[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul D. DeRocco wrote: I'm actually thinking about trying to photograph the slides with my 10D, and am wondering what lens I'd need in order to match up the 24x36mm slide to the 15x22.5mm sensor. That would indeed solve the DOF problem. Paul You might consider using a Canon FD Auto Bellows with the slide duplicator accessory and, say, a 50mm macro lens. This would make the business of framing, magnification and focus straightforward. (If you were in Australia I'd lend this gear to you...) You'd need the FD-EOS Macro Lens Mount Converter to attach your 10D, and probably a strobe for illumination. Something to consider... Peter Marquis-Kyle www.marquis-kyle.com.au Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Peter Marquis-Kyle You might consider using a Canon FD Auto Bellows with the slide duplicator accessory and, say, a 50mm macro lens. This would make the business of framing, magnification and focus straightforward. (If you were in Australia I'd lend this gear to you...) You'd need the FD-EOS Macro Lens Mount Converter to attach your 10D, and probably a strobe for illumination. Something to consider... H. I just asked about this in the Canon 10D list, so it's serendipitous that you'd suggest this here. So this is all stuff that Canon makes? Could this work with the regular 50mm f1.8 lens? It focuses down to 450mm, while the macro lens focuses to 230mm. This is all stuff that Canon MADE (past tense) as part of the manual focus system. The bits that I mentioned are all FD (manual focus), except for the adapter which allows you to attach the whole setup to your EOS mount body. see this 1982 brochure: http://www.canonfd.com/macrobrochures/closeupengl82.pdf Peter Marquis-Kyle Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Peter Marquis-Kyle This is all stuff that Canon MADE (past tense) as part of the manual focus system. The bits that I mentioned are all FD (manual focus), except for the adapter which allows you to attach the whole setup to your EOS mount body. see this 1982 brochure: http://www.canonfd.com/macrobrochures/closeupengl82.pdf Thanks for that document. That explains a lot. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Peter Marquis-Kyle You might consider using a Canon FD Auto Bellows with the slide duplicator accessory and, say, a 50mm macro lens. This would make the business of framing, magnification and focus straightforward. (If you were in Australia I'd lend this gear to you...) You'd need the FD-EOS Macro Lens Mount Converter to attach your 10D, and probably a strobe for illumination. Something to consider... H. I just asked about this in the Canon 10D list, so it's serendipitous that you'd suggest this here. So this is all stuff that Canon makes? Could this work with the regular 50mm f1.8 lens? It focuses down to 450mm, while the macro lens focuses to 230mm. As to illumination, I was thinking of yanking the lens out of my projector, and pointing the camera into the hole, stopping way down for the DOF. It might require a ND filter if the light's too bright. That would make it really easy to step through a bunch of slides. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Arthur Entlich Paul sent me a couple of his cooked slides to test with a few scanner for him. I too thought these could by flattened by all the usual methods, such as those you state below, until I saw them! Warped is a kind word. These mounts are charcoal broiled, and the base layer of the film frames is literally melted. There is no method that would truly flatten these other than perhaps two well clamped down pieces of thick glass. They are painful to look at! Heh, heh. I told you they were warped. Of course, I sent you some particularly bad ones. I have slides that cover the gamut from really bad, down to only slightly curved. Some of them had mounts that were so charred that I had to remount them. They were sitting in metal Logan boxes, and the slides in the top box were totally destroyed, as were the ones near the front and back of the other boxes. So are they hopelessly out of focus on your equipment, or can you manage to coax more sharpness out of them than an LS-2000? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No they aren't a complete loss. In fact the Minolta Dual Dimage II did a stellar job with them. Also, the Minolta software allows for a click to choose point for focus, but even without that it did well. The weakness with the Minolta was the noise level in dark images, like the one underexposed slide you sent. The Polaroid SS4000+ coped less well in terms of focus, with the extremely warped area in one, but otherwise was not bad. It might be better if something like Vuescan was used with it, if it allows for selective or manual focus. The Polaroid did better much with the noise issues. The main problem is the lack of dICE in this case, because the images have considerable dirt and some have burned emulsion, which the dICE might be able to repair. My recommendation would probably be a Minolta Elite II with dICE and higher bit depth A/D converter. You may be able to pick one of these up reasonably as they are no longer made. It is limited to 2820 dpi, making for more grain aliasing, but I think it might otherwise be a good choice, and I expect you could score one for under $500 US (several on line dealers are selling them new for $499 US, and I bet you can do even better used (none on Ebay right now, however). Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul D. DeRocco wrote: Some slides would require some cleanup in Photoshop, but surprisingly, most look just fine except for the fuzziness caused by the inability to focus on all parts of the slide. They're curved or rippled, and the cardboard mounts are brown around the edges, but their color is unaffected. One of the ones I sent Art had gotten really cooked, but I wanted to give him a hard one. He certainly did, but I wasn't trying to make them look beautiful, just checked for focus. On one the emulsion is burned. I'm actually thinking about trying to photograph the slides with my 10D, and am wondering what lens I'd need in order to match up the 24x36mm slide to the 15x22.5mm sensor. That would indeed solve the DOF problem. I'm guessing about a 30mm flat field macro lens should be roughly equal to a 50-55mm macro. Don't know if such a beast exists, however. I think it would have to be a specific lens designed for digital cameras. You may be able to get away with either an add on front of lens filter type CU diopter or some type of bellows systems, if they work with digitals, or even using a reversing ring on a wide angle lens. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Keep in mind that heated slides will tend to pop, and the ones you have will be even worse. I'd try to go with a cool illumination source if possible. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Peter Marquis-Kyle You might consider using a Canon FD Auto Bellows with the slide duplicator accessory and, say, a 50mm macro lens. This would make the business of framing, magnification and focus straightforward. (If you were in Australia I'd lend this gear to you...) You'd need the FD-EOS Macro Lens Mount Converter to attach your 10D, and probably a strobe for illumination. Something to consider... H. I just asked about this in the Canon 10D list, so it's serendipitous that you'd suggest this here. So this is all stuff that Canon makes? Could this work with the regular 50mm f1.8 lens? It focuses down to 450mm, while the macro lens focuses to 230mm. As to illumination, I was thinking of yanking the lens out of my projector, and pointing the camera into the hole, stopping way down for the DOF. It might require a ND filter if the light's too bright. That would make it really easy to step through a bunch of slides. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
On 1/18/04 5:35 AM, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul D. DeRocco wrote: Some slides would require some cleanup in Photoshop, but surprisingly, most look just fine except for the fuzziness caused by the inability to focus on all parts of the slide. They're curved or rippled, and the cardboard mounts are brown around the edges, but their color is unaffected. One of the ones I sent Art had gotten really cooked, but I wanted to give him a hard one. He certainly did, but I wasn't trying to make them look beautiful, just checked for focus. On one the emulsion is burned. I'm actually thinking about trying to photograph the slides with my 10D, and am wondering what lens I'd need in order to match up the 24x36mm slide to the 15x22.5mm sensor. That would indeed solve the DOF problem. I'm guessing about a 30mm flat field macro lens should be roughly equal to a 50-55mm macro. Don't know if such a beast exists, however. I think it would have to be a specific lens designed for digital cameras. You may be able to get away with either an add on front of lens filter type CU diopter or some type of bellows systems, if they work with digitals, or even using a reversing ring on a wide angle lens. Art HI, A short enlarging lens would be better - reversed wide angles are notoriously bad. Both Schneider and Nikor lines include a short lens that is well corrected. (and it isn't too hard to stick together a mount with old T-mount parts and current adapters. Brad -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul, I must be missing something. I gathered that many if not most were in such bad condition that they would require a lot of individual work after being dgitalized whether it is by a film scanner at higher resolutions or a flatbed scanner at lower resolutions. Are you now saying that the major defect on many if not all the slides is basically that they are warped ( not charred or otherwise damaged. Given the way things are advancing, I am not sure that we will see any further significant advances in scanners although it is true the cost of those that currently exist may come down in price and used ones definitely will come down within that price range as we move more and more into digital cameras. This brings to mind an alternative suggestions. Why not rephotograph the slides with a digital camera? Surely they must have more depth of filed than 1 mm and would be well within your price range. