mani
Well-known
I really wish someone would start producing something like this commercially - seems to me a natural kickstarter type venture. The light-source would need to be something more compact - possibly a flat LED panel - and the film would also need to be positioned in a holder that could slide and click effortlessly into place. But in almost every way this is an easier venture than creating a new scanner - which another forum member is making a heroic effort to do (and doing a great job so far, I should add!)
mcfingon
Western Australia
The digital cameras that many people already have are getting more sophisticated with each generation. This is the third Nikon I've had on this rig, starting with a D3100, then D3200 and now D3300 - 24 megapixels without an anti-alias filter for something like $380 US is terrific value. The bit about making the light source LED and compact is valid. I like having a condenser source from my black and white printing days, but I have used a battery-powered LED panel instead and found it works fine. My compromise was to put an LED globe in the enlarger head to reduce heat, particularly good for avoiding slide popping.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I agree. Film or prints remain visible, digital (or even analogue encoded) media do not. Video and audio masters tend to get lost within two or three decades of their making, as technology moves on. Most pro studios can't even read reel-to-reel tape, DAT, SCSI disks or Betacam SP any more - and these were the most mainstream pro media less than twenty years ago.
willie_901
Veteran
A dedicated DSLR set up was mentioned by several others. I believe this is the best option for your needs. Excellent bodies that are perceived to be out-of-date would produce excellent copies.
Once you have assembled the set up, usage should be straightforward. Many cameras will simultaneously save JPEG and raw files. This gives you a digital proof (JPEG) and a raw when post-production rendering requires optimization. With a variable light source you can also bracket exposures and merge them later. This is useful for under or over exposed transparencies.
There are two disadvantages. The slide copy setup will be less convenient to store and set up in between sessions. Dust removal is required (no ICE).
Once you have assembled the set up, usage should be straightforward. Many cameras will simultaneously save JPEG and raw files. This gives you a digital proof (JPEG) and a raw when post-production rendering requires optimization. With a variable light source you can also bracket exposures and merge them later. This is useful for under or over exposed transparencies.
There are two disadvantages. The slide copy setup will be less convenient to store and set up in between sessions. Dust removal is required (no ICE).
KevinS
Established
Another vote for the Coolscan V. Great results from a small, not ancient machine w/ICE.
Also, I bought a Nikon 8000ED (similar to the 9000ED) for about 1,000 USD and really like the results using Vuescan on an iMac. It has ICE and the holder takes 6 slides at a time. The price is likely higher now, so the DSLR option looks interesting.
Also, I bought a Nikon 8000ED (similar to the 9000ED) for about 1,000 USD and really like the results using Vuescan on an iMac. It has ICE and the holder takes 6 slides at a time. The price is likely higher now, so the DSLR option looks interesting.