|
lollybo posted:How long do you think small-format film is going to last? 35mm? Forever.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
ansel autisms posted:On the other hand I didn't notice a big improvement with flat negs. It ended up being a huge hassle because of the amount of dust that would get trapped between the glass and the negative. Definitely. I'm not sure if it's my drying process or maybe even my reels, but my black and white stuff is almost always bowed to some extent whereas lab C-41 scans perfectly fine. I'll usually scan a whole reel normally and if there are any keepers I'll go back and scan them with glass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
So pretend I'm a big idiot babby who doesn't know anything about lenses... because I don't really know anything about lenses. To DSLR-scan negatives, I need a macro lens, right? Just looking for something cheap on KEH turned up this: https://www.keh.com/242314/pentax-28-80mm-f-3-5-4-5-takumar-a-macro-2-touch-k-mount-manual-focus-lens-58. Cheaper than the stupid Lomography smartphone scanner thing... Would that work? If not, I'd appreciate recommendations for something cheap with a K-mount, or just a description of what sort of lens I need to look for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Definitely. I'm not sure if it's my drying process or maybe even my reels, but my black and white stuff is almost always bowed to some extent whereas lab C-41 scans perfectly fine. I'll usually scan a whole reel normally and if there are any keepers I'll go back and scan them with glass. Throw those bad boys in a thick heavy book and throw a few more books on top for good measure. In a week you should have some nice, flat negs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:So pretend I'm a big idiot babby who doesn't know anything about lenses... because I don't really know anything about lenses. Or throw money at the problem: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/21/pentax-film-duplicator-helps-you-scan-35mm-and-medium-format-film-quicker
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Now I really want one of these. Can they scan the usual 5-exposure strips, or does it need to be a whole roll? It can be either. I think you just need a strip above 2 frames so the scanner can pick up the DX coding. The only downside of the scanner I've found is it doesn't handle non-DX coded film well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
There is this one too: http://www.macodirect.de/cameras-accessories-slide-duplicator-diverse-digital-duplicatorbrus-version-p-751.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:So pretend I'm a big idiot babby who doesn't know anything about lenses... because I don't really know anything about lenses.  D90 with 105 Micro Nikkor "scanner" by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr SB-700 inside the cardboard box
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
I hate that buying enough 35mm ANR glass pieces for my scanner would cost me $120. It makes more sense to fasten something thin and rigid across the holders where the gutter between each photo would lie. I've experimented with this before and it works very well, but the problem is finding the right material and attaching it to the holders without making a huge mess of glue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
The Lomography Digitaliza holder keeps film perfectly flat. It's pretty cool how it works. Plus you can scan the sprocket holes if you're into that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I hate that buying enough 35mm ANR glass pieces for my scanner would cost me $120. It makes more sense to fasten something thin and rigid across the holders where the gutter between each photo would lie. I've experimented with this before and it works very well, but the problem is finding the right material and attaching it to the holders without making a huge mess of glue. I went to a local art supply shop that does framing and asked for a couple pieces of their glare-resistant glass. I think I paid like $6 and as long as I scan emulsion side down it's certainly good enough for web-res scans from my thrift shop Epson 3170.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:I went to a local art supply shop that does framing and asked for a couple pieces of their glare-resistant glass. I think I paid like $6 and as long as I scan emulsion side down it's certainly good enough for web-res scans from my thrift shop Epson 3170. Is that all that anti-Newton glass is? My mom has her own framing business and I can get basically free glass
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Yeah. If you can get free glass get some of that sick multicoated museum quality glass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If you're committed to film, just buy a V700. Even if you're just scanning 35mm it's appreciably better than a V500/V600. If you're only scanning 35mm you are much better off with a dedicated scanner like the PlusTeks (also Reflecta) -- quite higher true resolution and several (most?) are even cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
maxmars posted:If you're only scanning 35mm you are much better off with a dedicated scanner like the PlusTeks (also Reflecta) -- quite higher true resolution and several (most?) are even cheaper. Well, yeah - if you're only ever planning on scanning 35mm. Aren't the ones that do 120 more expensive than a V700?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Well, yeah - if you're only ever planning on scanning 35mm. Aren't the ones that do 120 more expensive than a V700? Ones that don't require you loving around with an old computer and/or software are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Stop recommending this scanner, I'm afraid it will go out of stock forever before I get around to buying my own. You'd better just bite the bullet and get one: Steve Huff did a feature on the Pakon (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/08/01/kodak-pakon-f-135-plus-film-scanner-review-by-logan-norton/) and prices went up to $299, and they go in and out of stock all the time. Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:You'd better just bit the bullet and get one: Steve Huff did a feature on the Pakon (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/08/01/kodak-pakon-f-135-plus-film-scanner-review-by-logan-norton/) and prices went up to $299, and they go in and out of stock all the time. poo poo. I'll just convince you to go all medium format and then buy yours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Ones that don't require you loving around with an old computer and/or software are. Ones that don't absolutely blow AND don't require loving around with an old computer will run you as much as a flagship canikon dslr. e: Those Pakon scans look great if you're sticking with 35mm exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Thread title appropriate. Would anyone in here happen to know why a ~1970 Nikon F1 (Black body, fTN) stops advancing film after five or six shots on a roll? I love my drop-dead manual 200mm and other goodies, but it's really depressing to lose 2/3rds of your roll and not know it til Costco calls you up a week later. Took me long enough to find the correct 'middle' of the lightmeter with alkalines in it. Camera shops are a joke now. Ask them about an M39 adapter for a 400mm Kern-Filar and they go cross-eyed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Ask anyone that and they'd go cross-eyed. What the gently caress is a Kern-Filar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
