Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Scanning negatives using digital camera

  1. #1

    Default Scanning negatives using digital camera

    Since I've gone film, thought I'd save some money by scanning negatives instead of printing them.

    I made a slide copy adaptor using some cardboard. It works great. Here's the setup:





    The black base is cut from one side of a floppy disk. The hole fits nicely over the 28 mm lens. The reason you want a black base is to prevent any reflections from the reflective bits on the digital camera. I initially tried mounting the negatives onto the light box and taking straight from there, but ended up with mysterious brown artifacts which I finally figured out were the reflections from the camera after inversion and autolevels.

    The cardboard tube is a bit bigger than your usual toilet roll, I cut it from one of those cardboard rolls used to hold cloth. You can get it free from Spotlight or any shop selling cloth. The slide holder is 2 pieces of cardboard with a hole in it (35mm x 25mm) separated by 2 pieces of cardboard such that you can slot your strip of negative film in.

    My light source is an xray box, but any light box will do. Just set the CP990 to macro mode, slip in your negative, press the button. The autofocus and autometering takes care of everything. The length of the cardboard tube should be enough to make the CP990 zoom in halfway and just fit the 35mm x 25mm hole in the entire frame. You can zoom out slightly to make sure it's centred and so on, then zoom in to crop the picture.

    Make sure you clean the negatives before scanning. I wipe mine gently with the Essilor microfibre cloth. Works very well. Just hold the cloth in one hand, put the film in between two fingers, and swipe through.

    After that, all you need is to invert the image in PS, and use Autolevels. Viola! 3 MP jpeg scan. Make sure the non-exposed negative is not in the picture when you do autolevels (crop it out), otherwise the colours will be very funny.

    Here is a picture I just scanned. This is straight out of the camera after inverting and autolevels. Amazing.

    Last edited by StreetShooter; 22nd June 2002 at 04:49 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    wow! didn't know it can be done.. great stuff!
    can it be done using my cam? do I need a close-up filter for that?

    thanks,
    luisg

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Whao! Great scan you have there. The best I've seen using digital->slides. Cool! Care to sell your setup ? hehe.
    Canon Lover :)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Hi,

    How much does that X-Ray lightbox cost?

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5

    Default

    $150, about 5 years ago.

    Actually you can just use sunlight or a lamp shining diagonally on a piece of paper...

  6. #6

    Default



    if u insert your negative or positve this way, it will scratches it.
    Last edited by ninelives; 23rd June 2002 at 04:59 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    That did occur to me.
    So how would you do it?

  8. #8

    Default

    Originally posted by StreetShooter
    That did occur to me.
    So how would you do it?
    u know the film transparent envelop? perhaps u can cut it off and paste it beneath the curboard?
    Last edited by ninelives; 23rd June 2002 at 05:02 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    ES-E28. MUHAHAHAHAHA!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by StreetShooter
    $150, about 5 years ago.

    Actually you can just use sunlight or a lamp shining diagonally on a piece of paper...
    I was thinking more of using that as a regular lightbox. You know how expensive big ones are.....

    Regards
    Ck

  11. #11

    Default

    OK here's an update.

    On close examination of the jpeg files produced with my Nikon Coolpix 990, I found that the picture were rather grainy. At first I thought that this was because of film grain, then I realized that it might be because of the small CCD. After all, that was one of the reasons I moved to the D30 - because of the noisy images produced by the Coolpix.



    So I rigged up the D30 with the 28-135 IS USM mounted on the 21mm and 13mm teleconverter (total 34mm). Now I needed to find a cardboard tube that could fit the 72mm diameter of the 28-135 IS USM. Viola! a paper cup! I cannibalized the slide holder from the previous contraption and scotchtaped it to the paper cup. The paper cup fits over the lens and stays there because of the slightly conical shape, so fit wasn't a problem at all. In fact it was an advantage because you can turn it any which way to adjust the orientation of the rectangular hole for the slide until it is just right. The best part is that this is much faster. Focusing is manual, and once you have got the focus spot on, you can put the negatives through and snap away, without having the autofocus grinding away for each frame.

    You can see the clear difference here. The first picture is cropped at 100% from the coolpix, the second from the D30.



  12. #12
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    And interestingly enough, from your coconut tree example, the Coolpix crop looks sharper .... ?

    And there seems to be some aberration/color fringing on the D30 "scan" - maybe due to the use of stacked extensions and a bright light source.

    But overall a very good and commendable effort and the results are more than acceptable.

    Personally, i prefer a dedicated film scanner, but thats just me

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Darren
    And interestingly enough, from your coconut tree example, the Coolpix crop looks sharper .... ?

    And there seems to be some aberration/color fringing on the D30 "scan" - maybe due to the use of stacked extensions and a bright light source.

    But overall a very good and commendable effort and the results are more than acceptable.

    Personally, i prefer a dedicated film scanner, but thats just me
    Also, the coolpix shot has better colour rendition. Using a macro lens instead of the stacked tubes might help. Stopping down might help also.

    Regards
    CK

  14. #14

    Default

    Yes, the Coolpix is definitely sharper because of in-camera sharpening, and also because the picture was autofocused, while the D30 one was manual-focused by a non-professional.

    And you are again right about the colour fringing, though I'm not sure how that relates to the use of extension tubes, which are not quite the same as close-up filters. But yes, it was one of the first things I noticed on some of the pictures I scanned. Incidentally you can use Panorama Tools to correct colour abberation.

    The colours are much more accurate using the D30.

    I can't afford (or rather I'm too cheapskate to buy) a dedicated film scanner, so I settled for a (used) paper cup. Not a bad compromise, I would say. In any case it's definitely faster than a film scanner. Takes about a minute to finish snapping a strip of six frames. With negatives going back to the 1980's (point and shoot camera), that's quite a lot of time saved. My wife's saved them all, and expects them digitised... sometime before I die.

  15. #15

    Default

    No no no!

    I... don't.... need.... a... macro.... lens....
    I... don't.... need.... a... macro.... lens....

  16. #16

    Default

    Originally posted by StreetShooter
    No no no!

    I... don't.... need.... a... macro.... lens....
    I... don't.... need.... a... macro.... lens....
    buy buy buy
    ....................
    buy buy buy

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by StreetShooter
    No no no!

    I... don't.... need.... a... macro.... lens....
    I... don't.... need.... a... macro.... lens....
    Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. Excellent. Very very fast. Very sharp. Get one while stocks last.

    Regards
    CK

  18. #18
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. Excellent. Very very fast. Very sharp. Get one while stocks last.
    Regards
    CK

    BUY BUY BUY !!!

  19. #19

    Default

    how abt this Marumi Zoom Slide Duplicator with T-2 Mount







    http://www.jjmehta.com/products/marumi04.html


    does it work with D SLR ?
    See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap

  20. #20

    Default

    I also did a similar setup sometimes ago and manage to get "good" results


    see
    http://homex.coolconnect.com/member3...ier/index.html

    could it be ur "xray box" tt cause not so good scanning result ?
    Last edited by megaweb; 26th June 2002 at 05:51 PM.
    See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •