I am a dermatologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine about to scan the clinical slides in our teaching collection. We have 15,000+ slides to scan. We plan to use a Nikon Supercoolscan 4000. I want to anticipate improvements in technology so that the slides only have to be scanned once. The plan is to scan in "stock" images stored as .bmp files which can be enhanced, sized, and compressed as needed.
I’ve read the introductory information on file size vs image resolution, and scanning basics. Our needs are for publication (books and journals) and teaching (primarily Powerpoint projection at this time), so low resolution – 300-600 pixels/inch – is probably adequate, but projectors improve rapidly and needs change. I’d like to anticipate future changes.
Can anyone point me toward a rational discussion of the resolution I should be scanning at, please? Thanks.
Fleck, Funny you should bring this subject up right now. My brother-in-law is a pediatric neurologist. He asked me last week to recommend a method to scan and archive his medical records which consist of about 10,000 35mm slides. I have a Minolta film scanner which I have used to scan about 2500 slides so far. It works very well, but it’s slow and max resolution is 2820 dpi. Your Nikon will do 4000 dpi. I am surprised to read that you plan to scan at 300/600 dpi. A 35mm slide is 24×36 mm, about 1.0×1.5 inches. If you scan at 600 dpi, your image will be 600×900 pixels, adequate for Powerpoint presentations, I suppose, but for prints you will probably need higher resolution unless you don’t plan to print anything bigger than about 3×5 inches. Also, I am puzzled why you plan to store the images as BMP files. I would think a more appropriate choice would be TIFF or even JPEG. Are your images color or B&W?
Always scan at full optical resolution and save uncompressed as TIF so it can be worked on in any program and make any size print within reason. If you have storage problems I suggest getting a DVD burner as the files without compression will be approximately 60 megabytes.
Now getting to your problem of the qualtity of slides to scan, I’d suggest looking into an alternative method like Kodak Photo CD’s where you can probably make a deal with a lab and get them for about $1 to $2 each. Base that against the amount of time scanning 15,000 slides will take and it might turn out to be a bargain.
As for your intended usage, they would need to be at least 300 pixels per inch by 8×10 for print reproduction in a book. Always save without adding any additional sharpness because that will be added after resizing for use. If you do your own scanning, You might want to save a set as Jpeg for setting up a catalog or place holder use until the original scans can be accessed and resized. You might also look into a database thumbnail program like Extensis Portfolio to have access to their location off computer. It would make it easier to find the images based on keywords.
You have a lot of issues to finalize before starting the project.
Fleck, Larry’s advice is excellent. I believe you can get an autofeeder attachment for your scanner which will hold up to 50 slides. If you are planning to do the scanning yourself, you should get one. It will minimize the time you spend doing the scanning. Still, scanning 15000 slides is a huge job. Maybe you could hire a student or someone to do it…unless you’re retired as I am and your time is free! <grin> I would only differ with Larry on one small issue. I save my scanned images as TIFF files with LZW compression which reduces file size by about 1/3. If there is any loss of pixel data, it is not discernable by me. The only downside is that the files take a little longer to load and decompress in Photoshop. I strongly second Larry’s advice that you think the whole project through completely before starting. You need to really make sure you know how you will be using the images before you make decisions on resolution and file format. If I were in your shoes, I would tend to "aim high." Memory is cheap. Get the best images you can from your equipment. You don’t want to have to do it again in five years because you didn’t do it right the first time. Bert
I wonder if the Nikon Coolscan is up to 15000 slides. A professional XY scanner from Fuji or Creo where you can place many slides at a time, set it up and leave it do the job might be better. Alternatively Imacon’s are often used for archiving by Museums etc.
What about copying them with a digital camera, might be cheaper and easier once it is set up. I think some of the major camera makers have slide copiers for their digital cameras.
