RE: Re: [OT} Scanning 35mm negatives?

["Phil Harris" <phil@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a SCSI one floating about with someone on the list but god knows who
...

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of noel_pilot
> Sent: 30 December 2007 11:13
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: [OT} Scanning 35mm negatives?
>=20
> Or....seeing as it's only 10 or 20 films see if one of the friendly
> HA'ers on here with suitable scanners might consider doing it for beer
> tokens or something equally valuable that you have that they might
> want?!
>=20
> ...N.B. Said with no knowledge of how long film scanning takes!!! :)
>=20
>=20
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Ho Yin Ng"
<architect.hoyin@...> wrote:
> >
> > Why not just buy a second hand film scanner?
> >
> > If you still have SCSI you can get a real bargain. Now a days
> everyone wants
> > USB and most kids don't even know what SCSI is! I have a Canoscan
> FS2710
> > which I got years ago and cost me an arm and a leg. But it still
> does good
> > scans and definitely better than your flatbed scanner with
attachment
> > jobbie.
> >
> > Have a search on ebay and see if you can find something within
your
> budget.
> >
> > Ho Yin
> >
> > On 29/12/2007, Jim <jim@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >   I went through the process of investigating scanners about
12
> months
> > > ago,
> > > looking at 200+ films I wanted to digitise.
> > >
> > > Bureau scanning was out the question on cost grounds so I
ended up
> getting
> > > a
> > > Nikon 5000 dedicated scanner. Certainly not cheap (IIRC
about
> =A3600) but
> > > the
> > > results are stunning and well worth the money.
> > >
> > > If you only have 10-20 films, on a pound-for-quality basis,
I'd
> have them
> > > done professionally. No scanner for =A3160 is going to give
you
> anywhere
> > > near
> > > the standard you will get from a scanning company. All
companies I
> looked
> > > at
> > > had different prices for different scan resolutions, which
equates
> to time
> > > on their part as it takes longer at the higher quality. What
you
> need will
> > > come down to your intended use.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
> > > ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
Of
> > > Ian Lowe
> > > Sent: 29 December 2007 17:25
> > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [ukha_d] [OT} Scanning 35mm negatives?
> > >
> > > Just before christmas we got lucky and found a set of the
sample
> shots of
> > > our wedding photos - just the prints, no negatives... but
still
> good as we
> > > had no photos of our wedding otherwise!
> > >
> > > The local "agfa photo centre" in Hamilton managed
to work bloody
> wonders
> > > with them - giving us a proper set of digital images from
the
> prints.
> > >
> > > Basically, our lives before the digital photography age
might as
> well have
> > > never existed - whilst we have a wee sidebar gadget in vista
which
> > > randomly
> > > pops up photos from the Gallery, and a photo screensaver on
the
> kitchen PC
> > > which does the same, the "pre-digital"
> > > era photos live in the loft.
> > >
> > > soo...
> > >
> > > I'm in the market now for a scanner which can handle 35mm
> negatives amd
> > > let
> > > me get these old shots into a more useful (copyable, backed
up,
> editable
> > > and
> > > so on) format.
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced about dedicated scanners, and my budget
for this
> is not
> > > huge - at the back of my head, I know that I can get this
done for
> about
> > > =A38
> > > a spool, and I have maybe ten or twenty films to get done..
> > >
> > > advice? suggested models? bad idea?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20