MicrostockGroup
Microstock Footage Forum => Video Equipment / Sofware / Technique => Topic started by: Josephine on October 26, 2023, 11:51
-
I need of a slide scanner for old Diapositives and -negatives. Any recommendations for a decent scanner plus software?
-
I need of a slide scanner for old Diapositives and -negatives. Any recommendations for a decent scanner plus software?
Reflecta ProScan 7200 + Vuescan + Topaz DeNoise AI
-
What about DSLR or mirrorles camera with macro lens and slide light table?
-
I need of a slide scanner for old Diapositives and -negatives. Any recommendations for a decent scanner plus software?
I could send you to a long debate about this, elsewhere. :)
There are advantages and disadvantages for any way for us to scan our own slides at home. There are investigative articles and videos that show why a flatbed isn't as good as a dedicated slide scanner. But when it comes to cost, if you make some concessions and don't expect a flatbed to be as good as a dedicated slide scanner, they are often just fine and "good enough".
What about DSLR or mirrorles camera with macro lens and slide light table?
Another excellent idea, for low volume and one here or one there. Just think, the image is the resolution of the camera, maybe minus a little because of format and cropping. But still. They turn out well.
I'll add one more. Slide copying attachment, everything is going to be manual anyway. These can be adapted from old slide copiers that were made for film cameras. Not that expensive. Add a bellows and you have a really nice way to use a DSLR or other camera to copy slides.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RVxJDvrq/canon-slide-duplicator.jpg)
I have tried all four, and various versions. Depending on the demands, they all work just fine. Flatbeds are not as bad as the pixel peepers want to make them out to be. For the cost, a nice Epson V### makes wonderful scans, and mine is old, I can do 4 at a time. The newer are even better quality and might do more in a batch. Software included, automated slide batch scanning.
Stand alone, single slide scanners are expensive. Yes they also make the best quality, high resolution scans. Vuescan is probably the only and best software. It works with pretty much everything and anything. What I have and had, from Nikon, HP or some others, is just not as versatile as Vuescan. But... $120
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXfmb4Mf/ls-1000-bw-nikon.jpg)
Older LS-1 the last dedicated scanner I'll ever buy.
Most of the people reading here already own a good camera, so the slide adapter or light table, is a very efficient, lowest cost solution. You don't need a macro lens, just some manual extension tubes or a bellows. Main advice is, make a mask for the slide mount so it doesn't create exposure issues. And if "light table" is throwing you. Go buy a flat panel LED ceiling light. Now you own a back lite, even lighting background. If that's too harsh, drop a piece of paper or Plexiglass or something else, over the light, to make it softer. Some are dimable, which means you'll have to buy and wire in a dimmer.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5m91gjw/slide_copying.jpg)
There you go a summary. DIY, use a camera, probably the best and least expensive way. Dedicated slide scanner, one at a time, probably the best, and also most expensive. Flatbed will work for faster production, you might give up a little in the final results, but come on? 6400 dpi, native resolution for an Epson V series, how much do we need for Microstock. 4500x3000 = 13.5MP and you can double that by going to 6400dpi.
How much do you want to spend to get the resolution and quality that you need? How many slides do you want to scan? Take your pick.
ps You can send them out and save a bunch of investment in equipment or software. How great are the old slides? Are they worth scanning? Legacy Box, they don't clean or do anything, they just scan your slides. You get back roughly a 22MP image to edit. 25 slides will cost around $30 but they have sales, all the time.
If you are scanning various sizes, not standard 35mm. Probably a light table and a camera on a light stand. You're off. The scanners aren't set up for odd sizes.
-
many thanks to all!
I am wondering if the recent software like the Topaz family can compensate the result of a cheap slide scanner?
the use of a camera or a normal paper scanner?
I found a market for restoring historic slides and photos for local museums and town archives since the microstock business went so bad. The results are very encouraging but very ! time consuming. I want to get more effective with software and equipment.
-
I use the Nikon ES-2 with a Z7II works very well but might work better with a D-850.
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/miscellaneous/es-2-film-digitizing-adapter-set.html (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/miscellaneous/es-2-film-digitizing-adapter-set.html)
-
I use the Nikon ES-2 with a Z7II works very well but might work better with a D-850.
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/miscellaneous/es-2-film-digitizing-adapter-set.html (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/miscellaneous/es-2-film-digitizing-adapter-set.html)
That sure looks like the top answer for simple, cost effective and high quality. 8)
-
this is the solution for photographer, I am doing Illustrations only, I don´t have a camera...