Dr. Fleck — regarding resolution, you wrote that "300-600 pixels/inch is probably adequate (for projection)." Keep in mind that pixels per inch is meaningless for screen/projection viewing. It is nothing more than an instruction to the printer to print that many pixels in one inch on paper. A good projector *TODAY* has a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels, which means an image of say, 900 x 600 pixels will fill almost the entire screen. If you subsequently print the same image at 300 pixels/inch, it will be only 3 x 2 inches on paper. Therefore, you might want to scan at a high resolution, for the sake of the print job, AND make a reduced-size JPG file for screen/projection viewing. For example, if you scan a 1-inch segment of a slide at 3000 pixels per inch, then print at 300 pixels per inch, you’ll get a 10-inch wide print — great for paper, but much too big for the screen. So, make a reduced size file for screen viewing and/or projection.
Based upon working with my Nikon Coolscan IV with NikonScan and Hamrick’s VueScan, I would like to state that I have had much better results with Hamrick’s software vs NikonScan. (www.hamrick.com)
As for a work flow with the creation of smaller files, I suggest the following:
1.) Scan to a "scanned directory/folder" in full resolution TIFF files. Using compressed TIFF will save a lot of drive space. After you have scanned 50-100 slides:
2.) Run a batch resize conversion to 800x??? image size for your power point use. Save those files in a "reduced-size directory/folder". I have always set the width to 800 pixels and let the height "float".
3.) Run a batch format conversion on those files to JPEG format and save to a "JPG-directory/folder".
4.) MOVE all the files in the "scanned directory" to a "Processed Directory/folder".
5.) DELETE all the files in the "reduced-size directory/folder".
I have done something quite similar with large numbers of image files using Irfanview. There are batch conversions for both size and for format with user selectable destination. The file names (less the file extension during format changes) are maintained during the conversion.
With a 15,000 slide job, finances permitting, contracting this out should be seriously considered.
I save my scanned images as TIFF files with LZW compression which reduces file size by about 1/3. If there is any loss of pixel data, it is not discernable by me.
LZW compression is loss-less. The LZW patent has expired, so it will probably be a safe bet for a hundred years. ZIP may do a better job with some images.
LZW is the way to go–if you’re optimizing for file space. It’s lossless and the information can be compressed/decompressed in a reasonable amount of time. None-the-less, that can still be a substantial amount of time wrt 15,000 slides.
Uncompressed TIFF format is the way to go–if you’re optimizing for portability. For instance, some desktop publishing programs will not read LZW compressed TIFF files–even worse some that do will not RIP properly when sent to pre-press.
Also, a corrupt LZW file is more difficult (if not impossible) to retrieve than a corrupted TIFF.
Because of this hassle factor, most print pros prefer uncompressed tiffs when repurposing content for print–such as a textbook. However, this is IMHO a non-fatal issue as it can be planned for in your workflow. If you can’t afford the HD real estate, optimize for file size.
In any event, if you only wish to do this ONCE, I would suggest scanning your slides to archive standards–at the highest possible resolution with the fastest CPU and most generous allotments of RAM allowed for in your budget. Thereafter, create a Photoshop droplet to generate a multi-pack of snapshots for each image.
On a case-by-case basis. Zip selects among several compression methods, including LZW, so you might end up with the same thing, or something better. The argument against Zip is backward compatibility–since time mostly goes forward, it’s a small concern.
Also, a corrupt LZW file is more difficult (if not impossible) to retrieve than a corrupted TIFF
A compressed anything is more difficult to restore than anything not compressed. Zip can sometimes be repaired. A big gob missing from any file will be missing, regardless of its type; if it’s missing from an uncompressed file, you can figure where it came from, and fill the hole with black or white. With any compressed file, a whole in the wrong place is not a nice thing.
Bert, Harv seems to be the going moniker, though I don’t think I look like one (nowhere near 6-feet tall), and I answer to almost anything.
We have 15,000+ slides to scan. We plan to use a Nikon Supercoolscan 4000.
This is daunting. I’d figure out how much time each will take at a given resolution, how much your time is worth, then just how good they have to be. At a minute each, that’s, a lot of minutes (my scanner is closer to two minutes each). If it’s truly for archiving, you’ll want to scan with higher resolution than you need today, since the next time you use an image, you may need more pixels.
Powerpoint projection at this time), so low resolution – 300-600 pixels/inch
Powerpoint doesn’t require more than screen resolution, say 1024×768.
