From: King Sardon on
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:11:49 +0100, LeighWillaston
<LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com> wrote:

>
>I have hundreds of 35 mm slides of family and travel which I want to
>transfer to digital images.
>
>On the rare occasions when I can access a scanner, it is very time
>consuming.
>
>I have a 35 mm carousel projector, and wonder whether I can photograph
>each image as I project it onto a white surface.
>
>Has anyone else done this, and are there some factors I need to take
>into consideration, such as size of projected image, setting of digital
>camera, etc.?

Interesting idea, should give reasonable results.

But I don't think it is ideal. Slide projector lenses are pretty cheap
and usually work wide open (they are designed to be as bright as
possible), meaning sharpness won't be that great. The projector heats
the slide and the center of the slide will usually move a bit and then
pop. That affects focus. You may get it sharp or not. Some projector
lenses have a curved field that is supposed to match the curvature of
the popped slide, but that does not work that real well... and works
poorly with glass-mounted slides which are flat.

There were plenty of problems back in the old days getting slides to
project well, and you will have them all back if you use this method
to capture them digitally.

It might be better to use a slide duplicating rig. You can buy these
or rig one up by pointing the digital camera at a light box or
flash-illuminated paper or whatever. Then you can use a high quality
macro lens for imaging onto the digital sensor, and stop it down to
get better focus. The light intensity will be much less and the slide
should not pop. You can also control the light source to get daylight
quality... might be easier to deal with for the sensor.

Either way, slides are a high contrast source, so I would get into the
menu of the digital camera and tone down the contrast if your camera
allows that.

Good luck and let us know how it turned out.

KS
From: MarkW on
On Jun 1, 2:35 pm, "HEMI-Powered" <n...(a)none.en> wrote:
> MarkW offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of
> the matter at hand:
>
> Mark, I see no way around the time consuming part. If the number
> to be scanned/photographed on a wall is at all large, at the very
> least, one would have to go through them one by one and cull out
> the keepers and leave the less memorable in the tray.

Well, I would think that you could probably 'scan' slides using a
projector with a carousel at a rate of several per minute. That is
just WAY faster than using a negative scanner. And I wasn't thinking
of pulling all the keepers for film scanning. I would expect that if
you get things set up right, the quality will be quite good, so I was
thinking of using the film scanner only on a relatively small number
of 'classics'.

> That itself
> takes time, especially since I would try to mark them so I could
> figure out which position in the tray they came from. I have
> toyed with the idea of buying a Nikon Coolscan dedicated scanner,
> maybe a 5000 or a newer model if there is one. I'm told these
> scan 4 at a time. So, scan time is going to be both tedious and a
> PITA, as it tweaking all those old slides that are less than
> perfect and giving them a reasonable name.
>

I would say, don't let the best be the enemy of the good, which is to
say that you may get some very, very good results with a projector and
camera. Here, for example, is a shot of my little brother. It's from
a small, partly-faded, 40 year old color print that was in a photo
album at my grandfather's house. Who knows where the negative is if
it even still exists. I 'scanned' it by lighting it with a couple of
$8 halogen work lights and then shot it hand-held with a Powershot
Pro1:

http://www.fototime.com/8E956F042A81CD3/orig.jpg

No, it's not a 4000dpi film scan from a pristine negative, but I just
can't complain about the result.

> Your advice is excellent and in keeping with what I'd learned the
> last time I investigated both scanners and service bureaus more
> than a year ago. I suppose the quantity I have to do and the time
> and expense involved are causing me to drag my feet. Maybe I'll
> give the projector method a whirl and see if that is good enough
> ...

Yep, that's what I'd do.


