jkjod
Well-known
I am trying to find a "scanning" solution for my 35mm film as well. I'd be interested in the how-to's of the so called MKIII.
leica films and dslr scanning
- Thread starter lukitas
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 86
- Views 10K
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I did this page up for a discussion about this very subject with the Ricoh GXR group a year ago:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/slide_capture/index.html
Here's the setup with my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5:
Whether you use a DSLR or a TTL electronic camera as the recording body is inconsequential. A copystand or other fixture (enlarger, etc), a light source (what you see in the photo is a flat panel light box about $60 these days), camera, and macro lens.
What's missing in this setup is a light shield between lens and slide or film to keep out reflections. I have one that I made out of black construction paper. 🙂
G
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/slide_capture/index.html
Here's the setup with my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5:
Whether you use a DSLR or a TTL electronic camera as the recording body is inconsequential. A copystand or other fixture (enlarger, etc), a light source (what you see in the photo is a flat panel light box about $60 these days), camera, and macro lens.
What's missing in this setup is a light shield between lens and slide or film to keep out reflections. I have one that I made out of black construction paper. 🙂
G
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Thanks, Godfrey. The GXR setup is a bonus for me!
mcfingon
Western Australia
OK, I give in! I will make a how-to on how I made my Mark III copy stand. I am in Western Australia (GMT +8 hours), so I will always be a long way out of time sync with US and Europe. I will begin the process tomorrow my time. I'll make a web page and link to it from here. I'm glad that people are interested.
lukitas
second hand noob
Great! Thanks.
Looking forward.
Looking forward.
mcfingon
Western Australia
OK people,
The web page on how to make a Mark III of your own is here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/howto/making_digitizer_mark_three/
I have only just put it there. If it is too confusing, tell me and I'll try to explain.
The web page on how to make a Mark III of your own is here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/howto/making_digitizer_mark_three/
I have only just put it there. If it is too confusing, tell me and I'll try to explain.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
akitadog
Established
Lukitas,
That is excellent. Good copies. Recently I bought a Nikon D600 to use as my digital camera. I wanted to use it primarily for Telephoto lens use. Earlier this year, I found an excellent deal on a Bellows system for the older Nikon F3HP systems. I adden a 12mm Extension tube to allow the camera to clear the frame of the bellows mount, use a 50mm 1.4 AI lens, and a small light table box to copy my slides. Although not optimum, the results are good enough to be viewed on a 46 inch LCD TV. This has kept my kids happy, as now they have digital slide shows of family vacations, etc. It may take me a few more winters, I only do this during the dark days of Winter), but the total cost for the bellows and Extension tube etc was less than $200.00 that Is pretty cheap for the results that I am getting. also, one day I have to try and use this set up to do some real macro photography outside.
Regards,
Akitadog
That is excellent. Good copies. Recently I bought a Nikon D600 to use as my digital camera. I wanted to use it primarily for Telephoto lens use. Earlier this year, I found an excellent deal on a Bellows system for the older Nikon F3HP systems. I adden a 12mm Extension tube to allow the camera to clear the frame of the bellows mount, use a 50mm 1.4 AI lens, and a small light table box to copy my slides. Although not optimum, the results are good enough to be viewed on a 46 inch LCD TV. This has kept my kids happy, as now they have digital slide shows of family vacations, etc. It may take me a few more winters, I only do this during the dark days of Winter), but the total cost for the bellows and Extension tube etc was less than $200.00 that Is pretty cheap for the results that I am getting. also, one day I have to try and use this set up to do some real macro photography outside.
Regards,
Akitadog
lukitas
second hand noob
lukitas
second hand noob
thank you Akitadog
While it is true that a dedicated scanner will deliver better results, the dslr-macrotube-enlargerhead set-up is significantly cheaper. When done right, the results can be nearly as good as a coolscan.
If you build your own set-up, you can avoid a lot of dust if you don't use a glass plate to rest your negatives upon : air both above and below the negative make it much easier to blow the dust away. Pointing the emulsion towards the lens eliminates one layer of transparency between the negative and the copy. And if the negative should keep some of it's natural curve, when pressed flat by its' sides, the curve is in the direction of whatever spherical aberration remains in some lenses. I suspect that is why my 18-55 dx zoom works so well in my set-up.
One could even try to even out the light fall-off in the corners of some lenses : the negative will be a little less dense in the corners, so reproducing that same light fall-off in your light source should even out the scans. But that is another fiddle. And for a given lens, fall-off will vary with the aperture used, so that makes it very fiddly, except if one is slightly obsessive-compulsive.
While it is true that a dedicated scanner will deliver better results, the dslr-macrotube-enlargerhead set-up is significantly cheaper. When done right, the results can be nearly as good as a coolscan.
If you build your own set-up, you can avoid a lot of dust if you don't use a glass plate to rest your negatives upon : air both above and below the negative make it much easier to blow the dust away. Pointing the emulsion towards the lens eliminates one layer of transparency between the negative and the copy. And if the negative should keep some of it's natural curve, when pressed flat by its' sides, the curve is in the direction of whatever spherical aberration remains in some lenses. I suspect that is why my 18-55 dx zoom works so well in my set-up.
