Why?
Why not?
I found a post to an old thread about the idea on Photo.net that sums it
up succinctly...
"I know most think this is backwards but I do enjoy my darkroom so much."
It sounds like an interesting problem to me. Not that you would
necessarily want to do it, but interesting to know how it might be done.
I've been thinking of something similar in the last few days, wondering
if there might be a way to make darkroom prints substituting a digital
projector for the enlarger head.
On 8/26/2015 9:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:
Matthew is correct. They called them "flim recorders." The film was
exposed by colored lasers. Cost a lot and finicky to setup. All the
disadvantages of film with even more inconvenience and expense. We
used them at work before digital projectors became ubiquitous.
I am curious why you may want to do this. Digital projectors are in
the $300 range and are much better than slide projectors ever were.
Considering the cost of film and processing, a projector would quickly
pay for itself.
gs
George Sinos
--------------------
www.GeorgesPhotos.net
www.GeorgeSinos.com
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Malcolm Smith <rrve...@virginmedia.com> wrote:
Some months ago I asked a question about how best to transfer slides to
digital images. All is good with that, and the slow scanning transfer
continues. Probably for several years as time allows.
However, I was asked the other day how to do this the other way, transfer a
digital image to a 35mm slide. As I still live in the 1970s and shoot film
and have slide shows etc, that rather appealed to me to have a go myself. A
look on-line showed there were companies out there who would do this, but I
want to be able to have a try at this from home without the need for further
expense in equipment. Obviously, companies aren't exactly up front on how
they achieve this, but I presume they are sent the images by e-mail, convert
them to a certain standard pixel image size, and have some way of mounting a
film camera to view the image in sort of dark room conditions to exclude
other light sources?
If it were a picture or a document, it would be more straight forward to use
a duplicating stand with appropriate lighting. The only thing that came to
mind was taking a picture of the image on a computer screen in a darkened
room (image displayed at a size which would result in a full frame capture,
camera tripod mounted), but I want to ensure that a quality image remains a
quality image when transferred to film and projected (no pixels!). Those
companies doing this commercially are displaying the digital image on
something from which they take a film image; I just suspect that their
'something' is considerably better than I have available at home. I have
tried doing the above with a digital camera+tripod/computer screen, just to
see how it comes out, and some results have been OK. I'm not aiming for OK,
I'm aiming for good as a minimum, and it must be repeatable time after time.
Anyone tried this or is it just me....? I thought this was also a different,
although backwards technologically, method of keeping certain images stored.
Malcolm
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
