[filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?

["Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com>]

> From: a3murray@deepthought.org
>
>           How many slides are you talking about?.   Tens, hundreds or a
> thousand?.
>
>           Another alternative would be to "copy" them using the old
> camera-bellows-slide holder system.    Then scan the copies.
>
>          This however would introduce another source of
> error/distortion/grain
> etc of the image.     Unless of course you have enough slides and
> you seem to
> be in the buying mood, you could use it as the excuse to buy a
> decent digital
> camera so you could "digitize" the damaged slides in one step using the
> bellows etc.
>
>         I have not tried it, but imagine the DOF of a stopped down regular
> 50mm lens would be significantly better than of a film scanner.

I have maybe a thousand slides that survived the fire. Of those, maybe a
third are unusually warped. And of those, I could probably forego scanning
some of them, but I'd like most of them. So I'm talking maybe 200-300
difficult slides.

Using a digicam has its appeal, and I already have a decent one (Canon 10D),
but it's a 6MP Bayer pattern, whereas the LS-2000 is about 10MP true RGB
with IR channel. Also, a digicam won't capture as much shadow detail as a
scanner in multi-sampling mode--I routinely run the LS-2000 at 4x, and go to
16x for the really hard slides.

Another possibility would simply be to pay someone else to scan the
difficult slides on high-end equipment, and do the much larger number of
clean slides myself. But I don't know how to find someone who can do it in
my area (L.A.).

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body