|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Close to this topic: to quickly index a slide collection, do the following simple setup and procedure: I've set up a 2Mp camera to record and file my 10,000 or so slides. I put the camera on a tripod immediately behind and above the projector, which is aimed at a piece of white matte-surfaced Formica about 24" square. The image is about 12" square and very bright about 60" away. I zoom the lens out so that the projection will fit either vertically or horizontally and leave it on autofocus and autoexposure, color corrected for incandescent. I just load the slides and shoot, occasionally checking focus on the grain. I do it at night and put black velvet on the table to minimize ambient light on the screen. The camera automatically records the date and sequence number, which I afterwards write on the slides so I can go back for a scan if needed. I put sticky notes on each stack to keep in order. Some nice background music and a cold drink helps. Why? Michael said it's a waste of time, and it is if you're looking for scanner quality. But when it takes (me) over 8 minutes to find, dust, load, scan, remove, mark and re-store just 4 slides (2 min avg) on my scanner, it will take me years. Instead I can leave the slides in their storage boxes to project, dust if they need it, and shoot away -- it's a LOT quicker. I've done 365 slides in one evening, about 3 hours (30 sec avg, or 4x faster). It's still a long project but no longer hopeless. This is only a prescan for seeing which ones are useful to take the time to scan. I mark the slides that have been shot with a light color spot and those that are scanned later with a dark color over the light-color spot. For starters, I can batch-correct bad slides for color-shift and fade, and optionally I'll crop out the black border to get a better look (3:2 35mm slide format vs. 4:3 digital) by zooming. I mark the slide boxes against a computer file directory where the image files were put. Also, the HD is not loaded with slide files that probably will never be used anyway. Getting a close, zoomed look at these has been a revelation for me. Some are about 55 years old. Yes, I know it takes two processes instead of one and I considered that, but I'd rather prescan and index than do every single slide. I can quickly organize the slide images into directories and galleries and slide shows to decide what's next. And again, I'm not saying this is a replacement for scanning, but it continues to be very useful for me. It may be for others, and perhaps others have already done this. Comments are always welcome. --- Don Dement ========= Michael Healy wrote: >This is the method to which I resorted initially, because I was impatient >and had no scanner. I set up 35mm slides on a light table, put a digital >camera on a tripod, and shot. The idea was to do copy work, essentially. > >You are asking about equipment, and I'm afraid I don't have any thoughts on >this part of it. What I can offer, though, is a warning. Slides and negs are >pretty small unless you're working with at least 4x5. So if the best you can >managed is the arrangement I've described, you probably are going to find >yourself with a couple serious problems. One will be lens selection and >alignment. Unless you use a long lens (100mm +), you will achieve the effect >of barrel distortion. Also, it's pretty awfully difficult to get both planes >perfectly parallel, first of all, and then perfectly lined up so the image >looks perfectly horizontal. I **do** copy work for artists. It's hard enough >to get an 8x10 image perfectly aligned to the camera using eyeballs. With >35mm slides, I'd say forget it, unless you've already got equipment set up >for slide duping. > >Maybe others will disagree with me, or have actual experience pulling this >off with an expensive camera. I'd be skeptical. With my copy work >experience, I thought I could pull it off. Now I wouldn't waste the time. >What's the point of all the acrobatics and microphotography when you can get >superior results from a $500-$600 scanner? I only even tried it because I >did have the camera, and did not yet have the scanner. If you can overcome >the problems I've reported, more power to you. Otherwise, a waste of time. >Even for greeting cards, the result probably are going to suck beyond your >imagination. And I haven't even addressed the problems associated with light >source or control over the scan. > >Mike Healy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jim Cummins" <email@example.com> >To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 6:00 AM >Subject: Digital cameras as "scanners" > >>Are there any subjective or objective comparisons of >>(5M, ~$999 flavor) digital camera capture of slides or >>negatives vs scanning the same slide or negative. >>Auxillary lens usage is assumed for the digitial camera. >> >>If cropping is done at the capture point the camera >>resolution would also be spread over the specific area >>of interest. The burden of color and mask corrections >>would, of course, move to the software side after capture. >> - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.