Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

Reply
Thread Tools

Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

 
 
John Fryatt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
<RJ> wrote:
> Like many older photogs, I've got a ton of slides to save.
>
> The accepted solution seems to be a "slide scanner".
> But WHY ?
>
> Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
> the image produced by digicam electronics ?
>
> We certainly don't see even high-end cameras "scanning" their shots.
>
> So why are slide copiers based on an old, and sloooow
> scanning technology ?
> When will we see a "slide shooter" ??


What do you mean by 'slide shooter'?

If you mean a device to copy slides in one 'hit' rather than scanning
across them, maybe this is what you're after?
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/...fm?test_id=124
This one seems to fit on the front of a camera's lens, but I've seen
other variants that attach to an SLR body.

John
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tomm42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
Try to find an old slide duplicator (Bessler made a great one), have a
good enlarging lens, a slide duplicating lens would be better
(Schneider Componon 80 f2.. It will come close to a slide scanner.
The Novoflex attachment is good, but the slide du[plicator route is
better. The one disadvantage, even with a D200, you get a 28mb file (56
done in 16 bit RAW) while even my old Minolta Scan Multi will give a
32mb file, the Nikon 5000 or Minolta 5400 alsost double that. Just
remember if you are going to digitally photograph your slides, use good
equipment, this is what slide duplicators were made to do.

Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E4in=F6_Louekari?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
timeOday wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> "<RJ>" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>>> the image produced by digicam electronics ?

>>
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>> When will we see a "slide shooter" ??

>>
>>
>>
>> That's pretty easy to do with a light table and a digicam that can
>> shoot from close-up. The results are ok, but scanners are better.

>
>
> A light table seems a bit... indirect.
> Has somebody tried projecting an image right onto a DSLR CCD with the
> camera's lens removed? I guess you would need some type of projection
> apparatus that can project a very small (35mm) image. You could also
> place the negative right on the DLSR CCD, but that sounds risky.
>
> I know people like the insane resolutions you can capture with a
> scanner, but digicams capture just as much detail as 35mm film so I
> don't think it's justified.


Actually ordinary consumer digital cameras do not capture as much detail
as 35 mm slide film. Far from it. For example see
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
According to Clark "The 11 megapixel canon 1Ds comes close to 35mm
Velvia". And 1D is hardly a camera for everyone but a film SLR and slide
film are. So shooting slide and scanning the results wtih a slide
scanner makes a lot of sense if it is image quality you want.

Väinö Louekari
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Salomon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"tomm42" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> a slide duplicating lens would be better
> (Schneider Componon 80 f2..


That is an enlarging lens.

The industry standard duplicating lens is the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon D
80mm 4.0 for 1:1 dupes

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
<RJ> writes:

> Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
> the image produced by digicam electronics ?


Yes ... dramatically better.

> So why are slide copiers based on an old, and sloooow
> scanning technology ?


Scanning produces much better resolution and depth than trying to
shoot an entire slide at a time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
timeOday writes:

> I know people like the insane resolutions you can capture with a
> scanner, but digicams capture just as much detail as 35mm film so I
> don't think it's justified.


Digicams don't capture as much detail as film; that's why some people
still shoot film.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
Marvin writes:

> The highest-resolution, commercial, digicams can give a
> photo as detailed as one on 35 mm film.


My film scans have more detail than any DSLR I've seen.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bert Hyman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (timeOday) wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Has somebody tried projecting an image right onto a DSLR CCD with the
> camera's lens removed? I guess you would need some type of projection
> apparatus that can project a very small (35mm) image.


Like this?

https://secure.soligor.com/index.php...oducts=499&L=1

This is a slide duplicator for traditional film cameras, but the technique
would be the same for digital cameras.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
> Like many older photogs, I've got a ton of slides to save.


Want to try a DIY approach?

Try this (a home made slide duplicator):

http://tinyurl.com/c2et8

Malcolm


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2006
"Väinö Louekari" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:NEa%f.251$(E-Mail Removed)...
> timeOday wrote:
>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>
>>> "<RJ>" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>>>> the image produced by digicam electronics ?

>
> Actually ordinary consumer digital cameras do not capture as much detail
> as 35 mm slide film. Far from it. For example see
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
> According to Clark "The 11 megapixel canon 1Ds comes close to 35mm
> Velvia". And 1D is hardly a camera for everyone but a film SLR and slide
> film are. So shooting slide and scanning the results wtih a slide scanner
> makes a lot of sense if it is image quality you want.
>
> Väinö Louekari


Don't forget, when Roger wrote that, the 1Ds, at $7000 and 11 mp, was the ne
plus ultra of digital cameras. Now, the Nikon D200 ($1600) checks in at
nearly 11 mp, the D2X ($4000) at better than 12, both with 1.5x crop APS
sensors, the Canon 5D weighs in with a 35mm sized sensor and nearly 13mp
($3000) and the 1Ds mkII, at the same $7000 that its predecessor cost,
checks in at 16mp.
But if you're speaking of P&S type cameras, you are totally correct...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[ANN] Slide Show (S9) Gem V0.6 - New and Improved Support for UsingYour Own Slide Show Templates Gerald Bauer Ruby 0 08-26-2008 08:12 PM
get all word of slide through aspose.slide akshar108 via DotNetMonster.com ASP .Net 0 10-30-2007 04:49 AM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Slide-in & slide-out Scroller Help! banyan Javascript 0 11-16-2005 08:05 AM
Good slide scanning service vs. good slide scanner for Do-It-Yourself? LAshooter Digital Photography 0 06-25-2005 07:14 AM



Advertisments