# Kodak Scanza scanner?



## OogieM

Has anyone played with this?

Not for archival scans at 14-22megapixels, JPEG only, tethers to LightRoom fairly inexpensive

But might be good for those can't bear to delete/trash but near duplicates.

Wondergin if anyone has one and tried it and can comment on plusses and minuses.


----------



## OogieM

Bumping this to see if there are any comments from folks.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag

I have worked with other scanners that look at this one and i did not like the quality of them at all. 
I found some information about this scanner (like this advatorial) that suggest it is a very user friendly, easy to use scanner that delivers high quality images. However, i doubt it. If i want to buy it, i would see if i could try it first. 170,- buck is not expensive but it's to much money to throw away.

I understand you are in progress of a bigger scanproject? 
Why not scan this less valuable material with the same equipment but in a lower resolution (faster)?
You do know that equipment and you don't have to switch workflow.


----------



## OogieM

Roelof Moorlag said:


> I have worked with other scanners that look at this one and i did not like the quality of them at all.
> I found some information about this scanner (like this advatorial) that suggest it is a very user friendly, easy to use scanner that delivers high quality images. However, i doubt it. If i want to buy it, i would see if i could try it first. 170,- buck is not expensive but it's to much money to throw away.



Exactly, I'm considering it because of the ease of use and semi-portability but want to hear from real users first. Reviews on Amazon indicate it's either great or terrible. I was considering it for one specific group of negatives, the color ones that are mostly snapshots with dates ranging from the mid 1960's until fall of 2000. The number of negatives in this group is somewhere around 10,000 total frames between my set from my parents and me and my husband's and all the ones my stepdad has who is working on the same project with me. I see this device as a triage device not an archival device. So the cost in terms of equipment is about 2 cents a frame. I was figuring that I could scan at higher resolution on better equipment the individual frames or rolls that are really of major value. Or even send them out for scanning at a service. I need to know what those high value rolls/frames are and in most cases the prints are long gone. I've also looked at setting up a digital camera and using it as a scanner but I don't have any suitable digital cameras so the cost for that between camera, lenses, copy stand or rail system, lights etc is a lot more. 



Roelof Moorlag said:


> I understand you are in progress of a bigger scanproject?
> Why not scan this less valuable material with the same equipment but in a lower resolution (faster)?
> You do know that equipment and you don't have to switch workflow.



That is an option. The slow higher resolution equipment is in another building on the farm and is connected to a much slower computer that cannot be upgraded to the current operating system. The scanner itself is no longer supported so there are no drivers for a newer computer either. I've got it all tuned to do the glass plate negatives for the historical society and it takes me about 15-20 minutes per negative to scan and prepare the master image. They are roughly 380mb TIFF files. 

The other items to scan are here in our main house. My main computer is much faster machine and is running Sierra so by definition it will be faster. I'll run some timings on the color negatives and see how long it takes me to scan a roll and prepare the files for a typical roll. Of course I have to take them all over there and make the time to sit there and do it. At least here I may be able to do just a few in between other stuff. Particularly with lambing coming up I was thinking I could have it set so that if I have a few minutes between sheep checks I can do something useful. I know from previous years that I am braindead during lambing so anything I do in between being out with the sheep is either preparing & eating food or needs to be so mindless and easily interruptible that I can just do it without thinking and stop instantly if my husband calls me on the radio for a ewe that needs assistance or a new lamb that needs to be processed. Feeding a scanner with negatives is one such thing. I'd have to wait and do the import into  LightRoom and cataloging later but at least it would get me started. I can't be at the other building during lambing because it's too far away from the lambing pasture.

I'm tempted to buy it off Amazon just to try because at least then if it doesn't work I can return it easily. I'm dithering. There are so many options for the overall project that I'm paralyzed by choices.


----------



## Hal P Anderson

OogieM said:


> There are so many options for the overall project that I'm paralyzed by choices.



"And like a man to double business bound
I stand in pause where I shall first begin
And both neglect."  Hamlet, III,iii,41-43


----------



## OogieM

I love that you are quoting Shakespeare! Thank you for brightening my day. Now to get back to work, I just uncovered a bankers box full of prints, negatives and slides that I was unaware of that need to be sorted. I almost think they are breeding in the closets and drawers and garage.


----------



## OogieM

Update: I did some testing using my current flatbed scanner, an Epson Perfection 4870 photo.

Scan 8 color slides at 2400 dpi took 1 hour 20 minutes.
Scan 4 color negative film strips, total 16 images 1200 dpi took 30 minutes
Scan 6 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 black and white negatives at 150dpi took 5 minutes but resulting files are not good enough to use even to determine what to scan at a higher resolution.
No carrier for my 2.5 x 1.6 black and white negatives so tried by just placing them on the scanner bed. Out of focus and even at only 150 dpi 2 images took 2 minutes to scan and the resulting scans are terrible. 

Ran out of time so didn't get to try the 110 negatives or try slides or color negatives at other resolutions. 

