quick digitizing ?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Ether Jones, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. Ether Jones

    Ether Jones Guest

    I have about 2000 35 mm color slides passed on to me by my father.

    I have a Bell & Howell RC55 slide cube projector, a Comet Da-Lite
    silver screen, and a 5 megapixel digital camera.

    My plan is to set up the slide projector and screen, and the digital
    camera on a tripod, in a dark room.

    Dump 40 slides at a time into a cube and run them through. Take
    digital pictures of the keepers, and burn a DVD. Print a few 4x6
    prints of the ones I want to put into an album.

    I figure once I get the hang of it I could average one slide every 5
    seconds. 2000*5/3600 = about 3 hours.

    Whaddya think ?
     
    Ether Jones, Jul 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. They make slide copiers just for that purpose....they fit on the end of your
    lens, and you just put a slide in the slot, and take the picture. I think
    you would get a better copy that way than you would taking a photo of a
    projector screen....Of course, the best way is with a film scanner. But a
    good one of these might run you several hundred dollars....
     
    William Graham, Jul 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ether Jones

    Ether Jones Guest

    I was thinking it's somewhat easier on the eyes to preview the slides
    as they're projected on the screen.
    Perhaps. I was thinking the projector's 500 watt lamp would do a
    better job lighting up the darker areas of some of the slides.
    Yes, understood. But it's too slow. We're talking 2000 slides here.
     
    Ether Jones, Jul 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Depends how much you care about the slides. Using a camera is faster
    (but I really would suggest using a macro lens and a good illuminator,
    rather than a projector and projector lens); using a slide scanner is
    much, much better. Especially for old slides, where ICE is
    important.

    I probably haven't scanned 2000 of my old pictures yet, but maybe;
    might be close. I don't have an easy way to count because my naming
    conventions changed enough over time that I can't easily filter out
    just the scans. And I've got a WHOLE LOT to go; it's a project I'm
    continuing to work on.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Ether Jones

    no_name Guest

    Go for it. If it actually works, let us know.
     
    no_name, Jul 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Ether Jones

    jeremy Guest

    Your results will look "quick & dirty." If that is what you want, then go
    for it. I personally wouldn't do that.
     
    jeremy, Jul 12, 2006
    #6
  7. OK....For speed, your idea is pretty good. But I would get a ground glass,
    and put your camera on the other side of the glass from the projector. That
    way, you would get more light. (Direct, instead of reflected) Project your
    slides onto the glass, and take them from the other side with the camera.
    They may be reversed, but Photoshop can fix that easily......
     
    William Graham, Jul 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Let's see: You have a first-rate projection lens, your slides are in
    glass carriers, your projector has excellent light coverage and is
    well-adjusted, your taking lens is also first-rate, your screen is
    excellent and pattern-free, you manage to geometrically center screen,
    projector and camera...
    Methinks not!

    This could be your answer:
    http://www.reflecta.de/Englisch/Seiten/Start.htm

    While maybe not as good as the best consumer film scanners, it should
    give you more than acceptable quality along with convenience (and also
    give you ICE).
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jul 13, 2006
    #8
    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.