 - $us.40 per slide. Pretty spendy if you have a large collection to be copied!!
Many current flat bed scanners have 'kits / attachments' to scan slides. I don't have any experience with them, even though my HP Photosmart 3310 AIO has the attachments, I've not gotten around to using it.
I would love to transfer our LARGE collection of travel & family slides to digital media. One more thing on my 'to-do' list.
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: Mayo on February 12, 2009, 07:38:08 PM
A dedicated slide scanner for $100? It isn't going to happen unless you find a really good deal on a used model. Forget most flatbed scanners because one you up-rez the scan to a usable size the images can look pretty crummy. Some people have written favorable reviews about using a relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner to obtain decent scans of slides, but I don't have any to share. You should check out DP Review and Photo.net as both Web sites have scanning forums. A lot of those folks do more scanning than I do and they may know something that I don't.
Slide scanners are becoming somewhat scarce since Minolta got out of the biz. In my experience the Minolta scanners didn't hold up all that well so I wouldn't even get a used model unless it was cheap and lightly-used.
I think that your best bet is a Nikon Coolscan V. In fact, the Nikon scanning software isn't compatible with Leopard, so a G5 running Tiger would be a good match. Otherwise you would have to invest in VueSoft (relatively cheap) or SilverFast (Very Expensive) scanning software... The Nikon V does an excellent job and is relatively fast, but you do have to scan the slides individually. The more expensive Coolscan 5000 can batch scan slides, but that requires an optional and somewhat pricey slide feeder. The scan quality of the 5000 is (theoretically...) marginally better than the Coolscan V, but it is around twice as expensive even before you add a batch scanning feeder. (Kindly keep in mind that I am estimating prices from memory and that the info is probably somewhat out of date.)
The one caveat that comes to mind regarding the Coolscan V is that Kodachrome slides can be difficult to scan and the results may not be all that good. There are workarounds online but I haven't played around with Kodachrome enough as of this writing...
Last time I checked the Nikon V was going for around $500 new, but that was awhile ago... If you can locate a clean used Nikon V you could reasonably expect to scan your slides and then resell it and maybe even break-even on the deal.
It all depends on what you can find on eBay/Craigslist, how many slides you have and your budget. Plus it takes some knowledge and practice to get the best scans. It may be more cost and time-effective to have your slides scanned, but then you need to make sure you know what quality level the scans will be, as that varies.
If you decide to go for a Coolscan V and you have Kodachrome (or even other film types) I'd be happy to scan my bookmarks (no pun intended...) and post relevant Web sites that will help you get the most out of it.
My advice to anyone planning to scan film sooner or later is to do it sooner, because film scanners are quickly going the way of the dodo.
Post by: Texas Mac Man on February 12, 2009, 08:46:39 PM
The scanner runs on OS 9.x, but requires an SCSI interface. I had to install a SCSI PCI card in my G4. I was able to download the required software from Polaroid's web site.
If you could find this scanner you could also buy and older Mac to operate. Here's one on eBay.
Post by: beacher on February 13, 2009, 08:00:19 PM
) I bought a little PrimeFilm 1800u for about $70, and although it's slow, it appears to work pretty well. I'm sure that it wouldn't be good enough for pros, but it'll work to get those old slides into your computer, and I've had pretty good luck with working with ones that have started to deteriorate (as you probably will find they have started to do) with Photoshop & PS Elements. You might try googling or see if you can find one on eBay. BTW, I'm using an non-Intel G5.
Post by: Paddy on February 14, 2009, 09:08:13 AM
Great software - I used it with an old SCSI scanner for a while and even with my much newer Epson, because I liked it better than the bundled scanning software.http://www.hamrick.com/
List of supported scanners: http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#supported
I have a whole bunch of slides too...and yes, I oughta do something about them!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 14, 2009, 09:23:24 AM
Now it is even more difficult... "Learning slowly, you are." 
Indeed, I bought an attachment for an old SCSI scanner that was to be used to scan slides (basically, a frame to hold the slides with a light source in it). Unfortunately, the native resolution of the scanner prohibited it from making good copies...now that we have much better native resolution scanners, I don't see any 'attachments' to use with them. 
Too small a market? 