I wasn’t familiar with the high-end Nikon scanners, and I couldn’t find the Coolscan 4000, but I read some of the specs on the Coolscan 5000. I saw a scan time of 20 seconds, but I don’t know if that was at maximum resolution. Like you, Harv, my Minolta takes about 2 minutes per slide at 2820 dpi. I have scanned about 2500 slides with it. The slide holder takes 4 slides at a time, and using VueScan I do batch scans, so I just stick 4 slides in and turn ‘er loose, and go do something else for 10 minutes. I was doing a 36 exposure roll in about an hour and a half. But 15000 slides…either he’d better have lots of time to complete the project or he better get some help. By the way, I haven’t seen any response from the originator of this thread since his original post. Hello, Dr. Fleck! Are you with us? Bert EDIT: I just noticed that his Email address is on the opening post. I’m gonna Email him and wake him up.
He hasn’t got the time to react. Having read all your knowledge on how long it’ll take him to finish the job, he realises it’s a matter of seconds! I’ve got a Primefilm scanner 3600 dpi, and I roughly calculated that I would finish in abt 300 days. That is eight hours a day, seven days a week, no editing.
I would end up with: 15,000 files of 50 MB, being a total of 750 GB. (We’re approaching the Terabyte boundary at tremendous speed).
but without: a scanner (worn out) My current mental properties a social life
However, if we all take 10 slides of dr. Fleckman, it will be done in no time!
I’ve got a Primefilm scanner 3600 dpi, and I roughly calculated that I would finish in abt 300 days. That is eight hours a day, seven days a week, no editing.
With my little old slow Minolta Dimage Scan II, at two minutes per slide…let’s see 15,000 x 2 = 30,000 minutes = 500 hours…that’s only about 3 months @ 40 hours/week. <laughing> With batch scanning, if you can combine it with other activities, you just have to get back once in awhile to refill the magazine. With the 50-slide autofeeder, it would be even better. It’s a big job, but not THAT big… Bert
Yes it is doable. But in my case a job like that (15,000 slides) would interfere with allmost anything I do:
-Shooting sessions, -The trips to them (mostly on a recumbent bicycle towing my gear), -My work (not photography) -Taking dinner at an Italian restaurant with my girlfriend.
Anyway, scanning 15,000 slides is twice as cumbersome as scanning 7,500 slides, and I can’t recall having done that either…
BTW I think we have scared the hell out of doctor Fleckman with all of our philosophy. Strange, posting a good question and then bail out.
By the way, this thread features a contribution of John Woram. I’m very curious if that is the author of "The Recording Studio Handbook" and the "The pc Configuration Handbook".
If so I owe him one. The former helped me 25 years ago in getting to work as a recording eng in a 24 track facility, the latter helped me in mastering MS-DOS 3.1!
Gentlemen, I didnt bail just didnt know messages were posted, havent participated in one of these kinds of discussions before, and was tied up yesterday. Thanks for your comments and for the heads up, Bert.
To reply From your comments, it sounds like I should be checking this pretty often. True?
1. Bert Bigelow I am surprised to read that you plan to scan at 300/600 dpi
I wasnt planning to scan at 300/600 dpi, merely used this # to ask if this resolution was reasonable for Powerpoint right now. It sounds like it is from the comments in #1 & #6 that it is.
A 35mm slide is 24×36 mm, about 1.0×1.5 inches. If you scan at 600 dpi, your image will be 600×900 pixels, adequate for Powerpoint presentations, I suppose, but for prints you will probably need higher resolution unless you don’t plan to print anything bigger than about 3×5 inches.
This is the kind of information I need. Can you suggest a good discussion of how to estimate resolution needed to project an image at 1280 X 1024, which is close to maximum for teaching at this time?
Also, I am puzzled why you plan to store the images as BMP files. I would think a more appropriate choice would be TIFF or even JPEG. Are your images color or B&W?
We were going to use BMP files because I understood that the scanner stores data as BMP and the converts to other file types and that most programs can read BMP files. By going to TIFF dont I lose information? I would with JPEG, right? Remember, the goal is to store stock files that can be modified for appropriate use. The images are color most are kodachrome 64 slides.
2. LarryBerman Always scan at full optical resolution and save uncompressed as TIF so it can be worked on in any program and make any size print within reason. If you have storage problems I suggest getting a DVD burner as the files without compression will be approximately 60 megabytes.
You would scan at 4000 dpi? Why TIF over BMP?
As for your intended usage, they would need to be at least 300 pixels per inch by 8×10 for print reproduction in a book.
This is 2400 X 3000 pixels what is the equivalent in scanning resolution?
Always save without adding any additional sharpness because that will be added after resizing for use. If you do your own scanning, You might want to save a set as Jpeg for setting up a catalog or place holder use until the original scans can be accessed and resized. You might also look into a database thumbnail program like Extensis Portfolio to have access to their location off computer. It would make it easier to find the images based on keywords.
I have Portfolio. Is there still an advantage in saving a set of JPEG files?
You have a lot of issues to finalize before starting the project.
Thats why Im here
3. Bert Bigelow Larry’s advice is excellent. I believe you can get an autofeeder attachment for your scanner which will hold up to 50 slides.
We plan to use the autofeeder.
I would only differ with Larry on one small issue. I save my scanned images as TIFF files with LZW compression which reduces file size by about 1/3. If there is any loss of pixel data, it is not discernable by me. The only downside is that the files take a little longer to load and decompress in Photoshop.
You still lose some information with LZW, dont you? Storage is cheap relative to the time for scanning and labeling. I only want to do this once.
I use Photoshop Album for my image database.
I tried Photoshop Album its fine for single computer use, but I needed some of the import and networking features of Portfolio.
6. John Woram you might want to scan at a high resolution, for the sake of the print job, AND make a reduced-size JPG file for screen/projection viewing.
Thats the plan. I could not use JPG files in Powerpoint 97, but TIF worked well. JPG seems to work in Powerpoint XP.
7 Bill Lamp As for a work flow with the creation of smaller files, I suggest the following:
Thanks. This is very helpful. Why JPEG over TIFF?
14 Bert Bigelow I wasn’t familiar with the high-end Nikon scanners, and I couldn’t find the Coolscan 4000, but I read some of the specs on the Coolscan 5000. I saw a scan time of 20 seconds, but I don’t know if that was at maximum resolution. Like you, Harv, my Minolta takes about 2 minutes per slide at 2820 dpi.
Time for the 500 ppi scans with the autoloader was ~1.5 minutes total time to get the slide in automatically, scan at 500 ppi, and save the file.
Scanning the same slide – scan time alone @ 500 ppi 35 seconds @ 1200 ppi 55 seconds so the additional time to scan at higher resolution is negligible
So the questions are_ 1. Where is there a good discussion of image size, ppi, dpi?, projection resolution? 2. BMP, TIFF or JPEG? LZW or uncompressed? 3. 4000 dpi? (Does dpi = pixels per inch also?)
So the questions are_ 1. Where is there a good discussion of image size, ppi, dpi?, projection resolution? 2. BMP, TIFF or JPEG? LZW or uncompressed? 3. 4000 dpi? (Does dpi = pixels per inch also?)
These questions have been answered numerous times in these forums. Use the search command at the top of this page.
I’m very curious if that is the author of "The Recording Studio Handbook"
and the "The pc Configuration Handbook".
Guilty as charged — and I hope you’re still enjoying DOS 3.1<g>. [And before the Thread Police catch us, are you still doing recording work? I bailed out years ago.]
Can you suggest a good discussion of how to estimate resolution needed to project an image at 1280 X 1024
35mm images are 36 x 24 mm…a 3:2 ratio. 1280 x 1024 is a 5:4 ratio, just like an 8×10 print. You will have to crop the slide or accept some empty space in the 1280×1024 frame. If you want to crop to fill the frame, you will have to scan at higher resolution. Scanning at 1200 ppi should be adequate, I would think.
