|
FasterThanLight posted:It's not quite big enough. You can scan them in two passes and use photomerge to combine them, though. One nice thing about the v500 transparency window is that its the perfect size to scan reclaimed Polaroid/Fuji peal apart negatives.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
How does the 4990 compare to the V700 in terms of image quality?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Anyone ever tried a Slide Copier/Duplicator, an attachment that goes on a dSLR? Basically you get a RAW file of your slide. Probably not as quick as scanning 20 at a time with the epson scanner, but it leaves me curious. Are there any websites which put the Epson V600/700/750 head to head? I have a few hundred slides I'd like to scan and then toss (copywork from architecture school, back when you had to photograph your work and hand in slides), and it doesn't seem like there's a huge Kijiji market for scanners so I'm worried I won't be able to turn around the V750 quickly after I scan everything. If the V600 is the same except for bed size and/or a duplicator is "pretty close", I'd rather go that route.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Since your shooting positives, the DSLR route is probably the best. I made a temporary setup to shoot a roll of negatives once: They came out slightly sharper than my v600 and it was quicker, with the downside being that color correcting negatives is a huge pain (but with positives you don't have to worry about that). If you don't use the DSLR then get a v600. The v700/750 are much much better, but unless you need some serious resolution or color work then the v600 will get the job done for a fraction of the price.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
I'm looking to scan a large volume of prints primarily, with document scanning as a secondary function. It's for my workplace, so I can go a little higher in terms of cost. Does anyone have any good recommendations for flatbed scanners? It seems like these days you either get old tech for cheap or super specialised equipment for a lot of money. I think we'd be looking to spend somewhere between $500 - $1000, and it would need to be fairly easy to use as students would be operating it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Christabel posted:I'm looking to scan a large volume of prints primarily, with document scanning as a secondary function. It's for my workplace, so I can go a little higher in terms of cost. Does anyone have any good recommendations for flatbed scanners? It seems like these days you either get old tech for cheap or super specialised equipment for a lot of money. I think we'd be looking to spend somewhere between $500 - $1000, and it would need to be fairly easy to use as students would be operating it. It's not a flatbed scanner but if you have a pile of stuff you need scanned the Fujitsu ScanSnap scanners are great.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's not a flatbed scanner but if you have a pile of stuff you need scanned the Fujitsu ScanSnap scanners are great. That looks like it might mangle any photos I try to feed it. Or am I not looking at the right model?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Christabel posted:That looks like it might mangle any photos I try to feed it. Or am I not looking at the right model? This thing: http://www.fujitsu.com/us/services/computing/peripherals/scanners/scansnap/scansnap-iX500.html I don't think it would mangle prints. My father has one of the earlier iterations, they're great little scanners. Never tried to do prints, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. The big problem is that it's not the biggest scanner in the world, it won't do more than 8.5x14.7 inches.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
I can't get my Epson Perfection 2450 working properly. When I initially plugged it in it was recognised under Windows, I got one scan in with VueScan before it disconnected and it hasn't been picked up since. Doesn't appear as a connected USB device at all, and I can't get it to be seen under Linux either. Same problem on my laptop. Any ideas? I thought I might need to try a USB 1.1 cable, but I don't understand why it would connect the once but not again. Cool.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Changing USB cable made everything better, who the hell knows why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
I've been snooping local classifieds for cheap film scanners lately, and I've only been able to find ones from the early 2000s that only work on Win XP, but people are still asking 40-60 bucks for them. Not worth spinning up a VM every time I want to scan film for that price. But today, I found somebody giving away a HP Scanjet 8200 (from 2009) with working Windows 7 and 8 drivers (woohoo) Looking it up, looks like it originally sold for $500. Specs are 4800 dpi at 48 bit, is this a decent scanner for film scanning? Edit: Picked it up anyway, can't argue with the price. Looks like there are super basic Win 7 drivers, but if you want to use any of the fancy features like the negative scanner, I need to use the HP software. And surprise surprise, it only works in Windows XP. Is there some kind of industry standard scanning software? The HP stuff is atrocious. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Are the MF holders from betterscanning.com as awesome as they look? The stock v700 MF holders are hilariously awful. Is the ANR insert really necessary with the betterscanning holder? It looks like the T-bars would be plenty to hold the film flat. I have the ANR plates for the 35mm and they're nice but I kind of doubt they're worth it for the MF holder due to the T-bars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Are the MF holders from betterscanning.com as awesome as they look? The stock v700 MF holders are hilariously awful. Is the ANR insert really necessary with the betterscanning holder? It looks like the T-bars would be plenty to hold the film flat. I have the ANR plates for the 35mm and they're nice but I kind of doubt they're worth it for the MF holder due to the T-bars. As bad as the V700 MF holders are, my experience with the betterscanning holder was worse. I don't know why they haven't changed the website yet, but they no longer sell the T-locks. Your only choice is the ANR glass. I got really frustrated with using the ANR glass - it's another two surfaces you have to somehow keep absolutely clean even as you're loading the