|
|
Post by Harold on Apr 22, 2006 8:11:01 GMT -2
A correspondent to the letters page in Amateur Photographer recently said he had made a comparison of two methods of digitising transparencies. He used a film-dedicated scanner and a digital camera (good quality SLR) fitted with a copying device.
His rather enigmatic comment about his conclusion was that the latter provided 'more information'. No further explanation was given.
Can anyone provide further enlightenment, preferably from experience?
Harold
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Beard on Apr 22, 2006 10:03:20 GMT -2
When I need to digitize prints, I photograph them with my D70. I get better results than scanning them on my flatbed scanner.
I guess this is because the sensor in my camera is more modern and better quality.
I don't know whether this would be the same if I tried copying a 35mm slide, compaered to using my Nikon 4000 dpi slide scanner. I think the scanner would win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harold on Apr 22, 2006 11:37:17 GMT -2
Just to make any comment easier, I should have specified that scratches or dust were assumed not to be a problem.
Harold
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewnoble on Apr 22, 2006 14:10:06 GMT -2
It was possible at one time to get a 35mm transparency copier to fit on the front of your regular camera I think Jessops used to make one in Canon and Nikon fittings. The slide was loaded in the front, held up to the light which needed to be daylight balanced unless using Tungsten film. Results could be a touch contrasty but this could well be cured in PS. May be worth a try if one could be bought off Ebay or the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewnoble on Apr 22, 2006 14:19:27 GMT -2
|
|
|
|
Post by Harold on Apr 23, 2006 5:23:08 GMT -2
I have two makes of them (OM fitting) plus the proper device for the Olympus OM bellows system. In other words, I have all I need for duplicating standard 35mm transparencies onto film and potentially onto digital via a camera.
I, as a film user, am just looking at the theoretical (see the last paragraph), comparative advantages of these versus a film scanner such as the Minolta 5,400 (Minolta gone out of the business) or the latest Epson Perfection V700 and V750 flatbed scanners with adapters for multi film formats, Dmax 4.0 and resolution of up to 9600 dpi.
Either would require a purchase: scanner or camera body plus adapter. I cannot forsee having funds for lenses for any camera body so it would need no bells or whistles or software to correct lens abberrations.
All things being equal, a scanner takes up a lot of space and does nothing else, whereas a camera body has obvious uses. But that is not the issue here. It is about the best image rendition in comparison to the original.
In my individual case, I have an slowly increasing number of panoramic images (24 x 58 and 24 x 65mm) and only the Epsons would cope with these but don't let that affect the general discussion. In the ideal world, I could justify the very best method for my thousands of 24 x 35mm shots and make other arrangements for panoramics, possibly paying a specialist lab to scan.
Harold
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewnoble on Apr 23, 2006 8:40:19 GMT -2
A decent lab scan will cost you £10 at the very least, you may be better hiring an Imacon scanner from one of the hire shops for a week. Apaarentlly the Nikon Med Format scanner can scan xpan panoramics but you may think the £2500 price tag a touch too high, but then again that will only pay for 250 lab scans of the image!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Harold on Apr 24, 2006 10:10:26 GMT -2
If I were to go by the scanner route the favorite would be one of the new Epsons.
The question of inherent differences, between a film image digitized by a camera or by a scanner, still remains. I believe that sharpening plays a part but is there more to it?
Harold
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Beard on Apr 24, 2006 12:22:40 GMT -2
Don't sharpen any images you send to PBPA, clients prefer to do that themselves.
|
|