Seems it could be profitable for some one.Of course, another big problem is the 'color' of the light source. Not to mention the problem of dealing with the large amounts of heat usually associated with that light...
OK, we've pretty well mentioned all the problems...who can provide a reasonable solution? Make a slide holder for our new digital cameras? With auxillary lens to focus at the short distances required? And to protect the electronics from the probably direct aiming at the sun for the correct color and intensity of light?
Can use say "Injury lawsuits?" 
Post by: Jack W on February 14, 2009, 09:42:37 AM
It does a fairly credible job.
- Jack
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 14, 2009, 10:26:42 AM
You may have just found what I 'need' to put in some recently discovered desk top space...
Post by: Mayo on February 14, 2009, 01:17:02 PM
QUOTE
Just a FYI - it's VueScan, not VueSoft.
I knew it, I just didn't type it...
Post by: daryl66 on February 14, 2009, 01:38:01 PM
QUOTE(Jack W @ Feb 14 2009, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My CanoScan 8800F has a backlight in the lid, with a slide holder that holds several slides.
It does a fairly credible job.
- Jack
It does a fairly credible job.
- Jack
I have an EPSON PERFECTION 3170 PHOTO which also is backlight in the lid using the slide and negative adapter. I have digitized about 300 slides with it. The quality of the originals were nothing to write home about(taken in the late 50s) but the scanner did what I would call an adequate job. I have a professional artist friend who used it for some work and was very happy with the slide scans.
epson photo
This site shows it for $174 but I dont think I paid that much several years back
HTH
Daryl
Post by: Paddy on February 14, 2009, 03:29:58 PM
Here's a review with plenty of examples, including some comparisons to the same scan done with the Nikon Coolscan IV, and the results aren't half bad!
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Epson-Pe...2450-Photo-4373
There are several newer models of Epson scanners, with higher DPI, which should produce even better results. If you should decide to go for an older used model, make sure that it has a driver that works in OS 10.4/10.5 and whatever Mac you're using or check to see if it works with VueScan - the Epson driver for my scanner doesn't work unless you run Photoshop CS3/CS4 in Rosetta mode. I don't think so!!!! (Another reason I use VueScan)
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Product...s&oid=-8172
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 14, 2009, 08:20:14 PM
QUOTE
darned if I can find the image now
Many times these specialized apps/plugins are 'hard wired' to a certain 'default' folder. I'd check in: ~/Library/Slide Scans/Slide Tray Folder
Post by: Paddy on February 14, 2009, 08:29:21 PM
I'm afraid it would probably take less time to go downstairs, retrieve the scanner, hook it up and scan a slide than try to find a file that for all I know, I don't even have any more!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 14, 2009, 08:49:19 PM
But, even the Finder can do that...
Post by: krissel on February 15, 2009, 03:53:36 AM
The included film adapters let you scan transparencies and negatives, from 35mm up to 4 x 5 in. formats. You can even batch-scan up to thirty 35mm negative frames or 12 mounted slides. It also does short film strips. The latest drivers work with Leopard.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=10446
I got it primarily because it has FW and USB 2 ports so it could be used with my older Macs that at the time didn't have USB 2. Unfortunately this model is nearly impossible to find now (eBay) and has been replaced with a strictly USB 2 model that is less expensive.
http://www.officeworld.com/Worlds-Biggest-...NMCS8800F/09Q1/
http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Produ...e=24-23203903-2
Post by: sandbox on February 15, 2009, 04:36:10 AM
Post by: Mayo on February 15, 2009, 01:41:26 PM
In my experience a dedicated film scanner is going to trump any flatbed scanner; the comparison between the Epson 2450 and the Coolscan IV doesn't change my opinion. The Coolscan sample looks like a "quick and dirty" scan that could be greatly improved with a little tweaking via the scanner software. Heck, it looks like they didn't even use any of the automatic correction options that can greatly simplify scanning slides that are dirty, scratched, faded, grainy or have a wide dynamic range. Using these options in the NikonScan software can save you a lot of time post-processing images in Photoshop or another image editing app:
-Scan Image Enhancer. The Scan Image Enhancer function automatically adjusts brightness and color saturation, producing images with optimal contrast.
