Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

slide duplication w/ tube,experience anyone??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 9:51:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
advance. cl.
ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 11:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.photoprojects.net/index6.html
Look for Slide Copy:
Gene

Chuck Lorentzson wrote:

> I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
> I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
> to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
> this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
> advance. cl.
> ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
> 60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chuck Lorentzson <lorentzsonci@lycos.com> writes:

> I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
> I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
> to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
> this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
> advance. cl.
> ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
> 60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.

Depends what you want to do with the images when you get them. If
you're just looking for screen-resolution digital copies for viewing
and sharing, you'll probably be perfectly happy with "slide
duplicators".

Otherwise not. If you want to archive them for posterity, have copies
you can make prints from comparable to the prints you'd make from the
originals, etc., you need a good scanner and some skill in using it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Related resources
May 2, 2005 3:07:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Chuck Lorentzson <lorentzsonci@lycos.com> writes:
>
>
>>I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
>>I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
>>to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
>>this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
>>advance. cl.
>>ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
>>60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.
>
>
> Depends what you want to do with the images when you get them. If
> you're just looking for screen-resolution digital copies for viewing
> and sharing, you'll probably be perfectly happy with "slide
> duplicators".
>
> Otherwise not. If you want to archive them for posterity, have copies
> you can make prints from comparable to the prints you'd make from the
> originals, etc., you need a good scanner and some skill in using it.


Yeah, I was hopeful for the tube thing but I tried it using a cardboard
tube with lenses I had and the results were not sharp enough to go above
computer screen size. It was difficult focusing and zooming carefully, I
don't know if these kits were consistent enough to just drop in the next
slide it would be useful for screen size dupes. My setup was way too
tedious.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Chuck Lorentzson <lorentzsonci@lycos.com> writes:
>>
>>>I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
>>>I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
>>>to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
>>>this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
>>>advance. cl.
>>>ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
>>> 60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.
>> Depends what you want to do with the images when you get them. If
>> you're just looking for screen-resolution digital copies for viewing
>> and sharing, you'll probably be perfectly happy with "slide
>> duplicators". Otherwise not. If you want to archive them for
>> posterity, have copies
>> you can make prints from comparable to the prints you'd make from the
>> originals, etc., you need a good scanner and some skill in using it.

> Yeah, I was hopeful for the tube thing but I tried it using a
> cardboard tube with lenses I had and the results were not sharp enough
> to go above computer screen size. It was difficult focusing and
> zooming carefully, I don't know if these kits were consistent enough
> to just drop in the next slide it would be useful for screen size
> dupes. My setup was way too tedious.

I suspect that you could solve those problems using an actual
slide-duplication setup, but with a digital camera instead of a film
camera. However, we're now into as much money as a film scanner, and
nearly as much time and effort too. And still only getting the
digital camera resolution rather than the much higher scanner
resolution.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
May 2, 2005 5:48:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> paul <paul@not.net> writes:
>
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chuck Lorentzson <lorentzsonci@lycos.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
>>>>I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
>>>>to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
>>>>this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
>>>>advance. cl.
>>>>ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
>>>>60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.
>>>
>>>Depends what you want to do with the images when you get them. If
>>>you're just looking for screen-resolution digital copies for viewing
>>>and sharing, you'll probably be perfectly happy with "slide
>>>duplicators". Otherwise not. If you want to archive them for
>>>posterity, have copies
>>>you can make prints from comparable to the prints you'd make from the
>>>originals, etc., you need a good scanner and some skill in using it.
>
>
>>Yeah, I was hopeful for the tube thing but I tried it using a
>>cardboard tube with lenses I had and the results were not sharp enough
>>to go above computer screen size. It was difficult focusing and
>>zooming carefully, I don't know if these kits were consistent enough
>>to just drop in the next slide it would be useful for screen size
>>dupes. My setup was way too tedious.
>
>
> I suspect that you could solve those problems using an actual
> slide-duplication setup, but with a digital camera instead of a film
> camera. However, we're now into as much money as a film scanner, and
> nearly as much time and effort too. And still only getting the
> digital camera resolution rather than the much higher scanner
> resolution.


I'm using a Nikon D70 with very good lenses. I really expected better,
maybe I wasn't getting it focused perfectly, it is very difficult to
focus at that scale! The colors are good and with a little tweaking, I
can almost match the dynamic range but it's very soft (blurry). I can
still use it for occasional needs for capturing slides for web use it is
nice up to about 1024x768 but not easy or fast. The cardboard tube just
blocks out reflections & holds the slide at the right distance. I assume
a real duplicator (plastic tube?) would be less wobbly & stay centered
properly though it really is hard to center without wasting the edge
cropping because it's dark.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:49:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> paul <paul@not.net> writes:

>>>Yeah, I was hopeful for the tube thing but I tried it using a
>>>cardboard tube with lenses I had and the results were not sharp
>>>enough to go above computer screen size. It was difficult focusing
>>>and zooming carefully, I don't know if these kits were consistent
>>>enough to just drop in the next slide it would be useful for screen
>>>size dupes. My setup was way too tedious.

>> I suspect that you could solve those problems using an actual
>> slide-duplication setup, but with a digital camera instead of a
>> film camera. However, we're now into as much money as a film
>> scanner, and nearly as much time and effort too. And still only
>> getting the digital camera resolution rather than the much higher
>> scanner resolution.

> I'm using a Nikon D70 with very good lenses. I really expected
> better, maybe I wasn't getting it focused perfectly, it is very
> difficult to focus at that scale! The colors are good and with a
> little tweaking, I can almost match the dynamic range but it's very
> soft (blurry). I can still use it for occasional needs for capturing
> slides for web use it is nice up to about 1024x768 but not easy or
> fast. The cardboard tube just blocks out reflections & holds the
> slide at the right distance. I assume a real duplicator (plastic
> tube?) would be less wobbly & stay centered properly though it
> really is hard to center without wasting the edge cropping because
> it's dark.

When I say "actual slide-duplication setup", I mean something like the
Besseler or Wess units, like this one on Ebay (not my auction, it's
just the first *picture* I could find online)
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...;.
These things have dichroic filters, exposure control, contrast control
sometimes, and are set up to mount an SLR camera to (with macro lens
or bellows) and hold it precisely in position and aligned to the
slide. A friend, then in Massachusetts, was seriously into slide
duplicating back when I lived there and shortly after, and I got to
see what could be done with sufficient time and effort (all
pre-digital).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chuck Lorentzson wrote:
> I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
> I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
> to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
> this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
> advance. cl.
> ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
> 60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.

I purchased the dedicated slide copier attachment for my old Nikon 950,
and I thought it did an excellent job. Of course it wasn't as good as a
good scanner, but on the computer screen and on data projection devices
the slides look sharp and excellent overall. I used the manual white
balance, and things went very fast; no refocusing was needed. I never
had blurry images or poor color. If pictures were contrasty and had
large dynamic range, it could be difficult to record the full range.
However, my dedicated slide scanner is at least 10 times slower per slide.

It was clear that a significant amount of very fine detail is missed
with this 2 Mp camera. I now have an 8 Mp camera and am think of
getting one of those EBay devices for it. A dedicated, well-made device
works far better than home built ones. I know from experience. So, if
you have a large Mp camera and want very good copies of a large number
of slides, this could be a fast and inexpensive way to go. You will
still have the slides, and if you ever need an ultimate digital version
of one , you can have it scanned. I believe with a 6-8 Mp camera you
could make quite satisfactory prints up to 5x7 or maybe even 8x10 using
a camera slide copier.

Joe
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:51:59 -0500, Chuck Lorentzson wrote:

> I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
> I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
> to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
> this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
> advance. cl.
> ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
> 60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.

I have had good results using an old Nikon F slide duplicator. But that is
real slow. I also use Minolta Dimage III. I would recomend the Minolta if
you are going to do a lot of slides the Minolta is the way that I would go.
It akes me on the average about 2.5 minutes per slide where as using the
duplicator is is more.

Jake
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1lrw7h6j9dvkc$.6c2ub96ve7at.dlg@40tude.net>,
Glenn jacobs <gjacobs@remove.starband.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:51:59 -0500, Chuck Lorentzson wrote:
>
> > I am considering 'moving' a large amount of slides to my computer.
> > I've check slide scanners, and wonder if there is a less expensive way
> > to go. I am looking for 'reports' from those that have ''''traveled
> > this road before me'''', and what their 'thoughts are'. Thanks in
> > advance. cl.
> > ps the slide duplicators/tubes with lens adapter are priced about
> > 60/80$ on ebay, I am thinking "in that direction.
>
> I have had good results using an old Nikon F slide duplicator. But that is
> real slow. I also use Minolta Dimage III. I would recomend the Minolta if
> you are going to do a lot of slides the Minolta is the way that I would go.
> It akes me on the average about 2.5 minutes per slide where as using the
> duplicator is is more.
>
> Jake

There is another way to do dupes with a camera, although it may be a bit
more expensive. However parts of it have other uses for macro or 3D work.

If you have a true macro lens that focuses to 1:1 then you could use a
Novoflex macro rail and the new Novoflex Castel Cop Digi. This
combination would let you copy any mounted or unmounted slide or
negative up to 6x9cm in size. Glass or glassless mounts.

http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> writes:
> There is another way to do dupes with a camera, although it may be a bit
> more expensive. However parts of it have other uses for macro or 3D work.

The issue is that camera dupes don't reach the quality level of scanning.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:14:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
>
> I really expected better,
> maybe I wasn't getting it focused perfectly


I tried again using auto focus & got much better results. The auto focus
is finicky at that scale so I thought it wasn't working before.

I don't know how great it is, you be the judge:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
Maybe not quite up to snuff at this resolution but close. Those are full
pixel crops following each image. The slides were shot on a Canon AE1
with a Tamron 28-70 f/3.5-4 so were not spectacularly sharp to begin
with, I tried zooming in more & it didn't get any sharper. My cardboard
tube setup is a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 plus 2x teleconverter & a fancy
2-element closeup diopter which is probably quite a bit better than a
'real' $60 tube plus diopter setup on an average tele lens. I had to do
some cropping as it's very tough to get full frame so these aren't quite
the full 6MP.

I'm sure scanning is better but this seems usable.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:41:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xsm12alcx.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> writes:
> > There is another way to do dupes with a camera, although it may be a bit
> > more expensive. However parts of it have other uses for macro or 3D work.
>
> The issue is that camera dupes don't reach the quality level of scanning.

The issue really is that the OP did not want to invest in a scanner.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> writes:
> The issue really is that the OP did not want to invest in a scanner.

So you pitch a far more expensive Novoflex system instead? Are you joking?
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:54:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>>
>> I really expected better, maybe I wasn't getting it focused perfectly
>
>
>
> I tried again using auto focus & got much better results. The auto focus
> is finicky at that scale so I thought it wasn't working before.
>
> I don't know how great it is, you be the judge:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
> Maybe not quite up to snuff at this resolution but close. Those are full
> pixel crops following each image. The slides were shot on a Canon AE1
> with a Tamron 28-70 f/3.5-4 so were not spectacularly sharp to begin
> with, I tried zooming in more & it didn't get any sharper. My cardboard
> tube setup is a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 plus 2x teleconverter & a fancy
> 2-element closeup diopter which is probably quite a bit better than a
> 'real' $60 tube plus diopter setup on an average tele lens. I had to do
> some cropping as it's very tough to get full frame so these aren't quite
> the full 6MP.
>
> I'm sure scanning is better but this seems usable.
>
>

It's hard to tell at this scale. They look fine for what it's worth.
With my Nikon device I could do a slide in about 10-15 seconds or 4-6 a
minute, unless they needed cleaning. Some of the EBay devices come with
what looks to be a good close-up lens. It's important to zoom to
maximum amount to make the most of your pixels.

Joe
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:04:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Miller wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I don't know how great it is, you be the judge:
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
>> Maybe not quite up to snuff at this resolution but close. Those are
>> full pixel crops following each image. The slides were shot on a Canon
>> AE1 with a Tamron 28-70 f/3.5-4 so were not spectacularly sharp to
>> begin with, I tried zooming in more & it didn't get any sharper. My
>> cardboard tube setup is a D70 with 70-200 f/2.8 plus 2x teleconverter
>> & a fancy 2-element closeup diopter which is probably quite a bit
>> better than a 'real' $60 tube plus diopter setup on an average tele
>> lens. I had to do some cropping as it's very tough to get full frame
>> so these aren't quite the full 6MP.
>>
>> I'm sure scanning is better but this seems usable.
>>
>>
>
> It's hard to tell at this scale.


Each of the three pictures has a full pixel crop following it. They
aren't quite as sharp as normal photos in the camera but pretty close
and while a scanner would certainly be better, if it's almost as good as
a full digital picture that's nothing to complain about.


> They look fine for what it's worth.
> With my Nikon device I could do a slide in about 10-15 seconds or 4-6 a
> minute, unless they needed cleaning.

That's one of these tube/diopter setups?


> Some of the EBay devices come with
> what looks to be a good close-up lens. It's important to zoom to
> maximum amount to make the most of your pixels.


Yes, and avoid cropping, that would be very a very clean one shot
workflow. I did shoot these in RAW & had to play with the settings to
maintain the right dynamic range. I couldn't apply my normal amount of
contrast enhancement without losing detail in highlights & shadows but
with the right settings, I was able to capture the original dynamic
range very closely.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:18:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 14:54:49 -0700, Joseph Miller <miller@ucolick.org>
wrote:

>Paul Furman wrote:
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I really expected better, maybe I wasn't getting it focused perfectly

(some snipped)


Somewhere in here it was mentioned that Auto focus gave the best
results - to which I agree, for most situations.

>> I'm sure scanning is better but this seems usable.
>>
That's possibly correct, I won't argue. However, to support that
"this seems usable" I will state that of all the 35mm slides I've
attempted to digitize, most of the slides themselves were not worth
spending the money to scan or buy a scanner. Many were taken by
other members of our family, using rather cheap and low quality
cameras and optics. But the subjects (family and unforgettable
scenery) was the primary justification for preserving them digitally.
So Macro copying did about all that was really warranted.

The ideal camera for this sort of thing included the Nikon CoolPix 950
and 995 and 4500 which had excellent Macro capability. With these
cameras, tubes are not needed, they will focus down to less than an
inch away and can fill the sensor with the area of a slide.

Olin McDaniel
!