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Laurie Solomon crooked and warp slides? Paul what on earth are you doing with criminal and crazy slides? But in all seriousness, if they are as bad as described, I do not see the concern about loss of quality and newtonian rings that might result from putting them in glass slide mounts since they probably have already lost detail and information. I would think the idea would be to try and salvage what one could from them. At any rate, I am going to make an off handed recommendation, which may or may not e worth the time and effort or even be possible. Why not scan them in using a sheet of anti-newtonian glass on top of them at the same size and at as high a resolution as you can with a flatbed scanner; once you have them digitalized and even tweaked in Photoshop, print them out via film recorder to new 35mm slides or even 6x7cm transparencies, if you would like to archive the saved images on film as well as digitallly? I realize that the resolutions even with upsampling will not be all that great as to allow large enlargements; but I doubt that the quality of the originqals are not good enough to serve as a basis for getting something better at a large enlargemetn even if you were drum scanning them. The main thing I'm trying to figure out is if there's a way to digitize these slides without having to do a lot of individual work on each one. If I could find a scanner for $1500 or less that had a DOF of better than a millimeter, I'd jump at the opportunity, because it would save me having to remount each individual slide. If I can't find a scanner like that today, then I'll just leave them in a box until some time in the future when I can. Austin recommended the Leaf 45, which I could probably afford used. It may be the ticket, although it looks about the size of a small drill press. ;-) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul sent me a couple of his cooked slides to test with a few scanner for him. I too thought these could by flattened by all the usual methods, such as those you state below, until I saw them! Warped is a kind word. These mounts are charcoal broiled, and the base layer of the film frames is literally melted. There is no method that would truly flatten these other than perhaps two well clamped down pieces of thick glass. They are painful to look at! Art Michael Creem wrote: Another solution might be to use Wess plastic mounts. They have a version that has pegs in the mount that match the sprocket holes in 35mm film and they hold the film very flat without having to deal with glass. They come in a version that shows the full 35mm frame. I think that Wess has been sold but I think that someone else is making the mounts. They are very good. Michael Creem - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:07 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Arthur Entlich Paul sent me a couple of his cooked slides to test with a few scanner for him. I too thought these could by flattened by all the usual methods, such as those you state below, until I saw them! Warped is a kind word. These mounts are charcoal broiled, and the base layer of the film frames is literally melted. There is no method that would truly flatten these other than perhaps two well clamped down pieces of thick glass. They are painful to look at! Heh, heh. I told you they were warped. Of course, I sent you some particularly bad ones. I have slides that cover the gamut from really bad, down to only slightly curved. Some of them had mounts that were so charred that I had to remount them. They were sitting in metal Logan boxes, and the slides in the top box were totally destroyed, as were the ones near the front and back of the other boxes. So are they hopelessly out of focus on your equipment, or can you manage to coax more sharpness out of them than an LS-2000? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
crooked and warp slides? Paul what on earth are you doing with criminal and crazy slides? But in all seriousness, if they are as bad as described, I do not see the concern about loss of quality and newtonian rings that might result from putting them in glass slide mounts since they probably have already lost detail and information. I would think the idea would be to try and salvage what one could from them. At any rate, I am going to make an off handed recommendation, which may or may not e worth the time and effort or even be possible. Why not scan them in using a sheet of anti-newtonian glass on top of them at the same size and at as high a resolution as you can with a flatbed scanner; once you have them digitalized and even tweaked in Photoshop, print them out via film recorder to new 35mm slides or even 6x7cm transparencies, if you would like to archive the saved images on film as well as digitallly? I realize that the resolutions even with upsampling will not be all that great as to allow large enlargements; but I doubt that the quality of the originqals are not good enough to serve as a basis for getting something better at a large enlargemetn even if you were drum scanning them. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon? From: Arthur Entlich Paul sent me a couple of his cooked slides to test with a few scanner for him. I too thought these could by flattened by all the usual methods, such as those you state below, until I saw them! Warped is a kind word. These mounts are charcoal broiled, and the base layer of the film frames is literally melted. There is no method that would truly flatten these other than perhaps two well clamped down pieces of thick glass. They are painful to look at! Heh, heh. I told you they were warped. Of course, I sent you some particularly bad ones. I have slides that cover the gamut from really bad, down to only slightly curved. Some of them had mounts that were so charred that I had to remount them. They were sitting in metal Logan boxes, and the slides in the top box were totally destroyed, as were the ones near the front and back of the other boxes. So are they hopelessly out of focus on your equipment, or can you manage to coax more sharpness out of them than an LS-2000? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi, I've hesitated to suggest this as it seems extreme, but from the discussion, it seems that extreme measures are needed. What I am suggesting would maintain whatever quality remains and will preserve the slides as well It's hard to say if this would work, but I think it is worth a try. Basically, mount the transparencies as if they were microscope slides (but on the glass for glass mounted slides - not microscope slides). Don't use anti-newton glass - no newton rings if there is a medium between the slide and glass making the contact. There are two possibilities, if you can, put the medium on the slide, and (perhaps using another glass slide) put enough pressure to force the slide flat (or nearly flat) with a clamp. The difficulty is to avoid sticking the second glass to the transparency - to avoid having the medium spread so far that it comes through the sprocket holes. At one time the medium would have been Canada balsam - a little yellow but easily corrected for - I don't recall the name of the currently used mounting medium, but it has less yellow. To the extent that you can get this to work with only one glass, this would be easier - if you find that you can't get it to work with only one glass, using mounting medium on both sides and making a sandwich would ultimately be possible for the most distorted. You may not be able to get the slides perfectly flat, but flat enough to work with. The key would be to have enough of the medium between the slide and the glass so that there are no glass/film/air places (newton rings being the result of interference resulting from light being reflected from film/air glass/air surfaces). The other problem is in putting the slides down on the glass with absolutely no bubbles - that probably means a lot of mounting medium. A bunch a of cheap small C-clamps are a lot less expensive than another scanner, the major trick might be in determining how much force can be applied before the glass break. (of course you want to protect all glass from marks from the clamp). While this seems extreme, I know that if this had happened to some of my grandfather's slides (from the 1930's 1940's), I would be glad to put in this effort for even several hundred slides. Good luck - and if you do try this, please let us know how it goes. Brad Fear most the heedless among you. - Inuit Proverb On 1/17/04 1:36 PM, Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: crooked and warp slides? Paul what on earth are you doing with criminal and crazy slides? But in all seriousness, if they are as bad as described, I do not see the concern about loss of quality and newtonian rings that might result from putting them in glass slide mounts since they probably have already lost detail and information. I would think the idea would be to try and salvage what one could from them. At any rate, I am going to make an off handed recommendation, which may or may not e worth the time and effort or even be possible. Why not scan them in using a sheet of anti-newtonian glass on top of them at the same size and at as high a resolution as you can with a flatbed scanner; once you have them digitalized and even tweaked in Photoshop, print them out via film recorder to new 35mm slides or even 6x7cm transparencies, if you would like to archive the saved images on film as well as digitallly? I realize that the resolutions even with upsampling will not be all that great as to allow large enlargements; but I doubt that the quality of the originqals are not good enough to serve as a basis for getting something better at a large enlargemetn even if you were drum scanning them. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon? From: Arthur Entlich Paul sent me a couple of his cooked slides to test with a few scanner for him. I too thought these could by flattened by all the usual methods, such as those you state below, until I saw them! Warped is a kind word. These mounts are charcoal broiled, and the base layer of the film frames is literally melted. There is no method that would truly flatten these other than perhaps two well clamped down pieces of thick glass. They are painful to look at! Heh, heh. I told you they were warped. Of course, I sent you some particularly bad ones. I have slides that cover the gamut from really bad, down to only slightly curved. Some of them had mounts that were so charred that I had to remount them. They were sitting in metal Logan boxes, and the slides in the top box were totally destroyed, as were the ones near the front and back of the other boxes. So are they hopelessly out of focus on your equipment, or can you manage to coax more sharpness out of them than an LS-2000? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Laurie Solomon crooked and warp slides? Paul what on earth are you doing with criminal and crazy slides? But in all seriousness, if they are as bad as described, I do not see the concern about loss of quality and newtonian rings that might result from putting them in glass slide mounts since they probably have already lost detail and information. I would think the idea would be to try and salvage what one could from them. At any rate, I am going to make an off handed recommendation, which may or may not e worth the time and effort or even be possible. Why not scan them in using a sheet of anti-newtonian glass on top of them at the same size and at as high a resolution as you can with a flatbed scanner; once you have them digitalized and even tweaked in Photoshop, print them out via film recorder to new 35mm slides or even 6x7cm transparencies, if you would like to archive the saved images on film as well as digitallly? I realize that the resolutions even with upsampling will not be all that great as to allow large enlargements; but I doubt that the quality of the originqals are not good enough to serve as a basis for getting something better at a large enlargemetn even if you were drum scanning them. The main thing I'm trying to figure out is if there's a way to digitize these slides without having to do a lot of individual work on each one. If I could find a scanner for $1500 or less that had a DOF of better than a millimeter, I'd jump at the opportunity, because it would save me having to remount each individual slide. If I can't find a scanner like that today, then I'll just leave them in a box until some time in the future when I can. Austin recommended the Leaf 45, which I could probably afford used. It may be the ticket, although it looks about the size of a small drill press. ;-) -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Laurie Solomon I must be missing something. I gathered that many if not most were in such bad condition that they would require a lot of individual work after being dgitalized whether it is by a film scanner at higher resolutions or a flatbed scanner at lower resolutions. Are you now saying that the major defect on many if not all the slides is basically that they are warped ( not charred or otherwise damaged. Given the way things are advancing, I am not sure that we will see any further significant advances in scanners although it is true the cost of those that currently exist may come down in price and used ones definitely will come down within that price range as we move more and more into digital cameras. This brings to mind an alternative suggestions. Why not rephotograph the slides with a digital camera? Surely they must have more depth of filed than 1 mm and would be well within your price range. Some slides would require some cleanup in Photoshop, but surprisingly, most look just fine except for the fuzziness caused by the inability to focus on all parts of the slide. They're curved or rippled, and the cardboard mounts are brown around the edges, but their color is unaffected. One of the ones I sent Art had gotten really cooked, but I wanted to give him a hard one. I'm actually thinking about trying to photograph the slides with my 10D, and am wondering what lens I'd need in order to match up the 24x36mm slide to the 15x22.5mm sensor. That would indeed solve the DOF problem. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi Paul How many slides are you talking about?. Tens, hundreds or a thousand?. Another alternative would be to copy them using the old camera-bellows-slide holder system.Then scan the copies. This however would introduce another source of error/distortion/grain etc of the image. Unless of course you have enough slides and you seem to be in the buying mood, you could use it as the excuse to buy a decent digital camera so you could digitize the damaged slides in one step using the bellows etc. I have not tried it, but imagine the DOF of a stopped down regular 50mm lens would be significantly better than of a film scanner. My $.02. Best, Alex On Thursday 15 January 2004 21:07, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Been thinking of your warped slides. If you got some slide mounts with glass, but instead of mounting them normally with the slide film between the two pieces of glass, you mount them with both the glasses on the outer side of the warped film. This way the glass would flatten the negative to perhaps where the DOF of the scanner is sufficient. I don't have any of the mounts around to try it. I do not know if you would get too many Newton rings etc. Diffraction?. Might be worth a try. Actually, I did that a couple days ago. I took one of my anti-Newton glass mounts, and yanked out the glass on the emulsion side. It worked fairly well, although I have some slides that, as a result of a fire, have such horrible ripples in them that they won't even lie flat when sandwiched between two pieces of glass. Besides, it's such a pain to do that, that I'd gladly buy a different scanner if it would solve the problem. Anyway, thanks for the input. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Another solution might be to use Wess plastic mounts. They have a version that has pegs in the mount that match the sprocket holes in 35mm film and they hold the film very flat without having to deal with glass. They come in a version that shows the full 35mm frame. I think that Wess has been sold but I think that someone else is making the mounts. They are very good. Michael Creem - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:07 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Been thinking of your warped slides. If you got some slide mounts with glass, but instead of mounting them normally with the slide film between the two pieces of glass, you mount them with both the glasses on the outer side of the warped film. This way the glass would flatten the negative to perhaps where the DOF of the scanner is sufficient. I don't have any of the mounts around to try it. I do not know if you would get too many Newton rings etc. Diffraction?. Might be worth a try. Actually, I did that a couple days ago. I took one of my anti-Newton glass mounts, and yanked out the glass on the emulsion side. It worked fairly well, although I have some slides that, as a result of a fire, have such horrible ripples in them that they won't even lie flat when sandwiched between two pieces of glass. Besides, it's such a pain to do that, that I'd gladly buy a different scanner if it would solve the problem. Anyway, thanks for the input. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Michael Creem Another solution might be to use Wess plastic mounts. They have a version that has pegs in the mount that match the sprocket holes in 35mm film and they hold the film very flat without having to deal with glass. They come in a version that shows the full 35mm frame. I think that Wess has been sold but I think that someone else is making the mounts. They are very good. Thanks. I'll see if I can find some. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Here's an indirect solution you might find useful until you find a better scanner. My LS-2000 DOF drives me up the wall on curled negatives. A few weeks ago there were some that I absolutely had to print, but no matter where I set the focus point in VueScan, some area was out of focus. What I ended up doing was creating multiple scans with focus points set to near and far parts of the neg so that all areas of the negative were in focus, just not in the same file. From there I Shift-dragged the files on top of each other into a single Photoshop file and used layer masks to blend all the sharp parts together into a single sharp scan. One problem with this method is that the scans can be slightly different in dimensions where they warp, so you may have to apply very slight distortion (a few pixels) with the Transform tool to avoid softness caused by misregistration. Temporary use of the Difference layer mode will show you what's out of register. Yes, it is a major, major pain in the behind to get around the DOF problem. But I got the prints out. --- Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: time-consuming. Second, some of the slides have ripples in them that even glass sandwiches won't take out. I really think that increased DOF is the only way I'll ever get decent files out of these. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Conrad Chavez My LS-2000 DOF drives me up the wall on curled negatives. A few weeks ago there were some that I absolutely had to print, but no matter where I set the focus point in VueScan, some area was out of focus. What I ended up doing was creating multiple scans with focus points set to near and far parts of the neg so that all areas of the negative were in focus, just not in the same file. From there I Shift-dragged the files on top of each other into a single Photoshop file and used layer masks to blend all the sharp parts together into a single sharp scan. One problem with this method is that the scans can be slightly different in dimensions where they warp, so you may have to apply very slight distortion (a few pixels) with the Transform tool to avoid softness caused by misregistration. Temporary use of the Difference layer mode will show you what's out of register. Yep. That's what I'm willing to spend $1000-$1500 to avoid having to do on a couple hundred slides. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi Paul Been thinking of your warped slides. If you got some slide mounts with glass, but instead of mounting them normally with the slide film between the two pieces of glass, you mount them with both the glasses on the outer side of the warped film. This way the glass would flatten the negative to perhaps where the DOF of the scanner is sufficient. I don't have any of the mounts around to try it. I do not know if you would get too many Newton rings etc. Diffraction?. Might be worth a try. Best, Alex Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Been thinking of your warped slides. If you got some slide mounts with glass, but instead of mounting them normally with the slide film between the two pieces of glass, you mount them with both the glasses on the outer side of the warped film. This way the glass would flatten the negative to perhaps where the DOF of the scanner is sufficient. I don't have any of the mounts around to try it. I do not know if you would get too many Newton rings etc. Diffraction?. Might be worth a try. Actually, I did that a couple days ago. I took one of my anti-Newton glass mounts, and yanked out the glass on the emulsion side. It worked fairly well, although I have some slides that, as a result of a fire, have such horrible ripples in them that they won't even lie flat when sandwiched between two pieces of glass. Besides, it's such a pain to do that, that I'd gladly buy a different scanner if it would solve the problem. Anyway, thanks for the input. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