- Digital ICE4 Advanced™. Digital ICE4 Advanced™ is an impressive suite of four image correction technologies. Digital ICE™ works with LED illumination to remove surface dust and scratches without altering image composition. Digital ROC™ automatically rebuilds and restores deteriorated color values for faithfully rendered images. Digital GEM™ reduces the effects of film grain, producing sharp, clear images without clumping or graininess. The newly added Digital DEE™ function uses exposure compensation to help reveal details that may be hidden in shadowy or highlighted portions of scenes.
I have been particularly impressed using Digital ICE. Scratches that would be a hassle and time-consuming to remove in Photoshop magically disappear. ICE also eliminates the need to clean up images during post-processing. (VueScan has similar options available in supported scanners with an infared lamp.)
The DMax of the Epson is 3.3 while the Coolscan V is 4.2. A higher density range number is better because it means more data can be captured. This is particularly important when scanning film with detail you want to retain in the shadow areas. On the other hand, scanning manufacturers tend to exaggerate the density range and film has a dynamic range of around 3.4. What does this mean? Take it with a grain of salt, I guess, and assume that the claimed dynamic range of scanners is questionable at best. But if one scanner has a higher number than another, I tend to go for the higher DMax because it is likely to be relatively better.
Scanning a 35mm slide with the Epson at 2400 DPI via USB 2.0 takes 3 minutes; using the Nikon Coolscan V at 4000 DPI takes around 30 seconds. (Using image correction in the scanner software increases the scanning time, but it is still a lot less than three minutes.) If you have a lot of slides to scan the time can quickly add-up.
The Coolscan IV is 2900 DPI resolution scanner. The Coolscan V is a true 4000 DPI scanner. Flatbed scanner resolution numbers have to be interpreted differently for a number of reasons that may be too arcane for some people, but comparing film scanner and flatbed resolutions is like comparing apples and oranges. Relatively easy to understand explanations can be found here and here.
The Epson 2450 review ends with this caveat: "However, should you want the best quality output from your transparencies you will get better quality from a dedicated film scanner, like the Nikon Coolscan IV we've mentioned earlier." Flatbed scanners do an admirable job on line art, photographic prints and even medium-format and larger transparencies. But they are not designed for scanning 35mm film with optimum results; the best one can hope for is "pretty good." Whether that is good enough depends on how you plan to use the resulting scans.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 15, 2009, 04:26:06 PM
Post by: Mayo on February 15, 2009, 05:10:40 PM
Another option to consider is using a digital camera to copy slides.
Post by: Paddy on February 15, 2009, 09:24:54 PM
QUOTE
Don't you have a 'supplementary' Finder app that can search by creation dates?
Er, yes - but I don't know when I made that copy, so that's not much help either! I'm sure I'll find it some day, when I'm not looking for it.
Anyway, given jb's price constraints, I think we'd come to the collective conclusion that a dedicated slide scanner was out of the ballpark - hence the further discussion of the flatbed options.
I am very interested in the camera method though, Mayo. I have a Canon A650 too (a couple of generations newer than the 620 he used) so may give that a whirl, since it doesn't require more camera equipment purchases. Tupperware, or suitable generic substitutes in all shapes and sizes - we have that!
Post by: Mayo on February 15, 2009, 11:14:55 PM
QUOTE
Er, yes - but I don't know when I made that copy, so that's not much help either! I'm sure I'll find it some day, when I'm not looking for it.
Check out iPhoto; it does a pretty decent job of keeping track of image files...
QUOTE
Anyway, given jb's price constraints, I think we'd come to the collective conclusion that a dedicated slide scanner was out of the ballpark - hence the further discussion of the flatbed options.
I guess that the "collective conclusion" was a too subtle for me to pick up on it... (I've been waiting for jb to return and provide more info along the lines of how many slides he has to scan, what he intends to do with them and his absolute limit budget-wise.)
Anyway, until that happens the thread had morphed somewhat (for me at least...) into a discussion of the differences between flatbed scanners and film scanners. The information may be helpful to someone in the future who does a search and stumbles upon this thread.
