: So I got a question. Lets say I drag out my medium format camera at the next
: kayak meet. What's a good, user friendly affordable way of getting digital
: images from 120 film?
Hewlett-Packard makes a couple of nice flatbed scanners that have attachments for scanning transparencies. These devices usually have their own lighting arrangement, and plug into the scanner throuh a dedicated port. I've seen various sized transparency adapters. Some hold a single transparency up to 2 1/4 square, others hold 3 or 4 35mm slides or negatives and there is one that goes up to 4x5. Depending on model of scanner and store you'll be looking at upp to $300, which is high these days for a scanner, but the top of the line have scan patterns finer than 1000 dpi. Fro 120 square, that's about 5 megapixels, which rivals the top digital cameras available, and easily gives high quality enlargements to 11 x 14. And of course you can make lower res images for posting online pix to webpages.
Digital scans take 30 seconds or more. There are faster ways. Fuji and Leica shared technology and made a similar camera a few years ago. They also sold an attachment for it which was a very simple 35mm slide copier that mounted solidly to the camera. Provide your own lightsource, or aim the contaption at the sky to backlight your slide, and push the button on the camera. In a second or so your image is captured with the resolution of the camera
(about 1.3 megapixels).
With the difference in frame shape, this works out to about 800 dpi on the 34x36mm image (roughly 1 by 1.5 inches). Great for getting pictures into webpages and for cataloging slides and negatives (yup, you can invert the colors and get color prints from them out of your inkjet printer)
From 1.3 megapixels quality to 5x7 is great, and I've gotten some nice 8x10s, and even a few 11x14s when the subject, cropping and lighting were just right.
With any other camera, a slide copying attachment could be improvised. Closeup lenses in the +10 diopter range are available at camera stores and can be fitted over digital camera lenses to allow them to focus close enough for copying 120 images.
Hope this helps.
PGJ
Messages In This Thread
- Off Topic: Kodak DC5000 and memory are now dirt cheap *Pic*
Dale Frolander -- 11/7/2001, 9:47 pm- PolaroidDigital.com is free and easy. *Pic*
John Monfoe -- 11/8/2001, 6:41 am- You could skip a step
Dan Ruff -- 11/8/2001, 9:23 am- Re: You could skip a step- I didn't know that. Thk *NM*
John Monfoe -- 11/9/2001, 6:47 am- Re: You could skip a step
Rob Macks -- 11/8/2001, 10:06 am- What did I start... Sorry.
John Monfoe -- 11/9/2001, 6:45 am- Re: What did I start... Sorry.
Rob Macks -- 11/9/2001, 9:16 am
- Re: You could skip a step
Pete Rudie -- 11/8/2001, 11:31 am- Off Topic:Copyright
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- 11/8/2001, 2:04 pm- I thought we learned from Napster OT
Paul G. Jacobson@aol.com -- 11/8/2001, 11:41 pm- Re: Off Topic:Copyright
David Hanson -- 11/8/2001, 4:45 pm- Right, no fights here *NM*
Chip Sandresky -- 11/8/2001, 4:53 pm
- Re: Well, that's interesting!
Don Beale -- 11/8/2001, 2:48 pm - Re: Off Topic:Copyright
- Re: You could skip a step
Jim McKay -- 11/8/2001, 12:06 pm- Off Topic: Usage
Chip Sandresky -- 11/8/2001, 1:58 pm- If you have any legal authority for that position,
Pete Rudie -- 11/8/2001, 12:54 pm- Re: like footnotes
Dean Trexel -- 11/8/2001, 6:22 pm- Re: If you have any legal authority for that posit
Rob Macks -- 11/8/2001, 1:21 pm- Lighten up!
Pete Rudie -- 11/8/2001, 4:07 pm- Re: Hold it guys....
Shawn Baker -- 11/8/2001, 4:29 pm- Re: Hold it guys....
100GRIT -- 11/8/2001, 4:50 pm- Re: That's the problem with assumptions...
Shawn Baker -- 11/8/2001, 6:59 pm- Re: A good example of why...
Don Beale -- 11/8/2001, 7:55 pm- Re: Yup. *NM*
Shawn Baker -- 11/9/2001, 10:44 am
- Re: Yup. *NM*
- Re: A good example of why...
- Re: That's the problem with assumptions...
- Re: Hold it guys....
- Re: Hold it guys....
- Re: If you have any legal authority for that posit
- If you have any legal authority for that position,
- I thought we learned from Napster OT
- Re: What did I start... Sorry.
- Re: You could skip a step
- Re: You could skip a step- I didn't know that. Thk *NM*
- Re: Lots better choices for your money.
Peter -- 11/8/2001, 1:25 am- But it's a Canon
Dale Frolander -- 11/8/2001, 3:08 am- Re: Here's what I'm doing *Pic*
Roger Nuffer -- 11/8/2001, 2:42 am- 120 scans at home
Paul G. Jacobson -- 11/8/2001, 4:00 pm- Re: That's a good way to go but...
Chip Sandresky -- 11/8/2001, 2:50 pm- Re: Scans from 120
David Marx -- 11/8/2001, 11:07 am- Re: Here's what I'm doing
Dan Ruff -- 11/8/2001, 10:08 am- Re: Here's what I'm doing
Dale Frolander -- 11/8/2001, 3:59 pm- Re: Here's what I'm doing
Bryan Sarauer -- 11/8/2001, 11:05 am- Re: Here's what I'm doing
Dan Ruff -- 11/8/2001, 12:08 pm- Re: Here's what I'm doing
Dale Frolander -- 11/8/2001, 3:53 pm
- Re: Here's what I'm doing
- Re: Here's what I'm doing
- Re: Here's what I'm doing
Dan St. Gean -- 11/8/2001, 9:09 am - Re: That's a good way to go but...
- Re: Here's what I'm doing *Pic*
- $250 dirt?! *NM*
Dean Trexel -- 11/7/2001, 10:48 pm- For decent digital camera, yes dirt. *NM*
Dale Frolander -- 11/8/2001, 1:03 am
- You could skip a step
- PolaroidDigital.com is free and easy. *Pic*