Wiki: Slide digitizer
meow...@care2.com
NT
This simple gadget makes it easy to DIY digitize old slides &
negatives.
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Image:Slide_digitizer_1909-8.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/pzc5z2
==Making it==
===Camera platform===
No camera platform is needed, a mounting bolt (as used on tripods)
will ensure its always in the right place. The platform is offset to
one side so that when the camera sits in the middle of the platform
its correctly positioned. It was cut to fit the camera's feet, and
positioned so the lens would be in the centre of the board.
Check the [[screws]] are properly countersunk to avoid any bumps under
the camera. Since we're only screwing into thin board, a countersink
must be cut before inserting the screws.
===Slide holder===
The wire slide holder was made from 2mm [[iron wire]]. 1.6mm is rigid
enough, but 2mm was chosen to ensure it survives a degree of abuse
without damage. Thicker wire would make working it hard going.
Power up the camera, place it on the platform, and holding the slide
in one hand, move the slide until its position suits the camera. It
needs to almost fill the camera frame, and of course the camera must
be able to focus on it ok. When a satisfactory position is found, mark
where the slide needs to be on the baseboard, and drill a pilot hole
there in the centre for the screw.
Before making the slide holder, we need to determine at what height it
needs to hold the slide. Measure the height from baseboard to the
centre of the camera lens. This equals the height we want from
baseboard to the centre of the slide. Subtract half the slide height
and you've got the distance from baseboard to the bottom edge of the
slide.
Make the wire slide holder, starting at the bottom and working up. The
wires that support the bottom of the slide should be horizontal so
that any slight sideways movement of the slide doesn't make it rotate.
Put the slide into place after every bend you make, so you can correct
any misalignment before continuing. The main thing is to avoid bending
the wire that's already been bent, so a pair of long thin nose pliers
was used to hold the already bent wire still, while the new bends were
made just using hands. Finally a few scrapes of a file smoothed off
the cut wire. The wire work took about 5 minutes.
3D views of the slide holder to show how it works.
in use and empty.
===Negative holder===
You may want to add a separate negative holder placed as close as
possible to the slide holder, right behind it. Almost any computer
image manipulation program can turn negatives into positives. Check
the wire of the negative holder doesn't intrude on the slide's picture
area. Negatives aren't rigid, so ideally use more wire framing to
support the neg as fas as possible.
Another option is to use an empty slide frame as a negative carrier.
Minor modification of a plastic slide carrier allows negatives to be
slid through. This option was chosen for the model pictured.
===Camera mounting bolt===
- as used by tripods etc. I didn't fit one initially, and its not
essential. Adding one makes the digitizer usable while hand held. It
makes it a bit easier to use too.
A bolt fits through a hole drilled in the baseboard, and screws into
the base of the camera to hold it still. Fit a wingnut onto the bolt
and tighten it hard aginst the bolt head; now you can operate the
mounting bolt by hand. (There are various other ways to improvise this
of course.) The standard camera mounting bolt thread is 1/4"
whitworth.
With a [[bolt]] head sticking out the bottom the board will need feet
adding. These might be a strip of the baseboard cut off and [[glue]]d
on the underside at each end.
==Light==
Any light source used is very out of focus to the camera, and this
fact is used to eliminate marks and pixellation, common issues with ad-
hoc light sources. The baseboard is left long to ensure light sources
are always strongly defocussed.
This defocussing doesn't mean you can use an uneven light source, any
source used needs to present an even light field.
===sky===
The sky is the best ad-hoc light source. It provides plenty of light,
and plenty of blue content. The digitizer can sit flat on a table
outdoors looking at white card at a 45-ish degree angle. Direct sun
isn't needed.
===monitor===
A computer monitor displaying blank white (eg windows notepad) on max
brightness doesn't provide anywhere near enough light for a digital
camera to achieve decent shutter speed or ISO. Because the slide area
is so small, it must be strongly lit to make the camera happy.
