Digital to Slides

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by texey, Oct 16, 2003.

  1. texey

    texey Guest

    Where can I get slides made from my digital photos?
    I mean for a 35mm slide projector.
     
    texey, Oct 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. texey

    George Guest

    Buy a film recorder OR take it to a service bureau that offers this. I
    haven't checked lately, but there used to be ads for this type of service in
    Computer Shopper and Shutterbug.

    "texey" <> wrote in message
    news:4Lmjb.141977$%h1.142159@sccrnsc02...
    > Where can I get slides made from my digital photos?
    > I mean for a 35mm slide projector.
    >
    >
     
    George, Oct 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. texey

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:45:36 GMT, "texey" <>
    wrote:

    >Where can I get slides made from my digital photos?
    >I mean for a 35mm slide projector.



    www.imagers.com


    Good service, inexpensive, and quick.

    You can upload your digital files via their website
    and have your slides in a couple of days.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Provided the digital image is of good quality, how do the slides made in
    this way compare to slides shot directly in a camera?

    Michael
     
    Michael Kilpatrick, Oct 16, 2003
    #4
  5. texey

    Jerry Dycus Guest

    Shelby Camera & Video $2.00ea in reasonable quantities. Call
    704-487-9057 4K resolution.

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:45:36 GMT, "texey" <>
    wrote:

    >Where can I get slides made from my digital photos?
    >I mean for a 35mm slide projector.
    >
    >
     
    Jerry Dycus, Oct 16, 2003
    #5
  6. texey

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:34:19 +1000, "Michael Kilpatrick"
    <mkilpatr*cutthis*@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

    >
    >Provided the digital image is of good quality, how do the slides made in
    >this way compare to slides shot directly in a camera?



    I wouldn't know. When I do this, it's to create slides fror
    juries for my arts/crafts shows. Most of the time <G> it's
    good enough for the jury and I get into the show -- which
    is all that matters. Offhand, they look pretty good to me;
    color and saturation look right on. I suppose it might be
    interesting to scan one of these..


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 16, 2003
    #6
  7. Thanks

    I'm interested in this because I'm about to buy a digital slr for wildlife
    photography (the prospect of a useable iso 1600 was too tempting) but I have
    always shot slides and enjoy showing them to friends. High quality digital
    projectors are still too expensive, so I'm wondering if I can have my cake
    and eat it too.
    I suppose the obvious thing is to get some good digital images and give it a
    try.

    Michael
     
    Michael Kilpatrick, Oct 16, 2003
    #7
  8. mkilpatr*cutthis*@optusnet.com.au (Michael Kilpatrick) writes:

    > I'm interested in this because I'm about to buy a digital slr for wildlife
    > photography (the prospect of a useable iso 1600 was too tempting) but I have
    > always shot slides and enjoy showing them to friends. High quality digital
    > projectors are still too expensive, so I'm wondering if I can have my cake
    > and eat it too.


    That's not necessarily true any more. You can get a pretty good digital
    projector in the $900 range.

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2F725C36

    With an HDTV tuner, it can take care of your HDTV viewing too, albeit at
    800x600, or whatever the resolution is at 16x9.

    They also have an XGA version at http://makeashorterlink.com/?A63821C36
    for about $1700.

    Granted, that is a lot more than a slide projector, but if you are buying
    digital SLRs and lenses, you are already shopping in that price range.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Oct 16, 2003
    #8
  9. Larry Caldwell <> writes:

    >That's not necessarily true any more. You can get a pretty good digital
    >projector in the $900 range.
    >http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2F725C36


    If you think 800x600 images are comparable to projected 35 mm slides.
    Brightness and contrast can be fine, but the resolution is far far
    less. This is 0.5 megapixels!

    >They also have an XGA version at http://makeashorterlink.com/?A63821C36
    >for about $1700.


    That's 1024x768. Now we're up to 0.75 megapixels.

    >Granted, that is a lot more than a slide projector, but if you are buying
    >digital SLRs and lenses, you are already shopping in that price range.


    The problem is that digital projectors do not even approach the
    sharpness of a projected slide, no matter how much you pay. If you
    shoot with a 4 or 6 megapixel camera, don't you want your projected
    images to show those pixels? If 0.5 megapixels is enough, you can use a
    much cheaper camera.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 17, 2003
    #9
  10. (Dave Martindale) writes:
    > Larry Caldwell <> writes:
    >
    > >That's not necessarily true any more. You can get a pretty good digital
    > >projector in the $900 range.
    > >http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2F725C36

    >
    > If you think 800x600 images are comparable to projected 35 mm slides.
    > Brightness and contrast can be fine, but the resolution is far far
    > less. This is 0.5 megapixels!
    >
    > >They also have an XGA version at http://makeashorterlink.com/?A63821C36
    > >for about $1700.

