Seeker is right, your capabilities scanning slides with a flatbed scanner using an adaptor will not really do the photographs justice, plus it can be a pain for more then ocassional use this way. I've got a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III & it really is nice.

At any rate, whichever hardware you use, the scanning resolution depends on your final target size, as in your frame size or larger if you're planning on cropping or panning effects. If you're after 720 x 480 at 96 dpi (screen resolution), then you should be able to set your scanner software to just that (720 x 480 pixels at 96 dpi) and let the software figure out the needed resolution settings.

If you want to do it the hard way, open your image editing app, create a new 24 bit image at your final size and resolution (ie: 720 x 480 96 dpi). Then go to the resize function/dialog, and resize the blank image to the size (usually in inches) of one of your previously scanned slides, making sure to turn off resampling or select maintain file size or whatever depending on your software - you want to just shift pixels around, not create or delete any. After clicking OK, you should be able to go back to the resize dialog and read the new resolution - this is what you should scan at.

Notes: as seeker mentioned, don't go beyond the optical resolution of your scanner; if it's not enough, blow it up the rest of the way in software. Once you import the scanned images into Vegas, if you're intending interlaced output, don't forget the reduce interlace flicker option. And in any case, won't hurt to make sure your color legal either in your image editor, Vegas, or both.

Thanks Mikkie and Seeker. Just what I wanted. You have been most generous with your advice. I hope that I can 'repay' it some time. But there again, you probably have little use for ignorance. Like Manuel from "Fawlty Towers", I know nothing!
Zbig

Use the highest setting that your scanner can give. This means that if you then use this in your project, any picture that has a much higher resolution than the video you have the option of using the crop/zoom tool to enlarge just a portion of your slide & still have the good results in your project

Flicktease,
While that is good advise it may well be overkill if you are scanning a lot of slides and you may only want to zoom in on a few.
Tor

"While that is good advise it may well be overkill"

Agree... More or less as stated in everything I've ever read concerning image scanning TorS FWIW.

I mean, if you're archiving pictures fine, but scanning neg or slides at high res and increased bit depth you can easily reach 60 meg per pic - slows things down even if you don't run out of room.

I am not certain what your final use for these scans will be, but, unless you need to reproduce at professional levels for professional distribution, I think you will be quite pleased by what is available out there for us serious non-pros.

Time flies, but, I upgraded my scanner to an Epson Perfection 2400 (no doubt better machines have already replaced it) about nine months ago. The scanner is capable of 2400 x 4800 optical resolution and came bundled with Photoshop Elements 1.x (current scanners would probably be bundled with Elements 2.0 . . . slightly better software).

I have scanned photos, netagive film, and slides with great success.

Again, I'm guessing that you'll be outputting either to the web (my setup more than a match for those requirements) or to some sort of inkjet photo printer (again, I think you'll be pleased with the results of this setup).

Folks who claim you won't see the same detail that you might get from some 4k dedicated scanner are not wrong, but, unless you are working in areas critical enough to require that higher detail, then, you won't see it with the 4k scanners, either.

My philosophy with regard to software/hardware purchases has always been to purchase the highest capability I could afford, then, work within those limitations to produce the best work possible.

Generally, that approach has served me very well (I'm made more than chump change with this approach).


Bear in mind that, presented to the non-computer-savvy, your work will not be "a-b" scrutinized as it is by those advocating the expensive equipment (I wonder how many of those actually performed a-b tests, or simply opted for more expensive equipment).

Secondly, you can accomplish work using whatever equipment is available within your budget . . . good work . . . if you use the equipment within its operating range.

I had held off for a long time on my scanner upgrade, thinking that anything less than 4000 dpi would be a waste when scanning photos/film.

I was forced into upgrading when my scanners bulb failed. What a pleasant surprise awaited me upon the purchase of my modest Perfection 2400.

For the outlay you're looking at (with the Perfection 2400 or equal), you'd be ahead to get it, start working with it, perfect your skills, and, then, evaluate whether or not you need to go the more expensive route.

I'm guessing you'll stick with the less expensive option.

Elements 1.x includes scratch reducing capability, color correction, and a host of other useful features.

Both the software and the scanner have been a pleasure to work with. I print to either a Canon i850 or an Epson Stylus Color 880.

Both produce pleasing results on photo quality paper.

I tried the Epson C82 (better, more permanent inks), but was not impressed with the photo quality.

But, again, unless you know that your work requires 4000 dpi or better, then, I would go ahead and pick up one of the less expensive solutions and start making photos. Upgrade when (if) you feel the need to upgrade. Do not be put off by reviews or comments to the contrary on this or other boards.

I don't in any way condemn or put down opposing viewpoints. If I could afford the better equipment, I'd buy it in a heartbeat (and would advise anyone else with the means to do the same).

What I would not advocate is postponing purchase of equipment (hardware/software) necessary to complete your work. Buy what you can afford, work with it to learn and develop your proficiency.

You won't be sorry.

Caruso

Focus instead on total pixels instead of dpi.

If you want to use these slides in a DV presentation, then you need at least 720x480. Since a slide is 35x24 mm (approx) and there are 0.039 mm/inch, the slide is about 1.4x0.9 inches. 720/1.4 = 514. 480/0.9 = 533. Thus you need to scan at around 525 dpi to get to the 720x480 pixels. Most scanners scan at 600 dpi, so that would be the minimum.

If you want to use these slides for prints, you should always aim to have at least 150 dpi (minimum) at the final size of your print. If you want to have a 4x6 print, then you need 4x150=600 pixel and 6x150=900 pixels. Do the same calculation as above to figure the scanning dpi needed. For most scanning for casual prints, up to 8x10, I usually scan slides at 1350 dpi. 900 dpi is the bare minimu.

I have scanned over 20,000 slides, prints, and negatives in the past two years. I have a Coolscan 4000 that will go to 4000 dpi, but I seldom use all of that.

Hope this helps.

"Focus instead on total pixels instead of dpi"

Nice explanation and examples, John - I've been strugging a bit with this, and you've helped a lot

Frenchy

Here's one poor man's way of doing it with quite good results.
Astra 4450 scanner, I remove the slides from the mounts and use a cover glass on top of the film under the light hood to hold it flat.
I scan at 1200dpi, 48-bit color into a program that will accept it (Photoshop).
Set the high and low levels just outside the range of the material, and do the final levels and gamma tweaking in Photoshop.
Convert to 24-bit and downsample if desired for the end product (I always save my archived scans at full res).