Digitizing Slides « Giveaway of the Day Forums

Back to Giveaway of the Day

Giveaway of the Day Forums » Software Talks

Digitizing Slides

(141 posts) (12 voices)

Started 16 years ago by Jaddis
Latest reply from goodgotd

« Previous 1…45

goodgotd
Member

another week, another update. pursuing (for now, since these are going to be displayed at just 1080 high by 940 wide) the direct shot option to lessen the need for LCA correction and simplify things all 'round for now- I've built a slightly more accurate slide holder, and since too much light started leaking through when I shifted to a 100w halogen floodlight for illumination, added some rough-and-ready (cheap) light blocking material.

the result at f/2.8 for minimal depth of field is a taste under 5.2 megapixels with reasonable color.

I may try some RAW format shots so I can tweak the white balance a bit, not sure if I need to- waiting for feedback.

Posted 16 years ago #
copmom
Member

Great slide shot.. all nice and clear and good colors!

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

thanks, copmom!

being a personal nit-picker, I still think it could use improving- (that's just my way, trying to push the envelope) but since these slides will never be shown at even half the current full pixel size the only thing worth actually improving is the white balance.

I think I need a slightly duller reflective paper for lighting- the custom white balance is too blue. from both the sun and this flood, so it must be the paper (that one was auto white balance.)

other than that a set of guides to more easily center the slides would help. the straws make great gripper springs, though.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

actually he said the camera was a Stereo Realist 1042.

here's the latest set (arbitrary names, lift and shoes I need to remove hairs):

baby
classroom
hausboot
wrestle
swim
lift
shoes

a good dedicated slide scanner could probably blow these out of the water, but I doubt any of the cheaper ones could, given the image size.

went out to cover stuff up when it started to rain and one of those blasted yellowjackets stung me on the middle joint of my right middle finger.

that really stinks, it and my index finger are swollen up like sausages and I can't hold tools to cut blackberries until the swelling goes down.

Posted 16 years ago #
Violet4714
Member

hiya, goodguy...
been checking up on this experiment of yours...
my mom has a box filled with slides dad took years ago...from the 50's and 60's...
dunno if i'd have the patience or ability to get them digitized ( is that an actual word? ) as you have... :/
they are looking really nice!...
i kinda like the first "lift" photo...reminds me of vivid old basic colors ( like the original "Star Trek" )...
somehow, it also seems as if portions are hand-tinted ( like Stevie Nicks tinted her album cover pictures )...
any suggestions for one of those slide scanners you mentioned?...low-budget, lower-quality...but would be a nice surprise for mom if i could manage it............i'd even be nice & get copies for my brother...
...at least the yellowjackets didn't get in your shorts again...

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

amazon search turned these up, some ship free:

flat-bed (8.5x11 regular scan too)

Canon CanoScan 8800F $177 ( free ship) batch-scan up to 4 slides or 12 35mm frames, optical resolution: 4800 x 9600 dpi. sounds sturdier than 4400, more sottware. from reviews I guess 2-3 min/slide at 4800x4800, 20 min/4 slides at 4800x9600

Canon CanoScan 4400F Color Image Scanner $84, says 4 mounted slides and max color dpi resolution of 4800 x 9600. no on-off switch. customer says 20 seconds for preview and 2 minutes to scan. others say nearly the same spec for scanning as above, less software.

dedicated film/slide scanners

Plustek OpticFilm 7200 7200DPI Film Scanner $192, 7200 dpi, mostly positive feedback, win2k, xp, vista. like other plusteks, software driver depends on s# & best to download latest frm website for best operation. time per slide depends on resolution chosen- 2400 < 1 min to 7200 4 minute.

Stratford Labs Film And Slide Image Scanner 100, seems about the same as VuPoint.

(refurb IS-505 35mm Negative Film and Slide Scanner available for $64.95 at ShoppeRite, says xp-vista.)

