Batch slide scanning speed? - Nikon 5000ED (w SF210) vs Epson V700/V750

[Mark Schretlen]

It looks to me like an overwhelming majority favor the DSLR/slidedupe route for this task. While I cannot fault the wisdom of this conclusion, I can see merit with all of the methods. While the flatbed may be the most time consuming for batch slide scanning, its allure for me is the potential for the batching of color negatives along with the bonus of larger format scanning. Even though I am satisfied with my one-at-a-time SprintScan 35+, I have been convinced for a number of years now that I would see an advantage to scanning my 35mm analogue stuff with a coolscan 5000 (or similar). The possibility of this option becoming scarce is somewhat of a motivation for me. The incremental cost of adding a SF210 batch feeder would be less than the cost of an Epson V7xx (but not by much). According to those with experience, I may be disappointed with the "unattended" operation of the 5000/SF210 combo (this does bother me).

I am going to try out the DSLR/slidedupe method for a little while, but I also think I am going to give very strong consideration to the 5000/SF210 while doing so and I may just "bite-the-bullet" and get it (with Ebaying of the SF210 if I find it too jam-happy).

I get the impression that more than a few people are interested in the batch-scan question. I really will try and post a follow-up in this thread a few months down the road. Does Rangefinderforum lock ancient threads?

 

[amateriat]

The dSLR idea has a bit of merit, but it's also an additional step between the slide and computer, compared to a film or (good) flatbed scanner

I have a sizable slide archive as well, and without the benefit of a stack loader (I have a Minolta DS 5400). What I do have is several film holders (both slide and neg), which allow me to load up several at once. Once the scanner signals to me that's it's gone through a holder's worth of scans and ejects the holder, I just pull the holder of scanned film out of the scanner, replace it with another holder of film waiting to be scanned, give one mouse-click, then get back to whatever it was I was doing. That's good for four (slide) or six (negative strip) frames at a go. And they're in the computer once the scan's done.

Merely a thought.


- Barrett

 

[dfoo]

... While I thought I was clear from the outset that I was not intending to scan my kodachromes at 4000ppi with 48bit depth, several posters fear that that is what I am attempting.
...

The native resolution of the CS5000 is 4000DPI. That means if you scan at less than that it is no faster (unlike the flatbeds) and you are basically throwing out much of the data 🙂

 

[Mark Schretlen]

The native resolution of the CS5000 is 4000DPI. That means if you scan at less than that it is no faster (unlike the flatbeds) and you are basically throwing out much of the data 🙂

I didn't know that.

On my Sprintscan 35+ (almost 14 yr old technology) a 2700 ppi scan takes about 50 seconds; a 1350 ppi scan takes about 15 seconds. Prescans (I would guess 300 ppi) take about 5 seconds.

I had made the (incorrect) assumption that the 5000 would behave similarly with respect to reduced scan times when ppi demands are reduced. That changes things considerably. If I persist with the 5000/SF210, and not "throw away data", it would mean that I would have to add a 1Tb drive for sure.

I timed myself scanning a box of slides (~30) yesterday with the SprintScan 35+ at 1350 ppi and found that I could do it in about 20 minutes without being too frantic about it. If I add about 10 to 15 minutes for physical sorting and file management, I could probably scan 50 or 60 slides per hour with the SprintScan - it would be "mind-numbing" (as it was phrased so eloquently earlier) to do this for 20,000 slides.

 

[amateriat]

Mark: One question, which I think we've all overlooked: are you going to edit this stuff via lightbox-n-loupe or projector, or just put 'em in the scanning hopper and let 'er rip?

Thankfully, I don't have 20,000 slides to get through (probably closer to 5-8000, which is quite enough), but there's always editing/purging going on, and the number of slides making the final cut will come in at a much lower number as a result.

Also just remembered: my tabloid-size UMAX PowerLook 2100XL has a 32-slide holder, and the software to automate individual scanning of each one. Only thing is that the UMAX software I have is rather out of date (Mac OS 9), and only recently have UMAX bothered to offer an OS X version, which I ordered several weeks ago, but haven't gotten any word about since. Once that's done, i can literally crunch a roll at a time, which is great for quick, better-than-thumbnail evaluation.

At the moment, I'm busy catching up with scanning negs I've only shot recently!


- Barrett

 

[Mark Schretlen]

8,000 Eh? Are you sure you can't whittle that down to 4,000. Perhaps if you were really ruthless you could take those 4,000 down to 500. Why not just go for excellence only and take those 500 down to 10. Yep, I bet you could scan that in an evening. If you really want to save time, you could just throw them all into the dumpster. Liberate yourself, do it!

OK, ignore that. I'm being facetious.

In what little of my kodachrome library that I have revisited - all remain in excellent shape with vivid colour even though some are close to 35 years old. They span over 25 years and they went through some early culls. Just to put things into perspective - that is less than 1000 per year.

To answer your question. Yes - I am doing no further editing. I plan to scan them all.

 

[amateriat]

Mark: Indeed, at least half of my slide archive is essentially unedited. Of the remaining half, about half of that needs a going-over with a more critical eye. The rest if more-or-less organized, with a certain amount of it already scanned.

Good luck with the project, and hope this thread has helped at least a little!


- Barrett

 

[Mark Schretlen]

Good luck with the project, and hope this thread has helped at least a little!

Thanks Barrett. It has. Prior to this discussion I had not even considered using the old slide dupe method with a DSLR. After searching the web a bit, it seems to be a popular alternative to batch scanning. Wayne Fulton, who has the long respected www.scantips.com site, tried the slide duplication alternative a few years ago and wrote about his experience: http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html

 

[borrel]

After having pushed the DSLR/slideduplicator, I'm wondering if anyone has tried this:

(http://www.braun-phototechnik.de/E/Products/scanner/scanner4000.html)

The price is steep, especially compared to my Nikon PB-4 duplicator, but it does seem to work unattended.

- Børre