I will try taking some reject slides or dupes and create a warp of similar magnitude and see how the scanners respond. I may have to turn off autofocus. This will take me several days to get to, I'm afraid. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Arthur Entlich Well, that's hard to say without knowing the extent of the ripples and which model scanner you are considering. How much distance are we speaking about between the upper most and deepest ripple? Are we speaking of potato chip ripples or what? ;-) I have a Minolta Dimage Dual II and a Polaroid SS 4000+, and if you give me some dimensions, I can try to replicate it and see what they can do with it. Also, have you tried to remount the slides to see if they can be made to lie more flat? It's hard to measure, but just eyeballing it, I'd say that I have easily a millimeter of warpage on some of them. And it's not necessarily a smooth domed curve from one edge to the other--some slides have ripples down one edge. (Although a simple curve of sufficient magnitude would be an adequate DOF test.) I've remounted slides in anti-Newton glass mounts, and got somewhat better focus, but noticeable grain from the glass. However, there are two problems with remounting. First, it's extremely time-consuming. Second, some of the slides have ripples in them that even glass sandwiches won't take out. I really think that increased DOF is the only way I'll ever get decent files out of these. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Well, that's hard to say without knowing the extent of the ripples and which model scanner you are considering. How much distance are we speaking about between the upper most and deepest ripple? Are we speaking of potato chip ripples or what? ;-) I have a Minolta Dimage Dual II and a Polaroid SS 4000+, and if you give me some dimensions, I can try to replicate it and see what they can do with it. Also, have you tried to remount the slides to see if they can be made to lie more flat? Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Arthur Entlich Without trying to be cute, basically any of them. This is a problem with the LED lighting system Nikon uses. The cold cathode tube lighting used by most scanners is simply brighter and allows for the lens to be closed down further, allowing for more depth of field. How much better are they? Will a Minolta (for instance) handle my rippled slides just fine, or will it be only somewhat better? I'm trying to decide whether I should invest in a new scanner, or fix the old one. I wish scanners had standardized DOF specs. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Arthur Entlich Well, that's hard to say without knowing the extent of the ripples and which model scanner you are considering. How much distance are we speaking about between the upper most and deepest ripple? Are we speaking of potato chip ripples or what? ;-) I have a Minolta Dimage Dual II and a Polaroid SS 4000+, and if you give me some dimensions, I can try to replicate it and see what they can do with it. Also, have you tried to remount the slides to see if they can be made to lie more flat? It's hard to measure, but just eyeballing it, I'd say that I have easily a millimeter of warpage on some of them. And it's not necessarily a smooth domed curve from one edge to the other--some slides have ripples down one edge. (Although a simple curve of sufficient magnitude would be an adequate DOF test.) I've remounted slides in anti-Newton glass mounts, and got somewhat better focus, but noticeable grain from the glass. However, there are two problems with remounting. First, it's extremely time-consuming. Second, some of the slides have ripples in them that even glass sandwiches won't take out. I really think that increased DOF is the only way I'll ever get decent files out of these. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's hard to measure, but just eyeballing it, I'd say that I have easily a millimeter of warpage on some of them. And it's not necessarily a smooth domed curve from one edge to the other--some slides have ripples down one edge. (Although a simple curve of sufficient magnitude would be an adequate DOF test.) I've remounted slides in anti-Newton glass mounts, and got somewhat better focus, but noticeable grain from the glass. However, there are two problems with remounting. First, it's extremely time-consuming. Second, some of the slides have ripples in them that even glass sandwiches won't take out. I really think that increased DOF is the only way I'll ever get decent files out of these. I wonder if this is your answer: http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html It looks to be a bit softer than a 2700 dpi scan, but quite a bit better than the 2450 or 3200, both of which have great DOF... David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: arm Have no idea how bowed your slides are. I have a minolta elite 5400.I frequently get edge blur with slides or negatives. I has not bothered me that much but I certainly do not get edge to edge sharp focusing. Have also used a LS-8000 and before a LS-4500 with the same problem I guess your only alternative is to find someone with each of the scanners or a store which has both and will let you plug in a laptop to test them so you may decide which you want to buy. Thanks for that info. I need a scanner that's _much_ better than the Nikon in order to capture these slides, since they're really warped. That is, unless I can find a better way to mount them. Other than that, how do you like the Minolta? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Without trying to be cute, basically any of them. This is a problem with the LED lighting system Nikon uses. The cold cathode tube lighting used by most scanners is simply brighter and allows for the lens to be closed down further, allowing for more depth of field. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: My LS-2000 finally died, so I'm in the market for a replacement. However, I have tons of slides that survived a fire, and that have nasty curls to them, and the Nikon never did a good job on them anyway, due to its shallow DOF. I tried glass mounts, and got Newton rings, so I tried anti-Newton glass mounts, and got visible grain. What scanners in the $1000 range have greater DOF than the Nikon? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: Arthur Entlich Without trying to be cute, basically any of them. This is a problem with the LED lighting system Nikon uses. The cold cathode tube lighting used by most scanners is simply brighter and allows for the lens to be closed down further, allowing for more depth of field. How much better are they? Will a Minolta (for instance) handle my rippled slides just fine, or will it be only somewhat better? I'm trying to decide whether I should invest in a new scanner, or fix the old one. I wish scanners had standardized DOF specs. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
