Large format negative from digital display

[salvatore]

What about an Artar?

I just bought an Artar lens, non red dot (uncoated), 12" focal just to start playing with this kind of lens.
Do you think that I can use it to cover an 8x10 " film?
It was rather cheap, but if works fine enough I will then go to a red dot, coated and more modern lens (obviously more expensive).
Thanks for the advise, anyhow.

[salvatore]

What about an Artar?

I like to thank you for your advice and to have let me know the existence of this class of optics I did not know before.
As I read from the web they seem the best suited for photoreproduction, which I like to practice.
I ask you again some help in deciding which type of Artar lens to buy.
I have a budget of around 500 US$ and I saw some red dot Artars in this range.
There are different focal length, say 16 1/2 " and 19", letting apart the 24" that I believe more difficult to deal with.
I like to cover a film of 18x24cm (8x10"), but I like to leave some room for slightly larger films, always of the radiographic type.
What is your suggestion?

[ndg]

Replied to your PM.

I like to thank you for your advice and to have let me know the existence of this class of optics I did not know before.
As I read from the web they seem the best suited for photoreproduction, which I like to practice.
I ask you again some help in deciding which type of Artar lens to buy.
I have a budget of around 500 US$ and I saw some red dot Artars in this range.
There are different focal length, say 16 1/2 " and 19", letting apart the 24" that I believe more difficult to deal with.
I like to cover a film of 18x24cm (8x10"), but I like to leave some room for slightly larger films, always of the radiographic type.
What is your suggestion?

[salvatore]

Hi Nana Dadzie,
A few words on the progress of my project.
I bought a 19" Artar red dot lens and build a primitive camera mounting such lens.
A computer screen was projected (1 to 1) on a radiographic Fuji green film and developed with HC110 1:50 for 10 minutes.
I could not get a large optical density, even by extending exposure time.
By inspecting the negative with a magnifier I could clearly detect the single pixels, and I understood why I was limited in o.d.
Since the film is sensitive only to green (and perhaps a little to blue, but not to red), only a part of the pixel impresses the film.
Actually, the transmission of the impressed film could range from 66%(only green) to 33%(green and blue), and even more, considering the inactive part of the pixel.
This means an o.d. of 0.5 to 0.18, a very poor result.
Such a situation is very bad for the direct production of a negative, and acceptable to produce an intermediate positive to contact print to get the desired negative.
To overcome this problem (I do not like to need two films) I plan to build a device which moves the image up down and left right to the extent of a pixel (about 0.2 mm) to impress homogenously the whole pixel with the green one.
If it works fine I will describe it in detail.
Does anybody know of a similar approach?

[jp]

Really sounding like the wrong tool. Like when I need a hammer and only find my pipe wrench which is also capable of pounding in a staple because the stapler is not working.

[mdarnton]

Doesn't one of the new large Macs have a Retina display? Big, combined with tiny pixels-- that would be perfect for this.

[ndg]

Hi Nana Dadzie,
A few words on the progress of my project.
I bought a 19" Artar red dot lens and build a primitive camera mounting such lens.
A computer screen was projected (1 to 1) on a radiographic Fuji green film and developed with HC110 1:50 for 10 minutes.
I could not get a large optical density, even by extending exposure time.
By inspecting the negative with a magnifier I could clearly detect the single pixels, and I understood why I was limited in o.d.
Since the film is sensitive only to green (and perhaps a little to blue, but not to red), only a part of the pixel impresses the film.
Actually, the transmission of the impressed film could range from 66%(only green) to 33%(green and blue), and even more, considering the inactive part of the pixel.
This means an o.d. of 0.5 to 0.18, a very poor result.
Such a situation is very bad for the direct production of a negative, and acceptable to produce an intermediate positive to contact print to get the desired negative.
To overcome this problem (I do not like to need two films) I plan to build a device which moves the image up down and left right to the extent of a pixel (about 0.2 mm) to impress homogenously the whole pixel with the green one.
If it works fine I will describe it in detail.
Does anybody know of a similar approach?

Salvatore, like I stated in an earlier post, you need a big screen with lots of brightness. Back then, I used a 42" 120Hz display NOT a computer monitor. Also, the digital image has to be very high res. I used images from the Nikon 800e.

[salvatore]

Really sounding like the wrong tool. Like when I need a hammer and only find my pipe wrench which is also capable of pounding in a staple because the stapler is not working.

May be, but the only alternative is to use an inkjet printer of good quality and good quality (and expensive) cartridges, to be used almost continuously in order to avoid ink drying and related problems.
If anyone likes the inkjet approach, neglect my way.
But I think could be anyhow nice to have different approaches to the problem of obtaining a negative from digital photograph with optic methods.

[salvatore]

Salvatore, like I stated in an earlier post, you need a big screen with lots of brightness. Back then, I used a 42" 120Hz display NOT a computer monitor. Also, the digital image has to be very high res. I used images from the Nikon 800e.

Hi Nana Dadzie, for my approach I do not need a large screen, but a high resolution screen, and my ones are all 1080x1920 (full HD). Moreover 4K screens are becoming common with a resolution of 2160x3840 pixels.
However, the problem I mentioned in my past message is always present, and intrinsically bound to the pixel composition (green,red, blue) and the ortochromatic characteristic of the radiological films.
Work is in progress.

[Tin Can]

Are you using a CRT or LCD? This film is designed to capture CRT screens. http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ra...ideo-film.html

I shoot my 48" LCD LED BL HD TV with DSLR and 35 mm film. I found results usable for some things.

LCD has no scan lines like a CRT capture which may appear, dependent upon shutter speed and timing. Different technology.