===lamp===
A 100w lamp could be used to light white paper just inches from the
bulb. Ensure you don't end up with the paper on the bulb though. This
will never give as good quality as skylight, as the blue output of
domestic lighting is low.
==Macro lens==
Some sort of macro lens is required to enable focussing on the small
slide just inches away. There are 3 possible ways to do this:
===macro lens===
These are available for SLR style cameras. Changing the lens is not
practical for other camera types.
===extension tube===
This is a tube that goes between a standard lens and the camera body.
This changes the optical characteristics of the whole lens assembly,
enabling close up work. Again these can only be used with SLR cameras.
These are much cheaper than a macro lens, but less flexible.
===external lens element===
This option can be used with all types of camera. A single additional
lens element is placed as below, resting gently against the built in
camera lens. This enables the camera to focus on very close objects,
which is needed for a small slide to fill the frame.
___
| |
| |_
| _| |)
| |
|___|
cam lens
====Choosing a lens=====
A lens of +6D works with zoom equipped digital cameras. Cameras with
no zoom are more fussy about exact lens strength, and generally need a
stronger lens. For these the procedure below is advisable.
To determine the exact lens strength you need, power up the camera on
the baseboard, setting it to minimum aperture if possible. Move the
slide by hand until its image nearly fills the camera's frame - it
will be heavily out of focus, don't worry about that for now. Mark the
slide's position. Now, the lens you need will have a focal length of
approximately the distance from the slide to the camera. To convert
this to diopters:
* D = 1 / focal length in metres
When this doesn't precisely equal an available lens strength, pick the
next lower diopter value.
==Exposure==
The camera adjusts its exposure according to the amount of light and
dark in the slide picture. With automatic exposure adjustment this
often results in overexposure, losing picture detail. Part of the
cause is that with slides the ratio of average light level to peak
white in the picture is generally significantly lower than paper
photos, and digital cameras tend not to respond correctly to this. A
simple solution is to set the cam to use exposure bracketing. This way
each shutter press produces 3 pictures, with one lighter and one
darker than it judges best.
==See Also==
* [[Special:Allpages|Wiki Contents]]
* [[Special:Categories|Wiki Subject Categories]]
[[Category:Appliances]]
[[Category:Computing]]
[[Category:Projects]]
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember meow...@care2.com saying something
like:
>This simple gadget makes it easy to DIY digitize old slides &
>negatives.
>
>http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Image:Slide_digitizer_1909-8.jpg
>or
>http://tinyurl.com/pzc5z2
How about loss of contrast?
chudford
wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> like:
>
> >This simple gadget makes it easy to DIY digitize old slides &
> >negatives.
>
> >or
> >http://tinyurl.com/pzc5z2
>
I used a similar method to digitize some old black and white roll film
negatives.
I used a cardboard box with holes cut for the negative and the camera
lens.
The negative was taped to the box and the camera focussed on the
negative.
Shone daylight through the negative.
I then used adobe photoshop to make the picture positive and adjust
the contrast etc.
The results were fairly reasonable for photos taken over 50 years ago.
I invested in a slide scanner for my 35mm slides and negatives.
meow...@care2.com
Do you mean you think people need telling how to do basic operations
with graphics software? If so it strikes me as a bit outside the remit
of the page.
NT
geoff
<483453a4-5751-4a06...@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
meow...@care2.com writes
>another one to play with....
>
>
>NT
>
>
>
>This simple gadget makes it easy to DIY digitize old slides &
>negatives.
>
>http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Image:Slide_digitizer_1909-8.jpg
>or
>http://tinyurl.com/pzc5z2
>
I tried something like that ages ago
quality wasn't so good, not good contrast, and variable results due to
changes in ambient lighting
spent a few crinklies on a proper scanner - better job all round
--
geoff
Andy Champ
>
> spent a few crinklies on a proper scanner - better job all round
>
I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides (AKA
instamatic). The mount is standard 2x2, but the film is square,
narrower and higher than a 35mm. All the scanners I've seen crop the
image vertically.
Andy
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember meow...@care2.com saying something
like:
>> How about loss of contrast?
>
>Do you mean you think people need telling how to do basic operations
>with graphics software? If so it strikes me as a bit outside the remit
>of the page.
No, I mean your jury-rig is open to all the fecking light that's
bouncing around the room.
Chudford got exactly what I meant and immediately solved it.
Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:
>I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides (AKA
>instamatic). The mount is standard 2x2, but the film is square,
>narrower and higher than a 35mm. All the scanners I've seen crop the
>image vertically.
Any of the MF (120) capable scanners will handle that. Nearly any of the
35mm-only will too, if you manually crop instead of letting it auto.
Phil Addison
<no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides (AKA
> instamatic). The mount is standard 2x2, but the film is square,
> narrower and higher than a 35mm. All the scanners I've seen crop the
> image vertically.
I have an "Epson Perfection V200 Photo" 4800 dpi optical resolution
scanner which I use for 35mm B&W and colour films, and slides. It is
absolutly brilliant and can be had for �60. It takes a strip of 6 x 35mm
frames or 4 x 2"x2" mounted slides. I don't know for sure if it will do
your 126 slides but the width of the lamp illuminating the slides is
38mm, so there is a good chance it will scan most if not all their
height.
I bought it a year ago following first class reviews in Computer
Shopper, here
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/labs/178989/epson-perfection-v200-photo.html
and here
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/buyer-reviews/198150/epson-perfection-v200-photo.html
I do have a dedicated Minolta Dimage "medium fomat" film scanner for my
old 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" negs which will also take 35mm strips and single
(only) slides, but the V200 actually produces better results from 35mm
films and slides, and has much better control software too, and includes
a surprisingly accurate OCR package. Oh, and its a pretty good A4
flatbed scanner too, producing cracking copies of photo prints!
With that available at around �60, I can't see the mediocre results from
a DIY lash-up worthwhile, unles its just to prove you can do it
Phil
Phil Addison
<grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
>
> >I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides (AKA
> >instamatic). The mount is standard 2x2, but the film is square,
> >narrower and higher than a 35mm. All the scanners I've seen crop the
> >image vertically.
>
> Any of the MF (120) capable scanners will handle that.
> Nearly any of the 35mm-only will too, if you manually crop instead of
> letting it auto.
Auto crop detects the edges of the image where its cropped by the film
holder or slide mount, so its unlikely to differ from manual settings
unless you have an image with a very dark edge. The limitation is
firstly the availability of a 2x2 holder, and then having a sufficiently
wide light source behind it. In fllatbed transparency scanners there is
a light source in the lid to shine through the image. This light source
is never A4 size, but is a narrow strip just wide enough to cover the
specified film, typically the size of a strip of 4 or 6 35mm negs. As
mentioned above the V200 is a bit wider at 38mm, but whether it
illuminates evenly, or at all, beyong the 24mm widh of standard 2x2
slides I don't know.
Medium Format scanners will of course do the job, but are expensive.
Phil
Phil Addison
<no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:
If you only have a few of these, you might be able to fudge it by
offsetting the oversize film in a standard scanner, then making separate
top and bottom scans and joining them together with Photo Shop or Paint
Shop Pro.
Phil
Grimly Curmudgeon
<phi...@bigNOSPAMfoot.com> saying something like:
>Medium Format scanners will of course do the job, but are expensive.
Not any more, they're not.
My point still stands - preview scan and crop manually. The backlight in
the lid of a 35mm scanner will easily cover 126 - it's just 35mm film,
basically.
Jules
> geoff wrote:
>>
>> spent a few crinklies on a proper scanner - better job all round
>>
>
> I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides
In a related note, I gave up trying to find one that'd handle DEC
microfiche (something like 13 x 11 A4 pages crammed onto a fiche about 1"
x 1.5") - the resolution needed is enormous.
Bob Eager
Same here. I now have a fiche reader with printer, so (laboriously) I
can print pages and scan them - these are DEC microfiche...
