14.0620 film scanners (with addenda on dreaming)

From: by way of Willard McCarty (willard@lists.village.Virginia.EDU)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2001 - 06:57:02 EST

  • Next message: by way of Willard McCarty: "14.0621 e-bouncer vs e-dictator"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 620.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London

       [1] From: Andrew Hawke <ach@aber.ac.uk> (35)
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

       [2] From: Hartmut Krech <kr538@uni-bremen.de> (64)
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

       [3] From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com> (5)
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

       [4] From: Marc Wilhelm =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= (20)
             Subject: Film scanners

       [5] From: kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft) (7)
             Subject: Willard's smoking habits

       [6] From: "Francois Crompton-Roberts" <F.Crompton- (5)
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

             Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:40:25 +0000
             From: Andrew Hawke <ach@aber.ac.uk>
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

    Dear Willard,

    [material deleted].... I had a similar problem recently, and did some
    research. There seem to be two 'budget' flat-bed scanners on the market
    which have received excellent reviews and which both have 'tranny adaptors'
    to scan slides, film, negetive/positive, &c. I needed something to scan
    slides for a website, and also to scan 35mm microfilm of some books and MSS.

    The two are:

    AcerScan 640UT (USB only)
    600 x 1200 x 48 bit
    Available from www.dabs.com at:
    GBP 109 (128.07 inc. VAT)

    Epson Perfection 1240UT Photo (also USB only)
    (the 'Photo' is important - the straight 1240UT has no tranny adaptor as
    1200 x 2400 x 42 bit
    Available from www.dabs.com at:
    GBP 172 (202.10 inc. VAT)

    I chose the former, purely on price, although the Epson received the better
    review (hardly surprising in view of the superior resolution). I have
    subsequently used it for scanning slides, where it has performed perfectly
    adequately for my purposes, although I have yet to try scanning the
    microfilm (slightly complicated by the fact that it is mounted on aperture

    If you have 200 to spend, I would go for the Epson.

    I hope that this is of some use - good luck with the project.

    Best wishes,


    Andrew Hawke ach@aber.ac.uk (01970)627513 (+44)1970 627513 (fx627066)
    Golygydd Cynorthwyol/Rheolwr Systemau Asst. Editor/Systems Manager
    Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru University of Wales Dictionary
    Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru National Library of Wales
                     Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3HH, U.K.
                     URL: http://www.cymru.ac.uk/geiriadur/

             Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:41:12 +0000
             From: Hartmut Krech <kr538@uni-bremen.de>
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

    Dear Willard,

    if you define microfilm as 35mm film, then the Hewlett-Packard SmartScan
    S20 slide scanner is an economic choice of high quality. It will take
    either single negative or slide frames (mounted or unmounted) or negative
    or slide films of upto six frames length. The image resolution can be set
    to upto 2400 dpi optically and both colour and black-and-white films will
    be inversed to positive images automatically by the software included in
    the package.

    Of course, professional digitizers will frown at this point. Is it a wise
    and economic solution to cut whole film rolls into pieces of six frames
    length ? It takes measurable time to cut and insert the film strips and
    reassemble the pieces for later storage. Also, the scanner that I could
    afford to buy is rather capricious and arbitrary in accepting or rejecting
    slides and films at first try.

    As to imaging software: Small programs like Paint Shop Pro implement just
    those functions that I need frequently without having to work myself
    through many options. A batch mode is useful for images of same quality.

    But again: This is only a home solution and not suited for bulk loads of work.

    Sincerely yours,
    Hartmut Krech

    meOme Portal History of Sciences
    meOme Portal Cultural Anthropology

    "Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty )" schrieb:
    > Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 619.
    > Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London

    > <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
    > Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:57:58 +0000
    > From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
    > >
    >Thanks to Josephine Tarvers (Winthrop) and Emily Rose (Princeton) for
    >responses on my question about film scanners. Dr Tarvers recommended the
    >Polaroid SprintScan, which I find is well regarded -- but far too expensive
    >for our out-of-our-own-pockets budget, ca. US$2000. We do not want to spend
    >any more than 200 pounds sterling, i.e. ca US$160 -- but I am prepared to
    >be told I've been smoking too much of the stuff that dreams are made on.
    >She also recommends PhotoShop for touching up afterwards &c. Indeed,
    >PhotoShop is a beautiful piece of work, a gem and my treasured companion
    >when playing with images. If only all software could be as well made.
    >Dr Rose asks why we don't simply rephotograph the mss. Ideal, to be sure,
    >but these are scattered through various European libraries, who do not
    >easily hand over their treasures for such purposes; travelling to them,
    >staying for the requisite amount of time, arranging for the equipment or
    >photographer to do the work -- such expenses would make the Polaroid
    >hardware seem a trivial expense indeed. Should we be properly funded to do
    >the work, then, yes, rephotographing them seems certainly the way to go.
    >Meanwhile the microfilms can be purchased with available funds, scanned
    >somehow and the images used both to build a good prototype and to do
    >further scholarly work of the oldfashioned kind.
    >So, forgive me for asking again: is the Agfa e50 worth the price? Are there
    >any decent film scanners for under 200 pounds sterling? Should I smoke
    >something new?
    >Dr Willard McCarty / Senior Lecturer /
    >Centre for Computing in the Humanities / King's College London /
    >Strand / London WC2R 2LS / U.K. /
    >+44 (0)20 7848-2784 / ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/

             Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:41:39 +0000
             From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com>
             Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

    Willard, the current (newsstand) issue of the American journal _Popular
    Photography_ has a feature article on film scanners, including a
    description of their better points, price (list), _perhaps_ also price
    "on the street", etc.

    The new issue may be hitting the stands as I write -- best to look in a
    library if the ones near you carry the journal.

             Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:42:09 +0000
             From: Marc Wilhelm =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?=
             Subject: Film scanners

    Dear Mr. McCarty,

    In a similar situation -- having to scan ten microfilm reels from a
    literally out of my own pocket budget -- it turned out to be the best
    deal to have them scanned by a professional microfilm service provider who
    has specialized equipment for the task. Within a short time they delivered
    the tif-images (one for each picture and in black and white in my case) on

    I don't offhand have the price available, but if memory serves me right it
    was about DEM 0.20-0.30 (ca. UKP 0.08) per picture. If this is of any
    interest, it's easy to check.

            Best regards,

                    Marc Kster

    Marc Wilhelm Kuester

    Computing Centre of the University of Tuebingen
    Dept. Literary and Documentary Data Processing
    Waechterstr. 76
    D-72074 Tuebingen

    Tel.: +49 / 7071 / 29-70348
    Fax: +49 / 7071 / 29-5912
    EMail: marc.kuester@zdv.uni-tuebingen.de

             Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:42:56 +0000
             From: kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft)
             Subject: Willard's smoking habits

    So 200 pounds is now worth about $160 !! I'll buy some of that for my
    little used Lloyds account! Beats playing the stock market.


    Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
    227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827

    --[6]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:43:26 +0000 From: "Francois Crompton-Roberts" <F.Crompton-Roberts@qmw.ac.uk> Subject: Re: 14.0619 film scanners continued

    Only a minor point but I think you have divided instead of multiplied. 200 is at today's exchange rate $290 (although one would not believe it if you compare prices here and across the Atlantic!) which perhaps makes you a little less of a dreamer...


    Franois C-R

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 07:01:00 EST