slides scanning

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boba & Ilinka
  • Start date Start date
B

Boba & Ilinka

I borrowed from a friend a scanner HP 3570c to scan some (1000) slides. The
quality is poor. I tried resolution 1920 and million of colors 24 bit but
got massage: not enough memory?! There is 2 GB on board?!



Could I some how improve quality on particular scanner or should I buy
better scanner like Canon 8400F or 4200F or any other. Are there on the
market scanners only for slides?



Thanks for any suggestion.



Boba Vankufer
 
Boba & Ilinka said:
I borrowed from a friend a scanner HP 3570c to scan some (1000) slides. The
quality is poor. I tried resolution 1920 and million of colors 24 bit but
got massage: not enough memory?! There is 2 GB on board?!



Could I some how improve quality on particular scanner or should I buy
better scanner like Canon 8400F or 4200F or any other. Are there on the
market scanners only for slides?



Thanks for any suggestion.



Boba Vankufer
Click to expand...

Get (or borrow or hire) a dedicated film scanner - it is not worth the trouble
trying to get acceptable results from the 3570c. I did, and failed.
Greetings, Alex
 
Boba & Ilinka said:
Thanks Alex for reply. Did you scan with something else?
boba vankufer
Click to expand...

Yes, I got a Minolta Scan Dual IV. It does a good job, but has no ICE. ICE
'removes' nearly all scratches and dust - so I exchanged it for a Minolta Scan
Elite 5400 Mark I. This did a perfect job, and I am very much pleased with the
results.
ICE does neither work with Kodachrome slides nor with B/W negatives, as it
cannot cope with the silver grains in both types of film.
There are several other makes of film scanners in the market (Ebay?) that do a
very good job.
Good luck!

Greetings, Alex
 
If you want to stay with a flatbed the new Epson V700 does a good job
with slides, comparisons with a Nikon LS2000 are a toss-up, sharpness
to the Nikon, dynamicrange to the Epson, very close on both points,
the Epson is much faster. The scanner has Digital Ice too. The Epson
4990 maybe almost as good, and is selling in the mid $300s. Other than
those two flatbeds, I'd get a slide scanner. The Nikon LS5000 is the
best desk top for just 35mm.
HPs have always been very poor with photos, when I bought the V700, my
vendor told me he would never sell an HP for photo scanning, and he
would sell an HP instead of an Epson to someone with a lot of documents
to scan.

Tom
 
If you want to stay with a flatbed the new Epson V700 does a good job
with slides, comparisons with a Nikon LS2000 are a toss-up, sharpness
to the Nikon, dynamicrange to the Epson, very close on both points,
the Epson is much faster. The scanner has Digital Ice too. The Epson
4990 maybe almost as good, and is selling in the mid $300s. Other than
those two flatbeds, I'd get a slide scanner. The Nikon LS5000 is the
best desk top for just 35mm.
HPs have always been very poor with photos, when I bought the V700, my
vendor told me he would never sell an HP for photo scanning, and he
would sell an HP instead of an Epson to someone with a lot of documents
to scan.
Click to expand...
I use a Nikon LS5000 on slides and negatives.
I use an HP 5470c on prints and have no complaints as to quality or
speed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Roger said:
I use a Nikon LS5000 on slides and negatives.
I use an HP 5470c on prints and have no complaints as to quality or
speed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Click to expand...

I think my vendor was talking about transparencies, not prints, as he
knew that was what we scan almost exclusively. We have either a few
high res scans, there we'll use the LS2000 or a buch of low res scans
for PowerPoint, that is when we use the V700. But with this scanner the
difference between the scans is so slight, and the V700 is so much
faster than the LS2000, I'm thinking of putting the LS2000 on a shelf.
Our previous flatbed was an Epson Prefection 1600, and there was no
comparison between it and the LS2000.

Tom
 
Alex said:
snip

ICE does neither work with Kodachrome slides
Click to expand...

snip

I've had no problems using the 5400's ICE with Kodachromes. KC has
varied over the years, mine starts in '70's.
 
Mendel Leisk said:
snip

I've had no problems using the 5400's ICE with Kodachromes. KC has
varied over the years, mine starts in '70's.
Click to expand...

ACK - I should have said "as far as I know". I did hear that sometimes KC does
allow treatment with ICE.

Greetings, Alex
 
SNIP
ACK - I should have said "as far as I know". I did hear that
sometimes KC does allow treatment with ICE.
Click to expand...

The (lack of) success depends on the amount of residual silver in the
image (mostly a sign of poor processing quality). ICE is based on the
difference in transparency between regular dust for IR and for broad
spectrum light. Since IR *and* broad spectrum light are both blocked
by silver, there is no dust detection possible.

Bart
 
In message said:
snip

I've had no problems using the 5400's ICE with Kodachromes. KC has
varied over the years, mine starts in '70's.
Click to expand...

I scanned a KC slide from (I think) the early 80's with and without ICE.
With ICE initially looked better because it had cleaned up the artefacts
from dust etc. (those wretched card mounts seem to continuously shed it)
but on closer inspection the highlights on some limestone boulders had
burnt out. The non-ICE scan was much better in that sense, and there
wasn't too much to have to clean up manually.
 
Bart van der Wolf said:
SNIP

The (lack of) success depends on the amount of residual silver in the
image (mostly a sign of poor processing quality). ICE is based on the
difference in transparency between regular dust for IR and for broad
spectrum light. Since IR *and* broad spectrum light are both blocked by
silver, there is no dust detection possible.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that some of the dyes in some (most?) KC are not
transparent to IR.
 
SNIP
My understanding is that some of the dyes in some (most?) KC are not
transparent to IR.
Click to expand...

1. That would not explain why some parts of some images fail due to IR
absorption, and others don't.
2. <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/e88.pdf>
spectral-dye-density curves on page 4, do suggest some near IR
absorption from the Cyan dyes, but so does Elitechrome's Cyan dye, if
not more so:
<http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/a9/0900688a80316ba9/e126e.pdf>.

Bart
 
It is not the dyes, it is residual silver that confuses the IR scanning
and processing. Same for silver based B&W. BTW, the new Nikon 9000 has a
slightly different IR source and works much better from what i have heard.
 
degrub said:
It is not the dyes, it is residual silver that confuses the IR
scanning and processing. Same for silver based B&W. BTW, the new
Nikon 9000 has a slightly different IR source and works much better
from what i have heard.
Click to expand...

Indeed, on Kodachromes that is. Silver based Negatives only really
benefit from diffused lighting solutions as a cure to the issue of
dust reduction (besides other potentially destructive methods).
Different angle IR detection sounds promising, although implementation
differences may result in different levels of success.

Bart
 
Back
Top