File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Can /p/ recommend a film scanner? It only needs to take 35mm film, no slides or anything.
>> Anonymous
Pro tip: slides are 35mm film.
>> Anonymous
>>246265
Hahah, whoops. I thought it meant those old slides you put in the projectors. My bad.
>> Anonymous
>>246266
You thought wrong.
>> Anonymous
Epson Perfection V500 has a reasonable price-quality ratio

I have the V350 but it stopped working. Be aware of Epson scanners: they stop working by surprise
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>246264
I use a Plustek OpticFilm 7200, works pretty well for personal use if used correctly. I would provide an example, but Ive been having trouble uploading pictures lately =[
>> Anonymous
>>246365
Please, post some sample when you'll be able to.
Those plustek scanners aren't Linux compatible (SANE)
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>246367
it's my newer scans I can't post for some reason, the candids I shot the other day. no clue why, but every time I attempt to I get "This page cannot be displayed." I thought maybe it was the change in settings, but I just attempted to reupload one that I was able to post once and still nothing =,(
>> Anonymous
>>246379
what a pity. I'm interested on the results. Could you upload some of them on an external photo sharing like fotodiario.com for example?
thank you!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>246381
well, here's a cropped segment from a snapshot I scanned, cropped to the focused area. It's pretty dusty and has some hair, but the scanner kept the sharpness of the film pretty well considering it was 400 ISO Kodak B&W CN. cropped from a resized scan at 7200 dpi (Full size is 10144 x 6774 pixels, ungodly large, resized to 2000 on the long edge)

(uploaded to imageshack because I'm lazy and /p/ sucks =/)

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8129/scancropgravestonekg7.jpg

Focus and sharpness could easily be better, chalk that up to user error and focusing problems with a misaligned 30 year old lens. =P
>> Anonymous
>>246379
I know a couple days ago for some reason I couldn't post images unless I had some kind of text with it, I had the same Cannot Be Displayed error whenever I tried posting without text. I would think the error's been fixed now but if you have been trying to post that could be a potential reason why it hasen't worked.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>246388
Its been happening for my scans alone mostly, still working on figuring out why. I think my digital stuff still posts fine (trying nao)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:07:14 01:56:45Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>246391
>>246387

scanner's sharpness is quite acceptable. Hair and spots are another history.
Thank you for the samples. This scanner seems to be a good deal, it's cheap.
Is it fast on scanning? My old Epson V350 plug to a iMac took over 10 minutes scanning a 6 frame strip.
Now it's fucking dead (like Refused are)
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>246410
scanning at 7200dpi takes like 5 minutes per frame, somewhat slow.
>> Anonymous
>>246411
I see, more or less it takes the same time. Mine were scanned in lower res.