    >
    > That's 1024x768. Now we're up to 0.75 megapixels.
    >
    > >Granted, that is a lot more than a slide projector, but if you are buying
    > >digital SLRs and lenses, you are already shopping in that price range.

    >
    > The problem is that digital projectors do not even approach the
    > sharpness of a projected slide, no matter how much you pay. If you
    > shoot with a 4 or 6 megapixel camera, don't you want your projected
    > images to show those pixels? If 0.5 megapixels is enough, you can use a
    > much cheaper camera.


    That is an interesting point. I think it depends a lot on how much the
    human eye can resolve at a 10 or 15 foot viewing distance. The XGA
    projector does a very nice job of displaying photos, but I don't know how
    much better a 6 mp projector would appear.

    Projected slides look very nice, but they aren't anywhere near as sharp
    as reality. A projected 35mm image is pretty fuzzy if you start looking
    at it. Not only do you have the errors introduced during taking, by
    camera shake, lens distortion and film distortion, but then you have to
    project it back through a projector lens that is usually not the
    greatest, from a slide mount and platform that only approximates the
    plane of focus.

    The digital projector does much better than a mere comparison of pixels
    would seem to indicate.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Oct 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Larry Caldwell <> writes:

    >That is an interesting point. I think it depends a lot on how much the
    >human eye can resolve at a 10 or 15 foot viewing distance. The XGA
    >projector does a very nice job of displaying photos, but I don't know how
    >much better a 6 mp projector would appear.


    What matters is the angle of view. If you look at an 8x10 print from 10
    inches away, it fills a horizontal field of view of about 53 degrees.
    At that size, a 6 megapixel image will look pretty good (but not quite
    as sharp as nature), and a 1 megapixel image will look pretty fuzzy.
    If you view a 15 foot wide image from 15 feet away, the visual angle is
    the same, and the effect of resolution limits is the same (to a first
    approximation, anyway - the higher contrast of the slide probably helps
    get away with lower resolution).

    On the other hand, if you only look at a 7 foot wide image from 15 feet
    away, you only need 1/4 as many pixels for the same apparent sharpness.

    >Projected slides look very nice, but they aren't anywhere near as sharp
    >as reality. A projected 35mm image is pretty fuzzy if you start looking
    >at it. Not only do you have the errors introduced during taking, by
    >camera shake, lens distortion and film distortion, but then you have to
    >project it back through a projector lens that is usually not the
    >greatest, from a slide mount and platform that only approximates the
    >plane of focus.


    >The digital projector does much better than a mere comparison of pixels
    >would seem to indicate.


    Some of this is cost, I suspect. A cheap digital projector is still in
    the neighbourhood of $1000, and probably has a considerably better lens
    than a $100 slide projector. But if you spent $1000 on the slide
    projector, you'd get one with pretty good optics. Any camera shake and
    camera lens problems are the same whether you shoot digital, shoot film
    and scan, or shoot transparency film and project the transparency. Film
    does add grain, an advantage to the all-digital system.

    But if you shoot 4 or 6 megapixel images, I do believe you'll get better
    results recording to 35 mm film and then projecting the slides in any
    decent slide projector, rather than using a consumer digital projector.

    I have seen a 3840x2160 pixel digital projector, and *that* looked good
    (except for some dead pixels). But you can't buy one. The 1280x1024
    DLP digital cinema projectors also look pretty good, but I have to sit
    further back in the theatre than I normally would to avoid seeing
    individual pixels.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 18, 2003
    #11
  12. texey

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Michael Kilpatrick <mkilpatr*cutthis*@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >Provided the digital image is of good quality, how do the slides made in
    >this way compare to slides shot directly in a camera?


    Good quality slide film cannot be beat for range of brightness and detail.
    That means that 1) a slide made from digital info won't lose any quality,
    and 2) the result won't be quite as good as a photo taken with slide
    film.

    That said, if you're using the slide in a projector then you probably
    wouldn't notice any difference.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 20, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. serge

    converting slides to digital

    serge, May 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    546
    joevan
    May 20, 2004
  2. Raymond Donzdorf

    Slides and VHS to MP3 or Digital

    Raymond Donzdorf, Sep 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    788
    Thorkild Dalsgaard
    Sep 22, 2004
  3. Scott
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    489
    Wes J
    Aug 18, 2003
  4. Tom Shellberg

    Anybody use one of these for converting slides to digital?

    Tom Shellberg, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    464
    Marvin Margoshes
    Aug 30, 2003
  5. Tony Rice

    digital photo -> slides

    Tony Rice, Nov 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    415
    Tom Monego
    Nov 19, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page