Hi,
I've hesitated to suggest this as it seems extreme, but from the discussion,
it seems that extreme measures are needed. What I am suggesting would
maintain whatever quality remains and will preserve the slides as well
It's hard to say if this would work, but I think it is worth a try.
Basically, mount the transparencies as if they were microscope slides (but
on the glass for glass mounted slides - not microscope slides). Don't use
anti-newton glass - no newton rings if there is a medium between the slide
and glass making the contact. There are two possibilities, if you can, put
the medium on the slide, and (perhaps using another glass slide) put enough
pressure to force the slide flat (or nearly flat) with a clamp. The
difficulty is to avoid sticking the second glass to the transparency - to
avoid having the medium spread so far that it comes through the sprocket
holes. At one time the medium would have been Canada balsam - a little
yellow but easily corrected for - I don't recall the name of the currently
used mounting medium, but it has less yellow. To the extent that you can
get this to work with only one glass, this would be easier - if you find
that you can't get it to work with only one glass, using mounting medium on
both sides and making a sandwich would ultimately be possible for the most
distorted.
You may not be able to get the slides perfectly flat, but flat enough to
work with. The key would be to have enough of the medium between the slide
and the glass so that there are no glass/film/air places (newton rings being
the result of interference resulting from light being reflected from
film/air & glass/air surfaces). The other problem is in putting the slides
down on the glass with absolutely no bubbles - that probably means a lot of
mounting medium.
A bunch a of cheap small "C"-clamps are a lot less expensive than another
scanner, the major trick might be in determining how much force can be
applied before the glass break. (of course you want to protect all glass
from marks from the clamp).
While this seems extreme, I know that if this had happened to some of my
grandfather's slides (from the 1930's & 1940's), I would be glad to put in
this effort for even several hundred slides.
Good luck - and if you do try this, please let us know how it goes.
Brad
"Fear most the heedless among you." - Inuit Proverb
On 1/17/04 1:36 PM, "Laurie Solomon" <Laurie@advancenet.net> wrote:
> "crooked" and "warp" slides? Paul what on earth are you doing with criminal
> and crazy slides? But in all seriousness, if they are as bad as described,
> I do not see the concern about loss of quality and newtonian rings that
> might result from putting them in glass slide mounts since they probably
> have already lost detail and information. I would think the idea would be
> to try and salvage what one could from them. At any rate, I am going to
> make an off handed recommendation, which may or may not e worth the time and
> effort or even be possible. Why not scan them in using a sheet of
> anti-newtonian glass on top of them at the same size and at as high a
> resolution as you can with a flatbed scanner; once you have them digitalized
> and even tweaked in Photoshop, print them out via film recorder to new 35mm
> slides or even 6x7cm transparencies, if you would like to archive the saved
> images on film as well as digitallly? I realize that the resolutions even
> with upsampling will not be all that great as to allow large enlargements;
> but I doubt that the quality of the originqals are not good enough to serve
> as a basis for getting something better at a large enlargemetn even if you
> were drum scanning them.
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:35 PM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Better DOF than Nikon?
>
>>> From: Arthur Entlich
>>>
>>> Paul sent me a couple of his "cooked" slides to test with a few
>>> scanner for him. I too thought these could by flattened by all the
>>> usual methods, such as those you state below, until I saw them!
>>> Warped is a kind word. These mounts are charcoal broiled, and the
>>> base layer of the film frames is literally melted. There is no
>>> method that would truly flatten these other than perhaps two well
>>> clamped down pieces of thick glass.
>>>
>>> They are painful to look at!
>>
>> Heh, heh. I told you they were warped. Of course, I sent you some
>> particularly bad ones. I have slides that cover the gamut from really
>> bad, down to only slightly curved.
>>
>> Some of them had mounts that were so charred that I had to remount
>> them. They were sitting in metal Logan boxes, and the slides in the
>> top box were totally destroyed, as were the ones near the front and
>> back of the other boxes.
>>
>> So are they hopelessly out of focus on your equipment, or can you
>> manage to coax more sharpness out of them than an LS-2000?
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
> Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
> body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
