Slide to digital conversion

Keith Nuttle

unread,

Jun 13, 2009, 9:15:55 PM6/13/09

to

I saw this advertised on the web.

Iona Sliders And Negative Converter
"Iona Sliders And Negative Cnvrtr To PC OR iPod NIC
35mm Photo Negative and Slide Converter to PCTranfers 35mm negatives and
slides to PC or notebook quickly and easilyTurntable has 2 ports for
converting nearly simultaneously from record, through computer, into any
iPod?Print, edit or archive photo collection with quick and easy
scanning software5MP hi-res full-color scanning with 1-touch instant
scanUSB 2.0 connection and USB 2.0 portFixed focus range and auto
exposure/color balance with high-quality 4 glass optical elementIncludes
USB connection and software "

and was attracted by the price.

Has anyone had any experience with this or similar type of slide to
digital system?

nospam

unread,

Jun 13, 2009, 9:23:59 PM6/13/09

to

In article <h11j0m$bkh$1...@aioe.org>, Keith Nuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Has anyone had any experience with this or similar type of slide to
> digital system?

you get what you pay for. the results are probably ok for web pages
but that's about it.

ray

unread,

Jun 13, 2009, 10:37:57 PM6/13/09

to

You can get a decent flatbed scanner with slide/negative capability for
around $100.

Doug Jewell

unread,

Jun 14, 2009, 4:17:46 AM6/14/09

to

But it is unlikely to give a significantly better job than
the thing the OP is talking about. I have a midrange Epson
flatbed and it is barely capable of pulling 1MP of detail
out of a slide or neg. The main problem it suffers is that
it can't focus on the film plane. Because of this it can't
possibly get a good sharp image from the film, and the
24800dpi that it has is just pissing in the wind.

--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!

Doug Jewell

unread,

Jun 14, 2009, 4:30:18 AM6/14/09

to

grrr... typo... it is 4800dpi, not 24800dpi. I figure the
actual resolution it achieves to be closer to about 1200dpi.
I haven't been able to notice any appreciable change between
1200dpi scans and 4800dpi scans except a big jump in file
size and much slower to scan.

ray

unread,

Jun 14, 2009, 10:53:53 AM6/14/09

to

What you need to be looking at is the physical resolution rather than the
'interpolated' resolution. BTW - I have a couple of Epson scanners
(latter one I got for medium format) which seem to deliver quite
acceptable results. Depends on what you really need. I'm sure a $4000
dedicated film scanner would do better, but most folks don't really
require that level.

nospam

unread,

Jun 14, 2009, 11:12:15 AM6/14/09

to

In article <79kh80F...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
wrote:

> What you need to be looking at is the physical resolution rather than the
> 'interpolated' resolution. BTW - I have a couple of Epson scanners
> (latter one I got for medium format) which seem to deliver quite
> acceptable results. Depends on what you really need. I'm sure a $4000
> dedicated film scanner would do better, but most folks don't really
> require that level.

one need not spend anywhere near that much for decent quality.

ray

unread,

Jun 14, 2009, 3:00:19 PM6/14/09

to

Exactly. I get 'decent' quality from my $100 unit.

Doug Jewell

unread,

Jun 15, 2009, 7:25:58 AM6/15/09

to

My scanner is 4800DPI optical resolution, with interpolated
resolution up to 12800DPI. The problem isn't the scan
resolution, the problem is that it can't focus correctly. A
standard Fuji Frontier scan (1200x1800pixels from 24x36mm so
it is scanning at 1270dpi) holds significantly more detail
than the Epson can produce at 4800dpi.

The frontier can also produce a higher detail scan which is
2240x3360 pixels, which works out at 2370dpi. This is
significantly better again, and blows the Epson's 4800dpi
out of the water. Unfortunately, these scans take ages to do
so few labs are prepared to do them at all, and those that
do charge a fortune for them.

> (latter one I got for medium format) which seem to deliver quite
> acceptable results. Depends on what you really need. I'm sure a $4000
> dedicated film scanner would do better, but most folks don't really
> require that level.

I would like to be able to print decent 8x10's which is
almost achievable from a standard resolution frontier scan.
Prints made from an epson scan are soft at 6x4. I've had
better results scanning prints than scanning negs/slides
with the Epson.

I know it is a focus problem, because by not using the film
holder and putting the film directly against the glass, I do
get sharper scans. Unfortunately I also get a Newton's rings
by doing that so the overall quality is still poor.
I have also considered the possibility that my unit is
faulty, but when I bought it I was so disappointed by the
resolution that I returned it for another. The replacement
was worse so I took it back and got my original unit.

John Turco

unread,

Jun 18, 2009, 12:14:16 AM6/18/09

to

Hello, Keith:

A few months ago, I bought a VuPoint Solutions "21c Film And Slide Digital
Converter" (model WM-FC-VR), at a local Wal-Mart. It had been marked down
to $40 USD (from $80), so, I decided to grab it.

(The "Iona" and kindred devices, of different brand names, are essentially
identical to the 21c.)

It was a clear case of one's getting what he paid for, alas. The 21c is
a tiny, 5 megapixel camera, which takes snapshots of 35mm negatives and
slides; it's not an actual scanner. My results would've been perfectly
adequate, for posting on the Web, but...of dubious value, otherwise.

After obtaining a used, refurbished Hewlett-Packard "ScanJet G4050"
flatbed, via eBay ($85), I returned the 21c, for a full refund.

Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>