A digital camera as a scanner
il barbi
Now I see these devices from www.heartlandamerica.com being actually digital
cameras
I agree the components seem cheap and not accurate (the price does not
exceed 100 $) but why couldn't it work if I use some top level digital
camera with a full frame sensor and 12 Mpixels and build some device to
embed it with the slide to scan?
Perhaps such kit already exists?
il barbi
Martin Brown
If you want to copy flat material with a digicam then all that is needed
is a lightbox and a stand or tripod to mount the camera on. You may have
to square up and colour correct the image afterwards but most photo
programs have such a feature.
> Perhaps such kit already exists?
> il barbi
Slide copying devices for SLRs exist from wayback in the film days. I
have one and have used it in anger for a rush job where a single high
quality digital image was needed within the hour. The only snag is that
on most SLR digicams there is an implicit magnification of 1.4x compared
to a full frame 35mm slide.
If you are serious about scanning lots of slides at high quality the
Nikon kit is hard to beat. Some of the current crop of flatbed scanners
claim to scan slides and negs well enough to be useful but unless you
demount them the focus for slides in mounts is unlikely to be satisfactory.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Marvin
Allodoxaphobia
There was once a great construction article for this purpose entitled
"Make your own slide duplicator"
at:
http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm
But, I see the page is dead. And it cannot be found at The Way Back
Machine. And, Googling for the terms does not seem to find it at
a new web site. sigh...
I was emboldened by the article to make my own "slide duplicator" (in
reality a slide copier) -- using various cardboard tubing, plastic
pipe, etc. Since every digital camera has to be a different size and
shape, what you might make will look nothing like what I cobbled up.
HTH,
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
Clair Johnston
the Bowens Illumitran
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/bowens/bowens_illumitran-3/bowens_illumitran-3.htm
may be a good choice. They show up on ebay regularly. I got mine at a
university auction for $60 USD. I use it with Nikon D50 with excellent
results. My D300 will not fit without modification to the Bowens. Be
sure to get an adapter to match the flash trigger voltage to todays
cameras. What is nice about it is it is designed for high quality slide
copying in film days. You can make copys as fast as you change slides
and mash the shutter.
Clair
Eric Stevens
The Epson V700 scanner has a twin lens setup which claims to focus
both on the surface and within the emulsion layer of the slide. It
uses this technology to identify surface damage which detracts from
the image. I have never used mine with mounted slides (although that
was the reason I bought it) but I have used it on negative film and
found the resolution to be superlative, right down to the individual
grains.
http://www.epson.co.nz/Products/scanner/perfectionv700photo.asp
Eric Stevens
Allen
pictues of my children were on slides. I decided to make Christmas gifts
for them with, as it turned out, 360 slides instead of the 100 I had
planned). I made a copying device for my Canon Elan and mounted an old
Miranda 50mm lens reversed attached. This old lens from the 1960s was
absolutely needle sharp. I copied the slides to Kodacolor and had 4x6
prints made of them. They were totally overjoyed, to say the least. Two
or three years ago I got a Canoscan 8400 and rescanned those slides,
alond with a few thousand others. The results were much better than what
I got with the adapted camera, plus it was faster. I wish I could
invest in a film scanner, but that just isn't possible.
Allen
Nicko
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:05:51 GMT, Marvin wrote:
:
>>> I just want a scanner for slides being as fast as a photocopier...
>
> There was once a great construction article for this purpose entitled
> "Make your own slide duplicator"
> at:
> http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm
>
> But, I see the page is dead. And it cannot be found at The Way Back
> Machine. And, Googling for the terms does not seem to find it at
> a new web site. sigh...
>
> I was emboldened by the article to make my own "slide duplicator" (in
> reality a slide copier) -- using various cardboard tubing, plastic
> pipe, etc. Since every digital camera has to be a different size and
> shape, what you might make will look nothing like what I cobbled up.
Why did you waste your time composing a post that contains *less tnan
zero* information?
--
YOP...
Allodoxaphobia
>
> Why did you waste your time composing a post that contains *less tnan
> zero* information?
Works as a dick-head detector.
Nicko
Ah. Gotcha.
Touch�.
--
YOP...
tomm42
> I just want a scanner for slides being as fast as a photocopier...
> cameras
> I agree the components seem cheap and not accurate (the price does not
> exceed 100 $) but why couldn't it work if I use some top level digital
> camera with a full frame sensor and 12 Mpixels and build some device to
> embed it with the slide to scan?
> Perhaps such kit already exists?
> il barbi
It will work but you have to do it right, have a macro lens 50-60mm is
OK also look at the 35mm Tokina/Pentax if you have an APS-c camera.
Get a good copy stand, Kaiser is OK but a second hand Bencher or
Polaroid would be better. If the copystand come with lights on
brackets, that is great but lighting is essential 45 degrees equal
distance off center. I used to make slides (thousands) with this kind
of set up. If anything is off the quality goes down quickly, scanners
are much easier. Kodak had a book on copy work, worth the investment,
you can probably find it on EBay.
Tom
Stephen Henning
<be7ae3dd-5ade-419e...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
tomm42 <tmo...@wildblue.net> wrote:
> It will work but you have to do it right, have a macro lens 50-60mm is
> OK also look at the 35mm Tokina/Pentax if you have an APS-c camera.
> Get a good copy stand, Kaiser is OK but a second hand Bencher or
> Polaroid would be better. If the copystand come with lights on
> brackets, that is great but lighting is essential 45 degrees equal
> distance off center. I used to make slides (thousands) with this kind
> of set up. If anything is off the quality goes down quickly, scanners
> are much easier. Kodak had a book on copy work, worth the investment,
> you can probably find it on EBay.
I have been doing this for decades, but now with digital dominating, the
conversion of slides to digital images is creating renewed interest. I
like a 100 mm macro lens for a number of reasons. The main reason being
the much better working distance. I actually bought a 100 mm macro lens
and then found a body for it to fit on.
I use an old but very solid Minolta copy stand.
For slides, I built my own light box on which to set the slide. Mine has
a small tungsten lamp for focusing and a white board to reflect the
light of an external flash for the actual photo. With film, this worked
great since I used daylight film and a daylight flash.
With digital, I use a bright compact florescent bulb and get the color
correction when I go into photoshop. I find with this setup, when I use
Auto Levels in photoshop, the color balance snaps into place almost
perfectly.
For copying prints, books, and other items, is use a set of copy lights
which are actually at more than 45 degrees from the camera. The way it
works is that the size of what you can copy is half of the spacing
between the lights. So the more you spread them out, the larger an
object you can copy, but the less light you get.
I am writing a book and am going out to people and copying their photos.
I use my copy stand and camera as a scanner. It is much faster.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
MG
>
> There was once a great construction article for this purpose entitled
> "Make your own slide duplicator"
> at:
> http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm
That was mine. I took it down about a year ago when I changed service
providers. I probably still have a copy lying around somewhere and could put
it up again if anyone is still interested.
MG
John Navas
<12451721...@vasbyt.isdsl.net>:
Put it up as a Google Knol for indefinite free hosting.
<http://knol.google.com>
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
tomm42
> In article
> <be7ae3dd-5ade-419e-afb2-149be6569...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA -http://rhodyman.net
I agree, my copy work was mostly medical art so the pieces were 8x8 or
larger. with small objects I would use a 100, but that is awfully long
on an APS sensor. I always had my copy stand on a 30 inch counter or
table, used both a bencher and Polaroid. The OP, I believe, was
talking about photographing prints so she could go with either lens,
depending on size of the image. I have used a slide copier to
duplicate transparencies, a real slide duplicator with a Schneider
slide duplicating lens (80 f4 Componon designed for 1:1 mag), found
that the images needed more work in PS than scanned images, so in many
ways it was faster to scan.
Tom