One could even try to even out the light fall-off in the corners of some lenses : the negative will be a little less dense in the corners, so reproducing that same light fall-off in your light source should even out the scans. But that is another fiddle. And for a given lens, fall-off will vary with the aperture used, so that makes it very fiddly, except if one is slightly obsessive-compulsive.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, um, not really... Not unless you already own a DSLR and an enlarger to sacrifice, and the appropriate lens.
My Nikon Coolscan IV cost me $235 used in 2006. I sold it in 2009 when a V came available, paid an additional $300 for the V on top of the $300 I sold the IV for. The Ricoh GXR setup in the link I sent earlier is an $800-900 collection of equipment.
To me, the major reasons to use the camera capture setup are to get more pixels on sub-35mm formats, for speed, and flexibility with odd formats.
G
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
whited3
Well-known
This is great. I scan my negatives with a dslr myself, but using pieces of a slide copier.
Just curious though, do you say dedicated scanners deliver better results because that's your experience? It seems dslr scanning gives much better detail on 135 film compared to flatbeds like the Epson V700. Tonality and dmax seem to be comparable. Unfortunately I don't have a scanner to verify this on my own.
pete hogan
Well-known
lukitas
second hand noob
You're right, I was discounting the cost of the enlarger and the camera. And I remember the coolscans as being much more than a couple of hundreds.
lukitas
second hand noob
A little experience, a lot of research. When I started out in graphics, scanners were non-existent. 4-colour films were printed on a large copy-camera with a giant 250mm lens, using color filters and rasters, and color correction was done chemically, leaching out or fattening up the raster dots. I dropped out just before digital became the norm, when drum-scanners were still the bees knees. That should give you an idea of what little experience I have.
There is a very interesting link to a comparison of coolscan and dslr results earlier in this post (this is it : http://www.colorneg.com/black-and-white-negatives/digitize/digital-camera/reproduce/), and you can find very gründlich reviews of every kind of scanner at http://filmscanner.info - most have been translated to english.
Their main business is scanning negs and slides, more than selling scanners, so they tend to poopoo anything less than the flextight and the coolscans they use themselves. Still, the reviews are very informative and detailed, and they try to give you a reasonably exact idea of what the true maximum resolution of a given scanner is. And they count D-mins and D-maxes.
According to them, and what little experience I have, flatbeds are no good for 35mm, at best a quick fix for scanning medium format, if you pour scanning oil on the scanning plate and stick your film in that. In a dust-free environment of course. And the nominal resolution isn't realistic. They say most scanners can deliver at best half the announced maximum resolution - checked with MTF targets!
So I was very happy to find a 'free' solution. The enlarger is the lesser of two that were doing nothing since more than a decade, and the dslr, a cheap second-hand number (with low actuations), is still a dslr when it is not a scanner. It feels gratis to me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The used prices for the Coolscan IV and V have risen dramatically in the past couple of years, it's true. But occasionally the deals show up ... I saw a very new looking Coolscan IV going on Ebay a couple of months ago for $400, which is a great value for the quality you get out these devices.
(The Coolscan 9000ED is more expensive now too ... when I first looked at one in 2005, they were about $1900 new. I ended up paying $2500 for a lightly used one this year. Such it is. ...)
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've been working with flatbed and negative scanners (and film recorders) since the middle 1980s, as well as digital capture with macro setups.
Dedicated negative scanners produce much finer results on small format film than flatbed scanners due to the focusing lens optimized for film reproduction. Most flatbed scanners until you get into the multiple thousands of dollar units have fixed focus lens arrays and image film through glass, which cuts resolution.
For instance, the Epson V700/V750 can scan at 4800 ppi optically, but the best measured resolution I was ever able to achieve from the V700 was on the order of 2600 ppi from a resolution test transparency. The Nikon Coolscan V ED scans at 4000 ppi optically and nets almost exactly that measured resolution.
Digital capture with a DSLR or other TTL electronic camera provides a good alternative now that we have easy access to high-resolution digital capture, but to get results that compete with a film scanner is labor intensive and not as consistent, since it is dependent upon your individual setup of the camera and negative jig. If you take your time and set things up well, are critical with your focus and exposure, etc etc, it can be nearly as good, and more flexible in some ways.
Fun stuff. 🙂
G
jkjod
Well-known
Ok, I've got a quick question...Is there an advantage to using a macro lens in the negative enlarger set-up over using an actual enlarging lens? I was looking over a manual for a Omega c700 enlarger (a lot available on eBay) and it says the minimum "magnification" for the c700 was .55 with a 50mm enlarging lens. So, if you had a reversing adapter on the front of the enlarging lens and then attached that to a DSLR you could get the needed mag of .65-.67 for a crop sensor. Does this make any sense?
I know dedicated scanners come up on eBay quite often, but a Nikon Coolscan is not cheap and I think I could rig up this enlarger set up for less than a Plustek. Anyway, it is fun to fiddle with contraptions like this.
I know dedicated scanners come up on eBay quite often, but a Nikon Coolscan is not cheap and I think I could rig up this enlarger set up for less than a Plustek. Anyway, it is fun to fiddle with contraptions like this.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Have a look here to help you get started:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87536-DSLR-Scanner-Light-Sources
I'm actually considering this once again now that I've read that thread! 😎
Similar threads
