I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
reality as cameras, for instance: http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria....&sort=Prodotto at the
right side (the page is in italian language but it easy to understand the
devices photograph the slide): EasyPix Cyber Scanner Vision ? 76,90 (1800
dpi, 10 bits/channel); Reflecta Imagebox ? 117,20 (also for prints, 1800
dpi, depth 24 bit); Reflecta X1scan 2010 novelty ? 59,90.
I read this system is something like old "slide duplicator" devices, the
attracting thing is the time for each "shoot" is about 1 sec... Now I
understand that "you get what you paid for" but anyway I know in old times
the slides were photographed in order to be printed and the results were
acceptable. I would understand if these devices had cons like "no detail in
shadows" or "false colours" and so on
what do you think about?
il barbi
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:24:28 +0100, "il barbi"
<angeieri.barboggi@ngi.it> wrote:
>I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
>reality as cameras, for instance:
>http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria....&sort=Prodotto at the
>right side (the page is in italian language but it easy to understand the
>devices photograph the slide): EasyPix Cyber Scanner Vision ? 76,90 (1800
>dpi, 10 bits/channel); Reflecta Imagebox ? 117,20 (also for prints, 1800
>dpi, depth 24 bit); Reflecta X1scan 2010 novelty ? 59,90.
>I read this system is something like old "slide duplicator" devices, the
>attracting thing is the time for each "shoot" is about 1 sec... Now I
>understand that "you get what you paid for" but anyway I know in old times
>the slides were photographed in order to be printed and the results were
>acceptable. I would understand if these devices had cons like "no detail in
>shadows" or "false colours" and so on
>what do you think about?
>il barbi
>
I think you could save some time by just flusing whatever they cost
down the toilet.
You could probably do as well simply photographing the slide with a
digital camera, better if you have a good camera.
--
Charlie Hoffpauir
Everything is what it is because it got that way....D'Arcy Thompson
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:24:28 +0100, "il barbi"
> <angeieri.barboggi@ngi.it> wrote:
>
>>I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
>>reality as cameras, for instance:
>>http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria....&sort=Prodotto at
>>the right side (the page is in italian language but it easy to understand
>>the devices photograph the slide): EasyPix Cyber Scanner Vision ? 76,90
>>(1800 dpi, 10 bits/channel); Reflecta Imagebox ? 117,20 (also for prints,
>>1800 dpi, depth 24 bit); Reflecta X1scan 2010 novelty ? 59,90.
>>I read this system is something like old "slide duplicator" devices, the
>>attracting thing is the time for each "shoot" is about 1 sec... Now I
>>understand that "you get what you paid for" but anyway I know in old times
>>the slides were photographed in order to be printed and the results were
>>acceptable. I would understand if these devices had cons like "no detail
>>in shadows" or "false colours" and so on
>>what do you think about?
>>il barbi
>>
>
> I think you could save some time by just flusing whatever they cost
> down the toilet.
I'd have to agree with that comment sadly. Virtually any Flatbed scanner
that has a film scanning attachment should beat them for quality. You only
have to read some of the reviews to know they're junk and not just in image
quality, many comments are from those who can't get the things to work at
all on their PC (they're one of the few USB2.0 devices that aren't USB1.0
backwards compatible amongst other problems).
I did find a review a while ago that compared the results from one of these
scanners with one of the older Nikon models but cannot find it now
unfortunately (will post a link later if I find it again). However here's
one example of what others think of this type of scanner, you'll notice most
of the reviews are very negative if you excuse the pun.
I notice all the adverts for these things list them as a 'High Quality 5m
pixel scanner' despite the fact real film scanner makers were up to 10+
megapixels over 12 years ago. 1800dpi for film scanning is anything but high
quality and these things shouldn't even be allowed to be called scanners -
they're low quality 5m cameras in a lightbox with an LED backlight.
It's not even known how well they handle different focus positions of the
film (film scanners normally adjust focus, flatbeds have large enough depth
of field for it not to matter so much but these things are unknown in that
respect for these devices).
It's worth doing a search on flickr for images posted from anyone using the
scanner you're looking at before buying (same with digital cameras) to judge
the results others are getting - even some of the good reviews for these
scanners point the the 'excellent' results they've had and put examples of
on flickr, even those scans look like crap to me (plain black shadows and
burnt out highlights).
