Transferring slides to DVD?

GemGem

Hi, hello, Hola!

Can someone please be so kind and guide me in the right direction with this. I have a family project where I have to transfer about 150 slides to dvd. Is there a device that would transfer them to .jpg, .tif, etc?

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

GG

Art Scott

GemGem wrote:

Hi, hello, Hola!

Can someone please be so kind and guide me in the right direction with this. I have a family project where I have to transfer about 150 slides to dvd. Is there a device that would transfer them to .jpg, .tif, etc?

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

GG

any slide/negative scanner or scanning service. I recommend saving as tif rather than jpg to give yourself or a family member more workability.

GemGem

Art Scott wrote:

any slide/negative scanner or scanning service. I recommend saving as tif rather than jpg to give yourself or a family member more workability.

Thanks Art Scott.

I am sure there are tons of those scanners out there as well as techniques for digitizing. I read some scanners blew up particles on the slides big time, meaning I will have to clean it up in PS later

I am interested in knowing the methods out there for digitizing slides. The best and less time consuming method

Thank you!
GG

ziggy53

If you could elaborate a bit further about your needs:

How will you use the scans?
What quality are you expecting?
What is the largest print size you anticipate?
What film type are the slides?
What format are the slides?
Do the slides have any damage? (Scratches, mildew, ...)
Do the slides have value beyond sentimental value?
Is this a one-time need or will there be more in the future?
Budget? (Notice I left this 'till the very end.)

Pretty much, the more you can elaborate about your needs and intentions the more we can help.

GemGem

ziggy53 wrote:

If you could elaborate a bit further about your needs:



Hi Ziggy53!

Thank you for your time! Below some answer to your questions. I still do not have the slides on my possesion. I sent you questions forward to the fam member who has them so she can answer the questions I couldn't. for now.. please read below. You rock! thanks.

How will you use the scans? (They are mainly going to be stored on DVD to share with the fam)
What quality are you expecting? (Great. to print up to 16x20)
What is the largest print size you anticipate? (16x20)
What film type are the slides? ( I don't know, have not seen them. but I think they are 35mm)
What format are the slides? 35mm?
Do the slides have any damage? (Scratches, mildew, ...) don't know
Do the slides have value beyond sentimental value? nope
Is this a one-time need or will there be more in the future? I believe one time need
Budget? (Notice I left this 'till the very end.) probl.. $200 max

aj986s

If you already have a digital camera, preferably SLR, with threads for filters on the lens, you might want to consider one of these attachments.

One source online: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Duplicator-Threads-Cameras-Camcorders/dp/B001AO1YBY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236433155&sr=1-3

This lets you take advantage of the excellent processor already in your camera. Backlight with a window (daylight) or flash and the results are pretty good. At well under $100, I think it works very well for manageable quantities of slides. I have found that flatbed scanners can be very slow to process the image. With reasonable backlighting, your camera will deliver hi-rez results in a fraction of a second.

cmason

I am using an Epson 4180 scanner to scan slides and medium format negatives, and it works quite well. I do not intend to ever print as big as 16x20, and may never print at all,as I am archiving. So I am scanning at 600dpi to .tif files, and the files are around 5GB each. I probably could go higher, but have not experimented with that yet, may do so with the real 'keeper' shots.

One critical thing to success here is to 1) get a scanner that provides a built in transparency unit for the slides,( usually a light in the lid), as mine has. 2)slide and film holders. The transparency unit is critical, as a standard flatbed scanner doesn't really do justice with slides, and the holders are required if you want to do this with any sort of speed, otherwise, you will spend most of your time rescanning to straighten images. Here is a model similar to mine:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540925

For only a 150 slide job, a flatbed scanner is fairly cheap, and will serve other purposes such as photo scanning, and even just photocopying. A slide scanner is for slides only, and can be expensive.

The other alternative is to use a service, like http://www.scancafe.con

On the other hand, if your top issue is getting 16x20 prints from slides, then you likely need to be looking at $800 slide scanners.

ziggy53

Until you know the quality of the original slides you will never know if they "can" be printed to 16" x 20".

Generally digital scanning will not improve an image by itself (in fact it generally degrades the image versus optical printing on the best equipment), and it will require quite a bit of post-processing.

Most of the simpler, and less expensive. scanners will produce "pepper grain" as a result of the fixed color matrix of the scanner versus the random color grain of the slides. This will need to be dealt with in post, either manually, or with noise reduction software designed for the task.

Scratches and dust is most efficiently dealt with using a "digital ICE" (or similar) technology, which is not compatible with some film bases like some/most B&W fims and Kodachrome. Not knowing the film type it is difficult to make a recommendation.