film. I had a lot of problems with dust getting between the ANR glass and the film no matter what I tried, but I have three cats so YMMV. The main benefit of the ANR glass for me was improved film flatness with curly negs, which I haven't had issues with for a long while anyway. I also was hoping I'd be able to scan 3 frames of 6x7 at once with the betterscanning holder... nope. Still just two unless you have some godawfully close frame spacing. Want to buy my betterscaning MF holder? $40 + shipping. I paid something like $130 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Oh really? That's kind of a bummer since the T-bars looked like they would be better for flatness than the ANR. I haven't had any (additional) major issues with dust while using the ANR for 35mm although sometimes the glass plates aren't heavy enough to hold the film flat when it curls hotdog style. I am imagining the glass:film weight ratio is much higher for MF so to me it seems like it would be heavy enough to hold the film flat. This was my biggest complaint about the stock holders. Still $40 is a pretty good deal.. check your PMs
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
I recently found a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 Plus at a Goodwill for $20. It's a surprisingly capable 35mm film scanner. Although it was released sometime around 2001, it outputs through USB and FireWire pretty quickly. It says it can do 4000 DPI, but the software just resamples a 2000 DPI scan. From what I've found, it was originally around $1200, made by MicroTek, and was made to compete with other scanners like the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual and Nikon CoolScans. If anybody is looking for a cheap, capable scanner, prices are pretty cheap on eBay (last one sold for $100), but they show up pretty infrequently. Ignore the regular SprintScan 4000, it only has SCSI out. I've been scanning some of my old film and it's been coming out a hell of a lot better than my old scanner (CanoScan 8600F flatbed): http://i5.minus.com/i662PdAfrV1aa.jpg. There's what looks like some CCD noise when I zoom in--does anybody know how to combat this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:There's what looks like some CCD noise when I zoom in--does anybody know how to combat this? Can you post an example? The best way to deal with scanner noise, aside from getting a newer/better scanner, is to only shoot negs/slides with perfect density  Not too thin, not too dense. I recommend you take pictures of only 18% grey walls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
The one I linked to has it: http://i5.minus.com/i662PdAfrV1aa.jpg I think VueScan does multi-pass scans, so I may try that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:I recently found a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 Plus at a Goodwill for $20. It's a surprisingly capable 35mm film scanner. Although it was released sometime around 2001, it outputs through USB and FireWire pretty quickly. It says it can do 4000 DPI, but the software just resamples a 2000 DPI scan. It's pretty unavoidable. You're basically seeing static in the ADC, the signal is weak compared to the noise. It's gotten better with modern scanners, even consumer units have a wider DMAX than older pro scanners. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra. Same deal, it outputs a higher resolution than my V500 will (real-world) but it's a little noisier. So far I've just turned chroma noise reduction on in Lightroom and it's been OK. I usually don't use mine because it only takes mounted slides or individually-cut negatives, which are a loving pain to handle, so I mostly just do 4x5. I really like it otherwise, it's the achilles' heel of the whole damned system. One approach is the double exposure thing. To be honest I haven't been able to get improvements using that. Maybe I need to be using the positive-reversal technique instead of the negative mode or something. Another way is the multipass option. Theoretically if you stack a dozen of the same exposures the noise cancels out and the image is strengthened, but it didn't work for me either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
The most frustrating part of using multiple exposure scans is bumping your scanner slightly during one of the scans and loving the whole thing up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
This is probably a good place to mention that the only SCSI card that works under windows 7 seems to be the Adaptec AHA-2940 (other letters mean different versions of SCSI, check your cable). If any of you want to use one of the ScanDuals or something, but don't have a legacy machine and don't want to shell out $100 for a converter, that's pretty much your only option. Also the drivers don't ship with Windows 7. There were drivers in Vista that worked, they also work under 7, but they didn't ship them. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Does anyone have a problem with Vuescan moving the crop just a little bit between preview and scan? I have a V600 and I scan my negatives, then set up all my crops for each frame and hit scan, but sometimes what scans isn't what I have selected in Vuescan. Luckily most of my photographs are poo poo so I don't worry too much about it, but when I get one I like it's a bit annoying to have to go back and scan it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Are you sure your holder didn't move? My SF install used to do the same thing and I just "solved" it by scanning a larger film area & cropping afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Are you sure your holder didn't move? I don't know how it could have, I don't touch it after doing the preview and it doesn't happen with every frame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Vuescan is a piece of poo poo. I have no idea what it's doing 3/4 of the time, particularly when any sort of automatic cropping is enabled. It also has random-rear end bugs like that all the time. I couldn't get it to work at all on Linux. Dude needs to hire himself a UI specialist to clean up that loving mess and let him concentrate on cleaning up his core comm-library and image manipulation code. It's a lot cheaper than Silverfast though, and those are your choices for keeping old scanners running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
