Scanning 8x10 Transparencies

[jccalvin]

Hi:

My problem is as follows. The original images were 3'x4' colored maps with very high detail including lots of little towns and rivers and symbols. The originals were transferred to 8"x10" positive transparencies. I don't know the technology but it was apparently quite difficult and performed at the National Archives. I have to scan hundreds of these transparencies during a five day visit to the Archives. Based on past experiences, in order to capture all the detail I have to scan at a minimum of 1800DPI and the scan time for each image can not exceed five minutes. The size of the image file is not an issue. I would appreciate any suggestions.

Regards,

John

[D. Bryant]

Hi:

My problem is as follows. The original images were 3'x4' colored maps with very high detail including lots of little towns and rivers and symbols. The originals were transferred to 8"x10" positive transparencies. I don't know the technology but it was apparently quite difficult and performed at the National Archives. I have to scan hundreds of these transparencies during a five day visit to the Archives. Based on past experiences, in order to capture all the detail I have to scan at a minimum of 1800DPI and the scan time for each image can not exceed five minutes. The size of the image file is not an issue. I would appreciate any suggestions.

Regards,

John
Bring 2 computers and 2 scanners for productivity; your task sounds mission critical!

2 Epson v700/750 or Epson 4990 for moderately priced scanners with decent output. 2 Mac Books would be nice also.

Don Bryant

[Rory_5244]

^^ What Don said.

[Peter Gomena]

An Epson 10000XL scanner will let you set up two 8x10 transparencies on the bed at one time. Use the Firewire instead of the USB connection to speed things along. If you use Silverfast software, you can calibrate the system and automate your process. Batch scan mode will let you speed things along as well. I believe the top resolution on this scanner is 2400 pixels per inch.

I used one of these at the Oregon Historical Society and will say they are really nice, rugged scanners. Unlike many flatbed scanners, these can be focused, so you can place the big transparencies directly on the scanner bed and not have to mess with film holders. You will have to pony up somewhere around $3000, but the money is well spent when you consider the productivity possible.

On the down side, there is no way you will be able to scan hundreds of negatives in five days' time. Plan on about 50-60 images in an 8-hour day, tops. Scan time plus all the organization you will have to do simply takes too long.

Good luck!
Peter Gomena

[jccalvin]

Thanks for the replies.

My budget is $700 so one V700 and VueScan or Silverfast is probably all I can afford. I also have a V500 and an XL20000 and two laptops. However, the process of selecting each transparency in proper order and replacing them in the folders would make using two scanners a nightmare.

I don't understand how you can scan two 8x10 transparencies on the 1000XL's 12x17 scan area.

BTW, if I can copy 50 transparencies per day that is acceptable. Seventy would be better but I can liver with 50. There is one map for each day of the year for about four years--almost 1,500 transparencies. It will be worth it as I am not aware of any digital copies that have all the detail.

Any more suggestions?

John

[Daniel Stone]

the glass bed on the 10000xl is 17in long. 8"x2=16", with a small space between each sheet, you get around 1/4" all the way around. 1" on the top and bottom.

make sure to bring BACKUP portable HARDDRIVES. no point in scanning at all if your portable or laptop HD goes down :(.

-Dan

[jccalvin]

I was never very good at my multiplication tables. :)

I always bring a little passport HD and back up my day's work every night. Gives me something to do in my hotel room.

Thanks for the info.

John

[Peter Gomena]

At 1800dpi, an 8x10" transparency will take about 10-15 minutes to scan on a V750. You will scan about 30 images in an 8-hour day. Trust me, I scanned 15,000 images of various sizes over a 5-year period. The scanner just can't gather and pipe all that info through that little wire very quickly.

Maybe reassess your needs a bit. An 1800dpi file will scale up to more than 24x30" at 300dpi. Do you need that much resolution? If your final use is to view it on a monitor, you may be able to get away with a 600dpi file. That will save you a lot of time and storage space. You may be very surprised at how good an image you can get even at the lower resolution.

Peter Gomena

[Lachlan 717]

How would you go with a high res digital, a good macro lens and a light box? Maybe rent a 'Blad with a digital back? Not sure if you need to go over 33-odd meg for the files...

I have no doubt that this would be a much quicker way to digitise the transparencies. I guess that you'll need to consider output size, but I would think that a modern macro lens will capture the detail pretty well. Dust will be significantly less of an issue as well, as will film flatness.

I'd prefab a stand for the light box so that you're sure the sensor is perfectly parallel to the image.