-
I need of a slide scanner for old Diapositives and -negatives. Any recommendations for a decent scanner plus software?
For 35 mm negatives or dias this Opteka is great - and only 59 dollars. There are a few downsides though, but I've had a lot of use out of it.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Opteka-HD2-Slide-Copier-for-Olympus-SP-570-SP-565-SP-560-SP-550-UZ-Digital-Camera-Includes-Tube-Adapter-Bonus-10X-Macro-Close-Up-Lens/41377407 (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Opteka-HD2-Slide-Copier-for-Olympus-SP-570-SP-565-SP-560-SP-550-UZ-Digital-Camera-Includes-Tube-Adapter-Bonus-10X-Macro-Close-Up-Lens/41377407)
-
I need of a slide scanner for old Diapositives and -negatives. Any recommendations for a decent scanner plus software?
this is the solution for photographer, I am doing Illustrations only, I don´t have a camera...
Get a camera? ;D And the slide copier attachment. 8) Seriously, if you are going to buy something to do this work, the camera is still the easiest. If you are looking for the lowest cost, a flatbed scanner will do just fine.
Are these all standard slide film size? When I read the variety and your question, I just wonder. If I see right what they are, it's illustrations for displaying with a projector, that at direct positives, not negatives. Just plain old, that's what slides are. However if yours are "illustrations" they could be drawings, charts or anything else. If they are illustrations, then a flat bed will be more than good enough as they aren't "photos" with fine grain and details.
Any scanner will make positives and you just invert the image colors and you have a negative. Or more along what you might have, if you scan a negative, you just invert and you have the positive. So virtually any software will do that. Least expensive answer is flatbed scanner.
By the way, the Epson can do multiple images at once using the included software, it does auto alignment and rotation if you want. But still, the answer depends on what you are doing and wonderful do these need to be.
How large do they need to be? How many do you need to convert? A moderate camera will do nice 12-20MP images one at a time. A flatbed can do 4 at a time.
Epson V series, look around. You can find one for around $179, maybe less. I still have a V200 and it works fine. They are currently selling V600 around $349
-
many thanks to all for their input, which helps me a lot. It´s now my homework to prove all alternatives.
It´s all about history, historic views of towns, events, people. The documents are heavily damaged, slides as well as photos. For photos a normal paper scanner with vuescan does a good job. Slides of any size are the problem. Normally customers want the documents blown up, poster size if possible. For that they pay any amount, because there is nobody around who works on a single document for many hours, and the result is absolute astonishing. The recent software makes it possible to get great results. .
-
Yes, Pete is right. A macro lens able to do 1:1 if you use a full frame camera (since both the sensor and the slide have 35mm) is the best.
Of course you need a diffused light below, his solution is good. You can also buy a dimmable LED light used for video conferences.
I reused this one for this purpose:
https://a.co/d/gBMpocl (https://a.co/d/gBMpocl)
Bonus: you can also adjust the light temperature if you want.
Don't underestimate its maximum brightness; you don't want to increase the ISO or the exposure time (too much).
The only challenge is the need to focus properly since the depth of field is very narrow, and sensitive to the film curvature.
This is why you need something like the Opteka film holder, presented above, to keep the film flat.
If you are aiming productivity and a fast way to scan, you will also need a set of tubes attached to the filter thread of the macro lens with the exact lens-to-film distance, something fixed, you don't have to touch between shots.
This is why one of tube segments must be a helicoid, to ensure both 1:1 magnification and (http://and) and perfect focus distance.
Once you tune it, you don't have to readjust it each time you change the film/slide.
Here is a helicoid I got a few years ago:
KECAY Pro M42 / 42mm to 42mm Lens Focusing Helicoid Adapter 35mm - 90mm https://a.co/d/6UjeDAZ (https://a.co/d/6UjeDAZ)
The helicoid also helps to adjust the macro distance to a different value if you use an APS-C sensor for example. The optimal distance required for a full sensor coverage (thus maximum resolution) is specific to the your macro lens and sensor type combination
This is why the tube from Opteka is insufficient; it only gives you a fixed distance which is not the ideal one, unless you are very lucky.
You need the helicoid, for the best quality and efficiency.
Attached is the system of tubes + adapters + helicoid + Opetka holder I use for my macro lens.