From: Nick Fotis on
Another idea:
If you have a full-frame dSLR, you can 'scan' the slides via a slide
duplicator (in reality, a metal tube with a fixed lens, usually with a T2
screw mount, for which there are adaptors for all brands of SLRs).

I 'scanned' this way some slides for a magazine article and a Canon 1Ds, and
the results were very good (of course, dust and hair specks aren't removed
automagically like in a modern film scanner).

On the other hand, if your projector lens is very good, and you project the
slides on a suitable surface (probably matt white), you could get away with
it.

Cheers,
N.F.
From: Roger (K8RI) on
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:22:28 +0300, Nick Fotis <nfotis(a)otenet.gr>
wrote:

>Another idea:
>If you have a full-frame dSLR, you can 'scan' the slides via a slide

Depends on the duplicator. I have an old, inexpensive "Qualide" which
works well and has enough adjustment it'll work just fine with the
Nikon DSLRs.

>duplicator (in reality, a metal tube with a fixed lens, usually with a T2
>screw mount, for which there are adaptors for all brands of SLRs).
>
>I 'scanned' this way some slides for a magazine article and a Canon 1Ds, and
>the results were very good (of course, dust and hair specks aren't removed
>automagically like in a modern film scanner).

The duplicator will give far better quality though.
>
>On the other hand, if your projector lens is very good, and you project the
>slides on a suitable surface (probably matt white), you could get away with
>it.
>
>Cheers,
>N.F.
From: Chris Malcolm on
"Roger (K8RI)" <validaddress(a)my.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:22:28 +0300, Nick Fotis <nfotis(a)otenet.gr>
> wrote:

>>Another idea:
>>If you have a full-frame dSLR, you can 'scan' the slides via a slide

> Depends on the duplicator. I have an old, inexpensive "Qualide" which
> works well and has enough adjustment it'll work just fine with the
> Nikon DSLRs.

>>duplicator (in reality, a metal tube with a fixed lens, usually with a T2
>>screw mount, for which there are adaptors for all brands of SLRs).
>>
>>I 'scanned' this way some slides for a magazine article and a Canon 1Ds, and
>>the results were very good (of course, dust and hair specks aren't removed
>>automagically like in a modern film scanner).

> The duplicator will give far better quality though.

I realise that a slide scanner which scans to a higher resolution than
one's camera sensor is capable of will give more detailed results, but
I wonder if there is anything more to it than that?

For example, I'd be quite happy if I could convert my slides to
digital images at the same quality as the photographs my digital
camera takes. So it seems to me that if I used a good enough macro
capability etc. (and a duplicator seems to be just a conveneniently
packaged holder plus close-up) then I ought to be able to photograph
my slides to the quality my digital camera is capable of.

Am I right, or is there more to slide conversion than that?

--
Chris Malcolm cam(a)infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

From: King Sardon on
On 12 Jun 2007 10:29:24 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>"Roger (K8RI)" <validaddress(a)my.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:22:28 +0300, Nick Fotis <nfotis(a)otenet.gr>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Another idea:
>>>If you have a full-frame dSLR, you can 'scan' the slides via a slide
>
>> Depends on the duplicator. I have an old, inexpensive "Qualide" which
>> works well and has enough adjustment it'll work just fine with the
>> Nikon DSLRs.
>
>>>duplicator (in reality, a metal tube with a fixed lens, usually with a T2
>>>screw mount, for which there are adaptors for all brands of SLRs).
>>>
>>>I 'scanned' this way some slides for a magazine article and a Canon 1Ds, and
>>>the results were very good (of course, dust and hair specks aren't removed
>>>automagically like in a modern film scanner).
>
>> The duplicator will give far better quality though.
>
>I realise that a slide scanner which scans to a higher resolution than
>one's camera sensor is capable of will give more detailed results, but
>I wonder if there is anything more to it than that?
>
>For example, I'd be quite happy if I could convert my slides to
>digital images at the same quality as the photographs my digital
>camera takes. So it seems to me that if I used a good enough macro
>capability etc. (and a duplicator seems to be just a conveneniently
>packaged holder plus close-up) then I ought to be able to photograph
>my slides to the quality my digital camera is capable of.
>
>Am I right, or is there more to slide conversion than that?

The slide is much higher contrast than the original scene. Digital
cameras are also high contrast imagers. So after rephotographing it on
a digital camera, the contrast will be very high. That may be a good
thing or a bad thing depending on the image and your objectives. But
if your objective is to make a close reproduction of the original,
then the objective will not be achieved.

KS
From: Nick Fotis on
King Sardon wrote:

> The slide is much higher contrast than the original scene. Digital
> cameras are also high contrast imagers. So after rephotographing it on
> a digital camera, the contrast will be very high. That may be a good
> thing or a bad thing depending on the image and your objectives. But
> if your objective is to make a close reproduction of the original,
> then the objective will not be achieved.

First, some background information:
My slide duplicator is labeled "Ohnar", has metal construction and no zoom
control. I suspect the optics are from Bush&Meissner, judging from a label
on the box.

It's essentially a fixed 1:1 reproduction system, with a holder and a white
rectangular plastic diffuser that can make lighting more uniform.
It contains also a fixed lens in the middle of the barrel.
It has a screw-mount T2, added a T2-mount to Canon EF.
If you don't have natural light available, you can use a lightbox or a flash
facing the slide.

Regarding contrast, I haven't seen raised levels of it, contrary to your
assertion.
Note that dSLR RAW files (even JPEG files) have LOW contrast, and often need
sharpening in Photoshop or a similar application.
Slide projection raises contrast, as far as I know, in order to heighten the
impact to the viewer.

In the Canon 1Ds MkII, the results were VERY good, and I suppose with the
EOS 5D would be nearly the same.
The pros:
- low cost (got mine from Ebay), if you own already a full-frame dSLR
- very high speed (scan at 1/60 of the second per slide or so)
The cons:
- you cannot automagically remove hairs and dust specks like in modern
scanners
- you can only scan 1 photo each time

Another way (if you have a macro lens suitable for 1:1 shooting) is to use a
light box under the slide, on a copy stand, and you put your camera on a
fixed height.
This method needs a lens which doesn't suffer from 'focus creep' (ie., it
retains focus while it points down).

At any case, you may need some experimenting before settling on a particular
method.

Hope this helps,
N.F.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Bayer filter removal
Next: Battery woes