I have a zillion or two 35mm slides I'd like to copy to a CD or digital means. I was looking and have found quite a few devices that will do this. I'm not very good with high tech computer type things so much of the information with them is meaningless to me. I think, based on their description and my interpretation, this one would do what I need.
It's on Amazon and while not the cheapest it isn't close to the most expensive one I've seen.
Anyone have experience with this particular machine or making copies in general?
Thanks,
oldline1
That must be this one.
I have a bunch of slides from my late grandmother, from the 60's. About 10 yrs ago, I had a digital film service transfer them to a disc.
You can only emlarge them to a point, and they pixelate ( I think that's the term), and distort.
Hopefully your machine, with much newer technology, will give better results.
Mike.
My You Tube
Mike,
Yep, that's the one I was thinking of getting. I checked into a transfer service but they want 50¢ each and with so many slides I could never afford to do it.
I would probably show them on my 52" TV so I don't know if that would be an issue or not. Otherwise my 15" laptop.
My Epson V100 scanner will scan both negatives and positives (slides). It's an older machine, but I'm sure that they would have a more recent model, with comparable capabilities.
Wayne
I have one that was about half that price. I can't find it online anywhere, I've had it about 4 years now and scanned in all the old slides I found when cleaning out my Mom's house. Perfectly fine for viewing on the computer, probably not quite publication quality. The one posted is 14mp, that should allow for some serious enlarging without getting pixilated.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
oldline1I would probably show them on my 52" TV so I don't know if that would be an issue or not.
Something to remember is that the Scanza is a more modern equivalent of the old 'slide converters' that worked with your digital camera (or smartphone). I believe there are multiple 'resolutions' in the product; you'll want one that has the resolution needed for effective 8x10 enlargement, and ideally display on a 52" HDTV, (perhaps even suitable for 4K or 8K television display). To put the indicated 14MP figure in play, that's just under 4K x 4K resolution per inch, reasonable for a slide...
Note that the Scanza has 'direct' output to HDMI for TV display of inserted slides, and at least in theory to digital TV recording devices to make a 'slideshow' of images without having to go through the rigmarole of downloading to a computer first.
None of these things is really suited to people with large slide or negative collections. You'll go blind copying slides by one-by-one by inserting them into the appropriate little caddy, sticking it in and previewing on the tiny screen, capturing to the necessary SD card, then periodically negotiating the ghastly Kodak default image-capture naming conventions when you have to type in appropriate names and caption metadata for the converted slide files. Of course, the price is a powerful incentive for all the corresponding pain...
I'd at least look at finding a 'real' slide conversion scanner on eBay or through some used-equipment dealer -- something with a magazine for gang-loading multiple slides 'automatically' and an appropriate high-resolution imaging chip (I'd look at resolutions in the 4K range at a minimum; ideally something with a nominal capture resolution comparable to grain or other 'noise' in the original film). Get a big external hard drive, or the largest SD or other media the scanner will accept, and copy the slides to some 'raw' uncompressed format -- then save them from that media or after image 'restoration' or manipulation in something like Photoshop using JPEG or other compression for your 'other purposes.
Note that if the 'transfer service' provides color-corrected and very-high-native-resolution images, the 50 cents may be reasonably competitive even for large collection size ... since you'll never need to capture the image again for any reason, should much of the technology subsequently change. That certainly can't be said about Scanza digitization!
There are some reasonably good YouTube videos that show the Scanza equipment and describe its use e.g. for negative scanning or film conversion, two things that a dedicated 35mm mounted-slide scanner cannot do very well if at all.
We have discussed a number of times, in some detail, how to perform slide conversions using various 'conversion' apparatus on ordinary high-resolution flatbed scanners (occasionally with gang-loading trays that can accommodate multiple slides or even 'panes' using most of the bed, with software that scans the 'image areas' and can discriminate them for batch editing and saves). I don't recall seeing one of these in years, though; much of the 'demand' for high-resolution consumer scanners appears to have been shunted to better phone apps, so you may have to go to specialist marketers or sources and pay something of a premium if you can't find what you need 'used', and with community search worthless it may be time for another 'scanner thread' that discusses options and current best practices.
I did a slide show with the Bell and Howell projector onto a higher quality screen about three feet away from the projector and took a photo of that with my Nikon D5000 and was through the lot of them in no time and there were a lot. The quality is as good as I need and is pretty darn good.
EDIT; Found this from 1972 I did using the above method.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I scan slides for publication for a quarterly hobby magazine. The organization I work for bought an Epson V800 scanner and it came with Silverfast software. I've only been using it for about a year, and I'm still learning all the tricks of the trade.
The V800 will batch scan up to 12 slides at a time. It's great in that I can do something else while it's scanning them (it takes about 20 min. to do all twelve slides). My settings are 2400dpi and automatic color adjustment (I use Photoshop to finish them up: adding meta data, color correction, rotation, etc.). The best part is the infrared dust & scratch removal. Each slide is scanned twice; once in normal light and again in infrared. The software compares the two and then automatically removes the physical flaws like dust and hair.The software can be adjusted for sensitivity. If it's set too high, it can mess up the image so it looks like a cartoon. If it's set too low, it can leave a slide covered with spots & hairs that you then have to remove with Photoshop. And some slides are so dirty it looks like someone sneezed on them with a mouthful of sawdust.
