Assorted responses sprinkled through text that follows:
Rich Koziol wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2005 at 2:25, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> Thanks Arthur for a very informative post, which also happens to be
> very related to my original question :-)
>
> Wish it was a bit sooner, as I tore into the scanner and at this
> point will have to thrash it.
It sounds like you already thrashed it ;-)
This world of email and electronic communications seems to have made us
all a bit hot to trot. Sorry I didn't get to you sooner, but I did
reply within 44 hours give or take a few minutes... I realize that's not
instantaneous service, but I don't believe HP would have been any faster ;-)
In spite of of all wishing the world of current knowledge is at the end
of a broadband (or other) connection sometimes we still need to deal
with the human time element. I usually check my mail once a day,
although in peak busy periods some groups have to wait an extra day for
catch up. Sometimes people even take vacations for the computer for,
rumor has it, up to two weeks, often in August!
This is all a bit tongue in cheek, but my recommendation (and I follow
this philosophy myself) is to give things at least several days to stew
and for the juices to flow before taking drastic actions.
I think we have all become very demanding of response time since the
advent of email and the like.
>
> It was made in 1997, so it's been used, or set for a long time, in a
> room off the kitchen (my donors house). It was giving me strange
> results, as posted.
>
> The original software that came with it was useless. The current
> version on HP website, somewhat better.
>
I'm pleased HP is still supporting it and has updated the software to
improve the outcome, at least, often most companies orphan their products.
> This is why I wanted to see what if anything could be cleaned, before
> I continued. There was one mirror fairly easily accessible, which
> was quite fuzzy. I dug deeper and moved some things that should have
> not been moved. This unit is not made to be taken apart and cleaned
> ;-(( Maybe no great loss, from what you describe.
>
Yes, that's what I was trying to imply.
> [more comments below]
>
> On 8 Aug 2005 at 2:25, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>>Unlike probably most of the people on this list, I actually owned a S10,
>>and an S20 (the USB uprage version), and also did a survey on them,
>>because they were a pretty problematic product.
>
>
> Yes, among other things, the two switches on the front were flaky -
> that I fixed :-)
I am not surprised.
>>The reason I suggest against it is because this scanner is a highly
>>complex device mechanically.
>
>
> I've been inside some complex things, but this one puzzles me.
> Several of the components in the optical path seem to be very
> sloppily mounted. There were no adjustment screws or precise stops
> for any of them. Not sure how these folks put it together.
>
I get the impression this unit, which cost about $500 US when it came
out as I recall, was not designed for servicing. It as, at the time the
cheapest film scanner on the market, and sadly, in spite of it's price,
which was hardly chicken feed, it lived up to being the cheapest ;-)
>
>>It is a good starter film scanner for email and lower resolution use.
>
>
> I'm a scanning beginner, but have a good size box of negs and slides.
> Would it make sense to buy a used, but better scanner? If so which
> model?
>
> I know it's a dumb question, but going to e-bay with a shotgun method
> is not very productive either.
>
> Do not want to spend > $500. My pictures will never get printed
> anywhere :-)
>
Film scanner prices have dropped considerably, because the demand has
dropped due, in part, to film itself being left behind for many now.
I would NOT buy a used film scanner because of both complexity of
design, and possibility of service requirements. They are costly to repair.
I suggest the Konica-Minolta Dimage Dual IV, which I believe is the most
current model. I would call it best value. If you can find a NEW
version III for a very good price, it too is fine. Earlier models are
too slow using USB 1.1 interface, and have some other issues.
At between $180 and about $250 US (Amazon is currently down to $217.99)
I don't think you can go wrong. Some people complain about initial set
up, so you have to be careful to follow the instructions carefully, and
to NOT use a USB hub, but otherwise, it is by far the best deal in film
scanners.
You will be impressed with the 3200 dpi, autofocus and manual override,
the software, and even the dust removal software is reasonable. It does
NOT have IR dust and scratch cleaning, so if you have some fairly
damaged or dirty film, you may have to resort to manual clean up or
using the dust filters they supply or the free ones on line by Polaroid
and others (Like dust buster). Konica-Minolta have apparently improved
the lighting source or method of light transmission to soften and
further diffuse the light to lessen scratches and dust from showing.
I owned the Minolta Dual Dimage II, which was a 2800 dpi model and
vastly improved over the HP. The III and now the IV are vast
improvements again. At that price, you are way ahead of the game.
I would NOT go for a used film scanner.
> [snip]
>
>
>>However, if you are going to only scan reflective images, you would be
>>better off getting a flatbed scanner. They can be had very
>>inexpensively new and even less used.
>
>
> Have an older flatbed, but positioning 3x5 (those that I have) is
> frustrating. Colors are not that great eather.
>
> I'm thinking of S20 from e-bay as a handy snapshot scanner - it's
> very easy to operate in that mode. For negatives, maybe something
> better.
>
You would be MUCH better off buying even a cheap flatbed scanner and
cutting a mask for it to position your small prints than to go with a
S20. It has the same basic mechanics, and will likely fail similarly.
It is truly a "Rube Goldberg" contraption (if you don't know who Rube
Goldberg was, look him up on Google).
Or click here:
Even the S20 will not give you true 300 dpi on reflective prints, which
is the minimum you'll want. If you really want a small reflective
scanner HP made a couple of 4 x 6" flatbed scanners which probably can
be had for next to nothing used. They sold new toward their end for
under $50.
If you have more questions, just ask, and besides getting 30 off topic
"answers" you'll probably get one of two that actually address your
issue ;-)
Art
> Regards,
>
> Rich Koziol
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