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
Andy Champ
>
> Any of the MF (120) capable scanners will handle that. Nearly any of the
> 35mm-only will too, if you manually crop instead of letting it auto.
All the 35mm ones I've seen have a 35mm-shaped mask built into the slide
holder. Which ones do you know of that don't?
Thx
Andy
Andy Champ
>
> I have an "Epson Perfection V200 Photo" 4800 dpi optical resolution
> scanner which I use for 35mm B&W and colour films, and slides. It is
> absolutly brilliant and can be had for �60. It takes a strip of 6 x 35mm
> frames or 4 x 2"x2" mounted slides. I don't know for sure if it will do
> your 126 slides but the width of the lamp illuminating the slides is
> 38mm, so there is a good chance it will scan most if not all their
> height.
Seems to be out of production :( but that's interesting - I'd never seen
a flatbed that can do a decent job. If they've got good enough - and it
looks like it'll pull in about 10mp, which is plenty - if the optics are
adequate it would do the job. I'll see what reviews say about the V300.
Thanks
Andy
Owain
>>> I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides
>> In a related note, I gave up trying to find one that'd handle DEC
>> microfiche (something like 13 x 11 A4 pages crammed onto a fiche about 1"
>> x 1.5") - the resolution needed is enormous.
> Same here. I now have a fiche reader with printer, so (laboriously) I
> can print pages and scan them - these are DEC microfiche...
Scanning bureau can scan fiche to file, the more automatable the the
process is the cheaper it is.
Owain
Bob Eager
wrote:
But still expensive for several thousand! Only need a few - but don't
know until I need them, which ones...
dennis@home
"Phil Addison" <phi...@bigNOSPAMfoot.com> wrote in message
news:mg30159848dhe77c6...@4ax.com...
I have a scanjet 4890 that will do transparencies up to A4, it was ~ �100.
Its not the quickest thing in the world though.
It comes with holders for 5 strips of 6 35 mm, 16 slides, 4x3 and a few
others.
dennis@home
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.05.17...@remove.this.gmail.com...
My scanner does an optical resolution of 4800x4800 ppi.
I doubt if the film used to create the microfiche has a higher resolution.
It will show the grain on common films with ease.
There are scanners that will do 9600x9600 at a reasonable price.
Jules
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:32:41 UTC, Jules
> <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 15:49:37 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
>>
>> > geoff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> spent a few crinklies on a proper scanner - better job all round
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides
>>
>> In a related note, I gave up trying to find one that'd handle DEC
>> microfiche (something like 13 x 11 A4 pages crammed onto a fiche about 1"
>> x 1.5") - the resolution needed is enormous.
>
> Same here. I now have a fiche reader with printer, so (laboriously) I
> can print pages and scan them - these are DEC microfiche...
Not one-page-per-fiche, but the 13 x 11 ones? (or whatever they are -
I don't remember for sure)
Text tends to be difficult to read if scanned at less than around 150dpi,
so cramming 11 sheets' width into an inch of space really needs a minimum
of 150 * 8.2 * 11 = 13,500dpi scanner resolution (not accounting for the
gaps between sheets, and 8.2" being the width of an A4 sheet)
We did try sending a fiche off to a professional scanning place, and even
their equipment just wouldn't handle it - the results were just a blurry
mess :-(
Scanners do exist that should handle them OK, but they tend to cost
upwards of 20k...
cheers
Jules
meow...@care2.com
... which is trivially solved when post processing, if its indeed a
problem. IMLE of it so far, it hasnt been yet.
NT
meow...@care2.com
dot matrix printers produce so-so quality print at 72dpi. Microfiche
gives much better print quality, but lets say 72dpi would be just
usable to scan it with if scaled.
11x13 per frame means we need 720dpi, and the 8:1 scaling takes that
upto about half a million dots per inch. So I cant see a 9600 dpi
scanner having the remotest chance.
OTOH, as unlikely as it may sound... if you got the right lens my
primitive machine might do the resolution. Trying to point the camera
at the right image on each frame would be a hopeless task though.
