John Rumm wrote in message ...
Peter Parry wrote:


Problem with scanners is that they are designed for sheets of paper
and the slide scanning is almost without exception mediocre. I've

Depends on what you use. Some of the top end film scanners used for
comecial repro are actually flatbed, although we are talking 10,000
quid here ;-)

For the ones that have transparency scanning added as an afterthought I
would however agree, the results ara a bit disapointing.

tried the 1670 and would suggest it's performance on slides is very
significantly inferior to the results obtained by a 1M pixel camera
with a good lens.

The 1690 Pro does actually give quite acceptable results, but does lack
ICE.

If you want decent results you really need a slide scanner and, if
the slides are old one, with integral Digital ICE

A friend recently bought a Epson Perfection 4870 Photo Scanner, which
has an optical resolution of 4800 X 9600 Dpi. More importantly it has a
DMax of 3.8 which matches and in some cases exceeeds that of the top end
Nikon film scanners. It also has ICE. This makes a decent job of 35mm
originals.

--
Cheers,

John.

Another solution to get slides into digital format is to re-photograph
them, with a suitable back-lighter, with a digital camera. However,
I do not know if such devices are available, although they were made
for pentaxes and similar SLR film cameras. Providing the camera has
close enough focus, it should be possible to make one. I recently had
some 4 by 3 inch glass plate negatives done this way, with good
results, although this with a Nikon digital camera. I also have an
Epson 1670 scanner, which came with a 35mm slide and neg. attachment,
good for the money - £80.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/