One problem with batch scanning is that you can't fine tune each scan for best results. You set a general standard and then scan all 12. Any other corrections have to then be done after the scan. If you scan them one at a time then you can get the best results. However, it takes much, much longer.
Also, if you have clean slides and don't need to use the infrared scan, the time it takes to do a dozen slides is about halved.
I bought a little ion omni scan unit about eight years ago and that unit is a little workhorse. I scanned over 26,000 of my dad's slides with it. It has been supplanted by newer models that are probably higher megapixal but I have found this unit to give great scans.
Here's one of the 35mm slides from my grandma, 1960'ish:
This is right off the disc I had them put on.
Paul3The organization I work for bought an Epson V800 scanner and it came with Silverfast software.
There is a much cheaper version of the V series (V600) which might be an alternative. This video from about three years ago describes some of the technical differences - the actual discussion of scanner construction comes about 13:45. Note the reference to an earlier version of the high-end 'prosumer' version (V700).
Note that the version of SilverFast that comes with the V800 scanner is a 'lite' version ("SE Plus") and it might be valuable to research what an upgrade from LaserSoft would cost if you want any of the 'regular' version's additional features. The V800 does not come with any version of Photoshop -- the V600 comes with Photoshop Elements (but not SilverFast)
The V800 will batch scan up to 12 slides at a time ... it takes about 20 min. to do all twelve slides. My settings are 2400dpi and automatic color adjustment (I use Photoshop to finish them up: adding metadata, color correction, rotation, etc.)
The nominal resolution is 6400dpi/4800dpi, but as noted in the review the 'actual' resolution is much lower. (I suspect this may be the typical 'interpolated' rating scam that many scanner manufacturers use...). Due to the smaller 'coordinated' lightbar in the 600, the slide holding capacity is smaller -- the one provided with the device only holds four (the other 'half' being a double 35mm negative holder), although it appears that you could get eight scanned in the 'available' lighting path with a proper holder or frame.
The companion video showing scan quality shows some interesting results from the comparison. (He is using 35mm negatives, so some of the results like the artifacts from glass plates in holders may not apply to slide duplication. Note that the cheaper device has some 'better' results. (Warning: there is some jargon if you aren't familiar with terminology of photo editing.)
BATMANI did a slide show with the Bell and Howell projector onto a higher quality screen about three feet away from the projector and took a photo of that with my Nikon D5000 and was through the lot of them in no time and there were a lot.
For the sake of completeness: I used an enlarger setup for slide 'conversion', a bit more slowly, with many of my slides about ... well, it was a lot of years ago, now. at the time, that involved a 35mm camera mounted via the standard 'tripod mount' -- today, most good digital cameras have the female screw and the enlarger 'should' have enough adjustment to get the lens centered properly, at least for DSLR-type cameras. This has the advantage over some of the cheap 'transfer-to-video' type of converter that you can adjust image size independent of focus and get good achromatic quality edge-to-edge.
The projector-and-screen approach is interesting, particularly as it occurs to me that you could coordinate a carousel projector with the camera shutter so that advancing the slide triggers the taking of the image as soon as the slide has 'stabilized' in the projector. (Or get one of those universal cable releases to put the effective 'take' button near the projector controls) That would increase the rate of image capture to little more than the time the projector takes to swap slides and advance the carousel, which on some units is quite fast. You can also have an assistant 'preloading' a second carousel while you're working the first, for additional speed and convenience... and dictate some of the metadata information or notes as the camera is recording to simplify 'post'.
This adds a further possibility. You could easily use a high-resolution 'movie' camera or function to record the slides, narration, music, etc. as a slideshow for TV display -- and there is a further HDR-like possibility. 'Back in the day' there was a company called Play Software that built algorithms that could interpolate sequential video frames into a higher-resolution image, based on slight jitter between image captures (supposedly even at high effective frame rates). Whether there is still hardware/software that optimizes this, I don't know, but it should be possible to get higher nominal detail sharpness out of this processing with very little if any additional 'session time' for the original movie capture... probably with some of the interpolation conversion running in the background on a computer without any foreground special attention, so even on slower processors this might not involve confusion and delay.
I use an Epson scanner that I've had for ten years. When scanning slides and negatives I use the highest resolution when importing/coping. Many 50+ yr old slides and negs were still very sharp. Then make a copy before I downsize, cleanup, photoshop, email etc and keep these in another working folder. Photograghs and paper scans are done at much lower res. before theprint media breaks-up.
I attended a presentation by Scott Lothes, President and Executive Director of the Center for Railroad Photography & Art (and himself a fine photographer) showing images from their collection. The quality was outstanding so I asked what scanner the Center uses, assuming it would be top of the line. I was surprised to learn they stopped using a scanner and have been using a special adaptor for a high quality digital camera, where the slide is basically photographed while contained in the special macro lens. Scott said they can easily "scan"/photograph 1000 slides in short order using this method and they feel (and based on the visual evidence, I'd agree) the quality is comparable if not superior.
