[SlideCube] Scanners

Wed Nov 29 19:08:35 PST 2006

Another data point for anyone interested. I just finished 7000 35 mm 
slides covering the period from 1964 to 1995. I scanned the slides on an 
HP 5470c which scans three slides at a time. Then used Photoshop to do 
all necessary clean up, color correction, etc. Then used Adobe Premiere 
Pro to make a video slide show (actually an mov "movie" file with 
titles, music, etc.). Finally, I burned each slide show onto a DVD. As 
it worked out, a single DVD, with each slide shown for 6 seconds, holds 
one slide cube "box", i.e., the cardboard box which holds 16 slidecubes 
(16 slidecubes x 40 slides per cube = 640 slides; 640 slides x 6 seconds 
per slide =  3840 seconds or slightly over one hour). So, my 7000 slides 
results in ten one-hour DVD slide shows. Finally, to digitally archive 
the digital slide images, I burned the original scanned images on a set 
of CDs; this is to allow prints, etc. to be made - the mov files aren't 
suitable for that. It took some time, but my family appreciated it and I 
enjoyed doing it.

Objectively, the original 35 mm slides shown with the slide cube 
projector on a screen compared with the DVD slide show projected on the 
same size screen with an InFocus digital projector always results in the 
DVD being better quality than the slide. This is due in large part to 
the enhancements done with Photoshop (some of the slides are 40 years 
old and beginning to fade). Hope this isn't "too much information".

Mike

Tony Vigue wrote:

> Thanks Bob, I will copy her (him?) on this. I agree that for most 
> slides, especially Kodacolor at ASA25 which does not enlarge well, 
> your method would work just fine. I have not completed my slides, only 
> experimented with doing what you did, also tried an old RasterOPs unit 
> with pretty good results and also used a Minolta Auto Bellows III 
> slide copier that I have left over from my Army days in the late 60's. 
> The biggest problem, if you could call it that, is corner distortion, 
> but who looks at the corners anyway and besides, they can be cropped. 
> All three methods have their drawbacks and advantages, but I also 
> agree that you need a good digital imaging program to correct for 
> aging and color issues. I have had good results with Adobe ImageReady, 
> but any program that will do the basics seem to be fine. My problem is 
> finding the time to do them, one at a time, over a thousand I am sure. 
> They are all in cubes right now and I need to tweek my projector and 
> just DO IT before I croak.
> Thanks again and take care,
> Tony
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Dunham" <rdunham45 at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Tony Vigue" <tvigue at adelphia.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [SlideCube] Scanners
>
>
>> Tony,
>>    You might pass this on to Bev, as it appears you have completed 
>> your slides.  I use a digital camera.  I think it works as good or 
>> better than a scanner.  I set the camera up on a tripod behind the 
>> slide projector. I project the slides on a new, unmarked or damaged 
>> posterboard, and just take a digital picture of the slide 
>> projection.  Once I get thru the slides, I just take the disc to the 
>> computer and copy them on to the hard drive.  I have found that Nero 
>> Photosnap does a great job of correcting the color whenever it looks 
>> like it needs it.
>>
>> Cheers, Bob Dunham
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Vigue" <tvigue at adelphia.net>
>> To: "bev gyori" <bgyori at shaw.ca>; <slidecube at armory.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [SlideCube] Scanners
>>
>>
>>> Hi Bev, hope this helps.
>>> -tv
>>>
>>> Taken from www.cnet.com
>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/Epson_Perfection_V700_Photo/4505-3136_7-31779762.html 
>>>
>>> CNET editors' review
>>> Reviewed by: Lori Grunin
>>> Reviewed on 10/12/06    Release date: 3/17/06
>>>
>>>
>>> "I'm sitting on 1,000 slides. What's the best way to get them into 
>>> the computer?" is a frequently asked question I get from both 
>>> friends and readers. Of course, the easiest solution is to send them 
>>> off to someone else. But that can get expensive, and many people 
>>> don't want to subject their prized photos to the disinterested hands 
>>> of a technician. That leaves you with a scanner as your only option. 
>>> For speedy, unattended scanning, a dedicated slide scanner with an 
>>> automatic feeder, such as the Nikon Coolscan V, is a good bet. After 
>>> you're done with the slides, though, it becomes an expensive 
>>> paperweight. So after the costs and benefits play out, your best 
>>> overall choice turns out to be a really good flatbed scanner--like 
>>> the Epson Perfection V700.
>>>
>>> The V700 improves upon its popular predecessor, the Perfection 4990 
>>> Pro, not to mention that it beats that model's price by about $50. 
>>> You might also notice, however, that its design radically differs 
>>> from last year's models; a switch from all rounded curves to sharp 
>>> angles and corners. I happen to prefer the flat-topped version, 
>>> because every large object on my desk must be able to hold a pile of 
>>> something or other. Speaking of which, you'll need to allocate a big 
>>> chunk of desk space for the V700: 6 by 12 by 20 inches.
>>>
>>> Epson includes a variety of carriers in the box: one holds 12 
>>> slides, another four six-frame film strips, one for two 4x5 
>>> transparencies, and one for eight medium-format frames. They're all 
>>> well designed and easy to load, and they each snap into a notch to 
>>> lock in place on the scanbed. My biggest problem with the myriad 
>>> mounts is finding places to put them. A version of the V700, the 
>>> V750-M Pro, also offers a liquid mount, as used by drum scanners. 
>>> This allows the film to press directly against the glass, which 
>>> maximizes sharpness and minimizes artifacts. Though the V700 doesn't 
>>> supply this, it does use separate lenses for reflective (hard-copy) 
>>> and transmissive (slides and negatives) originals; since the latter 
>>> generally need to be optically enlarged far more than the former, 
>>> the lenses need to be optimized differently. One lens is designed 
>>> for optimum resolving at a horizontal resolution of 4,800dpi, the 
>>> other, 6,400dpi. Of course, the scanner can interpolate way beyond 
>>> that, and for small originals, you generally find yourself in 
>>> interpolation territory.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "bev gyori" <bgyori at shaw.ca>
>>> To: <slidecube at armory.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:37 PM
>>> Subject: [SlideCube] (no subject)
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you scan slides to digital format?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/slidecube
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/slidecube
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.armory.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/slidecube
>
>
>