>
> You could probably do as well simply photographing the slide with a
> digital camera, better if you have a good camera.
If you have a digital camera with screw thread on the end of the lens you
can get a slide copier of the type originally sold for copying with a film
camera and screw this onto your digital camera then point it at a white
light (a white wall lit from a window during daylight is good or room
lighting will do if colour balance is corrected on the camera).
Alternatively if you have a digital camera with decent macro just make a
card tube to go over the lens and put the slide on the end or through a slot
on the side in a cardboard holder. Just anything to block out stray light
not coming through the film. Plain white paper over the end will act as a
diffuser when held up to bright light.
> --
> Charlie Hoffpauir
>
> Everything is what it is because it got that way....D'Arcy Thompson
> However here's one example of what others think of this type of
> scanner, you'll notice most of the reviews are very negative if you
> excuse the pun.
>
> http://www.brookstone.com/sl/reviews...lide-negative- scanner.html
no problem scusing the pun - I don't doubt you but the reviews -on
Brookstone's site - aren't as bad as you implied, whether they should be
or not.
Funny, the wif got me one of these for xmas but I am strictly linux so
it was a no go. In trying to get it to fly, I found out it is made by
plustek. Contacted company, no interest in supporting linux so thing
went back to store.
> However here's one example of what others think of this type of
> scanner, you'll notice most of the reviews are very negative if you
> excuse the pun.
>
> http://www.brookstone.com/sl/reviews...lide-negative- scanner.html
no problem scusing the pun - I don't doubt you but the reviews -on
Brookstone's site - aren't as bad as you implied, whether they should be
or not.
Funny, the wif got me one of these for xmas but I am strictly linux so
it was a no go. In trying to get it to fly, I found out it is made by
plustek. Contacted company, no interest in supporting linux so thing
went back to store.
These things are pretty bad. They are basically mostly 5 megapixel
digital cameras that take a photo of the slide or negative. The optics
are terrible; the lighting of the film is not very good or uniform to
begin with, the lenses are cheap plastic and the overall image quality
is not even up to the 5 megapixel image sensor due to the optics.
I think you would actually do better with a "slide duplicator"
attachment for a higher grade digital camera. A number of these do
exist also, they are lens attachments that put the 35mm film image to be
photographed in front of the lens. These work with a DSLR or a better
quality, higher end camera; they don't work with most "point and shoot"
cameras.
il barbi wrote:
> I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
> reality as cameras, for instance:
> http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria....&sort=Prodotto at the
> right side (the page is in italian language but it easy to understand the
> devices photograph the slide): EasyPix Cyber Scanner Vision ? 76,90 (1800
> dpi, 10 bits/channel); Reflecta Imagebox ? 117,20 (also for prints, 1800
> dpi, depth 24 bit); Reflecta X1scan 2010 novelty ? 59,90.
> I read this system is something like old "slide duplicator" devices, the
> attracting thing is the time for each "shoot" is about 1 sec... Now I
> understand that "you get what you paid for" but anyway I know in old times
> the slides were photographed in order to be printed and the results were
> acceptable. I would understand if these devices had cons like "no detail in
> shadows" or "false colours" and so on
> what do you think about?
> il barbi
>
>
il barbi wrote,on my timestamp of 9/03/2010 12:24 AM:
> I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
> reality as cameras, for instance:
> http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria....&sort=Prodotto at the
> right side (the page is in italian language but it easy to understand the
> devices photograph the slide): EasyPix Cyber Scanner Vision ? 76,90 (1800
> dpi, 10 bits/channel); Reflecta Imagebox ? 117,20 (also for prints, 1800
> dpi, depth 24 bit); Reflecta X1scan 2010 novelty ? 59,90.
> I read this system is something like old "slide duplicator" devices, the
> attracting thing is the time for each "shoot" is about 1 sec... Now I
> understand that "you get what you paid for" but anyway I know in old times
> the slides were photographed in order to be printed and the results were
> acceptable. I would understand if these devices had cons like "no detail in
> shadows" or "false colours" and so on
> what do you think about?
> il barbi
> These things are pretty bad. They are basically mostly 5 megapixel
> digital cameras that take a photo of the slide or negative. The optics
> are terrible; the lighting of the film is not very good or uniform to
> begin with, the lenses are cheap plastic and the overall image quality
> is not even up to the 5 megapixel image sensor due to the optics.