VuPoint FS-C1-VP Film and Silde Digital Converter $100, usb 2.0 and winXP only- crashes vista and takes a lot of power from the usb port- nobody seems to have tried an external powered usb hub. basic 5 mp (resolution 2592x1680) camera, reports say 20 seconds per slide to adjust exposure then up to 30 seconds to transfer image.

iConvert Slide and Negative Scanner $130, mixed reviews and not many. no resoution info, probably 5 mp, xp and vista, usb 2.0.
----------

ebay has a EU3C DIGITAL FILM 35MM NEGATIVES & SLIDES SCANNER ~$180 incl ship- another 5 mp xp-vista variant. ??

hope this helps. the canon 4400 should do the job, if not fast. and scans pages pictures and books too.

sounds like the 5 mp standalones aren't that good unless you luck out, then fairly fast.

camera & slide duplicator would be fastest, but that's another game with different rules. one comparison here.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

I really hate it when the light bulb of inspiration comes on- and it's bright red and spells out IDIOT! in blinking all-caps.

<sigh> I still need to get the post-processing started, and when I have a set, I'll post them- but it just penetrated that with a stationary target attached to the camera, Image Stabilization causes motion blur from camera shake!

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

here's a pair of example crops- same slide, same range, same holder, same processing- with I.S. turned on, and with I.S. turned off.

boy, am I an idiot or what?

Posted 16 years ago #
Violet4714
Member

my guess is "or what", since you are definitely not an idiot............hmm...the yellowjackets that keep getting you may feel otherwise...lol...

thanks for all of the info...
until reading this thread, i never even thought of how the slides could be a DIY...
yes, i'm an idiot...no "or what" option here...

if you think the canon 4400 should do the job i'll read up on that one first, then compare...

starting from scratch again...

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

I certainly didn't know those camera-in-a-box things drew so much power from the usb port until I started reading the comments. ouch.

And hadn't done the math to realize that a 5 megapixel 3:2 ar image from a 36mm x 24mm target added up to just 1829 x 1778 dpi.

(as an aside, that would get an image off these little beggars that's just 1512 x 1680, or 2.5 mp, close enough)

a 2400 dpi scanner has those things beat in every category but speed. plus they can scan other stuff in between batches of slides.

since the canon 4400f can do twice that rez for less money, *and* can be stepped down to 2400 for faster scans- well.. the leetle boxes don't look like as good a deal.

I'm beating them like a drum with a camera, pill bottles and free software, for crying out loud!

It would take some *really* impressive slides or negatives to justify the plustek's resolution, plus a continuing supply of same to justify the cost for a unit that can't do anything else.

as for 'or what'-

how about way slow to think about why turning off IS when using a tripod is smart and applying it to camera-clamped-to-slides? D'oh!

camera and scene not move, moving lens bad.

after all, I went to the trouble of building an entirely new, more precise slide holder (that holds the slides farther away- 2350 dpi instead of 2600) with a completely new design of mounting ring to position the holder more accurately- and it took 3 rounds of getting worse images from shooting with it before my brain kicked in?

somebody's putting stupid juice in my coffee water.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

here's another dimension of the conversion process I ran into- and depending on your slides, scanner/camera and how picky you are about the final images, more than one 'shot' may be needed at different exposure/ brightness levels, then the resulting captures 'stacked' (I find good free exposure stacking software, I'll post links) to get the full range of image detail from film to a digital image.

these slides were taken with asa (iso) 100 speed film at f/2.8 in 1974, btw. 'lift', 'swim' and 'hausboot' were 1984 according to the slide-holder imprint.

here's the example that got my attention once I got decent focus:

baby blown out ev 2 (std).jpg- that's 2 ev stops dark, the most this camera can do 'stock' without going full-manual- clock's fine, but baby and mom's shirt are wiped out. is that a wrinkle in her shirt or glasses?

baby just about right ev 5.jpg- 3 stops farther dark- hey, the baby has feet! the blanket has stripes! what time is it? did that guy on the right step waaay back?

combine the best of both, it adds up to a far better image.

god, I love CHDK, adds (along with lots of other stuff) simple-to-use fully customizable step aperture/iso[asa]/shutter speed/exposure bracketing ability to continuous drive mode- and I might need even lighter and darker, dunno yet.

next time I'll start brighter and use larger steps to dark..

maizey, you catching this?

btw, for comparison, here's the latest classroom picture.

click to zoom in and notice how much it's sharper. even though it's lower resolution than the last one.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

I've been experimenting (looking to the future) in spare moments, and I've added a standard-format slide holder to my DIY collection.

Yes, that is a 12 ounce soda can, it turns out the 4 sides of a 50mm x 50mm slide frame totted up is just slightly less than the inner circumference of an aluminum pop can. (luck, or coincidence? I dunno.)

just enough smaller that you can add a second ring of can-wall aluminum inside to stiffen it, even. and a little duct tape to hold it together.

(well, at least sam's choice. so they were handy.)

I went to the goodwill today looking for a cheap but functional slide projector to prove or disprove my theory that a focused, near parallel beam of light would give crisper detail (I found one and all I've proven so far is that 500 watts of light in a narrow beam hammering into a slide makes the camera on the other side whimper and cringe) to my slide conversions, and came across a neat (and cheap- marked $3 and half off that!) item that might come in handy down the road- a yashicor Y707 1:4 teleconverter lens [old yashica] with a set of 55mm threads on the back, easy to adapt to the 58mm or 52mm threads on the cheap aftermarket adapter tubes for the a720. appears to be achromatic too. the exposed part of the input lens is 66mm, output's 35mm.

not coated, but for a buck-fifty... sweet.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

As I have Writ, So I have Done.

(I find good free exposure stacking software, I'll post links)

I've found at least one very usable (more to try, but this worked first try) and free exposure stacking software for creating a High Dynamic Range image from bracketed multiple Low Dynamic Range digital camera captures. (can also be used with LDR images from scanners)

It's easyHDR BASIC (bottom of the download page- freeware, the Pro version is €30.00, and probably worth it for automatic alignment, etc.) and just tinkering around with lowered quality small-crop input test images for speed and low hdd space, I came up with a baby image (see examples above for comparison) that brought out detail from both light and dark areas for a much better result indeed.

didn't even look at the manual yet, it's that simple to use ignoring the filters and proper tone mapping- though I bet after some reading and usage I'll consider that a poor output.

For one thing that's jpeg in and jpeg out- 24 bit. raw in, tiff out is 48 bit.

13 watt compact florescent lamp for illumination, plain copier paper for a reflector

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

ok, ok. basic is limited to 24 bit tiff or jpg. and that last one was misframed. still works ok, see here.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

I determined the distance limits between too close to focus on and the distance a 38mm slide won't fill the frame, and built a aluminum box mount for the camera.

jack it tight in all dimensions, brace a slide holder in the optical path, and add a diffuser- alas, the latter got loose and put shadows in some shots.

forget cheese, tena brand leak pads come in beautiful white matte plastic, really great at making the light adequate and even. safeway carries them- great bandages too.

here's a shot in action of the screen.

here's a prelim 4.5 mp shot.

Posted 16 years ago #
Violet4714
Member

like the results...
but...
lol @ tena...

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

laugh all you want, this too shall come around- they work and are more comfy than poise- and they're available all over.

so finding a small pack isn't hard, and unwrapping one leaves the rest for the first aid kit.

Posted 16 years ago #
Violet4714
Member

you found yet another uncommon use for a common item...
these "what-will-he-think-of-next?" incredulous moments do bring a laugh...or at least a chuckle...
always interesting...
and again...can't argue with the results...your comparison shots always seem to show two "better", as opposed to "good" & "better"...

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

well, I gotta admit it's certainly not a source I would have looked at first. so a snicker is well earned, go for it!

even had I thought of the inner packet plastic- I've had all sorts of the feminine pads go by, either funny colors or patterned. I just looked closer at these when I realized I couldn't see through the plastic. next is a stretch frame for some.

this is smooth white, lets a fair amount of light through, but blocks any scene on the other side. great stuff.

lets not forget the other exotic materials.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

I rethought my diffuser strategy- found a nice curved frame that allows for 2 layers >1/4" apart. wrinkles are erased by the combination- that's looking right at a 13w cfl, no trace of the bulb.

here's the houseboat slide at +2 exposure value and at +2 exposure value minus 3 shutter time steps.

I finally sorted out and locked down some defaults in bracketing, so the focus is stable and exposure is by shutter time, and found more detail to enhance, (that's a spot of film under 4mm wide) and the view differences between left and right frames of film.

I didn't correct for rotation, but that's a face width at least.

Posted 16 years ago #
goodgotd
Member

and I found a nice reference grid to evaluate lens correction accuracy. part of a boresight kit, a cheap one.

Posted 16 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 1…45

Reply

You must log in to post.