The very best scanning method and technology is a (wet) drum scanner and those services generally charge $15-$25 per frame for 25-27MB files. This would equate to approximately a 6MPix digital camera image in quality assuming a very high quality slide.

GSPeP

I have the Nikon Coolscan V ED slide and negative film scanner.

I takes some testing to get the best results. Now I usually put digital ICE on and leave the rest off.

One slide at 4000 dpi (and 8 bit depth) gives approx. a 65 Mb tif-file. Almost every file needs a "treatment" with Noise Ninja, but the results are OK (for me)

30 year old slide: (I'm the boy with the red shirt on the right)



18 year old slide:

GemGem

Thank you for sharing your experience and suggestions! This is great! quiet a bit to think about. Love all of your suggestions! Man, I tell ya, I love what photography does for people., Videos are great also, but being able to look at and hold a picture from 18yrs... 50yrs..etc ago is just GREAT an amazing feeling!

Have a great day everyone!
GG

frons

ziggy53 wrote:

If you could elaborate a bit further about your needs:

If the OP doesn't mind, I also am trying to determine the best route to digitize my slide/negative collection. I have about 3,000 slides and some color & b/w negatives; I'm nearly done organizing my collection, though I still have to rank them so the total number to scan might only be 500. Here are my answers to ziggy's questions.

1) How will you use the scans? Digital archive of my work before quality deteriorates
2) What quality are you expecting? High, since majority of shots were tripod-mounted, low-ISO films, etc.
3) What is the largest print size you anticipate? Are Ilfochrome prints out of style, inconvenient, or over-priced? Looks like they are 4x what I paid a few years ago!
4) What film type are the slides? Kodak Elite 100, Velvia
5) What format are the slides? 35mm
6) Do the slides have any damage? (Scratches, mildew, ...) No
7) Do the slides have value beyond sentimental value? Hard to say
8 ) Is this a one-time need or will there be more in the future? One-time, as I don't plan to go back to E-6/film.
9) Budget? (Notice I left this 'till the very end.) Installment plan

I'm pretty sure I'm going to have a service do at least some of my collection, but I'm confused about the file type and dpi, which greatly affect cost. Looks like Art recommends tiff to allow better post-processing, and that makes sense to me.

As for dpi, I have read that higher than 3,000 dpi starts to show grain, though I'd think that the highest dpi (4,000) would be ideal for archiving purposes. True? Related, do color negatives and b/w have the same resolution as slow slide film, or is a lower dpi scan more sensible for these film stocks?

Finally, I think my collection may eventually be divided into the images I really want to have scanned well, and those I may try to do myself with a flatbed scanner at lesser quality. Would anyone recommend scanning at minimal quality levels and drum-scan only the outstanding shots?

ziggy53

Let's start with the last question first:

frons wrote:

... Would anyone recommend scanning at minimal quality levels and drum-scan only the outstanding shots?

Yes, that's a great way to think about it. Use either a flatbed scanner or a dedicated film scanner at lower resolution and higher speed levels to quickly determine suitability and viability of the slides and then reserve the best scanning process, currently drum scans, for the very best results possible (but at pretty high cost.)

Now the questions/answers by the numbers:

frons wrote:

1) How will you use the scans? Digital archive of my work before quality deteriorates
2) What quality are you expecting? High, since majority of shots were tripod-mounted, low-ISO films, etc.
3) What is the largest print size you anticipate? Are Ilfochrome prints out of style, inconvenient, or over-priced? Looks like they are 4x what I paid a few years ago!
4) What film type are the slides? Kodak Elite 100, Velvia
5) What format are the slides? 35mm
6) Do the slides have any damage? (Scratches, mildew, ...) No
7) Do the slides have value beyond sentimental value? Hard to say
8 ) Is this a one-time need or will there be more in the future? One-time, as I don't plan to go back to E-6/film.
9) Budget? (Notice I left this 'till the very end.) Installment plan

1) A lot of people "want" to preserve past shots but unless they have family members that have passed on in the images or similar subject matter of real value, the truth is that most people will not accept the level of quality that even the best 35mm scans provide.

2) A typical 35mm scan will provide image detail roughly equivalent to a quality 6 MPix digital camera. Simple subjects might make good enlargements but complex and highly detailed subjects/scenes are probably only good to 8" x 10" (8" x 12") or so.

The very best drum scans will yield detail roughly equivalent to around a 10 MPix digital image. This can print up to a 12" x 15" or so.

