Making a scanner with a DSLR

[Jay DeFehr]

The step we are taking is to use a lesser camera than the 'Blad H4 (one of which I held in my hands today, but it was still the Pentax 645D that made me wet my pants, because I already have a most useful collection of lenses for it), like, say, a Canon 5D, and then move the film under the camera to make a scan in tiles. Each tile would be made 1:1 (or greater). Even at about 15% less magnification, I've already proved to myself that even with modest equipment and a makeshift setup this approach has the potential to significantly better an Epson V750. I think there is plenty of reasonable potential to match a dedicated film scanner.



Where I think the article is correct is that we simply have no choice given what we, as individual photographers, have available to us. We don't represent a sufficient market for a fully integrated machine, and few of use could afford such even if it was made. We will never be able to achieve custom sensing hardware or other specialized products. We might be able to write the software for ourselves, or more likely find ways to work efficiently with what's already out there. But most of us could cobble together a decent DSLR and a quality copy lens--I got my results with a 13MP 5D and an older EL-Nikkor 105 on an adapted bellows.

Rick "hopeful" Denney

I think this is a very interesting project, and I think you guys are doing a great job of identifying the parameters and potential pitfalls, and working through potential solutions. I love these kinds of collaborative efforts.

Incidentally, Tod Gangler has in his studio an old process camera fitted with a MF digital back for copying artwork (reflective). I suppose the platform could work as well for scanning (transmissive) LF and ULF negatives, given a suitable light source.

Good luck!

[Greg Blank]

I worked at a prolab in Baltimore for about a year, they had a digital scanning back for flat art which used something like carbon arc or halogens for exposure. I have often considered getting a FF Dslr so I could rapidly "dupe" some of the twenty-thirty thousand 35mm images I have collecting dust. A capture back would be best rather than a scanning back, that way fluctuation in the source would be eliminated because you could use flash instead of a continous light source.

I think this is a very interesting project, and I think you guys are doing a great job of identifying the parameters and potential pitfalls, and working through potential solutions. I love these kinds of collaborative efforts.

Incidentally, Tod Gangler has in his studio an old process camera fitted with a MF digital back for copying artwork (reflective). I suppose the platform could work as well for scanning (transmissive) LF and ULF negatives, given a suitable light source.

Good luck!

[argos33]

It seems as though creating a template with numbers along the edges would help the stitching software along the sides.

I wonder if very, very small letters or markers had to be placed on the film to help the stitching software if Content Aware Fill would work well enough to repair the scan?

That is a good idea Dave - doing that would surely help with stitching for frame patterns where each frame has one edge along the frame outside of the negative. For example taking 4 or 6 photos of the negative where each smaller frame touches an outside edge. Think rulers in PS, except physically bordering the edges of the negative. As long as you included part of said ruler/guide it would probably help a lot and you could just crop it out of the final stitch. You could probably just make one for each film size, or perhaps an adjustable version like the variable sized printing easels to allow for many different sizes.

Perhaps something like the small letters placed on top of the film could be used as a plan B of sorts, where you could drop one in the sky (where it is having a hard time stitching) and and then easily remove it.

Evan

[Jay DeFehr]

I worked at a prolab in Baltimore for about a year, they had a digital scanning back for flat art which used something like carbon arc or halogens for exposure. I have often considered getting a FF Dslr so I could rapidly "dupe" some of the twenty-thirty thousand 35mm images I have collecting dust. A capture back would be best rather than a scanning back, that way fluctuation in the source would be eliminated because you could use flash instead of a continous light source.

Aren't there devices that attach to the front of a lens for dupe-ing slides? Couldn't one of these devices be adapted for scanning 35mm negs with a DSLR? I wonder how one would compare to a dedicated film scanner? It would certainly be faster than any film scanner I've used.

[jb7]

Is this the world's first flatpack scanner?

Check the new Ikea catalogue, search for Petronio-

[jb7]

Now, if only they had included the instructions...

[Jim Michael]

I worked at a prolab in Baltimore for about a year, they had a digital scanning back for flat art which used something like carbon arc or halogens for exposure.

The Petronio scanner would be scalable to handle large flat art. Replace your Cruse.

[Peter De Smidt]

I just got a tip from a knowledgeable source about a very good lens for this application. Check out Ebay auction: 220563494846

Apparently, Rodenstock made these lenses for use in scanners, including Imacons. They are optimized for 1:5 to 2:1, which should be perfect. They are a fixed f5.6 lens. The "buy it know" price for these new lenses is about $80 plus $10 shipping each. I ordered one.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Thanks for the compliment. Wish you luck that it works for you! These Magnogon lenses I was told were used in IMACON scanners sold by Hasselblad. Image circle is 72mm. The only data I ever found is attached FYI.

[rdenney]

I just got a tip from a knowledgeable source about a very good lens for this application. Check out Ebay auction: 220563494846

Apparently, Rodenstock made these lenses for use in scanners, including Imacons. They are optimized for 1:5 to 2:1, which should be perfect. They are a fixed f5.6 lens. The "buy it know" price for these new lenses is about $80 plus $10 shipping each. I ordered one.

I ordered one, too. Whether or not I end up making the scanner, it will be a dandy copy lens for use on my Pentacon Six bellows. The coverage isn't quite enough for 6x6, but it's fine for 645. And being a bit shorter in focal length, it should work at 1:1 in this application without having to add an extension tube to the bellows as I was going to have to do with the longer EL-Nikkor.

With the fixed aperture, I'm assuming that's the aperture the lens is corrected for, and is therefore diffraction-limited at that aperture. The lens looks symmetrical and should therefore be quite free of coma and distortion. If the specs are anything like the APO-Rodagon 75/4, it should be really stunning.

Rick "two left" Denney