[HN Gopher] Filmolino SlideScanner
___________________________________________________________________
Filmolino SlideScanner
Author : _Microft
Score : 47 points
Date : 2023-12-23 08:05 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (filmolino.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (filmolino.com)
| danboarder wrote:
| This is cool. I was recently thinking about how to scan in a lot
| of family slides from the 60s, 70s, and 80s and now I think I
| want to build one of these to streamline the capture process...
|
| My previous plan was to just set up a projector in a dark room
| and photograph off the big screen manually with my DSLR (I
| thought this might also work for 8mm film reels as well).
| gsich wrote:
| Better use a macro and a lightbox, photograph your
| slides/negatives.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| Is this better than using a flatbed scanner?
| gsich wrote:
| DSLR (or mirrorless) scanning is way superior to flatbed. Not
| just quality but also speed. You can "scan" a roll of 36
| pictures in ~10 minutes compared to 5 minutes per frame with a
| flatbed.
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| It's definitely not superior in quality compared to a good
| flatbed but speed is much better.
| jetrink wrote:
| For 35mm, flatbeds just do not have comparable resolution
| to a digital camera with a good macro lens. The most you'll
| get out of the best flatbed is about 2300dpi (measured from
| resolved detail, not pixels). Generally, you end up with
| about 6-8MP of usable detail.
|
| If you own a digital camera already and are comfortable
| tinkering with your setup and workflow at first, camera
| scanning is the way to go. You'll get almost the full
| detail that 35mm film has to offer in less time overall for
| about the same cost.
| flipthefrog wrote:
| This simply isnt true. A DSLR with a sharp macro lens is a
| lot better than a flatbed. A dedicated filmscanner like
| those made by Nikon and Minolta 15-20 years ago, is very
| slow, but the quality is even higher
| yzydserd wrote:
| 20 years ago so had a 4000 dpi film scanner. It was very
| slow, noisy, and memory hungry. But it made great scans.
| I have hundreds of rolls of B&W 35mm and 6x7's on 120
| film that I'd love to rescan. I don't own a digital
| camera to take a photo of the film. Does anyone have
| experience on how to go about this? I've searched across
| HN and didn't come up with much. Surely there are 35mm
| shooters today that have some contemporary high quality
| solution? Perhaps an epson v850? This thread gives me
| pause that it'd not be as good as using a digital camera
| rig.
| lm28469 wrote:
| The best flatbed you can get as a consumer (Epson v850) is
| about as good as a mid range dedicated scanner (plustek),
| and it costs 2 or 3 times more.
|
| A proper camera based setup is both faster and better in
| term of output. I scan my own film with a 40 mpx debayered
| camera and get at least 4 times the effective resolution of
| my v850
| qingcharles wrote:
| Can you tell us more about your setup?
|
| I used to scan film with a Hasselblad X5, but I seemed to
| be hitting the level of grain with that beast.
| yzydserd wrote:
| I have hundreds of old rolls of B&W film I want to scan.
| I was looking at the v850 which seems to have a 6400dpi
| resolution which is ~60MP for 35mm film. Or a plustek
| opticfilm. Can you clarify what sort of camera based rig
| at a similar price point would be superior? Where's the
| 4x resolution come in?
| flipthefrog wrote:
| While a lot of scanners advertise crazy high resolutions,
| this is often just marketing mumbo jumbo. They only
| resolve details at half or a quarter of the claimed
| resolution. See www.filmscanner.info for tests of the
| resolution on many scanners. My Nikon CoolScan scans at
| 4000 dpi and has an insanely sharp lens, which is enough
| to resolve the grain on most 35mm film stocks. Unless you
| shoot a lot of 50 iso and lower, thats more than enough
| pimlottc wrote:
| How does that work exactly? Do you have some sort of jig for
| positioning the slides, lighting, etc?
| dekhn wrote:
| The way I did it was: 3d print a jig that held a very
| bright LED, a diffuser plate (to spread the LED light over
| the entire slide), the slide, and lens, and then pointed my
| DSLR at that. It wasn't very fast but I can easily see
| several ways I could have sped it up.
| qingcharles wrote:
| You might just want to pay someone to do it. I used to have one
| of these $20,000 Hasselblad X5s and they do a really nice job
| with slides -- you can get someone to scan your slides on
| theirs, e.g.:
|
| https://www.iconla.com/film-services/imacon-scanning/
| c0nsumer wrote:
| Years ago I bought a Nikon Coolscan V to scan in all of my
| parents' old 110 slides. I would have loved a solution like this
| at the time, although that worked well (and way better than I
| thought) and the price ended up reasonable. I wish scanners like
| that were still made.
|
| Here's an old httrack image of the page I had documenting the
| process:
| https://nuxx.net/wiki_archive/A/110_Slide_/_35mm_Negative_Sc...
|
| Unfortunately it's not really repeatable as these scanners
| command quite a high price used and are fairly hard to come by.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Great article, thank you!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-25 23:01 UTC)