| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2004 08:11:34 AM · #1 |
| I have a lot of film negatives sitting around and I wanted to get them converted onto CD or something...any way in a digital format. What would be the best way to do this? |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 08:15:15 AM · #2 |
there are scanners that scan negatives...
|
|
|
|
03/20/2004 08:20:59 AM · #3 |
Professional photo labs have a service that will do this...
for a cheap solution, there are flatbed scanners with negative adapters, but there's a reason why dedicated film scanners cost thousands of dollars...the output they produce is exceptional. I would imagine you get the equivalent of an image taken with a 12 megapixel camera... but I'm just guessing there...
Originally posted by Tranquil:
I have a lot of film negatives sitting around and I wanted to get them converted onto CD or something...any way in a digital format. What would be the best way to do this? |
|
|
|
|
03/20/2004 09:12:46 AM · #4 |
| I have seen offered on Ebay, for around $60, a device which attaches to the front of your lens and shines a light thru negatives and/or slides allowing you to take a digital picture of the negatives's images. Too many variables for me to make a jugdement on the output quality but you may want to look into it. |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 09:18:59 AM · #5 |
Film scanner- no question. A good, mid-range scanner made specifically for negatives like the Nikon Coolscan V ED will allow you to capture details you never even knew were there. The Nikon runs about $599, which is likely less than you'd pay an outside service to scan all your negatives and you can work on them at your leisure. There are cheaper solutions, like the Minolta Diamage Scan Dual IV (about $299) that would work OK, too. Just make sure you look for a model with Digital ICE or similar dust removal functions. Some scanners can perform additional magic, like restoring faded colors. Avoid flatbed scanners for negatives- a cheaper, dedicated film scanner will do a better job. This is one of my favorites, taken with a little Olympus Stylus and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan III:
 |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 09:47:49 AM · #6 |
This shot is a keeper alright. How cute!!!
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
|
|
|
|
03/20/2004 09:52:51 AM · #7 |
I just purchased the Epson Perfection 3170 scanner, and am so far quite impressed by its film scan quality. While it's not a dedicated film scanner, it does come close to the specs you would look for in such a dedicated scanner, esp. with respect to its 3200 dpi resolution (you want to scan your negatives at the highest resolution you can get - preferably close to 4000). It can also scan up to 12 negatives at a time, which is a time saver. My purchase was made after considerable research on the Web, including discussions at dpreview.com. It seemed to be the *flatbed* film scanner of choice.
I owned a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II for several months, and was not impressed. While I *might* have been able to get better quality out of it, it would have taken considerbly more tweeking of settings, with near negligible quality gain (to me). It also was much slower than the Epson flatbed.
FYI, I purchased the Epson 3170 from buy.com for $177, with free shipping. It was by far the best price anywhere.
Good luck!
-len
Message edited by author 2004-03-20 09:53:31. |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 10:10:24 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
Wow! scalvert, I just clicked on your image. What a wonderful shot! You oughtta be selling prints of that! |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 10:16:31 AM · #9 |
Thanks, Sonja. I figured it wouldn't take you long to find that shot. ;-)
Lenkphotos- I've heard good things about scanning film with several of the higher-end Epson flatbeds, and that would certainly give you the added flexibility of scanning other materials.
That said, it's still no match for newer generation film scanners with Digital ICE and good scanning software. These film scanners have grain and dust removal features that really make a huge difference and reduce postprocessing (though I think Microtek even has a flatbed with Digital ICE and GEM). I wasn't real impressed with this old Nikon Coolscan III either until I tried it with Hamrick's Vuescan software (Macintosh). In my case, the limitation was Nikon's software, not the scanner. You can find reviews online for any of these scanners to help you make the best decision for your needs. Good luck! |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 12:00:29 PM · #10 |
Second scalvert's experience. I have the same scanner and I also use VueScan, it makes all the difference. Flatbeds don't yield the awful results they used to, some are getting quite good, but the dedicated film scanners are still much better.
Even the old Coolscan III is still capable of better results by far than a flatbed. For critical work VueScan will even allow you to automatically take and average several scans, greatly reducing noise and increasing useful detail. Coolscan III units can be found for <$200, but they are SCSI only.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2004 12:44:41 PM · #11 |
Yes, dedicated film scanners are the way to go, if you can justify the cost. Here's an image of a negative scan I made within the past hour with the Epson 3170. It's a photo of my son, taken in 1974 (30 years ago!!), with my trusty old Minolta SRT-101 and Kodacolor II film. I could tweek the color, but this is essentially straight out of the scanner (with auto color applied in Photoshop).
I'd be curious if anyone else here uses the Epson 3170 (or 3200 - basically the same). I haven't tried VueScan, but from what I gather, it may be a better tool than what Epson supplies with their scanners.
Message edited by author 2004-03-20 12:51:30. |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 01:46:36 PM · #12 |
I use one model below the 3200; the Epson Perfection 2400 Photo.
Because I got it just last week I have not used the 2400dpi film scanning option.
The results from photo scanning (the printed versions) are very good though. Had to do 20 photo's from the 1920's to 1940's and the output quality (scanning 10x15's @ 600dpi 48 bit with manual toning) is simply great. Much, much better than my previous scanner, that one couldn't get the same resolution, dynamic range and sharpness. Compared with the Epson the old one produced flat toned wrong colored ugly rubbish.
I'll try some film next week.
I chose the 2400 over the 1670 for the resolution for ocassional film scanning and because the 3170/3200 is too expensive on this side of the ocean.
The scanning went really fast and well, now I have to restore the photos, 70 years do leave their marks and a good scanners shows them all. :)
Tihihihime is on my side, no it isn't.....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/10/2025 07:29:19 PM EDT.
