[Xpost] 35mm Slide & Negative Digital Converter… worth it?

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:32:35 -0500, "-Lost"
wrote:

I was hoping that some of you who understand the mechanics behind photography and scanning better than I, could tell me whether or not they think this is worth it or not.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/9a24/?cpg=59H
And if not, are there other alternatives to getting them into digital format? Besides getting the negatives developed again and scanned of course.

Thanks!

I can’t comment on the ThinkGeek product, but I can tell you of some alternatives if you already have a flatbed scanner. The simplest is a corner reflector made out of white poster board or equivalent. Just a 90 degree angle of 2 inch-wide stock (to fit a slide). The open end of the V should be at least wide enough to fit 2 slides side by side. Then make triangular top caps so that only the end of the V is open.

The idea is that you put a slide on the flatbed, with this gizmo on top of it (open side down). The light from the scanner is bounced off the white reflector (twice) and back down through the slide so that it is properly backlit.

This is the method used in some "slide scanner" attachments that come with flatbed scanners, so there must be *some* merit in it. HOWEVER, I was never entirely happy with the results. I even went so far as to hack a "slide duplicator" with a real backlight to replace the reflector, but I still wasn’t happy. I could never get that "wow" factor that real slides (or decent digital images) produce on a screen. But I also may not have hit upon the right combination of scanner settings for contrast and color balance.

Having said that, I also never compared my homebrew results to any commerical scanner results. I do know from experience with real film that it is often *very* hard to make a duplicate that matches the original. But I imagined that since digital allows all sorts of easy (hah!) adjustments, that many of film’s duplication problems could be overcome. On the other hand, slides are notorious for having a huge brightness range, way more than simple reflective prints. So maybe a flatbed scanner (which is able to deal well with paper, etc) just doesn’t have the tonal range for slides. Hopefully, that means that a special-purpose gadget like the one you reference has solved the range problem.

Please let us know what you end up with!

Best regards,

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:54:38 GMT, (Bob Masta)
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:32:35 -0500, "-Lost"
wrote:

I was hoping that some of you who understand the mechanics behind photography and scanning better than I, could tell me whether or not they think this is worth it or not.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/9a24/?cpg=59H
And if not, are there other alternatives to getting them into digital format? Besides getting the negatives developed again and scanned of course.

Thanks!

Folow-up to my prior post: I found the link to the
homebrew gadget:

http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlig hter.html

Hope this helps!

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

-Lost wrote:

I was hoping that some of you who understand the mechanics behind photography and scanning better than I, could tell me whether or not they think this is worth it or not.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/9a24/?cpg=59H
And if not, are there other alternatives to getting them into digital format? Besides getting the negatives developed again and scanned of course.

Thanks!

Canon photo+negative scanners. A $90 model does pretty well. A $160 model does slightly better.

Bob Masta wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:32:35 -0500, "-Lost"
wrote:

I was hoping that some of you who understand the mechanics behind photography and scanning better than I, could tell me whether or not they think this is worth it or not.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/9a24/?cpg=59H
And if not, are there other alternatives to getting them into digital format? Besides getting the negatives developed again and scanned of course.

Thanks!

I can’t comment on the ThinkGeek product, but I can tell you of some alternatives if you already have a flatbed scanner. The simplest is a corner reflector made out of white poster board or equivalent. Just a 90 degree angle of 2 inch-wide stock (to fit a slide). The open end of the V should be at least wide enough to fit 2 slides side by side. Then make triangular top caps so that only the end of the V is open.
The idea is that you put a slide on the flatbed, with this gizmo on top of it (open side down). The light from the scanner is bounced off the white reflector (twice) and back down through the slide so that it is properly backlit.

This is the method used in some "slide scanner" attachments that come with flatbed scanners, so there must be *some* merit in it. HOWEVER, I was never entirely happy with the results. I even went so far as to hack a "slide duplicator" with a real backlight to replace the reflector, but I still wasn’t happy. I could never get that "wow" factor that real slides (or decent digital images) produce on a screen. But I also may not have hit upon the right combination of scanner settings for contrast and color balance.

Having said that, I also never compared my homebrew results to any commerical scanner results. I do know from experience with real film that it is often *very* hard to make a duplicate that matches the original. But I imagined that since digital allows all sorts of easy (hah!) adjustments, that many of film’s duplication problems could be overcome. On the other hand, slides are notorious for having a huge brightness range, way more than simple reflective prints. So maybe a flatbed scanner (which is able to deal well with paper, etc) just doesn’t have the tonal range for slides. Hopefully, that means that a special-purpose gadget like the one you reference has solved the range problem.

Please let us know what you end up with!

Best regards,

Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlig hter.html

I have this product but mine is sold by Hammacher Schlemmer. I am sure it is the same thing. Mine is made by VuPoint Solutions (http:\ \www.vupointsolutions.com)

I just started using it and it is great. I am very happy with the results. The scanner was easy to set up and Windows XP had no problem recognizing it. Scanning the slides is as easy as loading the tray, sliding it through to the first notch, allowing the white balance to adjust to the slide (from 5 to 15 seconds) and pressing the copy button. Once I had about 12 slides, I transferred them all to my PC. The transfer process is a little slow and also the directory where you save the scans can’t have dashes in them. The scans are automatically numbered with the date and number so you don’t have to worry about overwriting. The software will not recognize it otherwise.

All in all a great piece of technology. Sure the slides won’t be crystal clear but more than adequate to show on a digital photo frame or make 4" x 6" prints.

It’s so easy to use, once I get a full slide tray done, I plan on showing my retired mother-in-law, who has basic computer skills, how to do it.

You won’t be disappointed.

On Oct 4, 5:32 am, "-Lost" wrote:

I was hoping that some of you who understand the mechanics behind photography and scanning better than I, could tell me whether or not they think this is worth it or not.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/9a24/?cpg=59H
And if not, are there other alternatives to getting them into digital format? Besides getting the negatives developed again and scanned of course.

Thanks!

—
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don’t e-mail me. I am kidding. No I am not.