HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don R.
  • Start date Start date
D

Don R.

Has anyone had any success scanning 35 mm slides on this scanner? The
reflective 'Slide Adapter' is virtually useless as best I can figure.

Thanks for any assistance anyone can give.

Don R.
<[email protected]
 
Has anyone had any success scanning 35 mm slides on this scanner? The
reflective 'Slide Adapter' is virtually useless as best I can figure.

Thanks for any assistance anyone can give.

Don R.
<[email protected]
Click to expand...

No one ever responded to this message, so I'm asking again!!

Can anyone help me get a decent scan of a 35 mm slide with the HP
ScanJet C6200 series??

Thanks!


Don R.
<[email protected]
 
Don said:
No one ever responded to this message, so I'm asking again!!

Can anyone help me get a decent scan of a 35 mm slide with the HP
ScanJet C6200 series??
Click to expand...

Well, as no on responded... I don't have that scanner, nor do I really
know how the transparency adaptor work.

You say it's for reflective scans, though. I suppose it's got a mirror
or something like that? Though perhaps the usual white card is better.

But I don't think you can get very good (or decent) results with such a
non-transparency transparency adaptor.

Perhaps you should try using an external (fluorescent?) lamp to do real
transparency scans, even though not being able to turn off the
reflective lamp might be a problem.

Also, try cracking up the exposure if it's possible. If it isn't, but
the scanner has an accessible calibration area (not very likely since
it's only meant for reflective scans), try putting some uniformely dark
transparent material on that area (unexposed negative film should work
ok, if you're scanning negative film).


by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Slides depend on light going through them. A "lid" made of light fits over
the copy-glass and the copy light is not used at all. The Transparency
Adapter plugs into the back of the scanner and becomes the light source. In
most cases, most cases, this will not produce "useable" images; rather, only
POU: point of use. These can help with choosing or layout but not to
actually make prints. The specifics of your scanner are unknown to me so
the above comment is just for the general idea of "copying slides with a
flatbed".
 
winddancing said:
Slides depend on light going through them. A "lid" made of light fits over
the copy-glass and the copy light is not used at all. The Transparency
Adapter plugs into the back of the scanner and becomes the light source. In
most cases, most cases, this will not produce "useable" images; rather, only
POU: point of use. These can help with choosing or layout but not to
actually make prints. The specifics of your scanner are unknown to me so
the above comment is just for the general idea of "copying slides with a
flatbed".
Click to expand...

Wait a moment, I think you're being way too harsh against flatbeds,
unless I'm missing something.

It's been said here many times that film-capable flatbeds cannot compete
with dedicated film scanners, and I'm absolutely sure that this is true,
even though I've never actually tried a real film scanner.

It's been said, as well, that "if you think your flatbed is good enough
for film, you should try a real film scanner". Ok, fine.

The fact remains for me that a flatbed scanner (*my* flatbed scanner in
any case) is perfectly capable of producing standard-sized prints
(10x15, or a bit more) whose quality, given a good printer, has nothing
to envy to a one-hour photo lab.

You may well have higher requirements than what a one-hour lab can give
you at 10x15 size, and maybe the original poster has higher
requirements, too. Nonetheless, since most "normal" people go to
one-hour labs to print their pictures, it follows that a good flatbed is
perfectly able to produce "useable" (i.e. printable, decently) images.


In any case, as far as I've been able to understand, the original poster
doesn't simply have a flatbed with a lit transparency adaptor like I do:
apparently, he's got a flatbed with *no built-in logic* to scan
transparencies (i.e. cannot turn out reflective light source, no power
plug for transparency light source, no calibration area and logic for
transparency scanning).

This is more than slightly different from a flatbed with trasparency
adaptor like the one I have and many people have.


by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Don R. said:
No one ever responded to this message, so I'm asking again!!

Can anyone help me get a decent scan of a 35 mm slide with the HP
ScanJet C6200 series??

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I doubt that it is possible to get a 'decent' scan of a 35mm slide with this
scanner. I used to have an HP6350, (still have, never use), which had the
slide light source adapter. This is simply a light unit which plugs into the
back of the scanner and sits on the scanner glass over the slide. The unit
is made of plastic, and one side effect was that the vibration from the
scanner stepper motor caused the adapter's plastic feet to mill grooves in
the scanner glass. That's HP engineering for you!