From: Jim on

"LeighWillaston" <LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com> wrote in message
news:LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com...
>
> I have hundreds of 35 mm slides of family and travel which I want to
> transfer to digital images.
>
> On the rare occasions when I can access a scanner, it is very time
> consuming.
>
> I have a 35 mm carousel projector, and wonder whether I can photograph
> each image as I project it onto a white surface.
>
> Has anyone else done this, and are there some factors I need to take
> into consideration, such as size of projected image, setting of digital
> camera, etc.?
>
>
>
>
> --
> LeighWillaston
Years ago, I shot verious types of slide film. These were Ancocolor,
Kodachrome, Kodachrome II, Ektachrome E2, Ektachrome E4, and Anscochrome.
Your technique has a chance of working with all of these kinds of film
except E2 and E4. To get a good image (one worth printing at all) from E2
and E4 is best
done with a slide scanner that includes Digital Restoration of Color, such
as my Coolscan LS40. The Kodachromes are OK; the Ansco films have lost
a little contrast. The Ektachromes are red. Some of them may be resorable
with curves and levels, but just using ROC is both quicker and better.

I have about 1000 total of the slides that I took in the 1950s. I did take
quite a few others, but I discarded the really bad ones.

Jim


From: Allen on
King Sardon wrote:
<snip>
>
> It might be better to use a slide duplicating rig. You can buy these
> or rig one up by pointing the digital camera at a light box or
> flash-illuminated paper or whatever. Then you can use a high quality
> macro lens for imaging onto the digital sensor, and stop it down to
> get better focus. The light intensity will be much less and the slide
> should not pop. You can also control the light source to get daylight
> quality... might be easier to deal with for the sensor.
>
<snip>

I used this method in 1995 to copy 360 slides to print film. (I remember
the exact number because I had planned to do 100.) All the color
pictures of my children when they were still children were color slides
or B/W. I rigged a duplicator by using extension tubes and a slide
holder; using this rig in bright sunlight, I copied them to color film.
I made albums and gave them to them as Christmas gifts, and they were
ecstatic. However, last year I got a Canon flat-bed scanner and recopied
most of those same slides to digital files (along with a few thousand
other slides). The quality of the scanned images was much better than
the rephotographed ones. I will have to say that the scanning process
was slow, but I'm retired and my time is cheap. Also, I will add that
those scanned images cost me considerably less.
Allen

From: Allen on
Jim wrote:
> "LeighWillaston" <LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com> wrote in message
> news:LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com...
>> I have hundreds of 35 mm slides of family and travel which I want to
>> transfer to digital images.
>>
>> On the rare occasions when I can access a scanner, it is very time
>> consuming.
>>
>> I have a 35 mm carousel projector, and wonder whether I can photograph
>> each image as I project it onto a white surface.
>>
>> Has anyone else done this, and are there some factors I need to take
>> into consideration, such as size of projected image, setting of digital
>> camera, etc.?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> LeighWillaston
> Years ago, I shot verious types of slide film. These were Ancocolor,
> Kodachrome, Kodachrome II, Ektachrome E2, Ektachrome E4, and Anscochrome.
> Your technique has a chance of working with all of these kinds of film
> except E2 and E4. To get a good image (one worth printing at all) from E2
> and E4 is best
> done with a slide scanner that includes Digital Restoration of Color, such
> as my Coolscan LS40. The Kodachromes are OK; the Ansco films have lost
> a little contrast. The Ektachromes are red. Some of them may be resorable
> with curves and levels, but just using ROC is both quicker and better.
>
> I have about 1000 total of the slides that I took in the 1950s. I did take
> quite a few others, but I discarded the really bad ones.
>
> Jim
>
>
My slides were mostly on Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Fujichrome, with a
few on Agfa. The Kodachromes from the mid-1940s and the 1950s all still
had good color; later ones showed considerable variation (all except one
roll were processed by Kodak--that one exception was so bad that I
converte the images to B/W). The Ektachromes (some home-processed, some
commercial) were all over the place; some were nearly unusable. On the
other hand, the Fujichromes, all home-processed, were without exception
quite good color-wise. The last of the slides were from around 1982, so
they plenty of opportunity to fade and/or color shift.

Allen
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Bayer filter removal
Next: Battery woes