[filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations

["Arthur Entlich" <artistik@shaw.ca>]

I will try to respond to both your postings together.

Kodachrome dyes, and particularly the older dyes from the '50 and '60s
tended to have a IR absorption which makes dICE unworkable.  These
images will tend to have a washed out/milky or halo like out of focus.
The way to test is to try scanning with dICE and without and see of you
can see a difference in the clarity.  Of course, the non-dICE image will
have a lot more dust/dirt/scratches, etc.

You may be able to "tame" some of these issue by using one of two free
programs, one is by Polaroid, and is a dust filter, the other is someone
elses attempt which on some images will do a better job called "Dust
Buster"  Last time I checked both were free but you'll need to track
them down.

To your second posting:

Kodachrome film has wonderful dark keeping abilities, meaning it fades
very slowly if kept in the dark.  On the other hand Kodachrome dyes are
vulnerable to bright lights from projectors (here Ektachrome did
better).  Unless you Dad's images were being projected quite a bit, they
probably didn't fade as much as were taken at wrong exposure and were
overexposed, which is death for a slide, since once gone it's gone.

Somewhat underexposed slides can usually be coaxed out with your
scanner, but may be noisy in shadows.  Greatly underexposed images may
need a brighter light source. To project the image only use a non
textured surface, and this is where a good digital camera may come in.
As far as surface to project onto, a clean white non textured surface
which is matte surfaced is probably best.  Another approach is using a
slide copier attachment (super macro lens and slide adapter) on a
digital camera while using a bright light source to illuminate the
slide.  Then you will start with a digital file rather than needing to
translate once again through film or a scanner.

Art

william.mcgilvery@bt.com wrote:
> Arthur.
>
> Would these problems apply to the Nikon LS30 which I use.  It suffers
> badly from green banding for which
> I have to open up the scanner and wiggle all the wiring/components,
> reassemble and restart the computer before
> Knowing if it is cured for the next session of scanning.
>
> I am scanning all my fathers Kodachrome slides which go back to the 50s
> and many are in poor condition.
> The definition on most of them is not great but I am now wondering if
> part of the problem is to do with
> The issues you have mentioned.
>
> Is there any web site which shows a scuffed Kodachrome slide on
> different scanners, demonstrating the cloudiness
> You refer to.
>
> Willie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: 19 July 2005 15:32
> To: McGilvery,WC,William,NLW171 R
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
>
>
> I have to place some caveats into this discussion, Constantine.
>
> 1) The Nikon LS2000 tends to have some mechanical issues with it's
> stage, which can lead to banding, so be careful with used models.  It is
> VERY costly to repair.
>
> 2) This person mentioned he has a lot of Kodachrome slides.  The Nikon
> has very collimated light source, meaning every piece of dirt, scratch
> or dust will show up clearly in the image.  Since some Kodachrome dyes
> tend to be somewhat IR opaque, digital ICE may not work well (it tends
> to make the image look cloudy or out of focus) and in fact was not
> recommended to be used on Kodachrome images.
>
> 3) Some people complained that Kodachrome images tended to not reproduce
> color well, some conjectured that the LED color bandwidth was not wide
> enough to color separate the dyes correctly.
>
> 4) Kodachrome mounted slides tend to have a fairly obvious peak in them.
>   The LS2000 being a LED lighted unit, tends to have a large aperture
> lens which gives it poor depth of focus.  As a result, the edge or
> center tend to be out of focus on mounted Kodachromes.
>
> I would actually suggest the Minolta Dual Scan IV for several reasons,
> even if it does not have a auto slide attachment.
>
> 1) It uses USB 2.0 interface, so with a fast computer, downloads should
> be relatively fast.
>
> 2) It uses a diffused clod cathode light source which both helps to
> reduce scratches, dirt and dust from being picked up, and it is bright
> enough to allow for better depth of focus.
>
> 3) Being new, if there is a problem with it, you can get it exchanged
> under warranty.
>
> Art
>
> Kapetanakis, Constantine wrote:
>
>
>>Go and buy a Nikon LS2000 and a slide feeder from ebay. You will find
>>both for sale. You will end up paying something like $400 for both (
>>maybe ?) Scan your slides and then sell the scanner and  slide feeder
>>on ebay. You will get most of your money back, and have your slides
>>digitized. I did that and did not loose a penny.
>>Good luck
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Simon Pearson
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:07 AM
>>To: Kapetanakis, Constantine
>>Subject: [filmscanners] 'Cheap' film scanner recommendations
>>
>>I have been recommended this list after posting a question on the
>>yahoo D70 mailing list, so hope you can help...
>>
>>I have a collection of around 2500 slides, mostly Kodachrome (and a
>>handful of negative), that I would like to eventually get around to
>>scanning so that I have a digital archive of them all, plus this will
>>mean they actually get looked at a bit more often.....
>>
>>I do not need them to be scanned at any fantastic resolution since
>>they will only be for web use and/or maybe small prints (under 7x5),
>>since if I want a large print, I would just use the original slide.
>>
>>Also bearing in mind since turning digital I have not taken another
>>film photo, so once the slides are scanned the scanner will
>>effectively be defunct, so the less I can spend the better....  I had
>>been thinking of getting a flat bed scanner since that at least
>>wouldn't become defunct, but the quality isn't as good (for film) and
>>I've never felt the need for a flatbed ever anyway, so it too would
>>probably be defunct.....
>>
>>I have been thinking along the lines of the Minolta Scan Dual IV plus
>>Vuescan software since it gives me a RAW file. The RAW file appeals
>>since it is effectively the same as a 'normal' RAW file in the digital
>
>
>>camera sense, the basic data is there and I can return to it at any
>>time in the future to tweak and get the most out of it.
>>
>>Any advice greatly appreciated.....
>>
>>BTW I know that this will be a very onerous task taking me a few years
>
>
>>to complete, but the good side is that the slides aren't getting any
>>more numerous so an end is always in sight!
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Simon
>>>From sunny/wet Bolton.....
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--
>>----------------
>>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>>filmscanners'
>>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
>>title or body
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
> the message title or body
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body