Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,288   Posts: 1,535,349   Online: 760
      
Page 40 of 45 FirstFirst ... 30343536373839404142434445 LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 449
  1. #391
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    I have scanned 35mm negatives with my Epson and enlarged them to 13x19 with my Canon printer.

    PE

  2. #392

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    704
    I've also scanned 35mm with my Epson and got decent 8x10. Not as big as PE's print, but good enough for what I wanted it for. Then uploaded to the lab for lightjet printing.

    ME Super

  3. #393
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    It's not the size, it's the speed I'm looking for.
    My Epson V700 takes at least Two minutes to scan something good enough for an 8.5"x11". I would like something with a glass carrier that holds the film flat, and makes a scan good enough for 5x7 proofs in seconds. How about three seconds, to raise the bar a little? Now that would be sweet!
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #394
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    My Epsone 4870 will scan a 4x5 at 1200 dpi in under 1 minute. It creates a file of about 24 mb. The fidelity and detail are incredible. A 35mm at the same resolution can take less than 30 seconds. It takes longer to warm up than it does to scan.

    If I turn on Digital Ice, it can take 5 - 10 mins, so since I can generally spot a negative faster, I have DI off.

    PE

  5. #395
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    It's not the size, it's the speed I'm looking for.
    My Epson V700 takes at least Two minutes to scan something good enough for an 8.5"x11". I would like something with a glass carrier that holds the film flat, and makes a scan good enough for 5x7 proofs in seconds. How about three seconds, to raise the bar a little? Now that would be sweet!
    Using the newer CMOS sensors with the Bayer filter removed (like the D800E) a digital photo of the negative in an automated process is entirely possible provided the optics and the lighting are consistent.

    You'll get a RAW file of the negative, and pretty high resolution and DMAX as well (not as good with B&W, but pretty much there for colour negs). This is pretty close to or better than what a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier can do, and may, in fact be faster and require less human operator oversight. If you're scanning into RAW in PS or Aperture or Lightroom, who cares? It's not for print (not yet). It's for still photo digital intermediation, while still preserving the analog flow to print if desired—just a branch on the tree of possibilities.

    This what dedicated film scanners should be/could be. This would reposition film as a medium nearer to the sharing prospects of digital and give the print and negative itself both archival presence and a more special place in the photographic process and context, especially if handcrafted in the darkroom.

    Why Kodak has not gone down this path is a mystery. Kodak develops these branching tree technologies, then gets busy sawing them off to preserve print and film stock sales. It was Fuji with their scanner modules attached to their mini-labs that integrated the process for the consumer. Kodak actually saw that as a threat, but they were nevertheless busy designing MP film for digital intermediate and doing the reverse with their film recorders:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_recorder

    And their film scanners:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_...e_film_scanner

    I mean, some of these systems are scanning at 8 frames/second with Director's Cut fidelity once the colour is matched; considering the film is shot at 24fps and colour matching for still photos can be done later on the home computer.

    It really is a tragedy. The more I read about Kodak's missed opportunities and vision problem, the more Scotch I want to drink.
    Last edited by Aristophanes; 02-13-2012 at 07:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #396
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    ...The more I read about Kodak's missed opportunities and vision problem, the more Scotch I want to drink.
    It won't help. You'll wake up tomorrow and it will all be the same. Save your money and your aching head. Just have one or two and let it go.

    I made a statement about Kodak in some thread around here some time ago that got dredged up many months later. This is America; there's nothing illegal about being stupid.

    MB
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  7. #397
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    My Epsone 4870 will scan a 4x5 at 1200 dpi in under 1 minute. It creates a file of about 24 mb. The fidelity and detail are incredible. A 35mm at the same resolution can take less than 30 seconds. It takes longer to warm up than it does to scan.

    If I turn on Digital Ice, it can take 5 - 10 mins, so since I can generally spot a negative faster, I have DI off.

    PE
    Ok. So now turn this into a project where you want to proof 20 rolls of 36exp film from vacation. Assuming I take no breaks, I'd spend 3-4 days in front of the screen just proofing (35mm is a lot slower to obtain a decent file).
    If I had a scanner that does a frame in three seconds, I'd spend a few minutes per roll. The difference is astronomical.

    I try so hard to find time for photography. Working full time, being a full time student, etc I just don't have time after all 80 hours of my week are accounted for. So, why not raise the bar? 3 seconds for a quality scan. That even makes it viable to shoot a lot of film.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #398
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I try so hard to find time for photography. Working full time, being a full time student, etc I just don't have time after all 80 hours of my week are accounted for. So, why not raise the bar? 3 seconds for a quality scan. That even makes it viable to shoot a lot of film.
    At risk of sounding like a and old pedantic grandfather, I think the thing to do is to become more selective at the outset. You're a great photographer; believe in that. Know that you don't need more than one or two shots to generate a great image. You will easily be able to cut back on quantity without sacrificing quality. Some people can't do that. You can, for sure.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #399
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Thomas;

    This is not the venue for this, but maybe we can continue via PM. Basically, my scanner has the provision to scan an entire roll of 35mm film in one pass of about 1 minute at high resolution. I scan that roll and then use the "proof" software that came with my Canon i9900 printer and I can make full sheet proofs or multi sheet proofs. The printer is the slowest step and only under some conditions.

    OMG, maybe I should be teaching a hybrid workflow course instead of an Azo paper or Kodabromide paper course!

    PE

  10. #400
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,014
    Of course Business Imaging or whatever they call it this week has/had Document Scanners also
    http://graphics.kodak.com/DocImaging...ners/index.htm

    So Kodak would have been well aware of the technology reequired.

    Did not some of the Kodak Minilabs not use the Scan and print method like the fuji fronter, or Noristsu, (or maybe they were Brand engineered Noritsu units.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin