----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> I know CH doesn't trust light other than flash. Howsomever, I was pleased
> with the color I got with a cheap 4x5,
> daylight balanced light 'table' allowed to warm up for 10 minutes or so.
>
You never know, perherps I will also accept the result of using light table
just like I was happy with the results of the 2700dpi (LS2000) scan. After I
got the 4000ED I have to redo all scanning. Life is short (the film fade
too), I don't want to find out later the color was not good enough and have
to rescan again.
>
> I used 7mm tube, bellows, 80/4 Auto macro lens, slide copier, cheap
> generic right angle finder with magnification and
> continuous light source. With decent light and viewfinder magnification, I
> found it reasonably easy to focus well. I
> think f8 is the sweet spot for this lens, but on 13 MP, I think f11 is
> just as good.
>
> At f11, with slides from the same roll, I think it's safe to focus once,
> as the slide copier is good at holding them in
> the same place. Sticks of neg film seemed a little iffier to me because of
> the way they have to be adjusted for framing
> by hand.
I use F11. The DOF is really thin, I have to change focus with different
brands of slide mount.
>
> If I were doing a lot of work with that set-up, I'd likely get a better
> finder magnifier. Well, if I were doing a LOT,
> I'd pop for at least a camera with computer connected live view.
>
I believe all entry grade Canon provide computer connected live view, the
image quality should be good enough even with a 600D.
> For fine work on later film taken with good lens/technique, this method
> falls short of a good 4000 dpi scanner. For a
> sea of frames, especially slides, it's probably more than good enough. For
> older KR with ordinary lens, I just couldn't
> see any meaningful difference.
>
Agree.
On the other hand copy with 80/4 and 5D II is better than my 4000ED for
mounted slides, they are usually not flat enough to provide center to edge
resolution as the DOF is too thin. 80/4 also has less flare problem with
high contrast slides.
> As CH points out, it's certainly faster than any other method of
> 'scanning'. Whether it's more time effective overall
> may depend on one's scanner and work flow. I've meant to compare it to
> batch scanning on the FS4000, but it seems I
> enjoy creating new images more than reviving old ones these days - and
> life happens. :-)
>
I always enjoy scanning old films, it let me remember the good old days :-)
I also enjoy playing with PS adjustment, it gives different (usually better)
look compared with the old prints.
C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|