Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>You also gave a fine analytical reason why this solution won't work well
>for copying slides and negatives.
>
Of course it will work. The question is how well. And for what purpose.
>What you didn't say, however, was whether you have actually tried this and
>find that the real world
>results conform to your expectations.
>
Nope. The only examples I've seen were fine for web use. The problem is
that you are copying through an anti-aliasing filter (deliberate
resolution reduction) through a lens which has to handle all the data at
once onto a sensor with limited resolution relative to the source. I've
never tried it because I'm happy with the results from my scanner. If
somebody wants to bring a slide copier to Bezerkeley, I'd be happy to
give it a try on the 300D.
>When it comes to the perceived quality of digital images I have come to
>totally distrust conventional analysis.
>
I certainly agree with you there. I was one of the first on the list to
point out that it is possible to make quite nice 8x10s from my little
2mp P&S.
>I suspect, but don't know, that some of the problems I see with respect
>to my scanner images have to do with the highly collimated light source.
>
I don't know what kind of scanner you have, or what software you are
using. My little Canoscan FS2710 has a diffuse light source and I use
Vuescan. I have never had all the problems that others seem to have. I
just prescan, set the film type, adjust the histogram, scan and it
works. I believe there are some mechanical solutions for one or more of
the Min*lta scanners to diffuse the light. In fact, I think Min*lta
copied one of them for the 5400.
>I was hoping that a slide copier and diffuser might produce something much
>different.
>
I'm sure! :-)
>Well, I'm sure it will be different but maybe not acceptable, eh?
>
I have a bellows, but not the slide copier and have never seen a need
for it since I got a scanner. If you have the equipment, why not try it
out? Are you near someone with an E-1 or Can*n and OM adapter?
>I really, really, really do hate scanning film.
>
Another solution might be one of the newer Epson flatbed scanners. They
consistently get reviewed as having poorer resolution than dedicated
film scanners of the same rated dpi. However, they still will have more
real resolution than the setup you are proposing. You can get a 4180 for
$200 that scans 4 slides or 12 negative frames at once and has ICE. It
takes a while, but you can load it up and go away to do something else
while it does its thing. The 4870 will scan 24 35mm negs or 8 mounted
slides at once.
Hve you thought about just haveing your stuff scanned for you, if do it
yourself is such a pain? I know the $0.42 I've been paying seemed too
high to you. How much is it worth to avoit something you "really,
really, really hate"?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|