Replying to this and a few later posts:
On 6/19/2012 8:51 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Peter Krogh (The Dam Book) recommends In-Camera Scanning
>> http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf
>> I've tried it with a Beseler Slide Duplicator and the IDMII Canon. It does
>> fine for quick and easy but I get better results with the Nikon LS5000.
>> Peter disagrees and says the camera scans are better.
> The deal breaker for me is the IR cleaning. Using a camera as a
> scanner is a great idea when you are trying to scan a half million
> slides in a real hurry, but then it comes back to bite you on the back
> end.
More than that, there's no mounted slide feeder. So the whole thing becomes a
highly physically intensive project. Even
if the film were in rolls, the roll mount adapter requires manual adjustment to
set the frame. Individually setting
every frame is a killer. It would be infinitely slower than the Nikon scanner.
The other reality is that resolution isn't as good. As Mike says, I found
resolution with 5D, 7mm tube, Auto Bellows,
80/4 Auto and slide copier attachment to be about equivalent to 4000 dpi film
scanning of 1940s KR slides. It's not as
good as a film scan of later films with lower grain and higher resolution. I
really doubt that a 5D III would match a
film scan, but don't have the camera to try it. One reason I've held onto the
5D is for FF work with this set-up.
> The reality is that the Nikon scanner with bulk feeder is possibly the
> best "affordable" solution around.
If it is in fact necessary or desirable to scan every slide, I think you are
right. Perhaps not just 'best affordable',
but 'best available' If a slightly higher rez scanner doesn't have dust
removal, it's simply impractical for this
project. I also wonder how many slides would benefit in a practical way. How
many aren't quite perfectly in focus, don't
have the DOF, or have subtle motion blur that limit usable resolution, anyway?
Super high rez digital image files reveal
many less than pleasant things. :-)
> I think Tina has the right idea. Automate the process as good as you can. The
> resulting images are
> actually remarkably fine for most purposes. (The VueScan IR cleaning
> with Kodachrome actually works very well now). When you or somebody
> wants a specific image blown up to massive proportions or when the 95%
> rule does not apply, then you go back to that one slide in question
> and either rescan to the best of your abilities or outsource to
> someone who has a drum scanner.
I agree with all this, except for one assumption, which I address in another
post. 4000 dpi scans done properly with
Nikon, Canon or Minolta scanners are very fine images. I can't imagine any
practical use other than very large prints
for which they would not be excellent. One the scanner software/settings are
worked out, which seems close to in hand, I
can't see the need for anything better, at least for more than a very small
number of images.
Agreeable Moose
(Wearing his "I Agree with AG" T-shirt)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|