I recently invested in a scanner for art scanning, I am having a problem though with document sizes being limited to 100mb. The scanner is the Canon LiDE210, and I have installed the TWAIN drivers to allow me to use it with photoshop. The software I guess (I am not sure I think it's the canon software?) won't let me scan document over 100mb despite them not being at max dpi. I would like to change this, so I can scan the full plate instead of tiny little boxes at the wanted dpi. Is anyone familiar with this? I certainly haven't found much as a result of google searches, arguing on photography forums about which scanner is better because it does 9000dpi etc and I am getting pretty frustrated. Anyway, I am enjoying having a scanner again regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Maybe this isn't your exact problem, but-- When I go to scan anything on my flatbed and use Canon's provided software, it refuses to scan 16-bit and limits how large the resulting files are. Scanning directly into Photoshop (File > Import > [scanner]) removes all those limits. (If you're already doing that and still having trouble, sorry for taking up your time.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Actually that helped, I realized that there was more than one option for importing from the same scanner in photoshop. So I tried another dialogue and it seems to have no filesize limits. Woo hoo!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
I've been scanning a lot of stuff lately, old photos and some inked drawings. Somehow, i've marked the glass of my Canon 5200F scanner. It's only a small black line mark, but I'd rather not photoshop it out every time. If it's the ink, i'm concerned because it'd be waterproof ink. There's conflicting stuff on the net as to what I should do. Some say "use nail polish remover," some say "use goop removers that remove stickers etc." I tried isopropyl rubbing alcohol, but no luck so far. I'm normally pretty careful, and let my drawings dry for hours before scanning. Anyone got any advice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
If the scanner surface is glass, nail polish remover should be okay (acetone), and you can give it a quick wipe with isopropyl after to get rid of any streaks. The nail polish remover will damage most plastics however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Spedman posted:If the scanner surface is glass, nail polish remover should be okay (acetone), and you can give it a quick wipe with isopropyl after to get rid of any streaks. The nail polish remover will damage most plastics however. Brilliant. Thanks dude! I'm guessing that means if plastic, said scanner is screwed for good, will research if it's glass or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
Whatever you do, try it in a small corner on the bottom in case it does mess up the scanning surface.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Whatever you do, try it in a small corner on the bottom in case it does mess up the scanning surface. Good idea, had not thought of this. Found the QuickStart manual on the net, it's glass. Should be fine. It's actually pretty small anyway, just saves me having to scan twice or photoshop out every frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
About a decade ago, I used Nikon and Imacon scanners professionally. I stopped shooting film many years back, but recently got a good enough deal on a Super Coolscan 5000 that I couldn't pass it up. I have recently started going through the boxes of negatives I have in my basement. In the early 2000's I did some 'tests' where I scanned negatives to .nef with a nikon ls-8000 and didn't see any difference between scanning to .nef or .tif. Now, I am not so sure. Am I getting more information, like if I scanned to a .fff on an Imacon? Is scanning to a tiff from a nikon film scanner any better or worse than scanning to a .nef file?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
They are the same afaik, nef is just a wrapper for the tiff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:About a decade ago, I used Nikon and Imacon scanners professionally. I stopped shooting film many years back, but recently got a good enough deal on a Super Coolscan 5000 that I couldn't pass it up. I have recently started going through the boxes of negatives I have in my basement. In the early 2000's I did some 'tests' where I scanned negatives to .nef with a nikon ls-8000 and didn't see any difference between scanning to .nef or .tif. Now, I am not so sure. Am I getting more information, like if I scanned to a .fff on an Imacon? Is scanning to a tiff from a nikon film scanner any better or worse than scanning to a .nef file? use tiffs
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:About a decade ago, I used Nikon and Imacon scanners professionally. I stopped shooting film many years back, but recently got a good enough deal on a Super Coolscan 5000 that I couldn't pass it up. I have recently started going through the boxes of negatives I have in my basement. In the early 2000's I did some 'tests' where I scanned negatives to .nef with a nikon ls-8000 and didn't see any difference between scanning to .nef or .tif. Now, I am not so sure. Am I getting more information, like if I scanned to a .fff on an Imacon? Is scanning to a tiff from a nikon film scanner any better or worse than scanning to a .nef file? I have the same scanner for 35mm, as everybody says - use tiffs. That way you get previews in your file manager. Also the information stored in a 32bit tiff and the nef is exactly the same. I tried both in the Photoshop Camera RAW software and they had the same amount of headroom for exposure adjustments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with the PlusTek 8200i SE? I have thousands of B&W negatives that I need to scan at some acceptable level of quality (ie, better than most of the $100-200 pieces of junk on Amazon), but in the sub-$400 price range. EDIT: Or the Pacific Image Elect PrimeFilm 7200U, the other scanner in my price range I was looking at Rev. Bleech_ fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
I don't have a PlusTek but from the research I did a while back it seems like a very capable dedicated 35mm scanner. More info here if you are interested: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8200i.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Yeah, as long as you aren't planning on doing any other formats, it should be pretty decent. It will take a bit longer than being able to batch scan 12 negatives at a time on a flatbed, however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:28
|
|