I would think that you could get through many, many more images with this system.

[jccalvin]

I think I have not properly explained the amount of detail on the transparency. A typical magnifying glass will not let you see all the detail. It takes something like a jewelers loop. I have scanned similar transparencies with significantly less detail and the minimum DPI to see that detail was 800DPI.

I have seen a grayscale scanned image of one of these colored transparencies which showed the names of small towns but the names were not readable. The TIF file was 150MBs.

Am I correct that the choke point is not the scanner but the cable from the scanner to the PC?

John

[Lachlan 717]

The choke points will be mounting, dust removal, scan time, "write" time and demounting.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will be a quick way to do this... Detail=time.

[Peter Gomena]

Ditto. Detail = time. There's no fast way to do this given the parameters you've established and the equipment you're proposing to use.

The "choke point" is the scan time coupled with how quickly it can transfer image data to the computer and have it recorded on the hard drive. Firewire is better than USB-2, but only marginally so. There's not really a way to increase the rate of data transfer.

An 8x10" 8-bit color file at 1800ppi is about 750mb. It takes the machine a bit of time to generate and transmit that much data.

If you want to open the file and give it a quality check each time, opening the file is going to take a while, too, especially on a laptop. Add setup time, pre-scan time, adjustment time to the scan time, plus any data entry to track your work, and you will process about 30 original a day.

Peter Gomena

[Peter Gomena]

The best solution might be to ask the archives to do the work for you. It might be prohibitively expensive, but they may have full-time staff doing exactly what you propose to do. It will save you a tubful of woe.

Peter Gomena

[jccalvin]

Unfortunately the staff at NARA do not have the time or the equipment to digitize these transparencies for the public. I work with them frequently and it is a no go.

I have given up on the lap top approach. I am going to have to bite the bullet and cart a small tower PC and monitor up to the 3rd floor. Yes they do have elevators. But every piece of equipment (and pieces of paper for that matter) have to be screened and recorded by serial number going in and coming out.

Some of the factors slowing down the scanning can be improved. I can add a SATA-II 15K HD and that will help on the read-write. The Epson GX20000 has a SCSI-2 connector. I can insert a PCI Ultra Wide SCSI-3 card in the PC. There are cables to connect the scanner SCSI connector to the PC SCSI connector. How much improved throughput is hard to estimate without testing. If I can get up to 50 per day that is acceptable.

I do not have to be ready until September as my next project is later this month at the Library of Congress. This is relatively easy as I am photographing 14"x18" topographical maps. Scanning would yield better quality but I have to copy between two and three hundred maps a day. With a tripod mounted camera and a wireless remote I can whip through the maps and shooting Canon RAW the quality is acceptable.

[erie patsellis]

if you're shooting topo maps, my guess is you have a Betterlight back, if so there may be a better approach than a scanner for what you propose.

[Frank Petronio]

You could set up a darkroom and dupe them all onto new film in a day.

[Gordon Flodders]

I think that a tripod mounted DSLR (maybe a Canon 5DMK11 or similar) might do the trick, but problems may arise from barrel or pincushion distortion even with some of the better lenses.
I have not shot 8x10 transparencies but you could give it a try. Biggest time consumer is the setup, but once you have it right, you can go a whole lot faster than using a scanner. It may even be possible to pull the images into line in PS later? You'll also need a suitable light box.
It all depends on how large a final image you plan on making. Maybe a 100mm macro lens or similar might pull it off?
I don't envy your task.

GF.

[David McNiven]

Would stitching - say 4 shots - solve the resolution problem with using a camera? That would double the linear resolution wouldn't it?
Slower of course but nothing like as slow as scanning - and maybe transparencies illuminated for less time if that's relevant.
Hasselblad 38 Biogon was said to be good for this work IIRC.

[Peter Gomena]

Stitching maps is asking for trouble. There's just too much fine detail, and the details have to match perfectly at the edges - four times. Any lens distortion or tiny misalignment of the camera will give you grief. Been there.

The best way to copy original maps is with a roller-type scanner like those used for blueprints. Old, fragile maps or blueprints can be sandwiched between sheets of mylar and run through the scanner, giving 1:1 reproduction at 300dpi. Another good way is with a moving-bed scanning camera (about $100,000.) A Better Light scanback is good, too. The roller-type scanner is the cheapest and fastest option of the three. Since the OP is copying copy transparencies, he's stuck with scanning.

Peter Gomena