imported_Buzz Vinard

If not a scanner rental, how about resale on higher-end scanners?

If I can't rent a good film scanner, then I am wondering what I could expect to resell a slightly used Nikon Coolscan for.

I see the ones with Digital ICE built in for $600. If I could use it, then sell it used for $450, it might be worthwhile.

Anyone know what to expect in these type of peripheral resells?

Bob_Bo

Hey Buzz,

Best bet if you wanted to go that route would be to do a search on Ebay to check resale values.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but you might try a professional photo lab. They usually have decent scanning equipment and would probably fill your needs.

The only other option would be to have a chat with any colleges in your area that have a decent media program. You might find some cheap/free help there.

imported_Buzz Vinard

Good suggestions. I did look a bit into professional labs, but their prices tend to run about $10 per 24 roll exposure.

Doing a quick count of the negatives I'd want to scan came up with about 120 batches of 24 or 36 exposures. Assuming an average batch (roll) size of 30, that's about 3600 individual negative images. At 10$ per 24, that's about $1500, which is the cost of a Nikon Coolscan 8000. The 8000 is far beyond what I would need, so comparitively speaking, the 4000 at $600 is a much better deal, and pretty cost effective at about 16 cents per scan.

I also found that I could rent a 4000 for a week from a company out of state for $300 per week, plus shipping. But the sheer volume of negatives to scan adds up to about 40 hours of scanning time, plus loading, organizing, etc. So I'd need at least two weeks rental, which adds up to the same price as buying the damned thing.

If I can find one to borrow from a friend or aquaintance, then that would be the best route to go. Otherwise, I can either use the cheap Primefilm scanner that I already have, but with far lower resolution and no Digital ICE, or I can just break down and buy the thing.

I suppose that if I own it, even if I don't use it a lot, I could maybe do a little side work scanning negatives and slides. Or, if I sell it, the cost-effectiveness of buying it in the first place makes any selling price a good deal.

imported_Buzz Vinard

BTW, what resolution would I need for image archiving? I'd like to have the images in high enough quality to be acceptable for printing 8X10, and maybe a little room for zooming and cropping while still looking good.

DaveF

How about buying used, using it for a few weeks, and then re-selling it. Perhaps you would almost break even?

Mike_J_Potter

Try out a website such as pricewatch.com or something similar then compare the prices to the ones on ebay, on allot of things you can get better prices ordering it online then ebay. If the prices are similar, then you can turn around and auction it off and come close to breaking even or making a small profit. A

Mike Potter

Last 3 films watched
Natural Born Killers (DVD)
Duece Bigalow 2 (theater)
Forrest Gump (1080I)

Rob Gillespie

As high as you can get it.

I did all my 35mm neg scanning at true 2400dpi. I bought an Epson Perfection 2450 especially for the job and the scanning quality is stunning. It's flatbed but with a 35mm holder tray so it's probably not what youre after.

A 35mm neg scanned at 2400 will come in at around 3400 by 2300 (thereabouts) pixels which is fine for 8x10 and A4. Compare that to the 6mp Canon SLR digital cameras that produce 3072x2048 maximum.

Epson now do a true 4200dpi scanner which is only a bit more expensive than my 2450.

No longer here.

imported_Buzz Vinard

The Nikon Coolscan models that I would consider, the 4000 and the V, both do 4000dpi optical, plus the V has Digital ICE4, which includes ICE, ROC, GEM, and DEE. That should simplify the process greatly, being a one-touch scan and restore process.

The next question is how to store the pics. For my own archives, I could go with a large set of DVD-R discs, but for the ex, I'd probably want to limit it to one or two discs (about half the pictures are from our time together). Pros would go as high as necessary for accuracy and detail, but all I would really need would be enough accuracy in detail and color reproduction to possibly make a print and hang it on the wall, not for magazine work, or fine art. Besides, I was not shooting with an expensive camera to start with.

I guess I need to find the compromise. 4 DVD-R discs should yeald about 17,000 MB, if I am adding it up correctly. I could go as high as about 4.8 MB per image, limiting myself to four discs. Is that enough for a decent image? Is scanning at 4000dpi overkill if the finished image will only be 4.8MB? Would I be better off going with 8 discs, and increasing the file size to 9.6MB, or am I going to hit a point of diminishing returns? What format should I use to save the images?

Rob Gillespie

My 2400dpi scans are all saved in .bmp format are around 20-22mb in size each. Obviously .jpg or .png will reduce that considerably but .bmp I've found is the easiest to work with - it just loads and saves tons faster than the other formats because there's zero compression on it.

If you're really intent on keeping the file sizes low then scanning at 4000dpi will be a waste of time and money.

In my mind an archive copy should be free of compression, resizing or any other compromising factors. All of my scanned 35mm images (admittedly not nearly as many as you're talking about) are saved as multiple copies - the raw scan, the adjusted and cleaned up version and then the final print version. Hard drive space is now so cheap I just buy another if space gets tight. It really depends how important the pictures are to you.

No longer here.

imported_Buzz Vinard

By and large, they have not been important enough to sort through and organize into albums. I did do a family picture wall project last year, for which I scanned selected prints on my flatbed, desaturated into greyscale, printed, and hung in clip frames. I would likely do more if I had all of the pictures in digital format, which makes the minimum acceptable resolution for printing look more attractive than the disorganized box I have.

I probably wouldn't even be doing this yet, if it weren't for the fact that I have to divide these up. Probably the best thing to do right now is to reorganize the negatives into chronological order, put the displaced negative strips from enlargement back where they belong, and give the ex the prints. Then, I can do as I please with the negatives at my leisure. Economically, this would make more sense than buying an expensive scanner, and should I need a print of something, I do have a lower-end scanner and Corel 11 that can at least give me an acceptable, if time-consuming print.