Hey, a pro to ask!
(the important question is at the end)
Up front, I simply cannot afford a dedicated negative scanner.
Impossible, out of the question, and reduced quality of results can't add money I haven't got. Do or die with the tools at hand or DIY construction.
For an example, see the pix of
my homebrew traverse head to see what lengths I'll go to.
(works rather well, too)
ok, let me check my assumptions first. point out mistakes, please.
35mm film, I assume the exposed area is 35mm wide and 26.5mm high assuming 4:3 aspect ratio. 1.38" x 1.034"
I have (not connected at the moment) a plustek opticpro UT12 flatbed scanner with a transparency holder [36mm x 24mm, which makes me wonder about the 35mmx26.5mm assumption] in the lid. 600x1200 dpi optical resolution, USB 1.1.
If the 1200 is in one direction, and using 36mm x 24mm, that gives a 1701x566 pixel scan, or the other way it's 1134x850, which seems more reasonable a ratio. But I don't know for sure.
With improvised back lighting and unrefined (with more light and a holder I *should* be able to get a bit closer, even a centimeter should be a big change) auto focus my M517 has beaten the 600dpi resolution directly.
A bit under the 1200 for sure, as that slide is 38mm [1.5"] across the window- 724dpi in both directions for the 1084 pixel crop. so far.
The 'normal' example slides I have are framed at 35mm x 24mm. haven't dug out a negative yet.
The big problem is, I have a *lot* of negatives, and the scanning time on that small a target is a very, very small percentage of the time it takes to cycle the scanner- each and every frame.
calling it a 30 second cycle time would be rather optimistic. 45 seconds would be more realistic.
Once set up my camera can cycle continuously at under 8 seconds, closer to 5 without the flash, including writing to the SD card.
Of the options I have, the camera wins hands down on slides as it stands. 5:1 conversion speed advantage minimum, I've already beat 600 dpi, and if I can raise the resolution even near 1200 the scanner loses all advantage, period. Clap shot for choice.
Even counting having to move/change the negative strip. Which isn't easy in the scanner for true and certain.
My remaining question is color balance for negatives.
Is there a neutral balance artificial light source [or one that can be compensated for in post-processing *before* I invert the colors], or would it be better to build a hood and use direct sunlight to illuminate the negatives?
Or a suggested light source I can counter-balance in the camera. for example florescent lighting and tungsten preset?
Even a wild guess I can refine would be a help, since I have the finished photos to compare with the captured slides so I can fine-tune if need be, but the inverse-color double correction theory has me confused.