NT
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
saying something like:
>Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
Take your pick of virtually any of the desktop film-capable ones of
recent years. Simply put your slides on the glass, do a preview scan and
crop to size. Actually, if you're manually cropping, the slide holder
could still be used.
I have an Epson 3490 which would do that and it's 35mm only. My 4490
medium format will do that no problem. Of the current Epson models, even
the basic V300 will do that.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember meow...@care2.com saying something
like:
>> No, I mean your jury-rig is open to all the fecking light that's
>> bouncing around the room.
>>
>> Chudford got exactly what I meant and immediately solved it.
>
>... which is trivially solved when post processing, if its indeed a
>problem. IMLE of it so far, it hasnt been yet.
You must be easily satisfied.
It's not trivial when you lose picture information you shouldn't be and
don't have to be.
Do you use a lens hood on your camera?
dennis@home
<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:52321a91-c19a-4ebe...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>> "Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.05.17...@remove.this.gmail.com...
>> > On Sat, 16 May 2009 15:49:37 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
>> >> geoff wrote:
>
>> >>> spent a few crinklies on a proper scanner - better job all round
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I'm still looking for a scanner that'll handle 126 slides
>> >
>> > In a related note, I gave up trying to find one that'd handle DEC
>> > microfiche (something like 13 x 11 A4 pages crammed onto a fiche about
>> > 1"
>> > x 1.5") - the resolution needed is enormous.
>>
>> My scanner does an optical resolution of 4800x4800 ppi.
>> I doubt if the film used to create the microfiche has a higher
>> resolution.
>> It will show the grain on common films with ease.
>> There are scanners that will do 9600x9600 at a reasonable price.
>
> dot matrix printers produce so-so quality print at 72dpi. Microfiche
> gives much better print quality, but lets say 72dpi would be just
> usable to scan it with if scaled.
> 11x13 per frame means we need 720dpi, and the 8:1 scaling takes that
> upto about half a million dots per inch. So I cant see a 9600 dpi
> scanner having the remotest chance.
The film doesn't resolve anywhere near half a million dots to the inch so
you have it wrong somewhere.
As I said the scanner will record the grain on the common films with ease.
I know they use ultra slow fine grain film but it isn't orders of magnitude
better, maybe two or three times better.
That may still push it beyond a 9600 scanner but not by much.
>
> OTOH, as unlikely as it may sound... if you got the right lens my
> primitive machine might do the resolution. Trying to point the camera
> at the right image on each frame would be a hopeless task though.
You need one of those �100 microscopes they had in lidl, they had a build in
camera so you could picture it in sections and stitch them together.
>
John Rumm
> Seems to be out of production :( but that's interesting - I'd never seen
> a flatbed that can do a decent job. If they've got good enough - and it
> looks like it'll pull in about 10mp, which is plenty - if the optics are
> adequate it would do the job. I'll see what reviews say about the V300.
My Epson 1680 pro flat bed can do quite a credible job of slides - I was
surprised just how good it was (and that is comparing it against a Nikon
LS-2000 dedicated film scanner).
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Andy Champ
>
> I have a scanjet 4890 that will do transparencies up to A4, it was ~ �100.
> Its not the quickest thing in the world though.
> It comes with holders for 5 strips of 6 35 mm, 16 slides, 4x3 and a few
> others.
>
HP Scanjet 4890
Price: �165.00
The HP Scanjet 4890 comes in an initially impressive desktop-eating form
factor.
Pros
Generous film scanning area
Cons
Disappointing scan quality; no hardware dust and scratch removal.
Andy
dennis@home
"Andy Champ" <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3t6dncoKOY1fJIzX...@eclipse.net.uk...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> I have a scanjet 4890 that will do transparencies up to A4, it was ~
>> �100.
>> Its not the quickest thing in the world though.
>> It comes with holders for 5 strips of 6 35 mm, 16 slides, 4x3 and a few
>> others.
>>
> First review I found says:
>
> HP Scanjet 4890
> Price: �165.00
I didn't pay anywhere near that.
