That Jumbl scanner thing

[Simpo Two]

I saw a thread here about scanners and was tempted to try the little Jumbl film scanner.

I've been trying it out and it's quite impossible to judge the scan parameters accurately on a tiny lo-res screen with no histogram. Is there any scanner that would feed 'live' into my PC so I can see properly what I'm looking at before I hit the 'Scan' button? At the least I'd like the Levels function of Photoshop so I can correct the image in one pass rather than have to go back and resave everything.

[djsmith74]

Simpo Two said:

I saw a thread here about scanners and was tempted to try the little Jumbl film scanner.

I've been trying it out and it's quite impossible to judge the scan parameters accurately on a tiny lo-res screen with no histogram. Is there any scanner that would feed 'live' into my PC so I can see properly what I'm looking at before I hit the 'Scan' button? At the least I'd like the Levels function of Photoshop so I can correct the image in one pass rather than have to go back and resave everything.

I use a Plustek 8100 scanner to scan all my negatives as high resolution TIFF files before importing them into Aperture. As a piece of hardware it is rather impressive and does an excellent job of scanning 35mm images into large format. The bundled program (Silverfast) does not appear to be the most intuitive (at first glance), but once you've got your head around it, is actually quite powerful and allows you to adjust your image (at full screen on your PC) before making that final scan. There are several presets, where you select the brand and type of film used (which gives excellent reproduction first off) and you can tweak it using the built in auto-correction or by manual methods. Have a look at some online reviews and if you need further information, please let me know.

[Simpo Two]

Thanks very much - it's not much more costwise than what I have and certainly looks like a 'proper' scanner. May have to try it!

[Mr Will]

Plustek 7600i here - very happy with it and would echo what djsmith said. It's not fast though...

[sgrimshaw]

Which Jumbl scanner do you have, is it this one:

1) http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00ICOB78K?psc=1

this one:

2) http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00LU0XO3O?psc=1

or this one:

3) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jumbl-35mm-Slide-Negative-...

This one "badged" by 7dayshop looks to be the similar as (1), but is a lot cheaper:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009WQXNHA?psc=1

Edited by sgrimshaw on Friday 28th November 13:45

[Simpo Two]

Number 1.

I looked at the reviews for the Plustek 8100 - there seem to be software issues (though I have WinXP which is pretty versatile) and it takes 50 secs to scan - is that right?

And when the image opens on your PC monitor for PS tweaking, is that a prescan or the actual one? In other words, is it a one step or two-step process? The first slides I've looked at (Kodachrome from 1980) seem to have a massive DR, so that any scan is a mixture of burnt out bits and very dark shadows.

[sgrimshaw]

Real film scanners are slow by their nature, unless you pay serious money to get into commercial territory.

The Plustek software can always be replaced by Vuescan if you don't get on with it.

[djsmith74]

Simpo Two said:

Number 1.

I looked at the reviews for the Plustek 8100 - there seem to be software issues (though I have WinXP which is pretty versatile) and it takes 50 secs to scan - is that right?

And when the image opens on your PC monitor for PS tweaking, is that a prescan or the actual one? In other words, is it a one step or two-step process? The first slides I've looked at (Kodachrome from 1980) seem to have a massive DR, so that any scan is a mixture of burnt out bits and very dark shadows.

50secs is about the average time to scan a single image. As sgrimshaw said, decent home scanners aren't as quick as commercial ones - Nikon did a prosumer scanner a few years ago (Coolscan 4000 & 5000) which still fetches silly money on ebay, despite lack of software support for up-to-date operating systems!.

I noticed users talking about issues with the Silverfast software when I did my research, but went ahead with the 8100 purchase and, as long as you keep the software & drivers up to date, you should be fine as I've never had issues (I'm running a Mac).

It is a effectively a two step process when using Silverfast. There's a basic quick pre-scan to ensure you have the film set-up correctly, but you can opt for an "exact preview" which is effectively how the resulting scan would be after you have applied whatever processing. Once you're happy then you do the actual scan. Yes it isn't quick, but I have had no issues with the scanning quality, and I usually do it over some quiet time in front of the Mac with a big pot of tea and biscuits!. Here are some examples of scanned images which the 8100 has done a great job in pulling out the detail:

https://flic.kr/p/p5qdow

https://flic.kr/p/p5qv3J

https://flic.kr/p/pjSJp3

https://flic.kr/p/p5pRwS

If you need any more info, please let me know.

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

Number 1.

I looked at the reviews for the Plustek 8100 - there seem to be software issues (though I have WinXP which is pretty versatile) and it takes 50 secs to scan - is that right?

And when the image opens on your PC monitor for PS tweaking, is that a prescan or the actual one? In other words, is it a one step or two-step process? The first slides I've looked at (Kodachrome from 1980) seem to have a massive DR, so that any scan is a mixture of burnt out bits and very dark shadows.

Silverfast can be a little fiddly to set up, but once it is installed it works without any issues. The amount of time it takes to scan depends on the quality and settings you use - Enhanced dynamic range or automatic dust and scratch removal both take longer. ~50 seconds sounds about right though.

The workflow is prescan -> view -> adjust -> scan. You can skip the prescan and just scan blind (particularly if you have multiple shots of the same subject) but the prescan is pretty fast anyway, so it doesn't make a great deal of difference.

[Simpo Two]

Thanks for all the input, very useful. I don't need monster resolution as much as the need to twiddle with the levels and colour - but it seems that to do the latter 'at source' I need to go up a gear. And that means mnore res and therefore slower.

I see a few Minota Dimages s/h on eBay, eg http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271686823119?_trksid=p20... - how do they compare? WinXP Pro.

[sgrimshaw]

I had a Minolta Scan Dual, it was very good. The only reason I got rid, was that it was SCSI and I no longer had the ability to connect it to anything.

[Simpo Two]

SCSI is definitely out, but the one I linked to is USB2. The problem is that I don't want to buy one if it turns out to be a donkey.

[sgrimshaw]

The quality from the Dimage should be fine, but it won't be very fast.

I would expect the Plustek to be at least as good quality wise and with that you'll be getting newer tech and a warranty.

Apart from the inability to see the scan on the PC, how do you find the Jumbl?

A lot of reviews suggest that it's 'ok' and good enough for basic archiving, but not good enough for big enlargements.

I've got a whole bunch of negatives which I'd like to digitise, nothing special just snaps really, so that I can share with friends and family etc

Edited by sgrimshaw on Thursday 4th December 22:18

[Mr Will]

If you want fast then I've heard good things about the Kodak Pakon F135 Plus. It's getting on a bit now and is fiddly to set up (requires XP for starters!) but was designed for small highstreet labs and as such will scan an entire roll in less than 5 minutes without user intervention. If you can find one I'd snap it up!