The shadow noise was unacceptable - forget any dark or underexposed slides,
it just cannot be done. Also, IIRC, the max resolution of these scanners is
1200ppi - hardly enough for 35mm originals if you want anything more than a
5x7 print. I did use the unit when I had nothing better, but I wouldn't
describe anything I got from it as 'decent'. I did get some 'tolerable'
results from some medium format trannies though, correctly exposed I might
add.
 
No one ever responded to this message, so I'm asking again!!

Can anyone help me get a decent scan of a 35 mm slide with the HP
ScanJet C6200 series??
Click to expand...

Well, you got lots of responses now! ;o)

Seriously though, the original question was very vague which is
probably why people did not respond. You have to be more specific. Are
you referring to quality of scans? Or, are you unable to get any scans
at all i.e. can't get the Adapter working? Etc.

Judging from your follow-up it appears you can get a scan out but
you're not happy with the quality ("can't get a decent scan").

If that's correct, as others have mentioned, scanning film with a
flatbed has limitations. However, depending on your
requirements/expectations (!) one can get "acceptable" results.

What are the specific problems you're experiencing? Are scans too
dark? Too light? Have a cast?

In many cases it also helps to post an example. This is not a binary
group, so upload a sample image somewhere and post a link to it.

Don.
 
Well, you got lots of responses now! ;o)
Click to expand...

I sure did, and am thankful to all.
Seriously though, the original question was very vague which is
probably why people did not respond. You have to be more specific. Are
you referring to quality of scans? Or, are you unable to get any scans
at all i.e. can't get the Adapter working? Etc.
Click to expand...

I'll try to be more specific about my problem.

The HP Scanjet C6200 series is a great scanner; does even photos
really well.

However, it comes with sort of a Mickey Mouse type 'ScanJet Slide
Adapter' made out of hard plastic. The best way I can describe it is
it's sort of like a tarpaulin, longer than wide draped over a frame,
resulting in a 90 degree triangle in shape. The 90 degree angle is at
the top. It's a bout 3 inches x 2 inches along the open side which
rests on the glass.

The 2 sides each have a polished metal reflector on the top of the
interior. The 35 mm slide is placed under the left side of the
'adapter', which is placed in the upper right side of the scanner bed.
As best I can figure, the light from the scanner is supposed to strike
the right side, be reflected to the left side and then down thru the
slide.

When I scan a slide, it's necessary to reduce the scan size so as not
to include the cardboard frame of the slide. The resulting 'scan' is a
the size of a typical 35 mm film frame and is too dark to determine
what the picture is.

I hope this provides sufficient info for someone to supply some
assistance.
In many cases it also helps to post an example. This is not a binary
group, so upload a sample image somewhere and post a link to it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know where to begin. Sorry.

Thanks for whatever help anyone can provide.

Don R.
<[email protected]
 
Don said:
[snip]
In many cases it also helps to post an example. This is not a binary
group, so upload a sample image somewhere and post a link to it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know where to begin. Sorry.

Thanks for whatever help anyone can provide.
Click to expand...

Send an image to ljlbox at gmail dot com if you want, I'll publish it
somewhere on the web.
Use TIFF and avoid JPEG, if bandwidth allows and if it's less than 10Mb.

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Don,

You *CANNOT* get a decent slide or negative scan using that scanner. I have
the same scanner and the same triangular "mirror" slide adapter . If you
want anything lilke a decent scan, you'll need to use a real file/slide
scanner - not a flatbed scanner.

The 6200 series front illuminates the image to be scanned. A slide or
negative needs back illumination. The slide adapter tries to accomplish
this with mirrors but can only provide *some* back illumination. So at
best, you're getting half reflected and half transmitted light from your
slide. *ALL* of the reflected light is contrast reducing glare/flare.

Plus, as others have stated, the 1200 dpi limitation is pretty severe by
today's standards.

Fred
 
The 2 sides each have a polished metal reflector on the top of the
interior. The 35 mm slide is placed under the left side of the
'adapter', which is placed in the upper right side of the scanner bed.
As best I can figure, the light from the scanner is supposed to strike
the right side, be reflected to the left side and then down thru the
slide.

When I scan a slide, it's necessary to reduce the scan size so as not
to include the cardboard frame of the slide. The resulting 'scan' is a
the size of a typical 35 mm film frame and is too dark to determine
what the picture is.
Click to expand...

That strongly indicates that the film is not properly illuminated
and/or the "film mode" is not really on and you're scanning the bottom
of the film like a photograph.

