| cardingtr |
I've got a Digital camera I owned for years and my 4 year old got hold of it.
Long storyshort: It's broken.
I've look around shopping for a new one and chanced upon these flatbed scanners that can scan color film. Anybody with a film scanner here? If you do have one please post a picture here. I like the versability of buying a film camera and just scan if needed to digitize. |
|
|
| cp_ssrebba |
quote:
Originally posted by cardingtr
I've got a Digital camera I owned for years and my 4 year old got hold of it.
Long storyshort: It's broken.
I've look around shopping for a new one and chanced upon these flatbed scanners that can scan color film. Anybody with a film scanner here? If you do have one please post a picture here. I like the versability of buying a film camera and just scan if needed to digitize.
Sorry. no photo. but added a link. our company has two. They are $899 flatbed with slide and docufeeder. HP. but we never scan 35mm. You have to use medium format slide (positive, not negative film) to match the quality of 4mp digi cam. let me ask you this. why regular camera with film scanner? why not digital camera with $100 scanner (if u have some papers to scan). |
|
|
| g_dog01 |
| I recently bought a HP ScanJet 4570 ($200) and it came with the 'film scanning adapter.' The scanner is great and fast, but unfortunately for you, I haven't tried scanning any negatives yet, so I don't know how well it works...if I remember, I'll give it a try this weekend and post a scan of a print and the same negative for you to compare. |
|
|
| wmquan |
If one wants to scan a couple of negatives or so out of a developed roll with a scanner, that's fine.
But if you want to do, say, several prints from a roll, or more, it can be a real PITA unless you buy one of the really expensive professional ones. The flatbed scanners do have little adapters for transparencies and negatives.
They do a decent job (e.g. the HP 5500, Epson 3200) but they're not like professional scanners costing hundreds more. You will likely still have to make color corrections with some of the scans. You'll find dust to be an issue, having to blow compressed air, clean your scanning bed, etc. |
|
|
| cardingtr |
quote:
Originally posted by cp_ssrebba
Sorry. no photo. but added a link. our company has two. They are $899 flatbed with slide and docufeeder. HP. but we never scan 35mm. You have to use medium format slide (positive, not negative film) to match the quality of 4mp digi cam. let me ask you this. why regular camera with film scanner? why not digital camera with $100 scanner (if u have some papers to scan).
My question is if Flatbed scanner is any good. :rolleyes:
And I'll qoute my orig statement that says.."I like the versability of film camera and just scan if needed to digitize."
I mean come on, you go on 1 month vacation with a digital camera and now you've got a hundred pics with your family. Try printing that.
With a film camera you can develop the film WHILE on vacation and enjoy the pictures, then when you're home IF there is a good flatbed film scanner, you can digitize the film you want.
And why not just scan the print? I've got a bounty of old negatives here ready to play with.:4: |
|
|
| evoge |
Having 600 vacation photos to download from a 128mb card is the perfect excuse to get a screaming fast PC with a CD burner!
We lost our digital camera last month and went back to the 35mm until the new digcam shows up. Except for a few great shots from my SLR, half of our snapshots from the point-and-shoot should be deleted anyway--I'd rather not pay $$$ to develop those. |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
quote:
Originally posted by cardingtr
I mean come on, you go on 1 month vacation with a digital camera and now you've got a hundred pics with your family. Try printing that.
With a film camera you can develop the film WHILE on vacation and enjoy the pictures, then when you're home IF there is a good flatbed film scanner, you can digitize the film you want.
I guess two sides to every coin. For me it's easier to just view the pics on the spot in the LCD or if you want bigger take a simple cable from the camera to any TV and view a slideshow. OR take your notebook with you and view and download them on the spot. Oh, and I don't have to run around looking for a developer while I am on vacation. Besides, you can always just take your card to a developer and have them processed. Anyway, as you indicate, you can get a pretty decent flatbed scanner for you printed photos for less than $100. |
|
|
| wmquan |
Most scanners will do a very good job of scanning a print. Paying more sometimes gets improved color capability, sharpness, etc.
