Copying 35MM Slides

  • Thread starter Thread starter cam
  • Start date Start date
C

cam

I've got a couple of thousand slides, going back between ten to thjirty
years, that I haven't looked at for years. It occurs to me that
Voightlander projector parts and decent projection screens are probably rare
as hen's teeth these days, so maybe I should copy those slides to disc.
So - looking for ideas - does anyone endorse copying by photographing them
(and if so, do you know of any publicized routine for doing so), or is
scanning the only way to go? IOf scanning, is there a way to do it 'on the
cheap'? My scanner is a Canoscan FB 62900, so it doesn't enter into the
plot.
 
cam said:
I've got a couple of thousand slides, going back between ten to thjirty
years, that I haven't looked at for years. It occurs to me that
Voightlander projector parts and decent projection screens are probably
rare as hen's teeth these days, so maybe I should copy those slides to
disc. So - looking for ideas - does anyone endorse copying by
photographing them (and if so, do you know of any publicized routine for
doing so), or is scanning the only way to go? IOf scanning, is there a way
to do it 'on the cheap'? My scanner is a Canoscan FB 62900, so it doesn't
enter into the plot.
Click to expand...
Hi there.

Copying Slides using a Digital Camera can be done very successfully and
quickly. A friend of mine does it in order to set up the AV Shows for the
accepted entries in a major International Exhibition. These copies are
projected onto large screens in a 400 seat theatre, so the quality has to be
good.

He uses a Slide Copier, with its built in lens, attached to the bayonet
mount of his Nikon DSLR. It is actually one of the "Cheapo" slide copiers,
which he has had for a long time.

Exposure is controlled by Shutter Speed.

White balance is set up using a White Slide, which he made specially by
photographing a sheet of white paper. He uses his projector and screen as
his light source.

After a few test exposures have been checked on the LCD, and the Histogram,
the rest are just rattled through at those settings. I am sure that he did a
lot more checking the very first time he tried it, but he has now got
confidence that it works.

I have also seen it done by Back Projecting, but that can produce "Hot
Spots".

Roy G
 
Roy said:
Hi there.

Copying Slides using a Digital Camera can be done very successfully and
quickly. A friend of mine does it in order to set up the AV Shows for the
accepted entries in a major International Exhibition. These copies are
projected onto large screens in a 400 seat theatre, so the quality has to be
good.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, the quality required for projection on a large screen
400 seat theatre doesn't have to be that good at all - in fact it is
probably amongst the lowest quality requirement at all. Who gets up
from any of those 400 seats to view the projected image closely?

Whilst some digital projectors have resolutions of 1600x1200 pixels
these days, the high intensity variety required for large theatres are
still limited to around 1024x768 pixels. So actually, you probably need
better quality images just to display them on a typical 17" computer
monitor!

In fact, it is because the requirements for projection are so poor that
your friend manages to get away with copying the slides with a digital
camera in the first place - even a cheap digital camera has more
resolution than an expensive digital projector. 1600x1200 is only 2M
pixels!

On the other hand, if you ever want to create prints from your slides,
you will need a lot more resolution than you will ever need for
projection, especially if you want to make reasonable large prints. A
typical dedicated desktop slide scanner these days will yield upwards of
20M pixels, and even that doesn't get everything off the film, while
even a relatively small 12x8" print at 300ppi requires more than 8Mp.

Images for projection are generally downsampled from high resolution
originals, so you cannot possibly claim that projection under any
circumstances demonstrates image quality or justifies any particular
process.

For the OP, a decent used film scanner can be picked up for a couple of
hundred bucks and will give you far better results than any digital
camera. That isn't just better resolution, but better dynamic range,
better signal to noise and better reproduction of shadow detail. The
only advantage that copying via a digital camera offers is speed.
 
cam said:
I've got a couple of thousand slides, going back between ten to thjirty
years, that I haven't looked at for years. It occurs to me that
Voightlander projector parts and decent projection screens are probably rare
as hen's teeth these days, so maybe I should copy those slides to disc.
So - looking for ideas - does anyone endorse copying by photographing them
(and if so, do you know of any publicized routine for doing so), or is
scanning the only way to go? IOf scanning, is there a way to do it 'on the
cheap'? My scanner is a Canoscan FB 62900, so it doesn't enter into the
plot.
Click to expand...

Hi Cam...

I'm doing much the same; though with a flatbed. Many hundreds
of slides, and thousands and thousands of negatives. Long,
slow process - I'm about a year and a half into it :)

Nevertheless, if I can be of any help don't hesitate to ask.

Take care.

Ken
 
I've got a couple of thousand slides, going back between ten to thjirty
years, that I haven't looked at for years. It occurs to me that
Voightlander projector parts and decent projection screens are probably rare
as hen's teeth these days, so maybe I should copy those slides to disc.
So - looking for ideas - does anyone endorse copying by photographing them
(and if so, do you know of any publicized routine for doing so), or is
scanning the only way to go? IOf scanning, is there a way to do it 'on the
cheap'? My scanner is a Canoscan FB 62900, so it doesn't enter into the
plot.
Click to expand...
I agree with Kennedy on this one, at least to a point.
Getting digital copies that look good on a projector does not require
high resolution. Anything more than screen resolution is probably
over kill so, although the method works it doesn't mean you will get
what you want.
And speaking of wants, It all depends on what you want. I have one of
the relatively inexpensive slide copiers and it works very well, BUT
the quality depends on several things, not the least of which is the
camera. Even my D-70 at 6 megapixels can not match 100 speed or less
slide and negative film. It does do a good job and with good slides
and negatives (reverse in photoshop) that are clean you may come close
to the cameras limits as far as resolution. That may be a long way
from the resolution of the slide or negative.

I've gone through many thousands of slides and negatives using a Nikon
LS5000-ED scanner. I've been using both the Nikon and VueScan
software. At 4000 dpi which is roughly 16 megapixels I end up with
file sizes from 60 to over 120 megs per slide, depending on whether
using 8 or 16 bit color depth. OTOH the D-70 give me roughly 6 meg
NEFs which convert to about 35 megs per image as a TIFFs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Back
Top