It's a box for sorting your kernels (or "kern") for when you have lots of different microwave popcorn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Well, yeah - if you're only ever planning on scanning 35mm. Aren't the ones that do 120 more expensive than a V700? About twice the price if memory serves. Perhaps more? But, price and resolution wise, we're looking at a huge difference between a 250 euro, 35mm only scanner like the PlusTek 8100 (3800 DPI) and a 650 euro scanner like the Epson V700 (2300 DPI) that also does other formats. The Plustek can extract, from a 35mm frame, more or less the same amount of detail that a V700 can extract from a 6x4.5 frame of a 120 roll. I hear the Reflecta 10T can extract even more information from a single 35mm frame. My point being, if you don't print and enlarge that frame, you probably don't even need medium format to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
maxmars posted:About twice the price if memory serves. Perhaps more? I have to disagree on the 35mm data extraction comment. I've test-scanned 35mm negatives in two different scanners, both at their native resolutions - and there just isn't much more information in there comparing the 2900DPI and 4800DPI scans. That said the 2900DPI scanner (A Nikon Coolscan) is basically exceptional in that the stated DPI is actually within 95% of the resolution it optically scans, netting you about a 13 megapixel image file for a single 35mm frame. Another caveat being of course slow films and slide. I tested with consumer negative films and Portra 400/160. So Fuji slides and/or Ektar 100 and the likes may give you more information from a higher DPI scan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
maxmars posted:The Plustek can extract, from a 35mm frame, more or less the same amount of detail that a V700 can extract from a 6x4.5 frame of a 120 roll. I hear the Reflecta 10T can extract even more information from a single 35mm frame. I'd love to see some backup for this - not just in pure "information extracted" but from what you'll actually get from film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Ask anyone that and they'd go cross-eyed. What the gently caress is a Kern-Filar? Good question. It's a Fern-Kilar  About a foot and a half of german glass my grandpa left me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
      
ape fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:I'd love to see some backup for this - not just in pure "information extracted" but from what you'll actually get from film. Sure, have a read at the image quality section of both scanners (plus the reflecta): http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS7200.html (The Plustek 8100 I have is the same basically as the 7400, IIRC all that was changed was the bundled software and little else) To my knowledge the filmscanner.info site is the only one providing tests that do not depend on the image chosen or scanning software. If you know of other such sites, please share. Another possibility would be to do a dorkroom study project on film scanners, that would be fun!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:I have to disagree on the 35mm data extraction comment. Yes in my quoted figures I already took care of declared vs. tested resolution. In my own experience there is discernible difference not only between resolutions, but even between different options of the same resize algorithm, provided that the starting negative (I don't use slides) has that information from the start and that depends on several things -- lens, hand / tripod, the resolution of the negative.. I'm starting to keep tabs of what each option gives as output, because you don't always want the sharpest resizing algorithm. E.g. I'm scanning Portra these days and I can risk a more aggressive sharpening algorithm if I need it because the grain of that film is so fine; with Superia I'd need to tone down a bit the aggressiveness as that film has an already higher resolution and coarser grain. Another thing I am starting to do is trying to discern if there is a correlation between the algorithm used for resizing and the amount of "detail" or "clarity" you can apply afterwards without the result showing artifacts like halos, which would also be a factor in the choice for the resigin algorithm. There's some interesting content from mr. Rubidoux of ImageMagick fame on the topic but I still haven't had the chance to digest it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
So I decided to spend some money and get some rolls of slide film I had developed to see if i liked shooting it. Tim-6x7-034.jpg by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr  Tim-6x7-033.jpg by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr  Tim-6x7-032.jpg by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr  Tim-35mm-036.jpg by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr  Tim-35mm-035.jpg by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr I need to buy more Ektachrome...
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
There's a typo in your watermark
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
deaders posted:There's a typo in your watermark What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
I work at an e-waste recycler. People throw away the strangest things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I work at an e-waste recycler. People throw away the strangest things. If you find another, sell/give it to me 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Wasn't expecting this news... Epson launches Perfection V850 and V800 multi-format film scanners
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I work at an e-waste recycler. People throw away the strangest things. drat
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Wasn't expecting this news... drat quote:the Epson Perfection V850 and V800 will feature the same specification as the previous models, but will benefit from faster start-up and lower power consumption. drat it
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:drat it Yeah, the only differences are LED backlights and film holders that hold less film at one time but have 5 adjustment heights instead of 3. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I work at an e-waste recycler. People throw away the strangest things. Well talk about an early Christmas 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I work at an e-waste recycler. People throw away the strangest things. Awesome! It scans very nicely, and should get about all the info there is to get out of most films. I hope you have the holders for it, they seem to be quit expensive on the 'bay. In a pinch I could possibly be convinced to sell you my additional mount holders and adapter ... But, you can take the auto-feed 35mm bulk scan adapter from my cold dead hands! Also the original software for it is pants-on-head kind of retarded at times, but I guess that's just par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 09:06
|
|