Slide Scanners.... WHY ??

In article <ng3q3256dpnfl779cf2ar519of2vat16ec.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
"<RJ>" <baranick.DeleteThis@localnet.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "<RJ>" <baranick RemoveThis @localnet.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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.. 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
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

In article <1144861087.961512.203440.RemoveThis@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"tomm42" <tmonego.RemoveThis@wildblue.net> wrote:

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

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

"<RJ>" <baranick.RemoveThis@localnet.com> 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <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/>
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM.RemoveThis@theknack.net> writes:

> Paul Rubin wrote:
> > "<RJ>" <baranick.RemoveThis@localnet.com> 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:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <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/>
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

<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.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "<RJ>" <baranick.DeleteThis@localnet.com> 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!
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x64leon6e.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "<RJ>" <baranick RemoveThis @localnet.com> writes:
>> Does "scanning" produce better resolution than
>> the image produced by digicam electronics ?
>
> Yes.
>

Depends on the "digicam." Nikon D200, D2X, Canon 5D, 1Ds mkII, and even
possibly 20/30D and 1D mkIIn will give better results than most, or in some
cases, any, 35mm film scanned. And the 6mp DSLRs, like the D70s and
KonicaMinolta 7D hold their own.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

In article <ng3q3256dpnfl779cf2ar519of2vat16ec.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
<baranick.DeleteThis@localnet.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

<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
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ?? 

timeOday wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> "<RJ>" <baranick RemoveThis @localnet.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Slide Scanners.... WHY ??