Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best slide scanner
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Best slide scanner Reply with quote
What is the best scanner for slide ?

The Nikon 9000 ED





or the Helios 44-2


full slide


I pay 5 euros the Helios & I think it is better for the price Mr. Green


PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, absolutely, especially considering that you can take two photos with the helios, and combine them with Photoshop expanding the dynamic range.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello poilu! I don't quite understand...the Nikon 9000 scan is at top...the scan of an image from the Helios is at bottom. But both are scans, correct? So, I guess I am confused about how to compare...

Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the Helios one means that the slide was in fact photographed (with the Helios on the camera), may be using some device (slide duplicator, bellows, etc..). Just guessing.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
especially considering that you can take two photos with the helios, and combine them with Photoshop expanding the dynamic range


True, look with combine 3 exposure

Nikon 9000 ED on left


It's help the colors but not so much dynamic
Normal image left, hdr right


p.s: Ok this one is not the helios but a 'better' lens Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
So, I guess I am confused about how to compare...

Like Cosmin say, I take a photo of the slide with my canon 400D
I have a bellow with a slide adapter. The scan is fast : 1/250s
I took this slide 10 years ago, it's a sensia2


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see! Thank you for the explanation! Yes, that would be a FAST scan!

Regarding the first set, with the Helios comparing to the Nikon scanner - WOW! Very close in quality to each other!

You have me thinking now, as I have many slides.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The key is taking advantage of the digital technology.
Until film, duplicating slides with photographs was really unsatisfactory: you had to spend a fortune in special low contrast film, and even then, the result was ofter a loss of a huge amount of detail.

Scanning, is surely better, but it's a lenghty process, and it requires also costly hardware to obtain quality results.

On the contrary, with a bellows rail and a macro lens, one can make two different raw shoots of a slide, one for the highlights the other for the shadows, and combine them in the RAW editing program - or in photoshop.
The lazy ones can even shoot directly in JPG and let plugins such as Fred Miranda's to handle the merging work (no need to layers and masks).
And voilŕ, suddenly the dynamic range of the slide is doubled - probably even father what the original slide could provide!
And as poilu mentioned - scanning times are, well, unbeatable.

-


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The key is taking advantage of the digital technology.
Until film, duplicating slides with photographs was really unsatisfactory: you had to spend a fortune in special low contrast film, and even then, the result was ofter a loss of a huge amount of detail.

Scanning, is surely better, but it's a lenghty process, and it requires also costly hardware to obtain quality results.

On the contrary, with a bellows rail and a macro lens, one can make two different raw shoots of a slide, one for the highlights the other for the shadows, and combine them in the RAW editing program - or in photoshop.
The lazy ones can even shoot directly in JPG and let plugins such as Fred Miranda's to handle the merging work (no need to layers and masks).
And voilŕ, suddenly the dynamic range of the slide is doubled - probably even father what the original slide could provide!
And as poilu mentioned - scanning times are, well, unbeatable.

-


One difficulty I have encountered with the flatbed scanner is alignment of multiple slide images in Photoshop. The alignment is contingent upon manual placement of the slides in the holders, and if you are off by even a small amount, they won't register together. Of course, in Photoshop, I can take the steps to align them, but it takes up valuable time for me.

I find this method interesting in that I would have no troubles with the registration of the slides. Having well over 5000 slides, I can surmise that this method is very quick - insert a slide, take the shot, remove the slide - probably in less than 30 seconds! Correct?

I assume that the backlight is from the sky? Or is there a preferred light source? I suppose that white balance could be adjusted if using artificial light.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
insert a slide, take the shot, remove the slide - probably in less than 30 seconds


If the slide is mounted you can go faster than 30 seconds
Otherwise you have to align the roll horizontally.

First you must have a dslr! You could photograph the slide on a light table or use a bellow. For the bellow you can use whatever light source even led. If you work in AV the dslr will find the exposure. I used flash.

The setup is long because you have to mount dslr, align magnification to slide and fine focus (for manual lenses). If the viewfinder have 97% you will get a larger area that what you seen. Live view would be better as you get what you see.
Of course if someone have to scan 50 slides the setup time doesn't matter.

If photographing slide was so easy you would find a lot of reference on the web. On every discussion in other forum folks says the result are not good enough. I am surprised of the result vs a good film scanner considering the AA filter, the 12 bit resolution and 8 bit for red.

In the past I made some test vs my polaroid sprintscan 35+ and I had soft border and chromatic aberration problems with non macro lenses. Now with ebay we can easily find cheap & good macro lens.
The helios have good border at F11. Of course better lens have higher resolution, better edge and more dynamic in the shadows


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

I find this method interesting in that I would have no troubles with the registration of the slides. Having well over 5000 slides, I can surmise that this method is very quick - insert a slide, take the shot, remove the slide - probably in less than 30 seconds! Correct?


Yes. You have to make a calibration once, at the beginning. I suggest to shoot a slide of a newspaper page. You load it and calibrate the focusing and framing for it. Then you're done. Of course framing may vary slightly as you load slides manually. But just like scanning, you'll have to do some cropping.

I assume that the backlight is from the sky? Or is there a preferred light source? I suppose that white balance could be adjusted if using artificial light.[/quote]

That was a pain... with film Wink
Today it's easy: use whatever light source you prefer as long as it is constant. Just don't use sodium lamps Wink Shoot a photo with loader empty: you'll photograph the loader itself which is opalescent white. If you are really obsessed, put a piece of white paper inside sized as a slide. Ok, now make a custom white calibration on the image, and keep it. You are set.

Really with digital technology this has become a most viable and fast way to shoot slides. Also the contrast - the main enemy during film days - is completely controllable. Only real limitation is you'll be limited by the resolution of your camera. But if you are REALLY obsessed by a slide, you can augment enlargement and shoot it in parts and stitch it. Laughing Of course this is nonsense, normal scanning would be faster. But it's still a possibility Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

In the past I made some test vs my polaroid sprintscan 35+ and I had soft border and chromatic aberration problems with non macro lenses. Now with ebay we can easily find cheap & good macro lens.
The helios have good border at F11. Of course better lens have higher resolution, better edge and more dynamic in the shadows


Of course you need a macro lens for that. Or a very controlled normal lens such as a Contax lens.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You just need to make sure that you get the whole slide on your digital photo.
Some of the slide duplicators were made for the FoV of a 35mm cam, so these will crop the copied picture.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I did a quick test photographing a slide, with an AF macro zoom. I didn't care much about the sharpness, i did the test handheld but I found out the camera couldn't capture the colours i was seeing in the slide. I mean, the colours in this photo have nothing to do with what you can see in the slide, the slide is so much better... It's not that they're "wrong", red is red, green is green, but there are lots of different tones in the slide while the digital photo is quite "flat" color-wise, it's like it's just "red" "pink" and "black" there. The lamp i used is maybe not totally white but i was seeing something quite better with my eyes with that light than what the digital camera managed to capture.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
poilu wrote:

In the past I made some test vs my polaroid sprintscan 35+ and I had soft border and chromatic aberration problems with non macro lenses. Now with ebay we can easily find cheap & good macro lens.
The helios have good border at F11. Of course better lens have higher resolution, better edge and more dynamic in the shadows


Of course you need a macro lens for that. Or a very controlled normal lens such as a Contax lens.


If you want to follow that path use an enlarger lens on the bellow, something like the Rodenstock Rodagon or the Nikkor EL.

Thay have far better planariety than any SRL lens, even macro, that are studied to mess with 3d objects.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
naplam wrote:
the colours in this photo have nothing to do with what you can see in the slide

In the comparison with the Nikon 9000, the method gave about the same colors.
To obtain the perfection of slide, better sensor are probably needed but I doubt that any flat scanner could do better.
This scan was with the 400D, I am sure that with the 40D the color is better and on every new generation even better.
Also a strong flash is helpful to get daylight balance and better exposure control.
Alessandro advice is also important, Rodenstock and good lens have better color balance and micro contrast than a AF zoom Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

If you want to follow that path use an enlarger lens on the bellow, something like the Rodenstock Rodagon


A Rodagon seems an excellent idea to me.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok Poilu, I'll try to repeat the test with a flash and a better lens.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm intrigued! I have many 35mm slides that I haven't scanned. My V700 does "okay", but doesn't compare to a dedicated 35mm scanner, in my estimation.

What would be a good basis for a macro lens to use with a slide-scanning bellows? In other words, what characteristics would I need to look for? Simply that the lens is sharp, or other factors?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1