Moose,
Seems we have taken different routes to similar objectives. Last summer and
fall I worked with a Dimage Scan Dual II and VueScan to digitize my own
negatives and slides covering about 50 years. I gave my kids CDs of the
images at Christmas time. That was when I decided to venture into the
negatives and prints we inherited from my wife's family. I have started on
the task, but there are too many competing jobs during nice weather. I will
try to finish it up when the cold weather drives me indoors.
The worst problem I ran into was trying to scan and clean up Ektachrome
slides. Kodachrome held up very well, starting with my first Leica 35mm
images from 1952. Most B&W held up pretty good, and, even some of the
Anscochrome was ok. But the Ektachrome was a real challenge.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:58 PM
Subject: [OM] Digitizing old film [was DianaF+ pinhole pinhole deal]
> Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Moose,
>>
>> You might consider the path that I took when we decided to digitize my
>> late father-in-law's negatives, from 120 through split 5x7 portrait
>> negatives. I bought an early Epson Perfection 2450 scanner off of the
>> auction site.
> Thanks for the suggestion, Jim. I'm already set, though. I bought a
> used, but like new, Canon 9950F, which is roughly comparable in
> capability to the current high end Epson V700. It doesn't have a holder
> for 5x7, but I have nothing larger than 4x5 to scan. I've tried a few,
> and it does an excellent job with MF film at far less than its 4000 dpi
> maximum. I was also attracted by the ability to scan 5 strips of 35mm
> negs or 12 slides at once, for the project below.
>
> ,,. I still have a long way to go to finish the job, but the results are
> not bad at all.
>
> Much of my justification for buying the scanner was for scanning my and
> my fathers negs and slides. There is just a sea of them, and I just
> found another big box I had forgotten. Much of it will be junk, of
> course. But I've been amazed at the color and detail in scans of old
> negs from family snaps that were never seen except as 3" x 5 1/2",
> crappy prints, so I'm also sure there are gems hiding in the boxes.
>
> This will be a long term project. I need to do some more testing, to get
> software settings right, determine scanning dpi and bit depth for
> different ypes and ages of film, and so on. I've determined, for
> example, that anything over about 2000 dpi and 8 bit color is wasted on
> Kodachromes from the late 30 and early 40s - big grain and limited
> dynamic range. Oh yeah, uninspiring lens(es?) and frequent motion blur,
> too. It was slooow film.
>
> Then I plan to settle into a routine of sticking film in the scanner
> every day and scanning away, even if I don't look at them immediately.
> As disk space becomes cheaper, this becomes a practical approach. It
> seems easier to me than trying to peer at strips of negs that have
> become separated from their prints, trying to evaluate slides on a
> sorting table or setting up a projector and projecting endless slides
> and taking notes.
>
> Flipping through the scans using an indexing program and rating them as
> I view them seems the way to go and separate out the ones worth doing
> anything with. In the end, I plan to create DVD libraries for my
> brothers, sons, grandchildren, nieces and nephews.
>> As an added benefit, the scanner turns my computer into a copier and fax
>> machine as a bonus.
>>
> I already had that with the prior scanner, and still do with the 9950F.
> Very handy.
>
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|