The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 28, 2014, 07:23:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28016 Posts in 5137 Topics by 2912 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  DAM Stuff
| |-+  Scans and Camera Scans
| | |-+  Camera Scans with Canon
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Camera Scans with Canon  (Read 5020 times)
mguoli
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile WWW
« on: August 30, 2009, 11:44:26 AM »

Peter,

I'would like to scan my slides with a 5D Mark II. Could you explain me the difference between your RRS hardware and the Xtend-a-Slide™ Plus (http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html) that John Harrington describe in his post?(http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html) It seems more cheap and simple...

Also, what lens do you suggest to use? I was wondering to buy the 100macro 2,8 (I can still use it in the future), but in a post you suggest the 50macro, which is a really cheap temptation.

Thank you,

Marco
Logged

peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2009, 03:07:20 PM »

Marco,
I've tested the Extend-a-slide, and it can work for small volumes, but the problems below will magnify with the size of the job at hand.

1. The film stage and the camera are not held absolutely rigid, because of play in the lens and the design of the EaS film stage.
2. the EaS puts a lot of strain on the helicoil of the lens.  My macros are both much worse for the wear because of the early copies I did with a lens-mounted rig.
3. Cropping won't be the same between frames, which might add a significant amount of post-production time.
4. You'll have to focus between frames more often.
5. I like a natural black border on my B&W. Not possible with EaS.
6. A more rigid copy-rig structure will cause less physical strain (on you) over the life of its use.

Depending on how many images you need to copy, I think that the RRS rig will save you time, and therefore money, in the long haul.

As to the lens length, all the problems above get accentuated with longer lenses. A 50mm will make the job go faster, with less physical strain, with a better result.
Peter
Logged
mguoli
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2009, 03:32:42 PM »

Peter,

thank you so much for this invaluable info.

Because the number of scans is so low (just about 1.000), what do you suggest? Do you think is an amount of work that can "destroy" the lens? The problem is also my ignorance about hardware (rig, PB-4, etc) and that I leave in Italy, wich means problems about get in touch with RRS gear or, the best choice for me at the beginnig of my investigation, Scancafe.

About the other points, I'm worring just about point 3.

Marco
Logged

peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2009, 05:05:42 PM »

Marco,
It's hard for me to say how to value your time.
;-)
But living in Italy does make this a tougher choice. 1000 images is not so many, if that's the total.  If they are slides, then cropping may be less of an issue, since you have a slide mount to deal wth (and maybe lots of dust in the corners of the images).
Peter
Logged
markpirozzi
Full Member
***
Posts: 179


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2009, 07:36:09 AM »

I tried the Xtend-a-Slide™ Plus.    I used the Quick-load Carrier and it was a frustrating experience with lots of adjustment for each slide.  I used it in a horizontal position rather than vertical position as shown in Marco's link - maybe the vertical position would be better because the the slides that hang out (see sample use picture from Marco's link) kept falling out when used in the horizontal position.

However, I see the Quick-load Carrier has been redesigned since I bought mine - it takes one slide at a time rather than 3.  I couldn't say how well it works, but it 'appears' to solve 2 problems I had: 1) the 2 outside slides falling out and 2) there's a stop on one side so the slide would stop in the same place each time a slide is loaded. The edge of the slide would stop in the same place, not necessarily the image opening, but there is a finger opening to move the slide off the stop a little, plus if you don't crop real tight, I don't think it would be a problem.

Third problem: Even amongst Kodak processed slides, the cardboard mounts varied enough that some mounts would stick when when sliding in, which made it hard to center the slide and sometimes move the Quick-load Carrier even though taped (see taped unit in the sample use picture).

With the Single-slide carrier, each slide will be oriented differently as you have to to take it off to insert a new slide.  It would help to make registration marks on the carrier so that you can get the slide close to straight when mounting. The carriers are magnetic and rotating and sliding a small amount is not easy while looking through the viewfinder.

If you are only copying 1,000 slides, the Xtend-a-Slide™ Plus is, in my opinion, not a good experience, but you can get through it and the new Quick-load carrier may make the experience better.

Mark
Logged

Mac OSX 10.7, 2009 MacPro
mguoli
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2009, 07:41:27 AM »

Peter,

I believe that the best choice for my number of total selected images to scan (1.000 - 80%color slide, 20% BW negative) is Scancafe, but it is difficult leaving outside USA (I contact them, and they tell me I should need a valid/secure adress in USA to proceed). So I have to find a solution by myself, and I see 2 choices: RRS or Photosolve adapters. Between these 2, the most simple and cheap is Photosolve. I think 1.000 scans do not justify RRS. My question was about understand the disadvantages of Extend-a-slide, and you just told me a lot of details, all about the procedure.

There is any issue about the quality of the result to be aware? Do you think the finaly result (the scan) is the same quality of RRS?

Marco
(and sorry for my bad/raw english)
Logged

mguoli
Newbie
*
Posts: 26


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2009, 08:50:37 AM »

... we where replying at the same time, Mark. Thank you very much for your advise, each detail is so useful. I agree with your conclusion.

Marco
Logged

markpirozzi
Full Member
***
Posts: 179


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2009, 02:50:23 PM »

Marco, this observation is not scientific, but when I used Xtend-a-Slide™ Plus, I would sometimes see a fair amount of very bright areas bleeding (like flare) over dark areas. To be fair, I've seen this with a Minolta film scanner and an Epson flat-bed scanner. I recently purchased an RSS set-up and the flare effect seems to be much reduced from results of the Xtend-a-Slide™.  I haven't used the RSS a tremendous amount as yet, but I am sure it results in less flare but don't know why.  The diffusion material of the Xtend-a-Slide™ is thicker than the that of the Nikon slide/film copy unit.  I use flash when doing camera scans.  I don't know if these two facts contribute to the effect.  I did not use a filter over the lens.

You may not see the effect in a 5x7 or medium screen size image and burning in can reduce the flare effect a lot as I did that a number of times.

You will not be out much money with the Xtend-a-Slide™.

Mark
Logged

Mac OSX 10.7, 2009 MacPro
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 09:42:09 AM »

For those of you interested, see my post on this topic under "Digitizing transparencies with a digital camera".  I describe the test results of Camera Scans (using a Canon EOS-1Ds MK III) and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED.

Mark Weidman
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!