Slide and Negative Scanner

10 replies [Last post]
Clive Rahn
Offline
Joined: May 27 1999

I have just had a disaster with a Jenoptik JS21 slide and negative scanner - it looked good on paper but could not get much of it to work. So returned it to the shops. Need inspiration to get another piece of kit.

I have lots of slides and negatives to scan so being able to put more than one slide in at a time could be useful. Can anybody recommend a suitable scanner in the £100 - £500 region. I have a Pentium II 400 Mhz computer with CDR and big hard drive.

Comments welcome

CLIVE

John Farrar
Offline
Joined: Sep 13 2000

Hello Clive
If you want to compare scanners then these sites may help you.
http://www.imaging-resource.com http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/menu.htm
I purchased an Epson flatbed scanner, the Perfection 1240U Photo which came with a neg/slide scanner attachment and the results are brilliant. I scanned a 5x4 negative and there was no noticeable difference to a scan from a scanner costing around £10k!
The only problem is that one function of the Epson software will not work with non-Epson printers so I am changing it.

There are a number of flatbed scanners with neg/slide scanner facilities on the market now so you could have the best of both worlds and they won't break the bank.
Try this site to compare prices http://www.pcindex.co.uk/
HTH

[This message has been edited by John Farrar (edited 04 April 2001).]

Keitht
Offline
Joined: Jan 8 2001

I use the Acer Scanwit 2720 scanner. This will take 4, mounted slides or strip of 6 unmounted slides or negs at at time. Available from Jessops for around £299 so nicely in the middle of your price range. There is a site www.photoscientia.co.uk which has review of the scanner plus a lot of advice on how to get the best from it.

Regards

Keith

[This message has been edited by Keitht (edited 04 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Keitht (edited 04 April 2001).]

Regards Keith

Anonymous

I have a Monolta Dimage Scan Dual II which is superb but I would also recommend looking at the Scanwit.

Rob

Paul W. H
Offline
Joined: Jul 25 1999

Hi All

I bought a dedicated film scanner (Epson Filmscan 200) which is Scsi and works beautifully but has now been discontinued. There are plenty on the market however, my advise would be, ask yourself "what do you want it to do" ? as most of these can only handle 35mm slides and negatives but probably give better results than a flat bed with a film adaptor, or, will you need to scan negatives that are not 35mm there where a lot of other formats out there a few years back. I am seriously thinking of buying an Epson Perfection 1640SU Photo for that very reason.

Paul W. H

[This message has been edited by Paul W. H (edited 04 April 2001).]

John Farrar
Offline
Joined: Sep 13 2000

Paul
Buy the Epson scanner by all means as its scans will be excellent, but beware of what I said in my first post about the printing functions as they apply to this model also.If you have an Epson printer then you will have no problems.

Alan Roberts at work
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

I cracked this one (for me) a few months ago when I bought an HP film scanner from Jessops. It does 35mm film in strips, 35mm transparenncies mounted, and up to 5"x7" prints (motors nove bits around inside nwhen you change modes). It goes up to 2400dpi and produces wonderful results from 35mm neg. About £400 IIRC.

There was a thread in this forum about all thjis, it went on for quite a while, should still be in the archives.

David
Offline
Joined: Apr 5 1999

A bit more than your budget - but I'm currently using a Nikon Coolscan 2000 - but then you only get what you pay for.

It's 35mm only - but it performs most superbly!

The MAIN problem with scanning film is getting it flat - this is accentuated because of the level of magnification. If you have loose film/negs - then most scanners are fine holding the film between glass, but on slides the film curves within the space left by the thickness of the mount.

OK - so the result is that the Nikon is not very fast - but then it spends some time on each slide analysing any curvature in the film so that it can vary the focus during the scan. A clever bit of analysis must go on there because I've fed it with purposefully "curved" film to try and fool it, and it still does an impeccible job @ 2,700dpi!

The auto-slide-feeder means that you can load up 50 slides, set it on max res, make loads of disk space free, hit the scan button and go to bed. In the morning your disk drive is bulging with 50 x 30mb TIFFs. It does .bmp too, and .jpg for the file-size concious.

D

[This message has been edited by David (edited 04 April 2001).]

David
Offline
Joined: Apr 5 1999

A lot more than your budget - but I'm currently using a Nikon Coolscan 2000 - but then you only get what you pay for.

It's 35mm only - but it performs most superbly!

The MAIN problem with scanning film is getting it flat - this is accentuated because of the level of magnification. If you have loose film/negs - then most scanners are fine holding the film between glass, but on slides the film curves within the space left by the thickness of the mount.

OK - so the result if that the Nikon is not very fast - but then it spends some time on each slide analysing any curvature in the film so that it can vary the focus during the scan. A clever bit of analysis must go on there because I've fed it with purposefully "curved" film to try and fool it, and it still does an impeccible job!

D

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

I too have the Minolta Dimage II. Great piece of kit, scanning 35mm or APS to a resolution that exceeds Photo CD.

BUT

It ain't half slow. Just have the Photoshop book to read while you're scanning.

tom.

simonw
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 1999

I have the Acer Scanwit 2720S from Jessops, and am very pleased with the results. It is a SCSI scanner, and comes with a suitable pci card, but this will have to be fitted in the computer. If you are not sure about such things and you have a fairly new PC with USB ports, the new Nikon and minolta film scanners might be a better bet.