Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Multimedia: Photographic slides into digital storage?
I have an Epson V750 which is a fairly high end scanner.
by Kiddpeat - 10/29/06 6:20 PM In reply to: Photographic slides into digital storage? by dml756It's maximum optical resolution is 6400 by 9600 dpi. Since it can go to a 48 bit depth on each 'dot', it can generate a bit over 350 megabytes per square inch. I'm not saying you need a scanner like the Epson, but mention the numbers to give you an idea of capability. Another thing it does is to calculate a color correction 'curve' for itself. This 'curve' should be applied to each scanned image to insure that its colors are correct. A photo program like Photoshop can apply this curve, and move your image into a large gamut color space. If that seems like Greek, it just means that the photo can be processed and stored without compromising color accuracy. That should be another thing you want before spending the hours needed to scan all those slides.
Historically, I've set the resolution high enough to generate at least a 30 megabyte file. My calculated guess is that it should be between 50 and 100 megabytes per slide to capture maximum resolution. That should tell you something about hardware that uses a digital camera for capture, and saves to a jpeg.
I don't know of anything that can accept trays. However, my Epson does have a slide scanning 'tray' that holds 12 slides. That allows the scanner to scan 12 slides at a time unattended. You don't have to sit there while it's processing.
RAW is a format used by digital cameras. Scanners, as far as I know, don't generate raw files. I save mine as tifs. If you've gone to all the work to scan, DO NOT save your scans as jpegs. If you do, you've thrown away a chunk of your hard earned resolution. You'll throw away another chunk every time you resave as a jpeg.
Epson V750
by zman1991 - 11/5/06 6:51 PM In reply to: I have an Epson V750 which is a fairly high end scanner. by KiddpeatCan anyone speak to the Microtek 900i?
Microteck i900
by dml756 - 11/6/06 6:53 AM In reply to: Epson V750 by zman1991CNET did a review in October 2004. I found it by typing Microtek 900i in the search box at the top of this page.
Scan Time
by fotoflix - 4/7/09 11:21 AM In reply to: I have an Epson V750 which is a fairly high end scanner. by KiddpeatCould you please tell me how long it takes to scan 12 slides? Is that 1800 dpi or 3600 dpi? Some scanners use dpi as a measurement. Also, could you tell me the measurements of the slide window? I am having a problem scanning my slides because the window on the slide scanner tray is too narrow and it cuts off the top. My slides are 1 inch square. I would really appreciate your input. Trying to find equipment that will meet my needs. Thank you.
Carousel slide scanner
by petekarn - 11/4/06 1:59 AM In reply to: Photographic slides into digital storage? by dml756I am surprised no one mentioned the PowerSlide 3600 by Pacific Image. It scans slides automatically from a carousel tray. It is a middle of the road scanner in terms of quality, but the automation may be worth it. Depends on what you want.
http://www.scanace.com/en/product/ps3600.php
PowewrSlide 3600
by dml756 - 11/6/06 6:48 AM In reply to: Carousel slide scanner by petekarnI did see that unit somehwere in my searching, but had to discount it as it only take Braun, not Kodak carousel trays. My recollection is that the Braun and the Kodak trays are not interchangeable. But thanks for the suggestion.
Don't do it yourself!
by pdxfrank - 1/13/07 5:23 PM In reply to: Photographic slides into digital storage? by dml756Scanning any quantity of slides takes forever. Instead, try a slide scanning service like this one: http://www.pixmonix.com.
Digitising slides yourself
by tompark - 2/27/07 10:26 PM In reply to: Don't do it yourself! by pdxfrankNo, it does not take a massive amount of time. Scanners are no real solution to my needd to digitise ~25,000 of my slides, mainly Kodachrome from 1959-1990, all in groups of 20-24 in steel cases, plus a few carousels.
As a professional engineer I first planned how I wanted to use the results -- mainly to display on a laptop screen or an HD TV. Both could use only up to 2 megs of information in jpeg form.
The easiest way seemed to be to photograph the screen as I ran them through the projector. Trials showed slight keystoning and high corner vignetting -- unacceptable. The same with an old tele-cine device I had (project via a 45 degree mirror onto a ground glass screen.)
