There are scanners for around $400:- that you can load with a 100-slide Reflecta-magazine, and do it automatically. Unfortunately, they are not the top notch of scanners though, but I think they produce a resonable quality for the price. With best regards Tomas Larsson Sweden http://www.tlec.se http://www.ebaman.com Verus Amicus Est Tamquam Alter Idem > -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu > [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Carl Denk > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:50 PM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [EE]Looking for a Camera module. > > Agreed on more than one way to skin a cat! At the time and > it's probably a year ago or so, I needed a routine use > scanner since the HP's don't have a XP driver (going to dual > boot Linux (Unbuntu) on one computer and hope the HP will be > usable). 2 items: 1 was (still) down on HP, 2 Microtek > sounded like would do all I needed for a little more. Some of > the slides are faded pretty badly, haven't tried the > automatic or manual correction to see what the range of > fixing is. Some of the slides are more sentimental than > functional value, and less than perfect results is acceptable. :) > > M. Adam Davis wrote: > > My co-worker purchased a digital SLR with a good macro lens and > > extension tube for slide scanning. He has it set up with a diffuse > > white light below, then the slide, and then the camera > mounted above > > pointing down. Locking the auto focus and exposure, he can > easily do > > 8 slides a minute. The slide image fills the camera frame, > and with > > his 6Mpixel camera (Pentax K110D) he's getting the equivalent of > > 2600dpi. With a 10Mpixel sensor, one would get nearly 3,400dpi. > > > > We can clearly see the grain with his 6Mpixel camera, though, so > > there's not much reason to go further than that. I assume > if one had > > to image better slide film the grain would be finer, > perhaps requiring > > the 4000dpi. > > > > Quite frankly, though, the film scanner costs more for less overall > > utility in my estimation. > > > > At 2.5 minutes per slide, you'll spend over 41 hours doing the work. > > If your time is worth $5 per hour, then you're spending an > additional > > $210 to do the work, on top of the cost of the slide scanner. One > > should be able to find a service to do that near that cost > - I see one > > service that charges 24 cents per slide, so right around > $240 for your > > 1000 images. > > > > So many ways to do the same thing... > > > > -Adam > > > > On 5/15/07, Carl Denk wrote: > > > >> A few years ago, I had (7) 400' reels of 16 mm. silent > color/and b&w > >> film transfered to DVD with complimentary sounds dubbed in > for about > >> $250 USD. The process was to project onto a screen 2 or 3 > foot wide > >> and used a good quality camcorder to capture the images. > Looks good on 42" > >> TV screen. If someone is interested in the service located in > >> Northern Ohio, contact me privately and I'll put the > contact together. > >> > >> As a separate issue, I have about (1000) 35mm. slides to > convert to > >> digital. I bought a Microtek scanmaker I700 scanner that > does 4000 dpi. > >> and has both 35 mm slide and film strip holders. The > scanner is very > >> slow and would probably take 20 minute to do 8 slides. I > would like > >> to obtain an extra set of the slide holders so I could > be loading > >> one while the other is scanning. The scanner is slow even with > >> normal copying compared to the 2 HP scanners that I can't > find good > >> XP drivers for. I also have 4" x 5" (6 x 9 cm) and 6 x 17 cm film > >> holders for the scanner that I never will have a use for. > I'll ship > >> (USA only) free to someone that can put them to use. :) > >> > >> Lee Jones wrote: > >> > >>>> What I want to do is a device to transfer traditional > 8mm film to > >>>> digital media. As you know, the film has very high "resolution" > >>>> and to be somewhat "future-safe" I want to do it with as high > >>>> resolution as possible. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> I'm looking for a resolution at 2048x1024 or higher. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I think you're asking too much from 8mm movie film. I > don't recall > >>> the actual size of a frame of 8mm, but as I believe 8mm refers to > >>> the width of the stock. So the frame has to be smaller than that. > >>> > >>> Film has a resolving power topping out about 50 line pairs per mm > >>> under good conditions. Some films can do up to 100 lpmm under > >>> optimum conditions with an excellent lens and no camera shake. > >>> That means, top end, you need about 200 pixels per mm resolution. > >>> With an 8mm wide film frame and and aspect ratio of 4:3, you are > >>> going to get less than 1600x1200 pixels of _usable data_ > from each > >>> frame of 8mm movie film. > >>> > >>> High end film scanners resolve 4000 pixels per inch (PPI) or about > >>> 157 pixels per mm. And that resolution is more than adequate > >>> because they resolve the film grains. Personally, I think that > >>> 2700-2900 PPI > >>> (106-114 pixels per mm) was an optimum "sweet spot" in > film scanning. > >>> I'm doing a long term project to convert my 35mm using a 2900 PPI > >>> scanner. It's quicker than my 4000 PPI scanner and "looks better" > >>> for normal size prints or projected images. > >>> > >>> Again, assuming an 8mm wide frame and 4:3 aspect ratio, I > think that > >>> 1200x900 pixels is all that an 8mm film frame has to offer. > >>> And probably slightly lower resolution than that would be fine. > >>> Recall than when viewing it, even greatly enlarged, you > only have a > >>> fraction of a second to see each individual image. > >>> > >>> Before going farther, maybe you should beg or borrow or > buy time on > >>> a film scanner. Scan some of your 8mm film frames at various > >>> resolutions and see exactly how they look. I'm willing > to scan it > >>> for you, but you being in Sweden prevents doing it quickly. > >>> If you are willing to mail me a short length of film (via > post), I > >>> will scan it and email you back the resulting images. > Now you have > >>> me curious. :-) (If you are interested, contact me off-list for > >>> mailing information.) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> My idea is to do it fram by frame, and then asseble all > the frames > >>>> in a computer. First i was thinking of using a digital > camera but > >>>> the optics creates a problem since i basically want to do a > >>>> "contact-copy" of the film, i.e. project the image > directly on ccd > >>>> > >>>> > >>> If you have a Canon interchangable lens digital SLR, get (buy or > >>> rent) a Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Photo lens. It's optimized > for doing > >>> macro work from 1:1 to 5:1 image scale (yes, that last is > an image > >>> that is > >>> 5 times the size of the original object). New, they's > US$800. You > >>> can easily fill a DSLR frame with an 8mm film frame > (properly backlit). > >>> > >>> I expect that Nikon makes a similar lens, but I know & use Canon. > >>> > >>> Then hook the camera to your computer via firewire or > USB, use the > >>> supplied software to run the camera in tethered mode, and capture > >>> all of the 8mm film you have. > >>> > >>> Then you can spend your time building hardware and > programming a PIC > >>> to automatically advance the 8mm movie film, frame by > frame, under > >>> coordinated control of the image capture computer. :-) > >>> > >>> > >>> In another message, you mention having a "couple of km" > of 8mm film. > >>> Let's do "back of the envelope" math. 2kM is 2,000M is > 2,000,000mm > >>> of film. If each frame is 6mm tall, you are looking at > 1/3 million > >>> images. If each image is 3MB (1200x900 pixels at 8 > bits/pixel with > >>> 3 color channels, stored as TIFF), then you are looking at 1 > >>> terrabyte of storage for this project. That's a couple > 750MB disk > >>> drives or 250 full single layer DVDs. And way over > 300,000 image files. > >>> > >>> It may be pedestrian, but I think you may be > underestimating the raw > >>> effort needed to manage that many images or that much storage. > >>> And I doubt most video editing programs would do well > with it, even > >>> if it were broken up into multiple projects (one per 8mm > film reel). > >>> > >>> Lee Jones > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your > >> membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change > your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist