Need to Purchase Slide Scanner

you might find it quicker, less expensive and simpler to outsource your slides by volume to a specialist.

wrote in message

Dear Group,

I am a first timer here and hope this is on topic enough.
I will be doing a work assignment for a high-end landscape designer, scanning thousands of slides of various landscapes and gardens and storing and sorting them with ThumbsDB. The main purposes are to have them easily available for potential clients to see, to use at public lectures and then possibly to use some of them for print publication.
So, quality has to be good, but I suppose not in the hundreds of megs for most purposes except perhaps print.

Questions:

Can anyone recommend a good scanner with an auto feeder, or tell me what specs are needed (bit depth, resolution levels,etc) for such a task?

How large would a color image file be if it were to be used for a really nice coffee table book on landscape design? (I assume a few hundred K or a meg is good enough to show on a lap top or to project.)
Is JPG good enough, or do we have to scan and store the file in an enormous form (Tiff etc.)?

Are the auto clean up functions some scanners have good, or should we still do it one at a time in Photoshop?

Thanks much,

Michael

It might surprise you to learn that a high quality magazine image is about 300 lines per inch of resolution. Call it dpi and you can start to comprehend the file size verses resolution thing. About 29 Megabyte for a full A4 page at 300 PPI. Dots and pixels per inch are pretty close to the same size at that density.

You can get surprisingly high quality scans of slides from Epson Perfection 3200 Photo scanners. The new 4750 is even better but I would not try to use one of these scans for a "coffee table" book unless it was one I made myself from photographs.
DM
—————————–

wrote in message

Dear Group,

I am a first timer here and hope this is on topic enough.
I will be doing a work assignment for a high-end landscape designer, scanning thousands of slides of various landscapes and gardens and storing and sorting them with ThumbsDB. The main purposes are to have them easily available for potential clients to see, to use at public lectures and then possibly to use some of them for print publication.
So, quality has to be good, but I suppose not in the hundreds of megs for most purposes except perhaps print.

Questions:

Can anyone recommend a good scanner with an auto feeder, or tell me what specs are needed (bit depth, resolution levels,etc) for such a task?

How large would a color image file be if it were to be used for a really nice coffee table book on landscape design? (I assume a few hundred K or a meg is good enough to show on a lap top or to project.)
Is JPG good enough, or do we have to scan and store the file in an enormous form (Tiff etc.)?

Are the auto clean up functions some scanners have good, or should we still do it one at a time in Photoshop?

Thanks much,

Michael

I have been scanning using a Canon FS 4000 (dedicated 35mm scanner) for over 2 years and have been happy with the results. One of the major decision points is ultimately what you plan on doing with the ‘scanned’ image?

If only for the web, the 72 DPI result is ALL that is needed. However, I have scanned and have had printed 16 x 20 inch finished prints with excellent results.

JPG has some advantages (smaller image files sizes) but a major disadvantage is that when opening and closing a jpg file there can be a loss of pixels and a resultant loss of quality. From what I understand, a few opening and closing will not cause a degradation of the image. Multiple opening and closing DOES cause problems.

An adage I heard when I first stated to scan is the following. "SCAN ONCE, PHOTOSHOP FOREVER" I think this is very very true. My work flow includes full 4000 DPI scan and then saved to a stored to CD with other images. Then you have options for the future DEPENDING on what you want for the ultimate OUTCOME or display.

GOOD LUCK

wrote in message

Dear Group,

I am a first timer here and hope this is on topic enough.
I will be doing a work assignment for a high-end landscape designer, scanning thousands of slides of various landscapes and gardens and storing and sorting them with ThumbsDB. The main purposes are to have them easily available for potential clients to see, to use at public lectures and then possibly to use some of them for print publication.
So, quality has to be good, but I suppose not in the hundreds of megs for most purposes except perhaps print.

Questions:

Can anyone recommend a good scanner with an auto feeder, or tell me what specs are needed (bit depth, resolution levels,etc) for such a task?

How large would a color image file be if it were to be used for a really nice coffee table book on landscape design? (I assume a few hundred K or a meg is good enough to show on a lap top or to project.)
Is JPG good enough, or do we have to scan and store the file in an enormous form (Tiff etc.)?

Are the auto clean up functions some scanners have good, or should we still do it one at a time in Photoshop?

Thanks much,

Michael

Thanks all for the advice.

We’ll be using the images, archived for searching with ThumbsDB, to show clients examples of what we would do for them and also to use at lectures, projected on a screen. (For example: "Mr. Jones, here are 20 examples of gothic wood benches in different settings" or "Here are examples of the type of hedge we discussed". "Here’s Sissinghurst Castle in full bloom last year" etc.)

From what I have been able to determine, the resolution of such projectors is only 1024×768 anyway. Perhaps that translates into a few hundred K?

The other, and more limited need is to do very high quality scans for use in print publishing. For the ones selected for this, I think I read that the CS4000 can do a 700mb+ image file. It seems that these could be done now, or, the slides can be pulled and redone at high res when needed.

I’ve been given to understand that there are basically 3 levels of scanner: Hugely expensive drum and other, scanners (up to $100k?!), midrange, like the Nikon CS 4000 and some Minoltas for around $1000, give or take, and cheaper ones. Does that sound about right?

– I am not sure what you get by going to the midrange: Are bit depth, resolution and the auto-cleanup programs examples of what makes them better?

– We also would like an automatic feeder or hopper to save some labor. Do these work well?

– Does anyone know if ThumbsDB can automatically save and apply some given file name(s) as the slides feed automatically, or will it open up hundreds of files on the screen like the normal Twain-to-PShop does?

– I was also told, here and else where, that JPGs can degrade and that for best overall results, if possible, keep files as TIFFs. Does that sound reasonable.

Thanks all,

Michael

in article 6NJWb.29521$, LifeIsGood–SOMETIMES at
wrote on 2/12/04 6:51 AM:

I have been scanning using a Canon FS 4000 (dedicated 35mm scanner) for over 2 years and have been happy with the results. One of the major decision points is ultimately what you plan on doing with the ‘scanned’ image?
If only for the web, the 72 DPI result is ALL that is needed. However, I have scanned and have had printed 16 x 20 inch finished prints with excellent results.

JPG has some advantages (smaller image files sizes) but a major disadvantage is that when opening and closing a jpg file there can be a loss of pixels and a resultant loss of quality. From what I understand, a few opening and closing will not cause a degradation of the image. Multiple opening and closing DOES cause problems.

An adage I heard when I first stated to scan is the following. "SCAN ONCE, PHOTOSHOP FOREVER" I think this is very very true. My work flow includes full 4000 DPI scan and then saved to a stored to CD with other images. Then you have options for the future DEPENDING on what you want for the ultimate OUTCOME or display.

GOOD LUCK

wrote in message

Dear Group,

I am a first timer here and hope this is on topic enough.
I will be doing a work assignment for a high-end landscape designer, scanning thousands of slides of various landscapes and gardens and storing and sorting them with ThumbsDB. The main purposes are to have them easily available for potential clients to see, to use at public lectures and then possibly to use some of them for print publication.
So, quality has to be good, but I suppose not in the hundreds of megs for most purposes except perhaps print.

Questions:

Can anyone recommend a good scanner with an auto feeder, or tell me what specs are needed (bit depth, resolution levels,etc) for such a task?

How large would a color image file be if it were to be used for a really nice coffee table book on landscape design? (I assume a few hundred K or a meg is good enough to show on a lap top or to project.)
Is JPG good enough, or do we have to scan and store the file in an enormous form (Tiff etc.)?

Are the auto clean up functions some scanners have good, or should we still do it one at a time in Photoshop?

Thanks much,

Michael

Michael Meric …

Thanks all for the advice.

We’ll be using the images, archived for searching with ThumbsDB, to show clients examples of what we would do for them and also to use at lectures, projected on a screen. (For example: "Mr. Jones, here are 20 examples of gothic wood benches in different settings" or "Here are examples of the type of hedge we discussed". "Here’s Sissinghurst Castle in full bloom last year" etc.)

From what I have been able to determine, the resolution of such projectors is only 1024×768 anyway. Perhaps that translates into a few hundred K?
The other, and more limited need is to do very high quality scans for use in print publishing. For the ones selected for this, I think I read that the CS4000 can do a 700mb+ image file. It seems that these could be done now, or, the slides can be pulled and redone at high res when needed.
I’ve been given to understand that there are basically 3 levels of scanner: Hugely expensive drum and other, scanners (up to $100k?!), midrange, like the Nikon CS 4000 and some Minoltas for around $1000, give or take, and cheaper ones. Does that sound about right?

– I am not sure what you get by going to the midrange: Are bit depth, resolution and the auto-cleanup programs examples of what makes them better?
– We also would like an automatic feeder or hopper to save some labor. Do these work well?

– Does anyone know if ThumbsDB can automatically save and apply some given file name(s) as the slides feed automatically, or will it open up hundreds of files on the screen like the normal Twain-to-PShop does?
– I was also told, here and else where, that JPGs can degrade and that for best overall results, if possible, keep files as TIFFs. Does that sound reasonable.

Thanks all,

Michael

In your position I might be looking at the Epson 4870 flatbed scanner for those scans where you will be viewing them on monitors. You can scan 8 slides at a time (or 24 if not mounted) it has ICE if you feel you need it (for dust and scratches but not with Kodachromes) though it adds considerably to scan times. Given the numbers you’re talking of scanning you’re going to be old and grey if not already by the time you’ve scanned thousands of slides. You also say "we" so maybe 2 or more scanners could be put to service to speed things up. As scanners that will handle film go, the 4870 is at the lower price end but the quality is almost on a par with my Nikon Coolscan IV, a dedicated film scanner.

You wouldn’t use it for the coffee table prints you mention but then you wouldn’t be scanning all the thousands of slides at a resolution suitable for making coffee table prints, not in this lifetime and staying sane. Anything you want to print out big would be better scanned individually for that purpose only, either by yourself on another scanner or sent out to be scanned.

I wouldn’t even be thinking of scanning all the thousands of slides at the highest resolution in the off chance that one or two or even one or two hundred would be needed to be printed out large. If you were just doing your own pictures on an ongoing basis then it makes sense to scan at high res and save as a Tiff so you can then use them for "whatever", as someone said scan once photoshop for ever, but not for a large project like you outline.

I’d scan at the lowest resolution you’re happy with for viewing on a monitor or projector (don’t know what res you’d need for a projector) if this is what the bulk of the viewing will be, so that scanning time is minimum. Then so long as your thumbsplus database actually lets you find the physical slide again for any image, rescan as and when needed for whatever is needed above the low res scan. This means you need to be disciplined in your storage, archiving and indexing of your physical slides or you’ll never locate them again in a timely fashion. A single unique identifier on each slide cross referenced to the thumbplus database would cope with this as long as you keep the slides in file order.

The LS4000 is more likely to give a 70mb rather than 700mb file size. You should be able to get A3 size prints from a 35mm slide scanned on a LS4000 or similar scanner though personally I don’t like to take 35mm beyond A4. Some do some don’t. For coffee table quality prints I think you should be shooting medium format or high res digital, but if you’ve already got thousands of slides on 35mm you don’t want to hear that.

To sum up. For scans to be viewed on a monitor with minimal budget outlay an Epson 4870 scanner. For quality large print output a dedicated film scanner 4000dpi or send out for drum scans.

Hope this helps.

Brian
(the other one)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:13:19 -0500, Michael Meric
wrote:

– Does anyone know if ThumbsDB can automatically save and apply some given file name(s) as the slides feed automatically, or will it open up hundreds of files on the screen like the normal Twain-to-PShop does?

Brian has dealt with all the other stuff pretty well, so I’ll just comment on ThumbsPlus (I assume that’s the software you mean when you say ThumbsDB?).

If you scan directly into TP, depending on how you’ve set it up, you’ll get images files plus automatic thumbnailing of each image. If you’re are doing a lot of slides at once and want to catalogue them, maybe add specific keywords to specific files, or groups of files, and so forth, you need to investigate using TP’s batch processing. That can save you a lot of work. In fact, you can import from the scanner and then use batch processing to save the images, in any kind of sequence you want, with any corrections you might like to apply, with any keywords, and so on, all through a batch file. I suggest you download the manual from cerious which has quite a bit of information on using batch files. I also suggest you make sure you have the latest version of TP as there are a number if useful added features (that’s version 6).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui