35mm slides from digital images

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Has anyone tried this? Results?
http://www.iprintfromhome.com/imag [...] &pid=66497
http://www.iprintfromhome.com/

The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix)

$2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:23:38 GMT, Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no>
wrote:

>In article <bs5rd.53055$WV2.1708851@weber.videotron.net>,
>alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
>>
>> Has anyone tried this? Results?
>> http://www.iprintfromhome.com/imag [...] &pid=66497
>> http://www.iprintfromhome.com/
>>
>> The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix)
>>
>> $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image.
>
>Sounds interesting. At $2.50 a pop, doesn't sound like too much to try
>them out, unless they have prohibitively high shipping costs or insane
>minimum orders.
>
>Additionally, I don't know what the hell I'd do with them. I haven't
>projected slides in... forever.

....you can *project* slides?

....interesting.

;-)

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:

> I had to have slides for a grant application last year. I don't recall the
> service I used...might not matter. I have no idea if I used the best. Your
> prices sound better than what I got....are you sure about them? I had to get
> quite a few before I got a price break. The quality is outstanding so far as
> I can tell. I have no way to actually view a slide large.

Prices are from the website. No min order. Not sure about shipping.


>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:bs5rd.53055$WV2.1708851@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>Has anyone tried this? Results?
>>http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_child.asp?id=65406&pid=66497
>>http://www.iprintfromhome.com/
>>
>>The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix)
>>
>>$2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image.
>>
>>
>>--
>>-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
>>-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
>>-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>>-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
>
>
>


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:17:59 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>
>Has anyone tried this? Results?
>http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_child.asp?id=65406&pid=66497
>http://www.iprintfromhome.com/
>
>The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix)
>
>$2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image.

Haven't tried this but have used an old (1997) Polaroid film recorder
with excellent results.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Has anyone tried this? Results?
> http://www.iprintfromhome.com/imag [...] &pid=66497
> http://www.iprintfromhome.com/
>
> The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix)
>
> $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image.
>
>

I used to have transproofs printed from my medium format negs. Since going
to digital and since Kodak stopped making vericolor print film, I no longer
have that. Digital projection is relatively low res, mine is XGA, which is
step down from my monitor.

But you can buy a Polaroid Pallet which is a very hi res image capture onto
film, it was intended for their own instant slide film but its not hard to
use anybody else's. you can get 4,000 x 2,500 (something like that) pixel
images on 35mm film, slide or neg which is much sharper than digital
projection. of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's
not that hard.

come to think of it, that's probably what these guys are doing.

this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zeitgeist wrote:
of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's
> not that hard.

And SCSI is very good too. Parallel is quite slow in comparison to SCSI.

SCSI controllers and other SCSI bits are not very cheap, but have stood
the test of time very well indeed. Whereas other computers technologies
have come and gone (old tape formats, zip drives, magneto optic drives,
5.25" floppy drives, even to a certain extent 3.5" floppy drive), SCSI
is still going very strong, and offers excellent backs compatibility.

The latest generation of SCSI disks+controllers can move 320MB/s - yes
320 Mega bytes/second peak. And SCSI is still being improved. Yet those
same 320MB/s disks will fit in machines that have old controllers of 5
MB/s. They just run at 5MB/s.

SCSI disks made 20 odd years ago are still usable into todays top of the
line computers. Of course, you might not feel a great need to use a 1GB
SCSI disk in really new PC, but they are usable if you want to get data
from them.

Likewise I can fit SCSI disks of over 100 GB in my old Sun workstations,
which were made over 20 years ago. In practice I do not, but have fitted
36GB disks in machines of 20 years old. Works fine. Of course
performance is limited by the old computer, but everything works.

I can't predict the future, but I don't see USB staying around as long
as SCSI will. Likewise with firewire.

Soon I expect all these USB digital cameras will be practically
unusable. That was *one* part of my decision to buy a Nikon F6. I
suspect 35mm film will be around long after USB has disappeared.
Although I have a digital camera (Fuji Finepix 6900), I am well aware of
its limitations, and reckon it will have a short lifetime.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3Sjrd.190815$hj.39872@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> One of the oddities of the art world is that some shows require slides for
> entries, but won't take digital files. So, you have to take your digital
> file and convert it to a slide, so that you can send it in for them to
> (supposedly) pop into a projector and view at many times the size of the
> original, then send you an email of rejection...

Ah... Luddites!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza61@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qt4qq0pkj5n5k0ff1amqf86buvlj91d7uk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:17:59 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone tried this? Results?
> >http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_child.asp?id=65406&pid=66497
> >http://www.iprintfromhome.com/
> >
> >The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix)
> >
> >$2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image.
>
> Haven't tried this but have used an old (1997) Polaroid film recorder
> with excellent results.

One of those sold on *bay recently for - if I remember - $0.01 (plus
shipping...)


Peter

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.ardice.com/Business/Bus [...] 5mm_Slides