35mm film users should be mad

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Scott W, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    I have not tried that, but then I don't own a 5D, but I have not tried
    it with any DSLR.
    I think that might work well for slides, but negatives have a large
    dynamic ranges compressed into a small one, which is where having a 16
    bit converter on the film scanner would be nice.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 4, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Scott W

    Ken Hart1 Guest

    Most likely there are, and there are definately scanners that can feed 35mm
    film by the sprocket holes to scan a strip of negatives or a whole roll.
    Such scanners are built into most modern minilabs, and are available as
    add-ons for older or less-full-featured minilabs. Usually such scanners have
    a SCSI output, some are firewire. Check with a minilab supply company for
    price, features, and availablity.
     
    Ken Hart1, Sep 4, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    Isn't the 5D 14-bit? That should be enough to
    cope with colour negs?

    Small aside note to the uninitiated: a lot of folks
    claim colour negs have a wide dynamic range,
    without noting - as Scott correctly did - that it is
    in fact a *compressed* range. The actual dynamic
    range of a colour neg is surprisingly small and
    so is a b&w negative: the compression is
    what makes it wide.
    Hence why more than the usual 8-bits are needed
    to get all possible gradations: the dslr sensor itself
    can cope with the min-max, it's the in-between that
    makes all the diff.

    I still think a dslr with 12 or maybe even
    14-bit a-d should be able to get all the grads?
    Gotta give it a try with the d80! Who knows: might
    be the perfect excuse to get myself a 2nd-hand 5D?
    Hmmm, need to talk to SWMBO about that...

    Isn't the excellent mr Bustin looking into something
    similar? If anyone has the know-how and motivation
    to get something like that going, it's him.

    BTW: an F6 just arrived on the doorstep!
    I feel a looooong weekend of photography
    coming up... ¦-)

    Oh, the coolscanV is turning out to be an amazing
    piece of gear, even if it is only 14-bit: you should
    really give it a second look. Price is peanuts,
    compared to what it can do. Beats the crap out
    of any affordable flatbed and the resale value in
    epay is still high, particularly now that Nikon
    has decided to discontinue it: never seen so many
    being sold, at more than they used to cost!

    Very good points you make, thanks for the
    sensible discussion.
     
    Noons, Sep 5, 2008
    #23
  4. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    Gotta get mr Bustin cracking on that one:
    It's gotta be possible to cook up something!
    :)
     
    Noons, Sep 5, 2008
    #24
  5. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    A coolscan V ED takes just over 1 minute at full
    4000, with ICE on. At basic 2000 without ICE,
    it's around 30 secs each.

    But that is not the only delay: the setting up also
    takes time. Dedicated film scanners with good
    film transport mechanisms are easier to use as the
    focus doesn't wander as much and once set stays more
    or less correct for a whole film strip. Then you
    got the calibration and colour balancing, colour
    neg film is rarely exposed the same way for all frames:
    different ones need different settings for the
    scanner lighting and the auto-exposure features are
    not as sophisticated as in slrs. It all adds up.

    Once setup and going, things get smoother. But
    starting up a session can involve some arcane
    manipulations and trials. Needs attention and that
    is something not all folks are willing to give.
    Not a biggie for film addicts but I can see why
    digital-heads are reluctant to invest the time.

    Definitely a case for more sophisticated
    scanning mechanisms and firmware/software,
    Scott is spot-on. Commercial scanners like
    the Noritsu and Fuji Frontier range not only
    have larger sensors and very good transport
    mechanisms but they also sport well developed
    firmware and software algorithms to automate
    the whole process as much as possible.

    That's why they can do a whole roll in minutes.
    They are however very expensive to buy and setup
    and usually come with printing equipment attached,
    needing commercial quantities to become
    cost-effective. Costco has recently started to be
    very competitive in this area and that can only be
    good in the long run.
     
    Noons, Sep 5, 2008
    #25
  6. Scott W

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Yes, we are mad... About real photography! ;-)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Sep 5, 2008
    #26
  7. Scott W

    Daniel Rocha Guest

    The scanning operation is slow but all the process to scan a picture
    is slower (take the slide/neg...) but you don't scan all pictures taken.
     