I'm not familiar with HP Scanjet C6200 so someone else will have to
jump in but the adapter you describe does sound like a very weird
contraption. For one, the reflected light will always be weaker than
direct light from below which will therefore always drown it. The
result would, indeed, be a very dark scan.

As someone else mentioned most flatbeds have a light source in the lid
for this purpose. This light then illuminates the slide from above. At
the same time the scanner lamp (under the glass) is turned off so as
not to interfere.

So - and I'm only guessing here - but have you opened the lid and
examined it for this light source? It's usually hidden behind a
removable cover. On my flatbed (Mustek BearPaw 4800TA Pro) there's a
tab I have to pull and a strip comes out revealing the "milky" glass
to diffuse the light.
I wouldn't know where to begin. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Oh no, please don't apologize. It was not meant as a criticism in any
way, just an explanation.

Examples are posted only rarely. Not everybody has web space for this
purpose and in most cases there's no need for an example anyway.

Don.
 
Oh no, please don't apologize. It was not meant as a criticism in any
way, just an explanation.

Examples are posted only rarely. Not everybody has web space for this
purpose and in most cases there's no need for an example anyway.
Click to expand...

As requested by <[email protected]>, I emailed him a couple of examples
on 10/11 . . . . .. Haven't heard back from him so far . . . .

Cheers.

Don R.
<[email protected]
 
As someone else mentioned most flatbeds have a light source in the lid
for this purpose. This light then illuminates the slide from above. At
the same time the scanner lamp (under the glass) is turned off so as
not to interfere.

So - and I'm only guessing here - but have you opened the lid and
examined it for this light source? It's usually hidden behind a
removable cover.
Click to expand...

Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.

Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.

They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.

Thanks to all for all the input.

Cheers.

Don R.
<[email protected]
 
Don said:
Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.

Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.

They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.

Thanks to all for all the input.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Hi Don...

I'm two years into much the same project now - that's two retired years,
lots and lots of time invested into it, and the end isn't even in sight
yet :)

35mm negatives, 35mm slides, and pics for which I have no negatives.
And old 120 negatives, disc negatives. Lots.

Having said all that, I promise that it's a very worthwhile task, I
know the kids and grandkids appreciate it and enjoy them. Hope that
at least a couple of generations further down the road do to.

I'd imagine (though it's sure none of my business) that dollars aren't
all that tight for you by now, and really, really encourage you to
consider buying a scanner a little better than you're using. Promise
you that there's no comparison.

I'm using an Epson 3200 flatbed (with lighted lid for transparencies)
that's not at all expensive now, and others here are going to
encourage you to consider a dedicated film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)

If you'd like to see an example of what mine does, feel free to send me
an email and I'll send you a couple (re-sized to email size) so you can
see for yourself. Perhaps someone else here will offer you a dedicated
scanner scan so you can compare :)

Take care.

Ken
 
I'm two years into much the same project now - that's two retired years,
lots and lots of time invested into it, and the end isn't even in sight
yet :)
Click to expand...

Well, I've only recently started on it. Try to spend time out on the
briny; prawning, oystering, chasing the elusive, virtually
non-existent salmon.
Having said all that, I promise that it's a very worthwhile task, I
know the kids and grandkids appreciate it and enjoy them. Hope that
at least a couple of generations further down the road do to.
Click to expand...

That's the goal, alright!
I'd imagine (though it's sure none of my business) that dollars aren't
all that tight for you by now, . . .
Click to expand...

Hahaha. They're ALWAYS tight!
and really, really encourage you to
consider buying a scanner a little better than you're using. Promise
you that there's no comparison.
Click to expand...

Am in the market for a new computer, so may as well check out slide
scanners, too.
I'm using an Epson 3200 flatbed (with lighted lid for transparencies)
that's not at all expensive now, and others here are going to
encourage you to consider a dedicated film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)
Click to expand...

Yeah!! Let's hear it from you guys!!
If you'd like to see an example of what mine does, feel free to send me
an email and I'll send you a couple (re-sized to email size) so you can
see for yourself. Perhaps someone else here will offer you a dedicated
scanner scan so you can compare :)
Click to expand...

I've just emailed you. Thanks.

