I am planning to digitize all my film negatives. All are 135mm negatives.
Here are my option.
1. Get from Amazon a negative scanner
2. Setup a simple rig (LED lamp, digital cam, crop & convert)
Anyone here who have experience in option 2, here are my question ?
1. How bright is the LED lamp ?
2. Will a 15MP Sony point & shoot digital camera able to do the job ?
3. Any software that can crop & convert in batch mode ?
Thanks in advance.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Option one is low quality unless you want to fork out big cash.
There is an option three, which is for most people the best, and that is outsource the job.
135mm ? My bad. Should be 35mm. Even a rolleiflex only use 120mm.
I did tried converting using a HP scanner. But the quality is not good. Will look around for a shop to it.
Let's cut out the side arguments, you are both kind of right:
"135" is the name given to the 35mm film format that is used in SLR film cameras which incorporate the exact-sized roll canister, including (but not limited to) particularly the ones that use the DX media tagging taps (metal contact squares on the side of the canister).
#2 has been done, and could be done in a pinch, but I also strongly do not recommend it.
#1 can be done, but much depends on your quality expectations and your budget. IIWY, I'd skip any device below ~$300. Most devices can then range up to $2000. And beyond, but to go higher would require your outlay to include other supporting equipment and only makes sense if you were needing to do this as part of your profession.
The device should be optimized SPECIFICALLY for negatives (not prints as with a regular scanner), with a very high DPI (for the necessary magnification) and extended contrast/dynamic range (as well as brightness inversion).
The 3rd choice: outsourcing, makes much sense. This can be very consumer oriented such as dropping your films off at Walgreen's, etc., and picking up your converted digital media (usually onto burned CD-Rs) or you can contract with a pro film lab (rare these days, I know) for those difficult-to-convert or emotionally valuable collections.
I use an Epson Perfection V700.
You can batch scan and crop 24 frames (4 strips of 6 negatives) at a time.
The new model Epson Perfection V800 can only hold three strips of six.
http://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-V800-Photo-scanner/dp/B00OCEJM9K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=...erfection+v800They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
35mm = 135 film.
I still use a Nikon scanner, which cost about $1k at the time. I'd never use anything else.
- Plustek is alright -- not best, not worst.
- Ion is crap, as are all the under-$150 clones. You'll get blurry crappy-color scans. Avoid these!
- Buy a used Nikon V from eBay for about $500.
- Get an Epson flatbed with ICE. The V600 is nice, and only $200:
Always get a scanner with ICE.
Always use Silverfast.
Just an additional complexity, but B&W negatives can wind up very unsatisfactory, with only 256 shades of grey unless you have the option of using something like RAW.
You may find these useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUO4Wida_wY (Check out the sidebar for many low cost DIY methods)
And here's lomography, a U$50 adapter for smartphones:
Last edited by ahhaa; 27th May 2015 at 10:45. Reason: add info
Of course experts on this forum can readily explain why we still need to cut this to 219 in the 21th century.
But can the human actually see all those shades? That depends on the maximum luminance and bitdepth of the display device. With the best devices currently available a 10bit of resolution should be more than enough. However on crummy 8 bit CRTs and LCDs 8 bits it all it gives.
However note that scanning at a higher bitrate still has the advantage for postprocessing.
Last edited by newpball; 27th May 2015 at 11:21.
Yes, humans can see more than that.
Yes, current display devices are primarily 8bit, but that is soon to change.
Yes, many B&W and Color negatives are quite capable of recording 12-16bits of dynamic range when shot professionally.
Yes, many/most scanners can/do work in 48bit color (aka 16bit grayscale/luma) options, so that still leaves the possibility of 2^16 or 65536 levels (even with similar "reduced bit spectrum/range", which we CAN readily explain, you'd still have the possibility of at least ~56426 levels). And that's just for LDR images. Using bracketing, you could scan @ 16bit and merge in Photoshop for 32bit HDR composite masters.
And, yes, while we still have our "crummy" 8bit displays, you could then dither+tonemap a copy to a beautiful display image. And then when you've graduated to a higher bit display, you could do another dither+tonemap copy that is optimized for that level (or, if we ever get to displays that can natively display full HDR, you could just show your master un-dithered+un-tonemapped).
In other words, if you have the time (and budget) to devote to it, you can scan in higher quality now and reap the benefits both now and in the future. If, OTOH, you only scanned at 8bit, you might have to rescan down the road if you wanted to take advantage of improved display chains.
Don't fall into the trap that ahhaa has of using the LOWEST QUALITY settings (or apps or devices). And don't fall for newpball's trollings.
I have done some experiment. I have an old HP 5370c scanner with light source. I remember I did some negative scanned many years ago. The results were not goo. This time around, I use the scanner light source and my Sony 15MP digital camera. I use Photoshop to invert to picture. I adjust the color level but the picture quality is still not good enough for me. Will look around for a shop to do it.