huehnerhose
Hello,
I have a rather silly question about scanning. I’d like to have my 35mm negatives scanned, but I don’t think it’s worth buying a ‘proper’ negative scanner, as I only want the digital copies for publishing online – they won’t be used as print templates or for further processing.
But if I’m going to scan anything, I want the quality to be right. That’s why I was thinking of using a scanning service.
To get an idea of the costs, I’d like to know roughly how long each scan takes. Or rather, how many films or streaks can be digitised per hour. (Without any processing – I’d do that at home)
My only current digitisation option is an ancient Mustek. It seems to think colour = red. (All colour scans have red streaks or a partial red cast...) For prints, I’d like to get a flatbed scanner. But as this whole area isn’t _that_ important to me, I’d be looking at the lower price range (<200
MirkoBoeddecker
Hi, what’s your real name, actually?
Huenerhose... well... hmmmm...
The time it takes to scan, transfer the data to the computer and burn it to a CD depends on the resolution.
On top of that, there’s the time it takes to fiddle the streaks into the holder and dust them off.
At full resolution of 4000 DPI, a scan takes about 3–4 minutes, including a preview and a quick correction.
At a lower resolution, it still takes over 2 minutes, simply because the scanner first has to jank its way to the right image, then it janks around, then it calibrates itself, then it focuses, then it thinks for a moment and goes ‘pfrrrrmt’...and then it gets going with a noise just like the turntable on a microwave.
Regards,
M I R K O
huehnerhose
Hmm... looks like I’ll have to give up on that idea; I was a bit too naive. The problem is that I’d really only be using the scans to share online. Maybe for a collage or something like that. Up until now, I’ve never had the exact image I wanted in digital form, so I just wanted to scan everything. But if I can only manage about 20–30 images an hour, then it’s not worth the effort for me. I’d reckoned on about 2–3 rolls an hour (I’ve got absolutely no experience with this)
So I’ll just have to buy a ‘normal’ scanner for prints after all.
Thanks for the quick reply
Regards
Sebastian
(Special shout-out to Franz :) )
MirkoBoeddecker
Sebastian,
These newer flatbed scanners with a transparency unit aren’t that bad, and they’re not that expensive either.
They should be fine for what you need.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hi Hühnerhose,
I’ve used a Nikon Coolscan III before; scanning an unframed transparency streak of six takes almost exactly two hours with a bit of ‘fine-tuning’, though you can do other things on the computer in between. Scanning individual transparencies doesn’t take much longer, but you’re kept busy the whole time.
I can’t say whether more modern devices are significantly faster.
Regards,
Axel
arothaus
Hello,
I don’t think a film scanner is necessary for scans that are only going to be shown on the web; my Epson 3170 does the job just fine, and not just for medium format. It can scan 12 images at once, which takes about 10–15 minutes at 1600 dpi. At 3200 dpi it takes longer, of course – but I only ever scan single images at that resolution, and it still takes less than 5 minutes. And I got the whole lot for a mere 150 euros brand new, with a 24-month warranty. (And I can scan positives!)
I don’t do contact sheets anymore either ;-)
Regards,
Andreas
cfb_de
Hello Seb^H^H^H huehnerhose,
and yet it was you who, in the other forum, made such a fuss about ‘anonymity online’.
Okay, I was the one who took the five minutes. At least I didn’t reveal your address, your surname, the aerial view of your place or your phone number.
And I’ve dug out the Jobo stuff; the scan’s done, it’ll be online soon. This weekend, though, I’m picking up my girlfriend from uni first.
Cheers for the regards :-)
Franz
Roman
Hello!