How much better are they? Will a Minolta (for instance) handle my rippled slides just fine, or will it be only somewhat better? I'm trying to decide whether I should invest in a new scanner, or fix the old one. I wish scanners had standardized DOF specs. Paul, I would be more interested in the carriers than anything else, if I were you...since a good carrier might reduce your rippling by quite a bit. Hence, why I suggested the Leaf...as you could remove the film from the slide mount, and it uses standard Beseler 45 film carriers (as well as a very nice custom set of rotating film holders), which would allow you to get about as flat as you could with a glassless carrier...and...glass carriers are available (in 4x5). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi Paul Have no idea how bowed your slides are. I have a minolta elite 5400.I frequently get edge blur with slides or negatives. I has not bothered me that much but I certainly do not get edge to edge sharp focusing. Have also used a LS-8000 and before a LS-4500 with the same problem I guess your only alternative is to find someone with each of the scanners or a store which has both and will let you plug in a laptop to test them so you may decide which you want to buy. Best Alex. At 01:04 PM 1/8/2004, you wrote: From: Arthur Entlich Without trying to be cute, basically any of them. This is a problem with the LED lighting system Nikon uses. The cold cathode tube lighting used by most scanners is simply brighter and allows for the lens to be closed down further, allowing for more depth of field. How much better are they? Will a Minolta (for instance) handle my rippled slides just fine, or will it be only somewhat better? I'm trying to decide whether I should invest in a new scanner, or fix the old one. I wish scanners had standardized DOF specs. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi, The Minolta works great, have had no problems.Also have an L-8000 which can do 35mm but the Minolta is much easier to use. I use the LS-8000 for MF and also have edge blur.I guess to compare apples with apples I should compare with an LS-4000 which I think is very similar to the Minolta as far as ease of use.I scan at 5400dpi and have no problems. I truth I have had them both for a short time (less than a month) so have not really run a comparison by doing several negatives and slides in both machines to see how much of a difference the 5400dpi is with the 4000dpi of the LS-8000. The scanning software of both the scanners is so similar, you would think they were written by the same guy Best, Alex At 11:07 PM 1/8/2004, you wrote: From: arm Have no idea how bowed your slides are. I have a minolta elite 5400.I frequently get edge blur with slides or negatives. I has not bothered me that much but I certainly do not get edge to edge sharp focusing. Have also used a LS-8000 and before a LS-4500 with the same problem I guess your only alternative is to find someone with each of the scanners or a store which has both and will let you plug in a laptop to test them so you may decide which you want to buy. Thanks for that info. I need a scanner that's _much_ better than the Nikon in order to capture these slides, since they're really warped. That is, unless I can find a better way to mount them. Other than that, how do you like the Minolta? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
From: arm The Minolta works great, have had no problems.Also have an L-8000 which can do 35mm but the Minolta is much easier to use. I use the LS-8000 for MF and also have edge blur.I guess to compare apples with apples I should compare with an LS-4000 which I think is very similar to the Minolta as far as ease of use.I scan at 5400dpi and have no problems. I truth I have had them both for a short time (less than a month) so have not really run a comparison by doing several negatives and slides in both machines to see how much of a difference the 5400dpi is with the 4000dpi of the LS-8000. Is it likely that a medium format scanner will have greater DOF than a 35mm scanner, just because it needs it for larger pieces of film? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
Hi Paul, You can probably buy a near perfect Leaf45 for around $1k. They have quite good DOF. Regards, Austin My LS-2000 finally died, so I'm in the market for a replacement. However, I have tons of slides that survived a fire, and that have nasty curls to them, and the Nikon never did a good job on them anyway, due to its shallow DOF. I tried glass mounts, and got Newton rings, so I tried anti-Newton glass mounts, and got visible grain. What scanners in the $1000 range have greater DOF than the Nikon? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
