My impression (not yet tested with the same pictures) is that 35mm slides and film are best scanned with the older HP slide scanner (SCSI connection) one at a time. It was used a few months ago for a whole set of slides saved at 600x900 pixels for half to full page printouts with captions in a word processor file. The new Microtek flatbed with 4x5 transparency section in the lid and FireWire connection has unfamiliar software settings. Took quite a lot of time experimenting with a few slides over the weekend and might not have picked the best settings. Made a black paper "mask" for the new flatbed, similar to the method used for single slides with the full-size Transparent Media Adaptor lid of an earlier flatbed. Didn't seem to be a good idea to lay out four slides at a time with different color balance -- indoor people, outdoor people, graveyard with a dark sky. Doubt that I could tell the difference in the scanner used except perhaps at 1200-2400 dpi using files of 16 mb or larger. I don't save archival size images of slides but sometimes use 2400 dpi for a small section to try and read printing on signs or food package at a picnic. Some important family pictures are half-frame slides taken early 1970s. Any "adaptor" that allows viewing of slides and film is better than no picture at all. Scans of 35mm slides with specialty film scanner were much better quality than scans of snapshots printed from the same slides. A specialized slide/film scanner is probably worth buying it you have hundreds to scan. The most expensive slide scanner might not show much difference compared to a medium price slide scanner. Some people commenting on equipment have far different feelings than I do about archival size copies of images. Some are happy with simple adaptors and some are unhappy after spending a lot of money on equipment. I don't think the most expensive equipment or software is any guarantee of satisfaction for a family history project. Elizabeth in Canada ----- Original Message ----- > I'm trying to decide if spending $700 to $1000 on a dedicated transparency > scanner would be better spent on a new state-of-the-art flatbed with > transparency adaptor. I'm currently using an HP Scanjet 5100C (no adaptor). > Linda