I suggest scanning a few slides (the best of the best) and then make a decision whether the rest are going to have value worth the time and trouble. Also plan on using software noise reduction and some manual image processing (PhotoShop) to derive the best quality from the original scans.

3) Ilfochrome prints (formerly Cibachrome) are still very nice results but you might try the "metallic" paper printing for a pretty good compromise in appearance versus cost.

4) and 5) Those should produce very good results and should allow Digital Ice scanning which will automatically remove most dust and scratches. Drum scanning may require more manual spotting but if they use a "wet" process drum scanning that helps a lot (most do).

6) It will suprise you what shows up at scanning resolutions but it's good that you don't see any damage. I still suggest Digital Ice for flatbed or film scanners.

7) Quick scans should show the difference.

8) You may not want to invest much in equipment versus investing in the drum scanning service for those slides which prove their merit in quick scans. I suggest that a flatbed scanner like the Epson V500 might be good for quick scanning and sorting.

9) Another good reason to use a service is that you don't have to scan all the slides at once.

---

TIF format is absolutely advised and 16 bit TIFFs at that.

Scan as high a dpi as your budget allows. Software noise reduction works best with more detail and you can always down-res the files. Larger files will result from the larger scans but again, they can be reduced as needed for the application. Your quick scans should show the best candidates for the high-res scanning. 35mm film format is diffraction limited to around 60000 dpi so anything above that is just wasted. It takes a very good lens and technique to honestly see much improvement from 4500 dpi.

B&W and Kodachrome slides are often tough to scan and do not work with the first generation Digital Ice. The very structure of B&W film is much different than color film and requires a somewhat different treatment to derive the best quality.

My limited testing of B&W medium format film shows that the shadow areas require a different scan exposure and subsequent merging in layered images for best results (otherwise the shadow areas plug up something fierce.)

frons

ziggy53 wrote:

1) A lot of people "want" to preserve past shots but unless they have family members that have passed on in the images or similar subject matter of real value, the truth is that most people will not accept the level of quality that even the best 35mm scans provide.

By "most people," do you mean the photographers are disappointed by the results, or potential buyers or editors won't consider buying/publishing something scanned? That's something I've read before on this site. Either way, I still do want to get my images into a digital form, so maybe a flatbed scanner is the best option for getting the majority of my images there.

ziggy53 wrote:

2) A typical 35mm scan will provide image detail roughly equivalent to a quality 6 MPix digital camera. Simple subjects might make good enlargements but complex and highly detailed subjects/scenes are probably only good to 8" x 10" (8" x 12") or so.

The very best drum scans will yield detail roughly equivalent to around a 10 MPix digital image. This can print up to a 12" x 15" or so.

ScanCafe says that 30" prints are the maximum recommended from their scans, but they must be taking viewing distance into account.

ziggy53 wrote:

I suggest scanning a few slides (the best of the best) and then make a decision whether the rest are going to have value worth the time and trouble. Also plan on using software noise reduction and some manual image processing (PhotoShop) to derive the best quality from the original scans.

8) You may not want to invest much in equipment versus investing in the drum scanning service for those slides which prove their merit in quick scans. I suggest that a flatbed scanner like the Epson V500 might be good for quick scanning and sorting.

I was undecided about getting a scanner since Coolscan Vs are selling for 50% more than new on ebay. I'll look into the Epson.

ziggy53 wrote:

TIF format is absolutely advised and 16 bit TIFFs at that.

How important is 16-bit? Sadly, I think all four services that I've considered sending my slides only do 8-bit TIFFs. Of course, this writer and this writer say 8-bit can be ok, but if no one is offering 16-bit, it is a moot point. Anyone know of a service that does 16-bit?
These don't.
ScanCafe
Pixmonix
Larsen Digital
Jim Harrington

ziggy53 wrote:

My limited testing of B&W medium format film shows that the shadow areas require a different scan exposure and subsequent merging in layered images for best results (otherwise the shadow areas plug up something fierce.)

Looks like ScanCafe is doing B/W scans again so I may send them some concert photos and see what they can do with them.

Finally, ziggy, thanks again for the very detailed and informative reply. I'm one step closer to actually doing something.

ziggy53

frons wrote:

By "most people," do you mean the photographers are disappointed by the results, or potential buyers or editors won't consider buying/publishing something scanned? That's something I've read before on this site. Either way, I still do want to get my images into a digital form, so maybe a flatbed scanner is the best option for getting the majority of my images there. ...