I paid �122 IIRC.
Not as cheap as the sj 5590 I got for �45 from a Staples sale.
>
> The HP Scanjet 4890 comes in an initially impressive desktop-eating form
> factor.
It is rather large and appears to be real metal in places.
>
> Pros
> Generous film scanning area
>
> Cons
> Disappointing scan quality;
I would have to disagree.
> no hardware dust and scratch removal.
It does scratch removal if you select it.
It may or may not be in hardware, I never use it.
meow...@care2.com
Now that I've tried it each way, I'll change the article to your
suggestion. Both work but your method gives better saturation and more
consistent backgrounds.
NT
meow...@care2.com
but where?
> As I said the scanner will record the grain on the common films with ease.
> I know they use ultra slow fine grain film but it isn't orders of magnitude
> better, maybe two or three times better.
> That may still push it beyond a 9600 scanner but not by much.
show us your calculation then
> > OTOH, as unlikely as it may sound... if you got the right lens my
> > primitive machine might do the resolution. Trying to point the camera
> > at the right image on each frame would be a hopeless task though.
>
> You need one of those �100 microscopes they had in lidl, they had a build in
> camera so you could picture it in sections and stitch them together.
I gather its actually not that hard to make a very simple microscope
out of a camera. Something like 2 elements I think.
NT
dennis@home
<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:2463d2d9-a591-4a46...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Well 9600 dpi is ~370 ppmm.
So a 9600 dpi scanner can resolve ~185 lpmm.
Can you show me a microfiche film that can do better?
Put it another way..
if you shrink an A4 page down to 24x35 mm (approx) you get about 4400 x 6500
lines which will easily resolve 8 pt text IMO.
>> > OTOH, as unlikely as it may sound... if you got the right lens my
>> > primitive machine might do the resolution. Trying to point the camera
>> > at the right image on each frame would be a hopeless task though.
>>
>> You need one of those �100 microscopes they had in lidl, they had a build
>> in
>> camera so you could picture it in sections and stitch them together.
>
> I gather its actually not that hard to make a very simple microscope
> out of a camera. Something like 2 elements I think.
Its not hard to make a telescope out of two elements, however there is the
problem of colour aberration, spherical aberration, coma, etc.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember meow...@care2.com saying something
like:
>Now that I've tried it each way, I'll change the article to your
>suggestion. Both work but your method gives better saturation and more
>consistent backgrounds.
That's it exactly. My question about the lens hood was an illustration
of how much image quality is lost through an apparently trivial
omission. I never used to bother much with hoods, but now I do.
In your copier, the room light bouncing around definitely reduces
contrast, same as unwanted side light striking the front of a camera
lens outdoors. Fully enclosing the copier would work best, and still be
dead cheap.
meow...@care2.com
yeah, i assumed post processing would take care of it easily, but it
only partly does.
Fully enclosing would really interfere with slide changing though, and
a decade or 2 of slides takes long enough already.
NT
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember meow...@care2.com saying something
like:
>Fully enclosing would really interfere with slide changing though, and
>a decade or 2 of slides takes long enough already.
An upside down box, painted black inside, just placed over the space
between camera and slide holder. It'll certainly cut out nearly all the
room light.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<lisa.abe...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>BTW, I have started a blog about the woes and successes of 35mm slide
>scanner issues. Check it out. Please remember it's brand spankin'
>new, so it might take some time to build up significance.
>http://www.35mmslidespammerhelp.com
Oh yeah, and you wouldn't happen to be an affiliate of Scan Cafe now,
would you?
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember ohsogroovy
<lisa.abe...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>> Oh yeah, and you wouldn't happen to be an affiliate of Scan Cafe now,
>> would you?
>
>Ya, so? I still know a lot about scanning things. I've tried all
>kinds of methods, and I am still curious if anyone has tried those
>ZOOM camera attachment things before. Has anyone? Let me know if
>it's worth the money.
They work fine. Google 'ohner' as a make and you'll also find plenty on
ebay.