Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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" ??



    <rj>
     
    Guest, Apr 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    timeOday Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "<RJ>" <> 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.
     
    timeOday, Apr 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "<RJ>" <> 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.
     
    Paul Rubin, Apr 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "<RJ>" <> 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.


    I think the guy is asking for a digital camers that shoots slides. Somebody
    tell him!
     
    Dennis Pogson, Apr 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    "<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" ??
    >
    >
    >
    > <rj>


    See the 6th item down.

    http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/service_support1.htm

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Apr 12, 2006
    #5
  6. "<RJ>" <> writes:

    > Like many older photogs, I've got a ton of slides to save.
    >
    > The accepted solution seems to be a "slide scanner".
    > But WHY ?


    The right tool for the job.

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


    Resolution isn't everything; the ability to map the brightness range
    properly, and to get the details out of the darkest areas, are big
    wins for scanners compared to the alternative approaches. Also,
    scanners have things like ICE that can save many minutes of retouching
    for each slide.

    My Coolscan 5000 produces about a 130MB file at top resolution. My
    Nikon D200 produces about a 15MB raw file.

    > We certainly don't see even high-end cameras "scanning" their shots.


    Yes we do. Scanning backs are where digital photography started, and
    are still available for the highest-resolution devices -- because they
    can be made higher resolution than single-shot backs.

    > So why are slide copiers based on an old, and sloooow
    > scanning technology ?
    > When will we see a "slide shooter" ??


    Never. Not worth anybody's time to develop. May not be feasible.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    Marvin Guest

    <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" ??
    >
    >
    >
    > <rj>


    The highest-resolution, commercial, digicams can give a
    photo as detailed as one on 35 mm film. I have a lot of
    slides I'm planning to scan. Just as I have a gadget that
    lets me convert my old LP records to CDs. I want to keep
    the content in a format that is practical in today's world.
     
    Marvin, Apr 12, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Ed Ruf, Apr 12, 2006
    #8
  9. timeOday <> writes:

    > Paul Rubin wrote:
    > > "<RJ>" <> 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.


    Not quite, but I did the equivalent when printing B&W 35mm slides from
    B&W 35mm negatives. I used a long lens on my enlarger, and a
    front-surface mirror to direct it into the camera body.

    > 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.


    You need more scanned pixels because each pixel isn't as clean -- it's
    one step further removed from reality.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    Sarah Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> 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 ?


    I've used an EOS 10D and a macro lens to photograph 35mm slides on a light
    table. The results are acceptable for web work, and maybe for 6*4 prints,
    but very ropey compared to a high res flatbed (Epson 4870), let alone a
    proper film scaner.
     
    Sarah Brown, Apr 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    John Fryatt Guest

    <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/tests/testdetail.cfm?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
     
    John Fryatt, Apr 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    tomm42 Guest

    Re: Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

    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 f2.8). 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
     
    tomm42, Apr 12, 2006
    #12
  13. timeOday wrote:
    > Paul Rubin wrote:
    >
    >> "<RJ>" <> 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/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.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
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E4in=F6_Louekari?=, Apr 12, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    Bob Salomon Guest

    Re: Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

    In article <>,
    "tomm42" <> wrote:

    > a slide duplicating lens would be better
    > (Schneider Componon 80 f2.8).


    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.
     
    Bob Salomon, Apr 12, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    Mxsmanic Guest

    <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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 12, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 12, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    Mxsmanic Guest

    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.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 12, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    Bert Hyman Guest

    (timeOday) wrote in news::

    > 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?id=5&backPID=102&L=1&tt_products=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 |
     
    Bert Hyman, Apr 12, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Malcolm Guest

    > 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
     
    Malcolm, Apr 12, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    Skip M Guest

    "Väinö Louekari" <> wrote in message
    news:NEa%f.251$...
    > timeOday wrote:
    >> Paul Rubin wrote:
    >>
    >>> "<RJ>" <> 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/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.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
     
    Skip M, Apr 13, 2006
    #20
    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. Grant Dixon

    Slide scanners

    Grant Dixon, Jan 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    769
    Ed E.
    Jan 6, 2004
  2. Glen A Stromquist

    film/slide scanners and older HP flatbeds

    Glen A Stromquist, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    346
    Robert Feinman
    Jan 21, 2004
  3. ScottyBaby

    Recommendations on digital 35mm/slide scanners?

    ScottyBaby, Feb 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,959
    Barry Smith
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. Ralph K. Compton

    Slide Scanners

    Ralph K. Compton, Apr 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    611
    JMooreTS
    Apr 6, 2004
  5. Arold \Al\ Green

    slide scanners?

    Arold \Al\ Green, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    553
    Alan Browne
    Oct 28, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page