I have a Canon 8400F flatbed scanner (currently costs around 160 euros), which has a transparency unit that allows you to scan two 6x6 strips of 35mm film or a single 3x3 strip of medium format (6x6) in one go (though this does take time – two 6x6 strips of 35mm film take around 15 minutes each, depending on the resolution – but you can leave the scanner to do the job on its own and get on with other things in the meantime). In principle, it’s fine for web use, though even there – especially with ‘difficult’ negatives (very dense, very light, high-contrast, pushed film, or similar) – you can still spot a slight difference compared to a dedicated negative scanner (I have a Minolta DualScan IV – costs around 270 euros) – but you only really notice the difference in a direct comparison; you can also use the Canon 8400F (or comparable Epson models – I wouldn’t really go for anything other than Canon or Epson for flatbed scanners with transmitted light; I’ve been burned before, keyword UMAX Astra...)
Here are a few comparison examples:
Canon 8400F:
from 35mm negative:
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50946287
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/51068410
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/51069238
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/51101545
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/51166882
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/51070913
from medium format negative:
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50992810
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50890375
from the print:
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50943097
(large format - 10x15 cheap contact print)
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50949223
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/51707489
Minolta DualScan IV:
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50893436
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/50892940
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/52397864
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/52361213
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/52046634
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/52046644
http://www.pbase.com/romans/image/52201434
Best regards,
Roman
huehnerhose
Hello!
Thanks for the replies – that’s helped me a great deal!
Roman’s sample images in particular showed me that I hadn’t expected enough from ‘modern’ scanners. So I’ll probably go for one of those in January :ph34r:
Regards
Sebastian
P.S. Does anyone happen to have any experience with these scanners on Linux? I don’t actually use Windows, but I could switch to my dad’s laptop if necessary.
Gast
Hello,
In my experience, scanners from Aldi and similar retailers are perfectly adequate for the web (i.e. viewing on a monitor), provided you stick to scanning positives.
There’s no need to scan at high resolutions either; monitors display at 72 dpi, and anything above 100 dpi just results in huge file sizes. The viewer’s monitor remains a fixed factor; as a normal user, who goes to the trouble of calibrating it?
As I said, this applies when it comes to displaying images on the web, e.g. to discuss composition or to create a holiday album for friends or relatives living far away, or something similar.
Here’s an example from me:
Sample image
(Ricoh TLS 401 with 50mm lens, Rossmann 200 film, development there, scanned with a Medion scanner)
In my view, this is sufficient for web presentation.
Best regards
Ronald
Gast
... just remembered:
There are Linux scanner drivers available for many Canon scanners; I’ve just asked a colleague (no personal experience)
Best regards,
Ronald
huehnerhose
Hi Ronald,
I’m not sure. I’m actually quite keen on buying something ‘proper’ if I’m going to spend the money. Yes, really I ‘just’ want this website. But it’s quite possible that I might end up putting together a collage or something similar, or illustrating some text. I don’t want to find myself in a situation where I have to go looking for another option again. My expectations aren’t high when it comes to this equipment, but I don’t want to make excessive compromises just to save money either.
Thanks again for the comment regarding Linux drivers. I was actually referring more to negative scanning; I hadn’t written that down – my mistake. Generally speaking, flatbed scanners work quite well with SANE. Xsane (a frontend) also has options for negative scanning. The question there is, for example, whether the transparency unit needs to be addressed differently in some way. But if in doubt, I’ll look into it when I have the time and find out more; it just might be that someone here uses Linux and I could save myself a bit of work or search more specifically. (I haven’t even started looking yet, so there’s no need for anyone here to do it for me, just in case anyone has their own experience :ph34r: )
Gast
Hello everyone,
I’ve got another question about scanning.
What’s the quality like if I take photos using a digital SLR with a slide adapter?
Roman
Ronald,
That’s true, for simply putting the odd image online, a no-name scanner with a transparency unit will do the job; I’ve used one myself for quite some time (Umax Astra 4600)...
