RM, he's a mountain climber. :)
Giveaway of the Day Forums » Software Talks
Digitizing Slides
(141 posts)
-
Posted 8 months ago #
-
I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive, Maize. Fact is, there be a plethora of talented females who are great climbers and boulderers. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple of brightly colored spandex-coated gender benders eyeing a crevasse a bit too fondly or clinging to an arete a little too tightly somewhere in the world. :-)
Posted 8 months ago # -
Maizey, it is really an incredible collection. You should open a museum.
And Yes, RuneMagik purple easter eggs taste best :))), by all means better than any pills.
Happy EquinoxPosted 8 months ago # -
Purple eggs? Shudder! While not above biting the ears off stray chocolate bunnies, I'll just stick to chocolate easter eggs, graylox. Nothing upsets my tummy faster than the thought of chewing albumin and yolk in the morning. Eggs are designed to be well-disguised in cakes and cornbread, or hidden under the dredged flour on fried catfish. Even poorly prepared French toast (y'know, with those rubbery white paddles around the perimeter) can put me off breakfast for a month of Sundays.
Happy Vernals to you, too. Hug a tree, save a whale, recycle and compost early and often.
Posted 8 months ago # -
maizey.. for some strange reason it looks to me like your uncle liked cameras!
Posted 8 months ago # -
Rune and maizey, my preference to purple easter eggs derive from some "childish" memories. I hated (cooked) eggs as a child. But I loved to have those funny and colorful easter eggs - the more the merrier. The purple egg-color colored not only the eggshell but the albumin too. perhaps it's better, not to know what sort of poison that was That was the only way for my mom to get some "wholesome" eggs into this weird girl, that didn't like to eat at all (and didn't like to sleep, and didn't like to sit still or to be silent...).
grayloxPosted 8 months ago # -
another approach I'm going to try, since I can't focus close enough.
build a short-range, low-power projector to make a bigger image.
it may backlight a translucent screen, or project onto a white screen and the camera take pictures from just 'above' the projector from the same side. won't need a super-hot lamp, as it's only going to have a range of a foot or so...
comments?
Posted 8 months ago # -
goodgotd, today I'm on a quest to find a suitable closeup lens in the boxes of Uncle Jacks. I'm hoping to somehow mount it in front of the lens on the Canon A570IS. Then I can use it with the light box. I had been looking at buying this Canon LA-DC52G Conversion Lens Adapter and hope I have a lens that will fit. I don't want to have to buy this Canon 250D 52MM Close Up Lens.
I don't know how your method of enlarging the slide image will work or what kind of quality to expect. From what I read in the links from Rune is that some people were not happy with their results when photographing a projected image. But they were projecting onto a screen then taking a picture of it. Your idea is different than that. Let us know how you make out.
Posted 8 months ago # -
will do.
I was trying to find a lens I could mount in front of the camera to effectively give a closer macro, then started wondering if I was going the wrong direction- so I turned it around.
I may end up using a reflective screen, but since the projector and camera can't be co-axial, at the *least* there would be keyhole parallax distortion from the angled view.
The farther the reflective screen was, the less keyholing you'd get, but detail and saturation would suffer.
Though I do have a few front-surface mirrors, so a 'periscope' could get *effectively* co-axial imaging. hmm.
I'm hoping that rear-projection and photographing in-line on the *other* side might eliminate that problem.
Using a florescent lamp would throw off the color balance, but most digitals have an indoor/florescent setting that should correct most if not all of that problem.
Posted 8 months ago # -
good.. I think on the macro lenses, the words that show the size face "out" (away from the camera), as far as going in the wrong direction goes. And according to my instructions they go on in descending order... largest first, etc. I have 3 of them.
Posted 8 months ago # -
but... this is very much a point-and-shoot, with no provision for a lens to be attached, and the other 2 even less. and I don't have one, either.
Posted 8 months ago # -
can you get an adapter to make the lenses attach?
Posted 8 months ago # -
Not a chance. smooth, fairly fragile lens assembly extrudes when on and retracts when turned off.
both the other cameras the lenses are recessed at all times. and I still havent got a macro lens. Ok, they sold a kit for the c200 to take some lenses but I couldn't afford the 200 bucks, and retrofitting an old 1 mp cam is silly.
