Advice about a scanner, please...

Roger Rettig · From: Naples, FL

I keep seeing really sharp, well defined, photographs on the Forum, and I'm about to get myself a scanner...
I, like many no doubt, am mystified by all the various figures on the specifications of these things; what is the minimum spec. that I need to transmit good quality images?
I should point out that I'll be needing to reproduce from slides and negatives as well as regular prints. I don't have a digital camera.
It's all those 1200 or 2400 whatsits that I don't get....
Thank you.
RR

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

If what you want is to scan slides, negatives, prints (up to 5x7), then you need an HP S20 scanner.

Hmmmm, it appears that maybe HP has discontinued these? I can't find any on price search engines.

Anyway, here's a link to one on Ebay. The price is right.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1208405425

This scans negatives and slides at 2400 dpi, which works out to 300 ppi when you want to print an image at 8x10 size. This is plenty good for GREAT images on today's printers. I believe that it scans prints at 300 dpi.

This is PLENTY for making images to put on a web-page. In fact, it's really too big for that purpose. But you can always scan at a lower dpi, or just scale back in an image editing program.

Check out my webpage (click the link in my signature) for samples that were scanned using this film scanner. Ignore the "Jerry Reed" series -- this was done with my new digital Canon SLR. The series from Fan Fair were scanned from Fuji Provia 100 slide film. The others were scanned from Fuji 800 and Fuji 1600 print film.

Note that these scans were done using Ed Hamrick's VueScan software instead of the default HP software. It makes batch scanning much easier to do. For scanning just a few slides or negatives, the HP software is fine.

Also note that these pictures have been drastically reduced in resolution (and in JPG compression) for two reasons: to fit them on a page, and to allow fast web access. (Note, you can click on the small pictures to get slightly larger versions).

Scanning a negative at the full 2400 dpi and NOT reducing the resolution results in a very big file (way too big to completely show on a webpage). For an example, try this link:
http://members.nbci.com/dpennybaker/stuff/crop0016.jpg

Note, that picture is really terrible. It was shot using Fuji 1600 with a 300mm lens at f/5.6 and about 1/60 second. Not exactly the best lighting conditions in the world. But it does show you just how big an image like that would be. Also, I've used LOTS of JPG compression to get this file down to a reasonable size so that you can download it. As a TIF file, it would be almost 24 MB in size.

If you need to scan larger pictures and/or documents, you'll need another flatbed scanner. These are really inexpensive today (even less than $100). Most scanners today will be about 600 dpi, which is FAR more than you'll actually ever need, unless you're trying to get a very big enlargement of a small portion of an image, or something like that.

Sorry this has gotten so long. It's confusing to say the least. Drop me an email at davep@flex.net or just ask more questions here.

It's important that you define what you want to do. The HP S20 will be just fine, as long as you don't need to scan documents, or go above 5x7 in size.

A flatbed scanner (even with the attachments they advertise) is really worthless for scanning slides and negatives.

Beware, if you start scanning lots of images, you will need a larger hard-drive, and a CD-R. I've already burned over 200 CD-R's of images, and I have 600 CD-R's I just received in anticipation of taking more pictures with my new digital SLR.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

I should have also added that scanning for the web and scanning for making prints are two very different things. You'll want the high dpi (300 - 600 for prints, 2400+ for negatives and slides) if you intend to make 8x10 prints, for example.

For the web, that's overkill (as I hopefully demonstrated in the last post).

The system I described (HP S20) is a middle-of-the-road solution. It produces very good results (even for 8x10 prints), isn't expensive, but it is somewhat laborious.

If all you ever intend to do is put these pictures on the web, you could possibly try one of the flatbed scanners with slide/negative attachments. But I would NEVER use that for prints. You'll be disappointed if you try that. A friend of mine has one of these setups. For slides, it would probably work out OK. For negatives, the big problem is that they curl in the adapter, and the scanner has a terribly shallow DOF, so the scans are terribly out of focus.

The HP 20 is the perfect solution if you aren't scanning too many pictures, or if you have some time to spare.

For more money (say $1,000 to $1,500) you can get something like the Nikon LS-30 or LS-2000, with a slide and/or film tray (costs extra). This will improve several things. For one, the scanner has and InfraRed Channel, which helps TREMENDOUSLY with removing dust specs. And believe me, you'll spend time removing dust specs from your scans with the HPS20. Even the excellent VueScan software leaves some dust specs on the resulting scans.

Also, the HP will only let you scan ONE slide at a time. With the Nikon, you can load a tray with 50 (I think), then start the software and walk away. If you have a large collection of slides and intend to scan a large portion of them, this is a very important consideration. I rarely shoot slides. If I did, I would've gotten the Nikon. I probably should have anyway, given how many scans I did.

The Nikon also has multi-pass capability, which really helps bring out shadow details, especially in slides. Dark areas of slides are TOUGH to scan without this feature.

That about covers the range of solutions for most folks. Low-end, mid-range, and high-end. They do make $10,000 + drum scanners, but that's primarily for people in the graphics business.

As always, when it comes to computers and cameras, your needs (and wants) determine the solution that fits you best. So take time to consider exactly what you want to do.

Note: In addition to needing lots of storage and CD-R's, you'll need lots of time. LOTS of time. I don't like to think of how much time I put in scanning all those photos. That's one of the reasons I bit the bullet to get the digital SLR.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

Go down to your local "CompUSA" computer store and pick up an "Epson" model 636u flatbed scanner. They were "on sale" here last week for $49.99. Then went back up to $99.99 Tuesday. This is the best scanner I have seen in the less than $700.00 range. It has features above and beyond the other low priced units.

No, I am not a sales rep for CompUSA. I just spent the last 2 months looking for a flatbed scanner. Finally got a HP in the $1300.00 range. (not a typo)

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

If you are patient you can find flatbed scanners on sale at the big stores for under $50, and occasionally even at $29.95.

Jack Stoner · From: Kansas City, MO

Flatbed scanners are relatively inexpensive anymore. However, they generally fall into the category of "you get what you pay for". About $100 will get you a decent one at a Sam's Club.

Scanners that will also accept slides fall into a "specialty" category. Any time you need a "specialty" item the price usually goes up dramatically. I've seen some Hewlett Packard scanners that will accept an optional slide accessory.

John Gretzinger · From: Canoga Park, CA

A few notes from years of looking at these things from both sides of the counter as well as in the non-graphic industry....

HPs tend to scan an image better than other brands with the same specifications. I can't tell you why, only that it appears to be that way. It may have something to do with hardware enhancement.

The specs to look for are Optical resolution vs. Maximum resolution and the number of bits recorded for color.

Some scanners report 600x600dpi optical scanning with a maximum of 1200x1200. This means the scanner is capable of doing a 600x600 scan with out the aid of software to make it appear sharper. All other things being equal, as 1200x1200 optical scan is sharper than a 600x600 optical enhanced to 1200. Again, HP appears to be an exception to this rule.

Scanners come in a variety of color bit saturations as well, 20bit, 26bit, 30 bit, etc. The higher the number, the more subtleties (sp?) in color you can get. If you are scanning in good quality portraits, you can see the difference between low guality color and high quality color. For web publishing or snap shots, it probably does not matter that much.

HPs cost more, but to me are generally worth it.

Your mileage may vary.

jdg

------------------
MSA D-10
'63 Gibson Hummingbird
16/15c Hammered Dulcimer

Jack Stoner · From: Kansas City, MO

John, good points. I worked in the the "commercial" computer industry and was exposed primarily to mainframes and the high end commercial equipment.

I think, generally, the commercial equipment vendors that got into the consumer end probably do better as they have more expertise and can migrate their commercial features into lower priced consumer equipment. Where a new vendor that is only dealing with consumer grade equipment may be more interested in building a unit to a price.

That may be an around about way of putting it but I've seen it in a lot of equipment.

Forum Index > Computers		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: