|
CharlieInDayton
member
Reged: 12/28/05
Posts: 89
Loc: Directly above Earth's center....
|
|
eBay's loaded with 'em, and I ain't sure which is which. Some start at ten bucks, and for that price I'm sure to get what I pay for...
What I already have is an HP Scanjet 5370C. Is there an attachment for this unit that plugs in the back? There are some auxiliary sockets (small, round -- APF/6 pin, ADF/4 pin, if I counted right) for something...
Other than that...doesn't have to be monstrous, doesn't have to be the latest/greatest...a couple generations old is OK, I'm just starting this...USB connection would be VERY nice...
I don't have a whole lot to blow on this, as I just bought a house...
Any tips on what's good or what to avoid would be nice.
My searches currently are on eBay, keywords 'film scanner'. Anyone see anything there worth pursuing?
Your assistance in this is greatly appreciated.
--------------------
It doesn't matter what you're looking at.
It doesn't matter what you're looking through.
It never looks like the pictures...
Charlie in Dayton
|
Carlos Milovic
sage
Reged: 09/07/04
Posts: 283
Loc: Santiago, Chile
|
|
Hmmm... I'm a bit out of date in this topic. The "king" of the manufacturers was Polaroid (the SprintScan line). The old Le or 35 versions were good, but a 35 Plus is better. Those are 2700dpi, and their prices are very low these days.
The next generation of scanners of the SprintScan line are the 4000/4000Plus ones. I think that the later has USB conection. I have the standard model, wich uses a SCSI card.
There are other versions, but most probably they'll be more expensive, since they were medium/large format versions, while the 35 and 4000 series are specifically made for 35mm.
There are other brand that also performed well... I remember a Minolta Dimage ScanDual of 5400dpi that was worth to look at. Another good brand is Microtek, wich made Polaroid clones.
The Nikon's and Canon's were not as good as Polaroid's or that Minolta.
--------------------
Regards,
Carlos Milovic F.
// Astro & Photo - CMF
// http://www.astrophoto.vze.com
Edited by Carlos Milovic (06/26/07 02:25 AM)
|
CharlieInDayton
member
Reged: 12/28/05
Posts: 89
Loc: Directly above Earth's center....
|
|
After suitable digging around, I've discovered that the HP Scanjet 5370C actually had an accessory 35mm film scanner, and there's at least two on eBay brand new with the factory bed masks etc unopened for about $30.
Since this is the one that goes with what I've got, and all the software is already installed, and it's real cheap, I don't think I'd be going wrong picking this up and learning with it. The software will let me save in the appropriate processing format, and I've got a copy of Photoshop for Astrophotographers...time to dig in the couch cushions for spare change, don'tcha think?
--------------------
It doesn't matter what you're looking at.
It doesn't matter what you're looking through.
It never looks like the pictures...
Charlie in Dayton
|
jgraham
Postmaster
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 11575
Loc: Dayton, Ohio
|
|
I have an older version of the 5370c (the 4470c) and I bought it for the same reason; it came with a back-lit slide and film attachment. I found it worked very well. The only problem I had was the back light was a little uneven, but that was easily fixed using flats.
--------------------
-John
The best advice on imaging I've ever been given... don't forget to look! 
|
impakt
member
Reged: 04/08/07
Posts: 78
Loc: Albany Western Australia
|
|
I sell this sort of stuff for a living. Make sure it does slides and negatives. It should include a holder for slides/negatives (keeps them square). You do not need huge DPI - most will do 1200DPI which is enough for most folks unless you want to print a huge poster. USB version 2 is good. Practice cleaning glass and buy a good monitor cleaning kit (for cleaning the scanner). Other then that, theres not much to 'em.
--------------------
Meade 12" LX200R (Emperor)
Meade 80mm series 5000 APO (Slave)
YorkOptical 80mm refractor (Abaddon)
DSI Pro II
Canon 350D (mod)
Various other junk
|
Carlos Milovic
sage
Reged: 09/07/04
Posts: 283
Loc: Santiago, Chile
|
|
Hi impakt
I desagree with you regarding the DPI required. Processing undersampled images is a real pain. You loose definition in all details (compared to downsample the final result, worked with larger dimensions). Also the stars become harder to manage. I would say that for astronomical purposes you should not use nothing below the 2700dpi. At 4000dpi you are in the range were film grain is barelly oversampled, and the smallest stars covers a few pixels (widefield). 5400 may be unnecesary for slides, but may be worth with the old TechPan wich had a better resolution. Another problem with 5400 scans is the huge size of the files... but this is another story. I would say that 2700dpi is a good starting point, but going to 4000dpi is a great advantage. At least, I saw an improvement between a Polaroid 35 I used and my current Polaroid 4000.
