 |
Conversion kit
QAfter more than 40 years using 35mm SLR cameras, I have secumbed to the temptation of digital imaging and invested in a Pentax ist DS. However, among my collection of 35mm negatives are a large number of black & white ones rhat never got printed before I sold my enlarger.
I now want to digitise these negs to process and print them on my PC. I know a scanner might be the answer, but a igh-quality dedicated 35mm scanner is an expensive short-term option. then I noticed the Ohnar Zoom Digital Slide Duplicator, micro tested by Damien Demolder in AP 11 June. What is your considered opinion when the results from this are compared with say, a 1200ppi flatbed scanner?
Phil White,email |
A If I had to choice between copying negs using a six-million-pixel DSLR fitted with a slide copier or scaning them using a 1200ppi scanner, I would pick the camera every time, Assuming you scan full-frame, and at the maximum resolution, a scanned 35mm frame, will produce an image containing roughly 1200x1800 pixels - or 21 million pixels in total. As a result, this will only be enlarged to a 6x4in print size at a 300ppi print resolution.
By comparison, your six-million-pixel ist DS is going to produce a maximum image size of 3008x2008 pixels - good for a 10x6.7in print at 300ppi. The camera is also going to be more likely to record a full, continuous tonal range, whereas a budget scanner might not, and deliver 'naturally' sharper results.
If you go for the slide copier I would suggest shooting full-colour RAW images and converting the results into black & white afterwards to get the best-quality images.
Chris Gatcum
|