Posted 8 months ago # -
It may not do all that well directly for copying slides, the M517- on the other hand, for larger targets you can crop nice widescreen wallpaper out of a picture of a modest sized cluster of quartz crystals.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Although, as this 1k+ by 1k+ crop
on the large format slide shows, it's not too awful if tuned right. I may just start putting a jig together.... and dig out some negatives. 35mm is a start.note this crop is at higher compression than the camera uses to save space
Posted 8 months ago # -
Not too shabby!
Posted 8 months ago # -
I'm used to cropping as little as possible and hoping to keep 2/3 the screen res or better.
no-crop is exactly the athlon XP's screen resolution of 1152x872 for the c200, or 1280x960 using the ricoh. and getting a good full coverage shot using the c200 was real rare.
The numbers say I cropped 76% of the photo away and still got more pixels out than the c200 has... and giving the ricoh cause to worry.
Using a funky off angle lashup. with duct tape, brie cheese wrappers, and LED's.
I'm astounded.
BTW, found a source for great diffusers. Belmont Brie- the 7 ounce round,and the Alouette Baby Brie 13.2 ounce. Both come wrapped in one or two layers of fine, thin, translucent squares of plastic I think are really good.
Posted 8 months ago # -
well, I managed to true it up, does it look better in b&w or monomagenta?
slightly smaller, It's 1084 square, but still a solid 1.2 megapixels.
darn it, the tiff is too big in color for imageshack, so here's the gray tiff.
did I mention the wrappers are white-white?
Posted 8 months ago # -
I'm impressed with your results...not too "cheesy" either! Brie cheese wrappers! Cool!
Posted 8 months ago # -
guaranteed to be available in most safeway's across the land- and, occasionally, at discount food stores.
You even get them free with the cheese.
Now, where did I put that last laserdisc's tracking rails? or do I need to break up another?
Posted 8 months ago # -
Black and white looks best of all! Good shots!
Posted 8 months ago # -
I found the cheese plastic is perforated (tiny holes) in a grid pattern, and the layer next to the cheese is a paper of some sort, to prevent moisture retention.
for a multilayer diffuser or backlit projection screen it shouldn't matter- if I can project 35mm to 110-200mm, that'll be plenty to get a good focus and full or near-full frame shots at 5" range in macro mode. a foot across would just be less light and no better detail.
just as a pinhole lens can't resolve details smaller than the pinhole, simply doubling the plastic (holes offset) should make any 'noise' they introduce into the projected/imaged result smaller than the grain of the film/negative being projected.
and for a diffuser, even less effect.
copmom, that's what I was talking about regarding the effect *lots* more pixels captured make.
crop that small a square out of a 1 mp image, it'd be a low-resolution thumbnail, maybe 300x300.
out of 5.1 mp, it's a nice image with decent detail.
here's the original image
Posted 8 months ago # -
Maizey, did you find one of these odd cameras amongst Uncle Jack's dusty sacks o' photog-phernalia? I've heard of split images, but this is ridiculous.
goodgotd, wasn't intentionally ignoring you... I tend to skim and miss a lot, so just noticed you asked to see my old cheap lightbox. Here she be, circa 1970-
1- Origami back with original 40-watt bulb
2- Side view
3- Translucent front tiers
4- Slides unevenly backlitPosted 8 months ago # -
no problem, and thank you.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Rune, I've never seen one quite like the one in your photo. I did dig through more boxes and found these treasures. Only two totes full of cameras remain to be photographically documented.
Posted 8 months ago # -
see, I was speaking of the things that attached to a camera and held a slide to be shot, not a backlighting rack.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Howdy all. We've been talking about cameras, negatives, slides, etc., and just read this interesting article from an email I got.. thought you might get some tips from it.
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?article=101005&op=academy_newNot plugging the camera place, but, they do have lots of daily tips and tutorials like:
daily photography tips looks at how film and digital can work togetherPosted 7 months ago # -
that was a neat link.
I thank you for cross-posting it, as it shows in pictures the difficulty I was trying to explain with reflective projection in words.
parallax keystoning.
It gave me a new idea or 2 to try as well, in addition to making me think transmissive (backlit) projection would be best.
and I don't have a slide collection, my goal is 35mm negatives. which is the other reason I have plans and parts but still waiting.
Pondering the light source.
anyone have an opinion on compensation for, say, florescent- when the colors are flipped to positive? or should the camera present a 'neutral' point whatever the color sequence?
Posted 7 months ago # -
Welcome Helen.. looks like you stepped into the right forum!!!
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.