There are commercial versions of such special lenses out there but Scott told me the one the Center uses was especially built or modified for their use.
I have been making do with a low end "Wolverine" scanner for some time. It does a decent job with a wonderfully lit slide, and an acceptable job with an OK slide, but the more ordinary the image, the worse the scan looks in comparison. I am aware that Epson and other good scanners do a better job with the "lesser" slides, and a marvelous job with the great slides.
Dave Nelson
My daughter has a cell phone holder that she uses to hold her I-Phone. I would think the quality would be good enough taking photos of the slides off a screen with that to make a visit to the past through watching the photos good enough without having to spend a fortune.
I have albums from long-dead relatives my sister and I have been going through to try and identify some of the people and places. The photos of places have been received gratefully by the archives and the people we know ones we kept, the rest were sadly tossed not meaning anything to us. They were just taking up space.
oldline1 Anyone have experience with this particular machine or making copies in general.
Anyone have experience with this particular machine or making copies in general.
I have had tremendous success using my digital camera to copy slides (and negatives). I have a Nikon D600 which I bought used, but any reasonably good DSLR will work. I use a Nikon ES-1 slide copy attachment and a 55mm Nikkor lens. The slide copier attaches to the lens by means of the 52mm filter thread on the lens, so depending on the lens a simple Xmm to 52mm adapter may be needed. But that's it. Doesn't have to be a Nikon camera. You just need something with a macro lens that focuses close enough to get to 1:1 reproduction.
For illumination I use the camera's built in flash and fire it into a white painted door about one foot in front of the lens.
The results are superb and exceeded my expectations. It's a fast process too, I can probably rip off 2 slides per minute. The beauty of it is the camera and lens are useful for regular photography too.
George
If you have enough bto copy, there are firms that will copy to dvd for about 19 cents.
Pacific Imaging Electronics makes a slide scanner ( PS5000) that will scan slides up to 4800 X 4800 DPI, and I think a newer similar looking model will do 10000 X 10000 DPI.
You load a tray of 50 slides, tweak the adjustments for feeding, set up the software once, the start scanning slides and basically walk away for a while.
Once you get them set up and running they are great machines although getting the first few done can be a pain. I ran about 28,000 slides on it. Software will correct for dust, etc. Load a tray of 50, walk away. Time for scanning a tray depends on the resolution you use, but is consistant. Reload the tray and "set it and forget it" as they say.
New machines are pricy, I got one because I didn't want to be married to the project for months at a time. I'd suggest buying a new one then sell it when done, always seems to be a market for them on the on everybody's favorite wish list site. Given the price I paid and the number of slides scanned the out of pocket was about $0.025 each. Still a LOT of time involved even doing it this way.
rrebellIf you have enough bto copy, there are firms that will copy to dvd for about 19 cents.
I forget what I paid, but I'm sure the technology is much better than 10 yrs. ago (or maybe more?) when I had mine put on a disc.
I bought the Scanza for the same reason and I have been very happy with it. My dad was a prolific photographer and shot mainly slides, so I have a shelving unit full of slides to scan.
While using the caddy you can't bulk feed, it's easy to get into a rhythm. I thought of sending them out for bulk, but they are sentimental and there are a lot of them. Also, most slides are grouped when he put them in the boxes. It's easy to scan in a box and copy it to a folder named "Christmas 2003". Given the number of slides, even a cheap option would be expensive.
Using the caddy felt like cutting wood to make ties. I'd just a put a movie on and scan some slides.
Brammy,
Thanks for your input on the Scanza.
I don't have a digital 35mm camera and the cost of one is probably more than I can afford or be willing to spend. I need something very easy to use as my knowledge of computer stuff is pretty limited.
I have about 20K slides and I know this will take a lot of time and energy to accomplish so I need some method that's low tech and reliable.
One other observation about scanning slides - and a reason why slide-by-slide scanning or re-photographing is the way I want to go, not doing it in bulk or farming it out to others.
In my experience with my low end Wolverine scanner, I have learned that it can take multiple attempts to get a satisfactory end result. Sometimes the slide is off center and you get a black line on one side, and missing stuff on the other. Sometimes the scan is perfect but you finally see on the laptop screen that there was a spot of dirt or a hair that had not been blown off the slide surface before scanning (and I am aware there are computer programs that claim to be able to eliminate those for you). Sometimes it seems the scanning "crops" the slide in such a way that you get more of the information you want on the scan by having the slide upside down and then rotating it afterwards on the computer. Sometimes the scan looks blurred for reasons I do not entirely understand.
And yeah sometimes you do one reversed.
When I scan a slide I tend to make several scans of the same slide, moving the slide holder around just a bit, and often out of four such repeated scans, when I finally look at the end result on the laptop screen, only one might be satisfactory. Or maybe even none and I do it over again.
I have taken to writing "scanned" on the cardstock slide mount. But I do not dispose of the slide, and am glad I did not because I do intend to get something better than the Wolverine scanner. I am particularly dissatisfied with the way it scans 35mm "print" film negatives.