BUT: The differences lie in the handling (e.g. in the design of the negative holders – and it’s not just about convenience/speed of operation, but also, for example, the flatness of the negative), in the software (Silverfast was absolutely essential for the UMAX; the manufacturer’s software was completely beneath contempt, useless for anything other than occasionally posting a snapshot from Aunt Erna’s birthday party online; the Canon software, on the other hand, is so good that I don’t need to pay the extra for Silverfast; Vuescan barely gets any more out of the negatives either – I’ve tried a trial version myself – and is a nightmare to use anyway), and where it comes to borderline cases (as described in my previous post – ‘difficult’ negatives – a negative scanner gets even more out of these, whilst an Aldi scanner – I’ll refer to my UMAX as such – gets significantly less than a good flatbed scanner like my Canon – this is evident, for example, in increased noise with thin negatives, etc.).
That said – the price difference between a Medion/UMAX/Mustek/Primax/Aldi-whatever and an entry-level model from Epson or Canon isn’t actually that great – the former are hardly ever available new for under 100 euros with a transparency unit, whilst simpler models of the latter are available from 150 euros upwards...
Gast
Well, obviously. If the tasks go beyond web (I can’t write it any bigger) presentation and positives, it’s going to be a struggle with Aldi and the like. If I were faced with the decision (like Huehnerhose), I’d also prefer to save money (at least if the collagens are to be printed).
I’m not interested in collagen that replace a print on paper. So I really just need a scanner for positives and the web. That’s how I understood Huehnerhose’s requirements at the start > cheap would have been enough.
With Linux and perhaps more than just web use in the future, it probably comes down to Canon (I repeat, I know nothing about Linux, I’m just parroting what I’ve been told). That makes it a bit more expensive. Christmas is coming, after all. So let’s buy something well-reviewed and practical – we’re in agreement on that. As we all know, trying to predict everything you’ll want to do in the future is difficult; you really have to think it through. From my own testing experience, I can say that Negativ and Medion are mutually exclusive – at least if you don’t want to end up with a head full of grey hair and still want to enlarge the negatives ‘the traditional way’ after scanning.
It seems the same applies here: you get what you pay for.
With that in mind. Best regards
Ronald
huehnerhose
Hello!
I made up my mind the day before yesterday: I bought an Epson Perfection 3490 on impulse.
I’ve now gradually replaced all the images I have online and I’m absolutely delighted!
The scans of the prints are brilliant and the negative scans are very good too. I’m still fiddling about with the settings and so on, but that’s just the usual settling-in period. At last I can reproduce the prints in all their ‘colourful splendour’ :)
Thanks to all of you who replied here.
Best regards
Sebastian
P.S. The Epson is supposed to work very well under Linux. I have to admit, I wanted to replace _all_ the images _quickly_ first, so that I can get a bit more involved in the communities (what a strange word) and get some feedback on my pictures. There are Linux drivers available, and everything is supposed to work, but I haven’t got round to setting it up yet...
saschasteinhoff
I’d like to take this opportunity, in this admittedly rather dated post, to answer the original question: whilst it is, of course, possible to hire high-quality scanners or entire scanning studios, it’s generally not worth it if you just want to quickly digitise your collection of slides. For newcomers, it simply takes too long to get to grips with the process; even if you have the know-how, it takes time to set everything up just the way you need it. Besides, even good film scanners don’t work all that quickly.
In my opinion, it’s better to commission a scanning service – that is, a specialist scanning provider – to do the job. The better providers either use whole batches of standard film scanners in parallel or employ expensive but also quite fast lab scanners, such as those from Noritsu. You can find both companies that rent out scanners and scanning services at
find-a-scanservice.de. There you can either search nationwide for mail-order providers or locally for companies in your area.
It is also possible to digitise slides using a flatbed scanner if it has a transparency attachment, but the quality is rather poor even with the better transparency scanners. This is particularly true for 35mm originals that need to be enlarged quite significantly.
TiMo
Hi Sebastian,
A bit late, as you’ve already got a scanner. My Epson GT-X820 works perfectly on Linux. Epson also offers similarly good support for its printers (unlike Canon). I use Vuescan as my scanning software. That works perfectly on Linux too.
Best regards, Tim