>
> I think you would actually do better with a "slide duplicator"
> attachment for a higher grade digital camera. A number of these do
> exist also, they are lens attachments that put the 35mm film image to be
> photographed in front of the lens. These work with a DSLR or a better
> quality, higher end camera; they don't work with most "point and shoot"
> cameras.
I think even a patched together DIY slide duplicator (if there is access to
a suitable camera - anything that can focus down on a small enough object
without too much sensor noise) would be better than one of these toy
scanners from some of the results I've seen on flickr done with them.
In fact even a normal flatbed scanner not designed to scan film could
probably do a better job than these scanners if a diffuser and light is
placed over the film instead of the scanner's usual top lid :-
Sad fact is even a budget 5m digital camera or flatbed scanner costing half
the price of these toy film scanners is likely to have better optics than
these things have and you'll be using better illumination than a couple of
cheap LED's as well.
On Mar 9, 1:17*pm, Nigel Feltham <nigel.felt...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
> > These things are pretty bad. *They are basically mostly 5 megapixel
> > digital cameras that take a photo of the slide or negative. *The optics
> > are terrible; the lighting of the film is not very good or uniform to
> > begin with, the lenses are cheap plastic and the overall image quality
> > is not even up to the 5 megapixel image sensor due to the optics.
>
> > I think you would actually do better with a "slide duplicator"
> > attachment for a higher grade digital camera. *A number of these do
> > exist also, they are lens attachments that put the 35mm film image to be
> > photographed in front of the lens. *These work with a DSLR or a better
> > quality, higher end camera; they don't work with most "point and shoot"
> > cameras.
>
> I think even a patched together DIY slide duplicator (if there is access to
> a suitable camera - anything that can focus down on a small enough object
> without too much sensor noise) would be better than one of these toy
> scanners from some of the results I've seen on flickr done with them.
>
> How about modifying this design to work with mounted slides :-http://photocritic.org/film-scanner/
>
> Or this one :-http://www.usedcameradb.com/blog/2009/09/diy-negative-scanner/
>
> Or for the more adventurous with access to a DSLR or bridge camera :-http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products-news-
> reviews/159691-diy-film-scanning-flash-macro-lens.html
>
> In fact even a normal flatbed scanner not designed to scan film could
> probably do a better job than these scanners if a diffuser and light is
> placed over the film instead of the scanner's usual top lid :-
>
> http://shadecamerahack.blogspot.com/...scanner-with-c...
> flatbed.html
>
> Sad fact is even a budget 5m digital camera or flatbed scanner costing half
> the price of these toy film scanners is likely to have better optics than
> these things have and you'll be using better illumination than a couple of
> cheap LED's as well.
Instead of a macro lens (which I lacked), I used a Nikkor enlarging
lens (Leica thread) on a Novoflex bellows, with an adaptor at the
other end for my Canon SLR. Enlarging lenses work well for this--flat
field and corrected for short distances. This worked much better than
the gimcrack slide-copy adapters I tried that mounted cheap optics in
front of the camera's existing lens.
Since camera lenses are corrected for short back distances from lens
to film, I understand you can get good results from them with a
reverser ring (available from Novoflex and, at least formerly,
others), so the back of the lens is toward the slide. Of course you
lose any auto-diaphragm action that way.
Novoflex stuff is very good but, alas, priced accordingly.
jrg <connyank@cox.net> wrote in news:q%iln.8516$NH1.5706@newsfe14.iad:
> On 03/08/2010 10:36 AM Nigel Feltham scribbled:
>
> <snip>
>
>> However here's one example of what others think of this type of
>> scanner, you'll notice most of the reviews are very negative if you
>> excuse the pun.
>>
>> http://www.brookstone.com/sl/reviews...convert-slide-
negat
>> ive- scanner.html
>
> no problem scusing the pun - I don't doubt you but the reviews -on
> Brookstone's site - aren't as bad as you implied, whether they should
> be or not.
> Funny, the wif got me one of these for xmas but I am strictly linux so
> it was a no go. In trying to get it to fly, I found out it is made by
> plustek. Contacted company, no interest in supporting linux so thing
> went back to store.
Even $200 Flatbed scanners that have Film scanning ability do a good job
of scanning 35mm film.
Cheap slide "scanners" 
Linear Mode