Re: BMP vs. TIFF – It’s already been said, but I’ll just reiterate. TIFF with LZW compression is lossless. I have little experience with BMP files, but the most common formats accepted by most image-handling software are TIFF, PNG and JPEG. TIFF seems to be the most widely accepted lossless format, so I would recommend it for archival storage. I’m building a family photo archive that I plan to pass on to future generations, and I am saving everything as TIFF. I am using LZW compression, but I understand some image processing software may not accept that. It might be safer not to compress. It only reduces the file size by about 30%. Re dpi vs. ppi – for scanners and monitors they are identical. Not so with printers…but that’s another subject.
Dr. Fleck, Mac McDougald suggested Wayne Fulton’s website for a tutorial on scanning in an earlier post. I used that site for a long time, and finally bought his book which is advertised on the site. It was money well spent. There is a lot more detailed information in the book, and when you finish reading it, you won’t have any more questions about scanning. You will be an expert! I recommend it highly. Bert
Q1. Where is there a good discussion of image size, ppi, dpi?, projection resolution? Q2. BMP, TIFF or JPEG? LZW or uncompressed? Q3. 4000 dpi? (Does dpi = pixels per inch also?)
A2: As I mentioned earlier, uncompressed TIFF offers the greatest portability across OS platforms and assorted software. It is as universally accepted as the US dollar. BMP files are problematic to unacceptable when used in conjunction with DTP packages such as Pagemaker, Quark, and in some cases Indesign. It all depends on what you do with your images, but if you wish to streamline your workflow for CMYK publishing –uncompressed TIFF is usually the least problematic.
A3: dpi (dots per inch) is an acronym used for output devices. ppi (pixels per inch) is an acronym used for input devices. It is also commonly used for display devices such as monitors. Although frequently interchanged, they are two distinct technical measurements.
I wonder if the Nikon Coolscan is up to 15000 slides. A professional XY scanner from Fuji or Creo where you can place many slides at a time, set it up and leave it do the job might be better.
I’ve been using the Coolscan 4000 and SF-200 slide feeder to archive my slides. I’ve scanned over 50000 images so far with no problems at all.
Well, no problems other than the fact that the SF-200 feeder is somewhat prone to misfeeds, where it accidentally feeds two slides at once. This problem seems to be somewhat dependent on the type of slide mount, but when it happens, it either results in a bogus scan that has to be redone, or in a jam that has to be cleared. Either way, it makes the whole process less than perfectly automated.
It’s a real shame, because I looked at the mechanism for two minutes and figured out three separate and fairly simple design changes that Nikon could have done to eliminate most of the problem.
Still, this combination does manage to do MOST of the job without intervention.
But there’s one more thing to consider. Most of my work is such that the exposure is pretty consistent across a roll of film, so it’s not really a problem that the Nikon Scan software uses the same settings for an entire batch of slides. But if you need to scan slides where the density varies significantly from one image to the next, you may find yourself wishing that it had better options for automatically setting the scan parameters.
But if you need to scan slides where the density varies significantly from one image to the next, you may find yourself wishing that it had better options for automatically setting the scan parameters
Using the VueScan software package, I have scanned many rolls of slides with varying exposures, and the results have been consistently good.
Another thought… What about copying them with a digital camera, might be cheaper and easier once it is set up. I think some of the major camera makers have slide copiers for their digital cameras.
I know that many SLR cameras have available slide copiers, but right offhand, I don’t know of any for digital cameras. But assuming they exist (and they very well may exist), the digital camera most likely couldn’t match the quality of a good film scanner.
For example, many film scanners scan at 4000 dpi (and a few have even higher resolutions) and since a 35mm slide is about 1" x 1.5", that would produce an image with 4000 x 6000 pixels or 24,000,000 pixels. You would need a digital camera with more than 20 megapixels to play in that ball game. Incidentally, that is one reason why I am still waiting to convert from a film SLR to a digital SLR.
Burton, I believe there are slide adapters for digital cameras. But, I agree with you that the quality from such a device would not be anywhere near as good as even a low-priced film scanner like my Minolta which does 2820 dpi. I get image files of almost 10 megapixels from it. I wonder how the color and dynamic range would compare. Any idea? Bert
I wonder how the color and dynamic range would compare. Any idea?
