Prev: Comments on the cost of Nikon scanners
Next: Red Streaks on scanning
From: il barbi on 8 Mar 2010 08:24
I see at present some cheap offers for "slide scanners" acting in the
reality as cameras, for instance:
http://www.trovaprezzi.it/categoria.aspx?id=22&f=-nikon&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


From: Charlie Hoffpauir on 8 Mar 2010 10:58
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:24:28 +0100, "il barbi"
<angeieri.barboggi(a)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.aspx?id=22&f=-nikon&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
From: jrg on 8 Mar 2010 22:11
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/35827-review-iconvert-slide-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.
From: jrg on 8 Mar 2010 23:07
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/35827-review-iconvert-slide-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.
From: Barry Watzman on 9 Mar 2010 00:59
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.aspx?id=22&f=-nikon&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
>
>
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Comments on the cost of Nikon scanners
Next: Red Streaks on scanning