Q: good flatbed scanner for photos? (USB, Win XP)

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Mad Scientist Jr, Dec 13, 2005.

  1. I am looking for a good USB or USB2 flatbed scanner under $150 ($200
    max) range that works with Win Xp, with solid tech support. This would
    be mainly used for 35mm photos, slides, and negatives. I also have some
    other format prints/slides/negatives (110, medium format, 8x10 etc).
    Any recommendations?
    Mad Scientist Jr, Dec 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mad Scientist Jr

    DigitalPlay Guest

    If unable to find a scanner let Digital Play Media make life a little
    easier. Check out our photos on CD section. We specialize in photo
    preservation and on a CD your pictures will last at least 100 years.
    Visit the Digial Play Media site today! www.digitalplaymedia.com
    DigitalPlay, Dec 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mad Scientist Jr

    timeOday Guest

    Not sure what to make of that. It's advertising, yet targeted and
    appropriate to the topic instead of blanketing all of usenet. Is it
    still spam or not?

    I have been debating this same issue, since my dad and grandad have a
    huge number of slides I never get to see, but I don't feel like
    investing in a scanner just for particular job and let it gather dust.
    On the other hand, the idea of sending all those slides through the mail
    to a stranger gives me the heebie-jeebies. So instead I procrastinate.

    What I really need is a rich friend to buy a nice scanner and let me use
    it :)
    timeOday, Dec 13, 2005
  4. Mad Scientist Jr

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    I recently bought a Canon 8400F, which can deal with 35mm negs, slides,
    and 120 rollfilm. Most any sub-$300 scanner will be pretty much the same
    as any other.

    I considered buying a dedicated film scanner, but decided to get the
    cheapest flatbed I could live with, and if I needed top-notch scanning
    done, I could find a local vendor to help me out. I'm really only
    scanning for the web anyway.
    Paul Mitchum, Dec 13, 2005
  5. Per Mad Scientist Jr:
    Most of 'em are probably good, but what I like about the CanoScan LIDE 500F I
    got some months ago is that it gets it's power from the USB connection and is
    *really* thin - as in as thin as a high-end notebook.

    Makes it very easy to carry from home to work and back... Has some sort of
    addon for film, but having a NikonScan 4000 for that I've never tried it.
    (PeteCresswell), Dec 13, 2005
  6. Mad Scientist Jr

    Jeff Guest

    I have been happy with my Epson scanner 3170. Got a good price at Epson
    refurbished store:

    You probably want to get a USB 2.0 card if your computer isn't new enough to
    have the higher speed interface. Makes scan transfers faster and more or
    less a must for whole disk backups to an external drive.
    Jeff, Dec 14, 2005
  7. Mad Scientist Jr

    theo Guest

    Do you feel lucky punk... oops... MSJ?
    Several current and recent legacy flatbeds with good resolutions and DMax
    and light lids available for 135 format negs strips and mounted slides,
    and for snapshot size prints (<=4x6) ADFs [when they work without my
    hovering attendance, they're wonderful!]. But NOBODY new in your low end
    price limit.
    Let me tell you about the Epson 2480LE (basic flatbed $100, settop ADF
    $100]) and its film adapter templates/frames/units (hereinafter FAU [I'm
    not a member of any state Bar and I feel the insult when derided as a
    lawyer, but I do talk like one too often in the wrong venues.]) . For a
    few dollars more [egregious promo for early Eastwood] online, get a couple
    of the FAUs. GROW YOUR OWN FILM TEMPLATES. With careful measuring and
    tedious slicing of boxcutter blade and smelly stroking with X-acto blade
    in heat pencil (look in local crafting/scrapbooking store) on plastic,
    expand the 135 size squares to accommodate your 120/828/127/126/??? format
    negs or diapos. HOWSOMEVER, nobody I've read in these related newsgroup
    postings has considered the 110 format worth capturing. For that format,
    how lucky or adventurous do you feel?
    I'm still working with my geneology's 100+ years' archives starting with
    tintypes, progressing thru various archiac print ratios, cropping the
    above and more yet uncategoriable formats of negs and diapos. At least my
    sisters are still here to answer when I yell "WTF, Over?" because I
    wasn't at their imaged event.

    I also have some other format prints/slides/negatives (110, medium format,
    8x10 etc). Any recommendations?
    theo, Dec 14, 2005
  8. Mad Scientist Jr

    - Guest

    If you are mainly going to do 35 mm, in the long run I think you will be
    most happy if save up a tad bit more and look at a Minolta Dual Scan IV
    dedicated film scanner. They are only $212 at newegg.com (reputable

    -, Dec 14, 2005
  9. Mad Scientist Jr

    Malcolm Guest

    Take a look at this to see what I did:

    Might just suit your needs. Copying slides is very fast.

    Malcolm, Dec 14, 2005
  10. Mad Scientist Jr

    cjcampbell Guest

    Anything over 1800 dpi is a waste of money. Other than that, all of the
    flatbed scanners work pretty much the same way.
    cjcampbell, Dec 14, 2005
  11. Mad Scientist Jr

    timeOday Guest

    Interesting. I wonder how the results compare to simply running a
    normal slide show and photographing the screen. That way you could use
    a mild telephoto to reduce distortion and dust visibility. Set the
    camera to snap a shot every couple of seconds, then just sit there and
    push the "advance" button on the projector.
    timeOday, Dec 14, 2005
  12. Mad Scientist Jr

    Malcolm Guest

    Interesting. I wonder how the results compare to simply running a
    I haven't tried photographing a screen, but my gut feel tells me that this
    method is far superior. Photograhing a screen would get rid of the barrel
    distortion, though.

    Malcolm, Dec 14, 2005
  13. Mad Scientist Jr

    Peter D Guest

    It's not "Spam" by any appropriate definition -- "Spam" tends to be thrown
    at messages/messengers as a reflexive response to "what I don't want to see
    here" (not suggesting that includes you). I've heard the label leveled at
    all non-private commercial posts, all commercial posts regardless of the
    poster's business or other interests, and not at helpful posts posted by
    commercial entities.

    I think the best way to distinguish between an appropriate posting and the
    pink stuff is to look at the _content_ not the poster -- after all
    _messages_, not people/entities are "Spam" -- they are "spammers" -- or
    "scum of the earth", your choice. :).

    It's not off-topic content*, nor is it cross-posted to off-topic groups.
    Unless the charter for this group specifically prohibits all non-private
    commercial postings, all commercial postings, or something in between, it's
    not Spam. I cannot find the original charter (if there ever was one) for
    "comp.periphs.scanners" (where I'm reading/posting) and in the absence of
    such a charter and a clear statement regarding permitted content, I'd have
    to let it pass. Other groups in the cross-post list may have charters
    forbidding the content. If so, it's Spam there and not here.

    *As an interesting aside, if a long off-topic discussion results from your
    comment, your post may well be considered "Spam".

    All that said, I think it's a possible solution to all the "I need to find a
    scanner to scan my slides, negs, etc." posts (including mine). I'd like to
    hear form them. they can reach me at scanners at dolman period ca -- ca, not
    com. Hopefully it wasn't a drive-by automated posting and a human is indeed
    monitoring responses (I'll let you know if I hear from them).
    Peter D, Dec 14, 2005
  14. Mad Scientist Jr

    Paul Furman Guest

    I tried, it does not work well. For one thing you get reflection & a hot
    spot in the middle, and the contrast is ruined.
    Paul Furman, Dec 14, 2005
  15. Mad Scientist Jr

    Djon Guest

    I use a Nikon V for 35mm...it's exceptionally good and the Ice/infared
    is very important for color films.

    If you're only concerned with silver B&W (Vs C41 B&W) I'd suggest the
    Minolta IV, which lacks Ice.

    Ice/infared is a great time saver, dustwise.

    For medium/ format I use a vintage Epson 3200 flatbed with "Doug's"
    antinewton glass carrier...it records more detail than 35mm with my
    film only scanner...but would be massively sharper with an enlarger.
    Whereas the Nikon is "grain sharp," the Epson is not..but on 6X9 film
    there's plenty of info without worrying about grain. And with these
    bigger negs the need for Ice is reduced because magnification factors
    are smaller.

    In other words, this good flatbed isn't as incredible as a film only
    scanner, but it's as good as an enlarger up to at least 11X14 with
    medium format (whereas the Nikon V is better than a fine condenser
    enlarger in sharpness/color/even-ness to my own printing maximum ,
    which is 12X18" on 13X19.
    Djon, Dec 15, 2005
  16. Mad Scientist Jr

    Kate Guest

    ------------ bullshit snipped------------

    For the price he'd pay you guys to convert his media, he can probably buy 5
    top of the line scanners ;)
    Kate, Dec 15, 2005
  17. Mad Scientist Jr

    jjs777_fzr Guest

    yeah what theo said....

    I have the epson 2480LE and paid a unbelievable low price when epson was
    doing a promo rebate. Paid liek $60 after the rebate....
    this thing came with two lids - one of which does the autofeed for up to 4x6

    and yeah it does slides-positives/negatives etc

    and its fast
    jjs777_fzr, Dec 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.