Not really. I would want to see the results of some real world comparisons to answer that. One thing in favor of the scanners is their ability to scan at higher than 24-bit RGB depths. Even my old UMAX Astra 1200 can scan at 30 bits and deliver 48-bit files to Photoshop, and I find that advantageous. Newer scanners can scan with much higher bit precisions, and that could help both color and dynamic range. I suspect that many digital cameras capture at just 24-bit precision.
I recommended JPG format on the smaller files for a couple of reasons.
They will work in PowerPoint. With the PowerPoint projectors I’ve seen in use, there hasn’t been much improvement when you pass the 800×600 resolution mark. (poor lap top or other equipment??)
They are smaller than TIFFs saving hard drive space.
A directory of them can be quickly turned into a series of index pictures with named thumbnails making for faster file ID when you need to find THAT one picture. Much smaller file means much faster reading and index creation. (I set the program I use to name mine !!Index001, !!Index002, etc. These are at 8 per index picture at 1024×786 resolution, JPEG, 90% quality) The "!!" is to force them to the top of the directory/folder listing where they can be quickly found. I use a very old edition of Compushow for that. I think my edition was designed to run on Win-95 but it runs under XP-Home.
What settings on your browsers are you guys using when posting these messages?
I couldn’t help but to notice that I neded to scroll and scroll and scroll horizontally in order to read your lines.
Most posters wrap their text to about 80 characters per line for a comfortable reading experience, but you guys posted messages with up to 309 chracters per unbroken line.
I have not yet discovered any feature in MS Internet Explorer 6.0 that will wrap your postings to 80 characters per line in preparation for my reading them. ____________________
wrote in message news:…
Dr. Fleck,
I recommended JPG format on the smaller files for a couple of reasons. They will work in PowerPoint. With the PowerPoint projectors I’ve seen in use, there hasn’t been much improvement when you pass the 800×600 resolution mark. (poor lap top or other equipment??)
They are smaller than TIFFs saving hard drive space.
A directory of them can be quickly turned into a series of index
pictures with named thumbnails making for faster file ID when you need to find THAT one picture. Much smaller file means much faster reading and index creation. (I set the program I use to name mine !!Index001, !!Index002, etc. These are at 8 per index picture at 1024×786 resolution, JPEG, 90% quality) The "!!" is to force them to the top of the directory/folder listing where they can be quickly found. I use a very old edition of Compushow for that. I think my edition was designed to run on Win-95 but it runs under XP-Home.
11.17.03 25. Mac McDougal 28. Bert Bigelow 29. nunatak
Wayne Fulton’s fine site: scantips.com is the best place I know for the fundamentals.
– Great information. Thanks for the tip.
30. Mike Fulton Jeff Darken said in msg #4: I’ve been using the Coolscan 4000 and SF-200 slide feeder to archive my slides. I’ve scanned over 50000 images so far with no problems at all.
Well, no problems other than the fact that the SF-200 feeder is somewhat prone to misfeeds, where it accidentally feeds two slides at once. This problem seems to be somewhat dependent on the type of slide mount, but when it happens, it either results in a bogus scan that has to be redone, or in a jam that has to be cleared. Either way, it makes the whole process less than perfectly automated.
– We see the same, but the Coolscan with slide feeder is adequate.
31. Bert Bigelow Using the VueScan software package, I have scanned many rolls of slides with varying exposures, and the results have been consistently good.
– were using VueScan
35. Bill Lamp Dr. Fleck, A directory of them can be quickly turned into a series of index pictures with named thumbnails making for faster file ID when you need to find THAT one picture. Much smaller file means much faster reading and index creation. (I set the program I use to name mine !!Index001, !!Index002, etc. These are at 8 per index picture at 1024×786 resolution, JPEG, 90% quality) The "!!" is to force them to the top of the directory/folder listing where they can be quickly found. I use a very old edition of Compushow for that. I think my edition was designed to run on Win-95 but it runs under XP-Home.
– one of the nice things about Portfolio is that it makes thumbnails quickly, even from the 35-40 Mb TIF files.