And by the way, I would not recommend any flatbed scanner at all, with the exception of those huge professional scanners. A good film dedicated scanner, from a few years ago, may be found for less than US$100...
My 2 cents...
--------------------
Regards,
Carlos Milovic F.
// Astro & Photo - CMF
// http://www.astrophoto.vze.com
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4534
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
I agree with Carlos. At 1200 DPI you aren't capturing all the information in the slide, especially with something like E200.
Cheers,
Suk
|
rjsc2000
sage
Reged: 09/21/06
Posts: 211
Loc: Portugal
|
|
Carlos, Why don't you recomend the flat bed scanners?
Can you give some examples of dedicated scanner from a few years ago? I don't really know what to look for.
thank you
ricardo
|
impakt
member
Reged: 04/08/07
Posts: 78
Loc: Albany Western Australia
|
|
I stand corrected. I was not thinking specificaly of astrophotography where you want to get as much out of a frame as possible.
--------------------
Meade 12" LX200R (Emperor)
Meade 80mm series 5000 APO (Slave)
YorkOptical 80mm refractor (Abaddon)
DSI Pro II
Canon 350D (mod)
Various other junk
|
Carlos Milovic
sage
Reged: 09/07/04
Posts: 283
Loc: Santiago, Chile
|
|
My critic to flad bed scanners is related to two topics. The first one, resolution. Not only film dedicated scanners have higher optical resolution (please note, optical... not interpolated... and you should always scan at the highest optical resolution of your scanner, or, at least, subsample by an integer value), but I'm quite sure that in most cases even for the same stated resolution you'll get a sharper image with a film scanner.
The second topic is related to dynamic range. You don't need a huge DR to scan papers... so flat bed scanners may crop the shadows or highlights of your image, loosing information. This is specially important in the shadows, were usually are hiding all the nebulosities.
Please note, I'm talking of "rule of thumb" rules... there may be exceptional cases were a flat bed scanner perform better, but I'm afraid that it will cost at least as much as a top end dedicated film scanner. I used some years ago a very good professional flat bed scanner, wich performed better than a Polaroid 35... but it was a huge scanner, the size of a table, and very expensive. Now I'm very happy with my SS4000, and IMHO, it performs better than that flat bed scanner.
So, if you want something cheap, and got something that surelly works well, just try what astrophotographers used a few years ago... the APML is full with references to scanners. To make it short, if you want something to start, look for a Polaroid SprintScan 35 Plus, or the Microtek clone of it (usually a bit cheaper). The standard 35 model will perform well too, but I think that it had a lower dynamic range.
As things are going these days with film, I would not suggest to buy a US$500 model, unless you have large amounts of film to be digitalized, and want to extract all the information from them. If you just want to scan the best of your work (a minor number) with higher quality you may ask Tony Hallas and/or other astrophotographers that used to give that service.
--------------------
Regards,
Carlos Milovic F.
// Astro & Photo - CMF
// http://www.astrophoto.vze.com
|
rboe
Reged: 03/16/02
Posts: 63466
Loc: Phx, AZ
|
|
I have the Epson 4870. I've scanned 120 and 35 slides and negatives (but not astro photo's). It does have a bit of a problem with dense slides but resolution wise will do up to 4800 dpi - which I used maybe once. For my 8x10, 2400dpi to 3200 seem to be just fine. 120mm at 4800dpi makes for huge computer choking files.
It has since been replaced with a newer model. In reviews it has been favorably compared to Nikon dedicated slide scanners.
--------------------
Ron
NS11GPS
Pronto
16" dob
127mm F9 Surplus Shed/Crawmach kit scope
Coronado SolarMax 40 on a Celestron 102 Wide Field
Best of ATM
|
Paul Romero
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/05/05
Posts: 959
Loc: Reno, NV
|
|
Hi,
So, in short, a beginner should have the developer scan the images and put them on a cd?
Thanks,
Paul
--------------------
Good As New MI-250 Refurb
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4534
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
Paul.
Get the film developed and then scan yourself -- you'll get a lot better image than the auto-scan to CD the developer will use.
Suk
|
galaxy_jason
Vendor
Reged: 05/22/07
Posts: 145
Loc: Texas
|
|
There are several people (including myself) that can scan and enhance your negatives. Cost effective unless you have a lot to scan. Please see my web site and/or send me an email for more details.
--------------------
--
-Jason Ware
www.galaxyphoto.com
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