Don R.
<[email protected]
 
Don said:
As requested by <[email protected]>, I emailed him a couple of examples
on 10/11 . . . . .. Haven't heard back from him so far . . . .
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, sorry, I don't check my gmail regularly, and, well, I forgot.

http://ljl.150m.com/Vegas1958.tif
http://ljl.150m.com/DisneylandRocket1958.tif

or

http://ljl.741.com/Vegas1958.tif
http://ljl.741.com/DisneylandRocket1958.tif

But, those scans weren't taken at 1200dpi! They're like 150dpi or so;
there's no way they can be decent.

If you have a 1200dpi scanner, you should definitely scan slides and
film at 1200dpi.
If you scanned at a lower resolution in order to be able to send me
small files, then don't worry and send them again at 1200dpi -- I have a
fast connection, and the only limit is 10Mb per email (that's a gmail
imposed limit, not much I can do about it; but in any case, you can
compress to best-quality JPEG if you can't fit in 10Mb).


The other issue with those scans is colors, but that can be corrected.


by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Don said:
Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.

Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.

They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.

Thanks to all for all the input.
Click to expand...

Don't give up so quick.
I agree that your scanner's solution for scanning film is "less than
ideal", but it might be adequate for you... you can't know until you try.

Ok, you *have* tried, but I would like to see a *1200 dpi* scan; I'm not
so sure the main source of your problem is your scanner, and not the way
you're setting it up.

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Don said:
[snip]
I'm using an Epson 3200 flatbed (with lighted lid for transparencies)
that's not at all expensive now, and others here are going to
encourage you to consider a dedicated film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)
Click to expand...


Yeah!! Let's hear it from you guys!!
Click to expand...

Here you are.

A scan of an underexposed (about 1/3 of the correct exposure, I think)
slide, taken at 2400x4800dpi with my Epson RX500, which I think is
supposed to be equivalent to an Epson Perfection 2450, or something.
Gamma adjusted to 1.8.

Original:
http://ljl.150m.com/scans/example_2400.jpg

Sharpened:
http://ljl.741.com/scans/example_sharp_2400.jpg

Resized to 1200 dpi:
http://ljl.150m.com/scans/example_1200.jpg

Resized to 1200 dpi and sharpened:
http://ljl.741.com/scans/example_sharp_1200.jpg

(all files are really accessibl from both the 150m.com and the 741.com
domains, but please try to balance the load)

I uploaded 1200 dpi resized images mainly to allow for lower JPEG
compression, as my web server has a 1Mb limit on the size of files it
accepts.

The sharpened images were sharpened using Image Analyzer's deconvolution
and a PSF measured using my program SlantedEdge. Now, I don't know if
that's really good publicity, but ;-)


by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Lorenzo said:
Don said:
[snip]
I'm using an Epson 3200 flatbed (with lighted lid for transparencies)
that's not at all expensive now, and others here are going to
encourage you to consider a dedicated film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)
Click to expand...

Yeah!! Let's hear it from you guys!!
Click to expand...


Here you are.
Click to expand...

Well, since I seem to have a lot of spare time, here you are with
another slide.

This one was better exposed (overexposed possibly? I only adjusted gamma
to 1.2, as 1.8 looked too bright).

http://ljl.150m.com/scans/example2_2400.jpg
http://ljl.741.com/scans/example2_sharp_2400.jpg
http://ljl.150m.com/scans/example2_1200.jpg
http://ljl.741.com/scans/example2_sharp_1200.jpg


by LjL
(e-mail address removed)
 
Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.
Click to expand...

Looks that way! :-(

BTW, have you seen the message by Fred Toewe? He has the same scanner
and explains what's going on. I'll append it below just in case.
Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.
Click to expand...

That's one option, but a couple of considerations. They will not put
the effort you will! For them it's just work. Now, they are
professionals (hopefully! ;o)) so it will spare you a steep learning
curve, but - at least in theory - you could produce much better
results if you have the time.

Which all boils down to what type of output you are after and if you
have the time and can spare the added expense.

If you decide to do it yourself, I second wholeheartedly what Ken
Weitzel said. Do get a dedicated film scanner! They are not really
that expensive, and when you're done you can sell it and recover some
of the cost. But the difference between even the best flatbed and a
dedicated film scanner is really night and day. Some film scanners
also have a hardware based "cleaning" mode which automatically
eliminates dust and scratches which makes editing afterwards much
easier. Of course that means having to get an image editing program...
They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.
Click to expand...

I'm wrestling mostly with 1980s Kodachromes and that's a horror story
in its own right! ;o)

Don.

And here's that message I refer to above:
 
Back
Top