    Daniel Rocha, Sep 5, 2008
    #27
  8. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Hey Daniel, good to hear from you again, what happend to the picture
    of the week?

    I do try to scan all my photos I take, I still have a lot to go, but
    when I scan a roll of film I scan all the frames on the roll.
    Negatives seem to fad pretty fast here, so if I want images that are
    going to last I need to scan them.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #28
  9. About that last bit--"negatives seem to fad[e] pretty fast here"--I'm
    curious: why? Do you actually have problems with color negatives fading?
    If so, I'm really surprised: I have 30-something-year-old negs that are
    as printable as the day I had them processed.

    Where is "here"? Are you in the tropics? How do you store your
    negatives? In a nice dark, cool, dry place, I hope.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 5, 2008
    #29
  10. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Yup, in the tropics, on the Big Island of Hawaii.

    Dark I can get, cool and dry are a lot harder. Hardly anyone here has
    AC, the temp and humidity are pretty much the same inside as out.

    Scanning really would work the best, if it just did not take so much
    time.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #30
  11. Scott W

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Interestingly, my experience with negatives & slides is in places where
    summer temperatures often reach 40°C+ and the humidity is very high. And
    no air-conditioning of course.

    As mentioned in other threads, apart from a few slides that have visibly
    clour-shifted, the vast majority of negatives (inherited 100+ year old
    ones, plus my own somewhat more recent ones) seem to be in very good, if
    not perfect, condition - hard to tell without comparing them directly to
    their own pristine state.
    Most damage is mechanical, i.e. scratches, probably due to bad handling.

    It seems more likely that someone, with the excuse of exceptional local
    conditions, is determined to put film down.
    That is comparable to someone living where there is no electricity
    having a thing against digital... ;-)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Sep 5, 2008
    #31
  12. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    We are paying something like $0.38/KWH.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #32
  13. Scott W

    Daniel Rocha Guest

    Scott W wrote:

    Hello Scott :)
    Thanks. Well for the moment it's "paused". I have not made any update
    for a while. This month, something new... :)
    My scanner is slow, but I take the time to do the job.
    And the better is to scan each film when it's done, and not to wait
    a while and have thousands pictures to scan.
     
    Daniel Rocha, Sep 5, 2008
    #33
  14. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    It was $25/KWH a few year ago, but with oil going up so has our power
    cost.

    At some point we will go solar. If I felt the cost of the solar
    panels was not going to come down much I would do it today, but solar
    is a long term investment and I think we are going to see some
    noticeable improvements in the next 5 years.

    We do heat our water with solar, that saves a lot of money.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #34
  15. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    I would agree with this, but two things mess it up, my wife and I have
    taken a lot of photos over the last 25 years and during most of that
    tiime we did not have a film scanner. The other problem we ran into
    was coming back from a vacation with a bunch of negatives, maybe not
    in the 1,000s, but well into the 100s of photos.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #35
  16. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Yup, that should have read $0.25
    Here the pay back is pretty fast and there are tax incentives from
    time to time.
    Hawaii would really like to be energy indpendent at some time, we are
    working
    on it but it is going pretty slow.

    I am guessing that shipping natural gas here would be costly.

    We have oil power plants here, other then the CO2 we don't worry too
    much
    about how clean they are, we are on small islands in a big ocean, and
    we have
    a volcano that is putting out something like 1,000,000 of SO2/day.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #36
  17. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    We would all like it to go back to being dormant.

    It has really started to spew out a lot more SO2 this year, most days
    we get a very heavy haze.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #37
  18. Scott W

    Bruce Guest


    On a global basis, doesn't increased SO2 to some extent help to
    counteract the warming effects of increased CO2?
     
    Bruce, Sep 5, 2008
    #38
  19. Scott W

    jimkramer Guest

    No makes it worse and eats away the ozone layer too.
    -Jim
     
    jimkramer, Sep 5, 2008
    #39
  20. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Scott W, Sep 5, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.