There used to be a site that compared a high-quality 35mm film scan with a high-quality medium format film scan and a Canon 5D digital capture. While the site no longer exists the Internet Archives still holds a copy which I recommend looking at for a real-world comparison of those technologies:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060719002230/http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm

frons wrote:

ScanCafe says that 30" prints are the maximum recommended from their scans, but they must be taking viewing distance into account. ...

It's hard telling what they are using for their criteria. I have some 20" x 30" prints that look great from several different 8 MPix digital cameras and some sources say that a decent large print can be made from 6 MPix of digital image. It all depends upon the image and the detail needed for the subject matter. Sometimes it works pretty well but the most I can vouch for personally from a 35mm scan is around an 8" x 10" (or 8" x 12" if not cropped.)

frons wrote:

How important is 16-bit? Sadly, I think all four services that I've considered sending my slides only do 8-bit TIFFs. Of course, this writer and this writer say 8-bit can be ok, but if no one is offering 16-bit, it is a moot point. Anyone know of a service that does 16-bit?
These don't.
ScanCafe
Pixmonix
Larsen Digital
Jim Harrington ...

16 bit is important in that it represents the tonality of film much better if color corrections are needed or if you desire to redistribute the tones to better match an 8 bit gamut without losing either highlights or shadows (too much). Unless you have perfectly exposed film and relatively flat, but evenly distributed, low-contrast scenes I highly recommend 16 bit scans for the very best results.

(8 bit color RGB files yield 256 values per color channel. Photoshop uses 16 bit files to produce 32,769 values per color channel, not true 16 bit but you can see the difference it makes.)

Some of those services use dedicated film scanners but I don't think they are using drum scanners. 16 bit drum scanners are the best technology currently available but it is pricey:

Marc Muench (from a while ago so I wouldn't hold him to this price): http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=677686&postcount=3

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm

I have not used either of these services and the service that I used at my previous employer is no longer in business. Marc is top notch and I recommend him highly.

frons

ziggy53 wrote:

16 bit is important in that it represents the tonality of film much better if color corrections are needed or if you desire to redistribute the tones to better match an 8 bit gamut without losing either highlights or shadows (too much). Unless you have perfectly exposed film and relatively flat, but evenly distributed, low-contrast scenes I highly recommend 16 bit scans for the very best results.

(8 bit color RGB files yield 256 values per color channel. Photoshop uses 16 bit files to produce 32,769 values per color channel, not true 16 bit but you can see the difference it makes.)

Some of those services use dedicated film scanners but I don't think they are using drum scanners. 16 bit drum scanners are the best technology currently available but it is pricey:

Marc Muench (from a while ago so I wouldn't hold him to this price): http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=677686&postcount=3

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm

I have not used either of these services and the service that I used at my previous employer is no longer in business. Marc is top notch and I recommend him highly.

Interesting that a Tango drum scan costs the same whether it is 8- or 16-bit. I can probably count on two hands the images that I'd be willing to have scanned at those rates. Looks like it'll be 8-bit 4000 dpi TIFFs for the most part. Or I'll take a stab at scanning my own.

ziggy53 wrote:

There used to be a site that compared a high-quality 35mm film scan with a high-quality medium format film scan and a Canon 5D digital capture. While the site no longer exists the Internet Archives still holds a copy which I recommend looking at for a real-world comparison of those technologies:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060719002230/http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm

Thanks a lot for this link. The images on this site definitely make things clear. The good news is that the D200 I just bought should bring me into this century.

Finally (and maybe this is for another forum), how beefy a computer is needed for working with 65MB files? I have an iMac G5, 2 GHz, 2 GB RAM. I edit large audio files (~2GB live concert wav files) without trouble, but I wasn't sure how the two kinds of files compared. Thanks again for all your help.

ziggy53

frons wrote:

...

Finally (and maybe this is for another forum), how beefy a computer is needed for working with 65MB files? I have an iMac G5, 2 GHz, 2 GB RAM. I edit large audio files (~2GB live concert wav files) without trouble, but I wasn't sure how the two kinds of files compared. Thanks again for all your help.

We really have to break from this thread. Please ask the question in the "Digital Darkroom Gear" forum.

frons

ziggy53 wrote:

There used to be a site that compared a high-quality 35mm film scan with a high-quality medium format film scan and a Canon 5D digital capture. While the site no longer exists the Internet Archives still holds a copy which I recommend looking at for a real-world comparison of those technologies:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060719002230/http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm

I also found this when looking for information on the Epson V500.

jimbrown82

Frons - I saw that you listed PixMonix... it looks like they are now owned by ScanDigital and do all of their photo and slide scanning in Fishers, Indiana.