So to summarize. We are scanning slides at 4000 dpi using the Nikon Coolscan 4000 with the auto slide feeder and VueScan. If we batch slides with the same mounting, we have more consistent results with the feeder. In order of increasing likelihood of jamming glass < plastic < cardboard.
Scanned images are cropped and optimized in Photoshop, then labeled so that Portfolio will automatically set keywords for each image that we can use for searching. We save as TIF NZW files (~35-40Mb per image) and as JPEG files at a setting of 8 (~2.5 Mb). Images are saved to DVD (TIF) and CD (JPEG).
I’d like to add that I recently made a little modification to the SF-200 slide feeder for the Nikon Coolscan 2000/4000 that has resulted in far greater reliability and far fewer jams or misfeeds.
The basic problem with the slide feeder is that the gap through which the slides are pushed from the input stack into the scanner is just too big. It looks like it was probably made big enough to comfortably support large glass slide mounts, which can easily be twice as thick as a typical paper mount, or as much as 3x thicker than a thin plastic mount.
It probably works great for the big glass slide mounts, but I can’t imagine why the designers at Nikon would have thought that it was worth all of the problems you end up getting with the far more common paper or thin plastic mounts.
With this wide gap, and with the serious amount of pressure being applied by the spring for the input tray, it’s far too easy for two slides to be fed at the same time. Or as also commonly occurs, for one slide to feed all the way, and another to feed only half way. So you either get a useless scan of two slides sandwiched together, or you get a jam because of an extra slide only being fed part way.
I looked at the problem for awhile and determined there were two ways it might be addressed. First, if the tension on the input slide tray’s spring could be relaxed when it started to feed a slide, then it would be far less likely that two slides might stick together. Second, if the gap could be made more narrow, there would only be enough room for one slide at a time to fit through. Even if the slides DID stick together at first, the 2nd one would be blocked by the more narrow gap.
I didn’t see any easy way to address the idea of relaxing the input tray’s spring tension on demand, but making the gap more narrow seemed doable. At this point, I did some searches online to see if anybody else had tried something like this, and there were a few instances of success, so I forged ahead.
The first problem was what to use to narrow the gap. I needed some material I could affix to the wall of the input tray, but it had to be thin and stiff. After a few failed attempts with other materials, I settled on an old expired credit card.
I cut out a section about the same height as a slide mount, and then trimmed one end so that it had sort of a "U" shape, where the arms were sized and spaced to match a slide mount. The idea is that the arms will touch the slide mount, but not the film itself, so there’s no danger of a scratch occuring. I filed down the edges to make it even safer.
Next, I took a slide and pushed it into the gap at the front of the input tray, just like it would normally be fed for scanning, except that I only pushed it in about 1/2" from the original position.
With that slide in place, I took my trimmed plastic piece and placed it flush against the little wall that divides the input slide stack from the output slide stack. I pushed it forward until the arms made contact with the slide, and then I backed it off just a hair. Then I took a piece of tape and affixed it so that everything would stay in place.
The end result is that the gap through which a slide is fed is now wide enough ONLY for one slide at a time. The original gap was big enough for two or even three slides, depending on the slide mount. I suspect the gap was made large enough to but the problem is that there is nothing to prevent more than one slide from being fed.
The results have been terrific. Whereas before I would get misfeeds and jams on a regular basis, sometimes 5-6 times on a single roll of film, now I get NO such problems at all.
There is a NEW jam problem that occurs sometimes, but it’s far, far less common. Basically, every once in awhile if you have a cardboard slide mount that’s a little bent so that it’s not perfectly flat, then it gets stuck in the gap at the beginning of the feed process.
I suspect that making some fine adjustments to the position of the plastic piece could fix this, but the larger the gap, the more likely the original problem is to resurface.
It also appears that relaxing the spring tension on the input tray would solve the problem. I’d like to do something like that, but it’s not a simple problem since the tension would have to be relaxed independently of the position of the feeder.
However, the new jam problem is far less common the original, and only seems to happen with bent slide mounts. I’ve had many instances so far where I’ve scanned 8-10 rolls of film in a row between jams. And if I happen to be sitting at the computer when the jam happens, then I can reach over and relax the spring tension manually while it’s still trying to feed, which averts the problem.