I bought my Coolscan V new back in May 2004 for around $560, so I was a bit out of touch regarding current prices. I did a little Googling and it appears to be discontinued. The few new units I came across cost at least $560, if not more. (I've never heard of the stores selling them, so I have no idea whether they are legitimate outlets...)
eBay Canada has a mint Coolscan V with a current high bid of C $503.40 (US $406) with 16 bids.
The lowest recent price on completed Coolscan V auctions is US $600 and the highest appears to be US $855.
Holy Kodachrome Batman!
The Canadian auction is starting to look like a Really Good Deal depending on how high it goes.
If jb's requirements point toward something like a Coolscan V and he can afford the investment, I still think that buying a scanner and reselling it after his project is completed is a viable money saving option. (I've read a number of posts on scanner forums where folks either broke-even or made money when they resold the scanner.) Otherwise, it's time for Plan B. Or C.
Hmmm... I wonder how much that box in the hall closet that contains mint-condition underground comics from the 60s-70s is worth? (I actually put each comic in an archival plastic bag many years ago. The family cat peed on my Mad Magazine and DC/Marvel comic collection when I was a kid so That Was That...)
Post by: krissel on February 16, 2009, 01:52:11 AM
Here are some links to check out:
http://cyberelk.net/tim/2007/03/04/digitiz...-slide-scanner/
http://cyberelk.net/tim/2008/11/14/clive-w...35mm-slide-rig/
Post by: sandbox on February 16, 2009, 04:12:47 AM
Post by: Paddy on February 16, 2009, 10:21:34 AM
QUOTE
Check out iPhoto; it does a pretty decent job of keeping track of image files...
Only if you actually PUT the file IN iPhoto!
I'm actually transitioning to Lightroom, which I like a whole lot better for a whole lot of reasons. It's in a somewhat different league of course! In the mean time, things are a tad disorganized.BTW - Nikon still makes slide scanners, but they seem to have ditched the lower end part of the line.
The CoolScan 5000 ED is a not-so-cool $1379 at Henry's here in Canada.
B&H has it for $1099. (which is about the same as Henry's when translated to CDN dollars). B&H's servers seem to have temporarily fallen over for me - so no linkies...
Has anyone come across the Pacific Image film scanners? They're a lot more reasonable and seemed to get good reviews at B&H.
http://www.scanace.com/en/product/product.php
Costco has the older ones - in the US, but not in Canada...Unfortunately the only place that is supposed to have them in Canada (according to Pacific Image's web site) in fact doesn't.
Adorama has them. Reviews are variable.
Post by: RNKIII on February 16, 2009, 01:42:45 PM
I tried 3 models at differing times of the PI scanners and they were the pits, as far as, user friendly slide feeds, noisy and very poor quality scans. Sorry, I cannot recall the model numbers right now.
As we always say at TS, YMMV....
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 16, 2009, 02:10:14 PM
BTW, I'd be extremely skeptical of any 'consumer' scanner that claimed anything near 19,000dpi. 19,000 pixels across the 8.5 inch width of the platform, certainly, that is near the maximum now available of 2400dpi without software interpolation or combining software and specialized scanner receptors (two rows of receptors spaced one-half width diagonally from each other).
Of course, the true dpi depends on two different factors in most flat bed scanners. One is the number of photon receptors (CCD cells) across the width of the scanning mechanism. The other is the stepping motor's accuracy and size of steps it is capable of. That's pretty much limited by the mechanical precision of the motor, support system and drive train. Increasing either requires smaller sensors (with problems of accurate color/intensity/speed) or higher precision mechanics (higher costs). We may need to wait for future developments to gain much in resolution. OTOH, with better software manipulation, we might see the "perception" of higher resolution.
With the declining market of slide film and the need to convert those slides/prints into digital data, I think the decision, for consumers, will be based on how many slides and how much does the equipment cost. While dedicated scanners are, without a doubt, much better than flat bed scanners, I doubt that anyone but a money making professional would ever buy one (certain CEP's excepted, of course!). If the slides are to be used to make multiple prints for grandma and a few other relatives, the flat bed scanner seems the best choice. After all, most of those prints probably won't last more than a few years, under normal conditions!
Post by: Mayo on February 16, 2009, 02:11:27 PM
QUOTE
BTW - Nikon still makes slide scanners, but they seem to have ditched the lower end part of the line.