My solution was to take the lens out of the projector and point the camera in. Too bright, (even at 1/4000 at f16) so I put an $8 Home Depot dimmer in the projector lamp wiring using two screw connectors then added a white plastic screen between the two condenser lenses (from a bleach bottle), to remove the filament image. The camera on macro setting couldn't quite focus so I taped on a coated close-up lens from my Pentax. Cooking now.
I hooked up the camera to an old laptop, zoomed in sufficient to avoid the curved corners, did a custom white balance and set the camera to macro, 50 ASA, postcard mode (1600x1200 giving ~500KB jpegs) and fairly long telephoto with negligible pincushion. Then I set the camera to low sharpening mode and ran trials. Excellent results, not all the quality from the slides but capable of decent 8x12" prints -- and the family seem to just want 4x6s. The HD TV images are stunning with every pixel addressed.
25 slides in the stack loader, hit the protector change button then check the image on screen, occasionally adjust the exposure or zoom then hit the spacebar and the image goes right into the computer. The Canon camera software lets me name the images, i.e. Oct1962Paris001 --002 and so on. I'm running through 200-300 slides an hour with occasional blasts of canned air, I expect to be finished by the end of the year. The only post-processing is to turn vertical images plus a few crops. Despite no ICE I have seen very few dust spots -- just wished I had been able to afford better quality optics in the 1950s and 60s.
Canon camera, Penatax close up lens
by dml756 - 2/28/07 7:52 AM In reply to: Digitising slides yourself by tomparkThat's an amazing apparatus you've setup. Which Canon camera and software are you using? (I have an S45). Do I understand that you are controlling zoom, focus etc from the laptop? If so how? Any idea if this set up would work with a Kodak Ektagraphic Carousel projector?
Slide digitising direct from projector
by tompark - 2/28/07 12:16 PM In reply to: Canon camera, Penatax close up lens by dml756I use a 3.2 MB Canon A510 that I bought at Best Buy last year for $150. (Set down to the 2 MB postcard format.) I like this over higher MB cameras as it is sharp into the corners, has almost no colour fringing in corners and at the tele zoom no barrel or pincushion distortion. It comes with Canon ZoomBrowser software that has remote operation with the supplied computer USB cord -- this free software works for all Canon EOS and A series cameras -- possibly others. This software lets you adjust most camera settings and batch file names from the computer. You click an icon or press the spacebar to trip the shutter and the resultant jpeg is saved directly to the folder of your choice in the computer -- about 5 seconds to transfer, just enough time to change slides and check framing and exposure. I didn't realise the camera could work remotely until I read the manual. Possibly other makes do this? The key is that all Canon A series cameras (which I have used since 1999) have full manual controls, essential to control white balance, and to reduce contrast and colour intensity in the in-camera conversion to jpegs.
I have run into delays today with some slide "stacks" that have had vertical pictures turned. These have to be individually pulled from the stack and turned back (horizontal)-- something I wanted to avoid doing as it exposes the slides to dust.
Canon info
by dml756 - 2/28/07 12:51 PM In reply to: Slide digitising direct from projector by tomparkWhat do you mean by set down to 2MB postcard?
S45 Canon does support operation through the computer.
Don't know what pincushion or telebarrel distortion means.
The installation of the rheostat may be problematic -don't know if it will cause lifespan problems with the bulb. Also, hard to find Ektagraphic bulbs these days.
You found that the simple bleach bottle plastic was a satisfacory diffuser, with no heating/melting issues?
As a guide, how far from the projector did you locate your camera? The S45 has a macro mode, so I wonder about the need for a close-up lens.
You are storing JPEG files, and previous contributions to this thread recommend TIFF and warn against RAW. Comments?
All in all a solution worth pursuing. Thanks.
Slide digitising direct from projector
by tompark - 2/28/07 3:12 PM In reply to: Canon info by dml756Sorry your S45 camera does not have a close enough macro for this, maybe with a couple of close-up filters? The camera lens has to go all the way into the projector lens hole and then needs a telephoto setting to frame the slide.
This arrangement only works with projectors with 120 volt lamps -- you should not put a dimmer on a circuit with a transformer. I have the lamp below half voltage (less than quarter output, very little heat, the lamp will last almost forever at this level.) The fan and slide changing motors must still get full voltage of course. If you cannot dim the lamp you would be into neutral density filters -- and lots of heat.
