Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Duping" film  (Read 2331 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: January 24, 2005, 03:52:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, there are slide adapters that you can buy for exactly that purpose. Quality tends to be less than what can be achieved with a scanner, though.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2005, 11:25:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The lenses for slide duplicator camera attachments tend to be consumer/cheapo grade, and you wouldn't be able to maximize the potential of the 1Ds with them. Here's some examples:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh....u=81740
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc....21_2005

Here's a better quality option, but at $1474, you'd likely be cheaper off buying a good film scanner:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh....&is=REG
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2005, 12:05:28 PM »
ReplyReply

If you use a good macro lens and lighting setup, you can get good results with a 1Ds. The main advantage to a scanner is that you can scan at a higher resolution than the 1Ds offers in true RGB color (no Bayer color interpolation), process with Neat Image to reduce noise/grain, then downsize to 1Ds resolution and have a slightly cleaner file than you'd get from the 1Ds. A 3600DPI film scanner will get you a 35mm scan of about 5400x3600 pixels, but many of those pixels will be devoted to detailing the film grain structure rather than actual image data. Either way you're still limited by the film.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2005, 12:43:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I would go with the 1Ds-MkII; after using it for a while you may very well find yourself changing your mind about film...
Logged

howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2005, 08:57:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone tried or thought about using a digital camera to "dupe" film slides rather than scan them?
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2005, 10:56:53 AM »
ReplyReply

You say "a scanner."  Let's say I want to dupe a 35mm slide with a 1ds appropriate other equipment.  Would the digital dupe be of lower quality than a good flat bed, a good dedicated 35mm film scanner, or any scanner?
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2005, 11:49:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I have duped many slides from film to film using an excellant macro lens with extension tube or bellows, a piece of black card board, and a flash.  I didn't use a "cheapo" grade consumer duplicator.  I just took a 1:1 or better (to crop) photo of a slide.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2005, 12:14:09 PM »
ReplyReply

For about the same cost of a 1ds and film scanner, I can get a 1ds II. Any opinion on the better way to go. Keep in mind the dual purpose of the camera body - film duper and new originals.  I intend to keep on using film in tyhe future.
Logged
Jonathan Ratzlaff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2005, 01:26:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I would put the quality somewhere between a dedicated film scanner and a flatbed.  One advantage is that the capture is very fast.  I used a macro lens, slide adaptor and fuji S-2 with remote flash.   You still have to do all the post processing afterward but for presentations and small prints it is all you need.   Dynamic range is better with a dedicated film scanner.
For larger prints I will still use a dedicated scanner.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad