Scanner Suggestions
in [Scanners]
|
From: Talker on 1 Dec 2007 22:44 On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:49:41 -0500, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote: >Do not discount the option of buying a used scanner (anywhere, including >E-Bay), using it, then reselling it (E-Bay). If you are careful, you >can at least break even, and might make money on the transaction. > >Also consider services such as scancafe.com. And Sam's club does >relatively low quality scans (2MP) for 18 cents each ... maybe do that >as "insurance" before sending off your original images to a service like >scancafe (which uses Nikon scanners). > >There are LOTS of ways to skin this cat. > > Yes, buying a used one is a good option. I would think that it would be better to follow your second suggestion and have someone else scan them. It would be more cost efficient to do that if he doesn't have a shoebox full of negatives. At 18� a piece, you'd get 5 scans for a buck, and if he spent $200 to buy a used scanner, he could get 1111 negatives scanned instead. That's a lot of time and work to do yourself.(I guess he'd recoup his money if he resold the scanner though.) Talker
From: Alan Browne on 2 Dec 2007 11:54 Joe wrote: > I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture > digitally. Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know what > is the best method to scan in > negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid > for negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a > dedicated film scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you. > Joe > Google away on this group. 1) For high quality (archive) or larger prints a 4000 or higher dpi dedicated file scanner 2) To make small prints ( 6 x 9 inches or smaller) or for screen display, a flatbed with film capability should do okay. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
From: Barry Watzman on 4 Dec 2007 00:14 I guess that one can always argue that "more is better", but a 2,700 dpi scan of a 35mm image gives a 10 megapixel result. I seriously question going higher. Most images simply don't have any more meaningful detail to give. Alan Browne wrote: > Joe wrote: >> I have some family negatives and photos that I want to capture >> digitally. Most of the negatives are 35 mm. I would like to know >> what is the best method to scan in >> negatives? Are regular flat bed scanners with attachments on the lid >> for negatives and slides any good, or should I consider getting a >> dedicated film scanner? Any help provided is appreciated. Thank you. >> Joe >> > > Google away on this group. > > 1) For high quality (archive) or larger prints a 4000 or higher dpi > dedicated file scanner > > 2) To make small prints ( 6 x 9 inches or smaller) or for screen > display, a flatbed with film capability should do okay. >
From: Alan Browne on 6 Dec 2007 20:42 Barry Watzman wrote: > I guess that one can always argue that "more is better", but a 2,700 dpi > scan of a 35mm image gives a 10 megapixel result. I seriously question > going higher. Most images simply don't have any more meaningful detail > to give. > Shoot decent lenses off a tripod on good film and expose properly and they certainly do. Don't top post. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
From: Barry Watzman on 7 Dec 2007 19:38
As I said, MOST [35mm] images simply don't have any more meaningful detail to give [than 10 MP]. Alan Browne wrote: > Barry Watzman wrote: >> I guess that one can always argue that "more is better", but a 2,700 >> dpi scan of a 35mm image gives a 10 megapixel result. I seriously >> question going higher. Most images simply don't have any more >> meaningful detail to give. >> > Shoot decent lenses off a tripod on good film and expose properly and > they certainly do. > > Don't top post. > |