Your camera and mine can be set to "lower definition". The 1600x1200 postcard 2 megapixel setting is exactly what I need. The reviews say my and your lenses are free of distortion at tele. But look at a slide mount at wide angle and you will see the lines at the top and bottom are curved -- not good.
RAW and TIFF are an affectation of so called "serious photographers" who do not want the losses and possible artifacts of jpeg compression. In eight years of shooting digital with the middle jpeg compression I can count the artifacts I have seen on two hands. I sell articles and images to two technical magazines. They specify jpegs only -- and I sold a cover taken with a 4 megapixel camera -- but then they are not "Vogue".
Remember this fast and easy slide digitising at 2 megapixels is not capturing all the info on the slide, which if taken with a good lens on Kodachrome can have the equivalent of 10 megapixels of detail, maybe a little better.
My compliments on what seems like clever jury rigging.
by Kiddpeat - 2/28/07 10:48 PM In reply to: Slide digitising direct from projector by tomparkHowever, your understanding of several items seems a bit short of being complete. RAW is not an 'affectation' aimed at compression losses or jpeg artifacts. That reflects a total misunderstanding of the RAW format, and how it is used. Similarly, tif does not fall under your description although it is closer to what you allege.
You may be correct about jpeg artifacts. If you work with a first generation jpeg image, I would expect to see very few artifact or compression losses. It is the repeated use of the jpeg format that is most responsible for these effects.
My understanding is that a 35mm slide has 15-16 megapixels. That is a fair distance beyond 10 megapixels. Trying to represent this data with 2 megapixels sounds like a lot of 'ifs thens and buts'.
jury rigs, transformers and jpegs.
by dml756 - 3/1/07 7:02 AM In reply to: My compliments on what seems like clever jury rigging. by KiddpeatIf the jpeg compression distortion/artifacts occurs only on multiple compressions of the same data, this may not be a problem for me. That is, I would be making one digital copy, and burning to CD, and/or an external hardrive. Merely extracting that file (a particular image) and displaying on LCD or projecting through digital (power point type) projector should not add further jpeg compression (hence artifacts). Is this assumption correct?
I don't recall if the Ekatagraphic/Carousel projector bulb is line voltage or stepped down -easy enough to check. Yes, of course, if stepped won through a transformer, then no dimming possible.
We also have a Nikon D70 digital SLR in house with tele lenses and +/- 55mm which originally were for a 35mm Nikon 2002. I also have 85mm, 24mm (parallax correcting)and zoom telephoto. These are manual (non AF)for use on my old FTN. The mounts are compatible, but I don't yet know if there is any compatibility problem with the D70 controls. Any sense if any of these lenses would work in the "apparatus"?
I assume the Nikon D70 software also allows control from the laptop.
The input from Kidpeat and Tompark is much appreciated.
Slide digitising direct from projector
by tompark - 3/1/07 11:43 AM In reply to: jury rigs, transformers and jpegs. by dml756I have been working in photography and computers for 40 years -- back to 10ASA Kodachrome and punched cards. I am aware of the nuances of RAW, TIFF and jpegs. For this discussion I was merely stating that jpeg is adequate for this fast process. I use lossless jpeg rotation. However having now scanned a few hundred slides I am not satisfied with either the definition or colour depth and am reviewing options.
A CCD sensor has definition proportional to the square root of its size. Multiply this square root by 20 and you have the approximate 35mm definition in lines per millimetre (l/mm). Hence a 2 megapixel CCD can deliver ~ 28 l/mm, a 4 megapixel CCD can deliver ~ 40 l/mm, a 10 megapixel CCD can deliver ~ 63 l/mm. (Often higher than the capability of the consumer grade camera lenses.)
A good 35mm format fixed lens might reach 50 l/mm in the centre -- less at the corners. Zooms go down from this - a lot. I doubt my best slides exceed 40 l/mm in the centre, the ones with early zooms much less, so any loss digitizing at 2 megapixels/frame would be small and this setting has all the information a consumer LCD screen (computer or HDTV) can handle.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