Yes, the more expensive scanners appear to be available. The Coolscan V was a good deal compared to the Coolscan 5000. The only difference is the 5000 has a couple more digital bits available and accepts accessories such as the automatic slide feeder, which happens to cost $250+ all by itself...
QUOTE
If you don't have good software like Silverfast
Silverfast costs over $200... I assume that Epson's Easy Photo Fix is included with the scanner.
I don't know of any scanner software that doesn't have some issues, including Silverfast. BTW, I have read a few reports that folks got Nikon Scan to work with Leopard on PPC Macs and possibly on Intels. I'll have to plug mine in and see what happens... Just in case I have retained a bootable clone of Tiger for just this purpose; my 2.16GHz iMac came with Tiger so I am covered even if I didn't have the G4 iBook.
QUOTE
If the slides are to be used to make multiple prints for grandma and a few other relatives, the flat bed scanner seems the best choice.
If all you want to do is make prints, then the cost-effective solution is to have prints made from the slides by a standard photo processor. Not only is it less expensive, you will probably get better quality output.
QUOTE
I'm actually transitioning to Lightroom
I'm an Aperture Man...
Post by: jcarter on February 17, 2009, 02:48:48 PM
It works just perfectly, you set it on your lens, get near a window, but not in direct light. And just fire away.
Then just download your pictures like normal. We were astonished at the quality, but of course that old Nikon has a great macro lens.
http://www.dcresource.com/SlideCopier/
I found it on Steves Digicam site, and bought one.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/happenstance.html
I wonder if they are still available? I cant seem to find any now.
Jane
Post by: jb on February 18, 2009, 10:24:59 AM
Thanks everyone for so many interesting and most informative comments on the subject.
I have about 2000 slides. Most of them are in 120 slides carrousels, Some of them are still in their original photo lab containers.
The Nikon CoolScan is out of my price range. Even if I increase my expenditure to 200-300$,for a newer flat bed with slide scanning capabilities, I still would have to spend the time to cull the slides and select those that I want to digitize.
Many of your comments contained various links to various solutions. One of them, actually 3 or 4 of them, referred to camera/slide viewer arrangements. So I am tempted to fabricate a camera/slide viewer assembly. I already have a lighted slide viewer.
However, my first order of business would be to select the slides I want to digitize. This would involve to either use the slide projector or a light box that I have. Either will require me to handle most of the slides one by one, a very time consuming travail, that I estimate (undersestimate?) to be about 1 minute per slide, or 2000 minutes divided by 60=33 hours or so. At 2 hours a day, what I am I saying, at not much more than ONE hour a day, this will take a month or so, IF I don’t get discouraged!!!
This exercise should reduce the number of slides to digitize to what? 1000? 800? 500? or less?(was I that bad at taking pictures!!?) Let’s say I reduce the total to 600. Again I will have to physically handle each of them. But this time I estimate the total handling time, including the transfer of the photos to the computer and the burning of a DVD, at 3 minutes if not more, that’s another 1800 minutes or 30 hours!
I think I just convinced myself that after making the slide selection, if I go ahead with this, I will use an outside service to have the slides digitized. Then I won’t have to buy anything and resell the equipment after I am finished with it.
Come to think of it, I am sorry to have started this topic...(says he with a chuckle)
Many, many, thanks again.
jb
Post by: jcarter on February 18, 2009, 11:49:55 AM
And you sure have the time frame correct, its the looking, sorting, and the time you take looking thru them that is the one reason that
Ive not gotten very far with our project.
Jane
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 18, 2009, 12:19:42 PM
Post by: Raven on March 08, 2009, 10:51:19 PM
Have 1000's of slides. But didn't want to take the time or expense to convert them to digital files.
Some good suggestions here.
My use would be of a good enough quality to use them for design/printing purposes.
I like the idea of an attachment for my Nikon D80 and just point and shoot!
Purchasing a $400 macro lens for one time(!) use poses a similar quandry!
Can you rent such a lens somewhere?
Thanks for all the input!
Post by: Paddy on March 09, 2009, 08:38:01 AM
http://www.lensrentals.com/
http://photodoto.com/8-online-lens-rental-stores-compared/
http://www.vistek.ca/rentals/