Even when the jam does happen, it’s easier to deal with than the old-style jam. All you need to do to clear it is relax the spring tension and then start the feed process over. At that point, the slide feeds and you can continue scanning.
Mike, Very clever solution. This is the kind of stuff I come here for…things you don’t find in a manual. I don’t have a Nikon scanner, but now I feel like I should buy one, just to try your fix. 🙂 Bert
Phil, I suggest you do a little research on the use of DVD and CDROM as archive media as they can have a suprisingly short life. I’m just scanning my fathers old slides – these are 40 years old, they still work and you can still get the machines to read them! Might not be true of current electronic media and formats in 40 years time.
You shouldn’t need to save both jpgs and tiffs. Jpgs can always be made from tiffs if you need them for a powerpoint presentation. I’d agree with the advice to use tiffs over bmps, as tiffs support lossless compression in both 8 bit/channel and 16 bit/channel forms, are cross platform (windows, unix, mac) and more usable in dtp programs. The biggest issue is indexing these images so you can find them in the future without much trouble.
Olly, The issue of media life has been addressed elsewhere in this forum, but I’ll just give you my take on it. I don’t need the CDs or DVDs to last 40 years. Within five years, a new medium will come along…the next one is DVD-Blue…that will have ten times or a hundred times the capacity, so I’ll be migrating my archive every few years to the latest thing. If you left your collection on today’s CDs for 40 years, you probably would not be able to find a machine that could read that old obsolete stuff! Keeping the archive medium current will be an ongoing task. Just think if your collection was on the equivalent of 5" floppies today… Bert
Philo, I disagree, While you can always make the JPEGs from teh TIFFs (as you mention) there is no assurance that the person who will need the JPEGs can do the conversion himself or herself (chance are they will be researchers and not graphuic artists) having a copy of your archived images in the format they need is a good move.
Philip, I recommend making a second copy of the DVDs to be stored in a separate facility.
Olly Evans – 02:06am Jan 22, 2004 Pacific (#39 of 42) "Phil, I suggest you do a little research on the use of DVD and CDROM as archive media as they can have a suprisingly short life". Bert Bigelow – 09:50am Jan 22, 2004 Pacific (#41 of 42) Rene Walling – 11:23am Jan 22, 2004 Pacific (#42 of 42)
I agree with Bert and Renee, the storage medium is by definition, time-limited and labile.
Philo Calhoun – 08:38am Jan 22, 2004 Pacific (#40 of 42) "You shouldn’t need to save both jpgs and tiffs."
The reason for the JPGs is two-fold. We optimize the image (color, sharpness, orientation, contrast, etc) in Photoshop and save as JPG in order to have a more manageable file to start with for Powerpoint. However, we want the original image (saved as a large TIFF) with as much detail as possible. In that way, we have usable images and anyone dissatisfied with the optimized image can go back to original.
What Larry says, with one suggested change: tRY LZW compression for your TIFF files. If you find that gives you a significant space saving, hen continue with the compression. Yes, some prorams (like, Microsoft Worst, maybe) don’t like compressed TIF, but none of those programs are any damned good for profession output. If the saving is minimal, then screw it.
I have had LZW compressed tiffs become corrupt to the point where the program that created them, Photoshop, could not open them. I would blame the media, except the files were stored on my hard drive. Now if I want to compress images, I use Zip or Rar archives.
Of course, the 21st century solution to this problem might be Jpeg 2000.
I use LZW compression on all my scanned image files. Haven’t had a problem yet, but I only have a few thousand. It saves about 30% over uncompressed TIFF. The only drawback I have found is that the compressed files take a little longer to open. I am curious about JPEG2000. Apparently it has not achieved widespread acceptance yet. I rarely see it used. Anybody have a comment on that? Am I just living a sheltered life? 🙂 Bert
jpg2000 can be lossy compressed (wavelet) or unlossy compressed. It does not seem to be catching on. It is interesting that ACR1 installed it routinely, but PS CS requires a custom install. It seems like a good format (better than jpeg) but certainly is not widely importable in most programs.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