Here's a list of some:
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/arti...d,109707,00.asp
If you're just casually scanning it's not so bad. However, I have a number of old photos that I want to "be perfect' and thus it is extremely time-consuming. E.g. scanning at a high resolution, and then adjusting the photo in PhotoShop. But for casual scanning, there's software that'll perform tweaks very quickly. |
|
|
| elli |
Some flatbed scanners can add a film/transparency adapter. It can get the pretty good results on 35mm films. However, most people suggest it's better to get a film scanner. It is more expensive, but much easy to use and better results.
My Epson 1640 can use the $90 adapter. However, if I need to scan a lot of films, I'll get a good film scanner. This just my 2 cents. |
|
|
| cardingtr |
quote:
Originally posted by evoge
Having 600 vacation photos to download from a 128mb card is the perfect excuse to get a screaming fast PC with a CD burner!
We lost our digital camera last month and went back to the 35mm until the new digcam shows up. Except for a few great shots from my SLR, half of our snapshots from the point-and-shoot should be deleted anyway--I'd rather not pay $$$ to develop those.
Got that.
But try printing your 600 vacation photos to share with friends and put in albums.
With useless pics you take, its a question of when to take pics.
I'm just asking here if anybody have experience with flatbed film scanners if its any good or I will end up buying a digital camera again.
Or maybe invest in a fast photo printer that is small enough to log around with travel.
We're planning to go to small-pacific-island vacation(cheaper but lots of fun) so I doubt it if they have digital options. So with that in mind, a laptop is necessary. |
|
|
| frostyra |
I have no personal experience, but Popular Photography has, over the years, tested several scanners, including film scanners. The latter, which scan negs or slides, beat the pants off a flatbed scanner unless you're happy with 4X6" prints (or smaller).
Scanning a print with a flatbed is a last resort -- the quality will be less than the quality of the print, and (probably) always less than the quality from a film scanner. Don't believe me? Carefully compare a standard print with its negative -- the neg will have FAR more detail in it than the print, especially as far as contrast range is concerned.
To me, a decent film SLR with a film scanner would be the best possible way to go for quality digital prints. A digital SLR with more than 6M pixels would probably be close, but the differences would be noticeable on larger prints.
Have a good camera store show you the differences. |
|
|
| jgiblin |
Scanning a photo does not capture all of the detail in the original photo (35mm developed and printed at a consumer level photo shop). Its like taking a Xerox of a Xerox - detail is lost. That said the detail lost may not be apparent or of concern to the average, consumer's eye.
I have a flatbed scanner (UMAX Astra 1200S) which I purchased (~$300) about three years ago. It was a toy to add to my home PC. The cost of a scanner with this resolution and features today is in the ~$100 range.
I have an Olympus 3000 camera purchased (~$800) about 3 years ago. It was a toy to satisfy a budding photographic hobby. The cost of a similar camera today is in the ~$350 range (maybe).
Some kind of software is necessary to manipulate the digital image (from a scanner or camera) to correct defects (red eye, cropping, etc). The ability to correct defects prior to publishing is really the main advantage of digital imaging/photography. But the software is expensive (Photoshop (~$500), Fireworks MX (~$100), etc.) and has a very steep learning curve.
In contrast, WalMart (among others) has a service that allows consumers (?) to upload digital photos, perform some rudimentary edits (red eye, etc.) and print photographs ($.26/per photo).
Bottom line, I would recommend you buy a digital camera. Take hundreds/thousands of photos. Select those few from the many that are of interest and use the facilities at a commercial vendor to edit and print hard copy to put in photo albums.
Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
| cp_ssrebba |
quote:
Originally posted by cardingtr
My question is if Flatbed scanner is any good. :rolleyes:
Thought i answered ur question.
NO~~~!. :D if you have 35mm negative films.
35mm slide might do the job. but still the colors look bad (not sharp) if uses flatbad.
(note: 35mm negative film and 35mm slide (positive) film are different. the slide has higher resolution.) |
|
|
| cardingtr |
quote:
Originally posted by cp_ssrebba
Thought i answered ur question.
NO~~~!. :D if you have 35mm negative films.
35mm slide might do the job. but still the colors look bad (not sharp) if uses flatbad.
(note: 35mm negative film and 35mm slide (positive) film are different. the slide has higher resolution.)
Thanks guys.
Went to Office Depot yesterday and tested the flatbed scanner with film adaptor. The result is not good.
I ended up getting another Digital Camera. |
|
|
|