Bottom line with the number of images I have to scan I can't use this scanner. I can't upgrade that machine and the scanner is not supported by faster/better Epson scan software. 

I keep coming back to either a cheap quick jpg scanner like the Kodak Scanza or a newer medium flatbed scanner and take more time.


----------



## PhilBurton

OogieM said:


> Update: I did some testing using my current flatbed scanner, an Epson Perfection 4870 photo.
> 
> Scan 8 color slides at 2400 dpi took 1 hour 20 minutes.
> Scan 4 color negative film strips, total 16 images 1200 dpi took 30 minutes
> Scan 6 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 black and white negatives at 150dpi took 5 minutes but resulting files are not good enough to use even to determine what to scan at a higher resolution.
> No carrier for my 2.5 x 1.6 black and white negatives so tried by just placing them on the scanner bed. Out of focus and even at only 150 dpi 2 images took 2 minutes to scan and the resulting scans are terrible.
> 
> Ran out of time so didn't get to try the 110 negatives or try slides or color negatives at other resolutions.
> 
> Bottom line with the number of images I have to scan I can't use this scanner. I can't upgrade that machine and the scanner is not supported by faster/better Epson scan software.
> 
> I keep coming back to either a cheap quick jpg scanner like the Kodak Scanza or a newer medium flatbed scanner and take more time.


Oogie,

Please do post the results of your search for a better scanner for other than 35 mm negs/slides.

Phil Burton


----------



## Roelof Moorlag

OogieM said:


> Bottom line with the number of images I have to scan I can't use this scanner.


I downloaded the manual of the Kodak Scanza scanner but i could not find if the sanner does transport the film after scanning each frame. I suppose it doesn't so you have to do it yourself after each scan by hand...


----------



## OogieM

Roelof Moorlag said:


> I downloaded the manual of the Kodak Scanza scanner but i could not find if the sanner does transport the film after scanning each frame. I suppose it doesn't so you have to do it yourself after each scan by hand...



Correct, you manually forward the film. Even so the scanning time is much faster than my existing flatbed scanner. 

I'm trying to find someone with an Epson V600 and have them do some test timings.


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Have you considered using a digital camera to scan your negatives and slides? Each scan (apart from setup time) would be virtually instantaneous. I've never done it but there are a lot of resources on the web. Try Googling for "negative scanning with dslr".


----------



## OogieM

Hal P Anderson said:


> Have you considered using a digital camera to scan your negatives and slides?


Yes that is one of the options. I have Peter Krogh's book where he goes into great detail on that set-up. 

Issues so far.
I'd need to buy a high megapixel DLSR Somehow I don't think my iPhone will work 
The copy stand, lights and other necessary equipment is expensive. Looks like about $1500 to get set up not including the camera. 
Negative holders may be hard/impossible to locate
Rail systems are also potentially an issue as have to be made or modified and depend on availability on Ebay of the parts.
Difficult to get good scans of color negatives per Peter Krogh, possible but takes more time/effort to do so. 

It's still in the running, I am checking with a couple of local professional photographers about whether they might be interested in setting up to do it but no real responses yet.

Other possibilities is if I could fine/rent a decent digital camera Peter Krogh will rent some of his rail systems at what seems to me to be reasonable but again, I need the camera to make that work.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag

In fact, the Kodak Scanza is a digital camera but a very simple one. The advantage is that all components are merged together to an user friendly and easy to use device.
But indeed, when you want to make the effort to treat all your individual slides and negatives (it's a lot of work)i would be tempted to do it with equipment as Peter Krogh describes in his book "Digitizing your photos with your camera and lightroom". 

However i scanned my analogues years ago (medium quality for curating purposes mainly) with different equipment. Over my considerations about the use of equipment i wrote this blog in 2008...

1. My slides i scanned with an Reflecta Digitdia 5000
This device was able to scan 100 slides unattended. I sold it after all my slides were scanned. About my experiences i wrote different (dutch) blogs like this one.

2. My negatives (35mm, 110 film and 4x5") i scanned with an Epson V700 Photo
This device also is able to scan batches of slides or negatives unattendedly. There are holders for 24 negatives, 12 slides (35mm), 2 strips 110 film (6 negatives 6x6) or 2 negatives/slides from 4x5" . Also it's possible to use the scansurface directly for other formats. It does scan transparents till 20x25 cm. About my experiences with this device i wrote this (dutch) blog.


----------



## eldou

If anyone is still curious, I hesitated on getting this due to not finding a good answer on how well it works.  I'm a complete amateur, just digitizing all the old pics, and had a bunch where I had negatives but no print to scan. So I decided to give the Scanza a try, figuring there would be a good chance I'd have to return it and get the flatbed for higher quality.  I was however very impressed with the Scanza, with the result being great  at least for the purpose of having a digital copy of all these pictures.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Thanks for sharing your experience eldou!


----------



## stevevp

Review here if anyone is interested:
Review: Kodak Scanza film scanner is easy-to-use, but overpriced


----------

