DSLR imaging problem

[warden]

One reason to use FF...back in the days of film, there are a significant number of accessories made to precisely position a 135 slide afixed to the camera body with a specific length of tube so that it could be duplicated precisely at 1:1 onto a duplicating camera.

I have not checked to see if today you can find a product that holds slides precisely afixed to a APS-C dSLR for 1:1.6 reproduction of FF film slide

Nikon made one of those adapters for a recent digital full frame camera too, but unfortunately they have not made one for medium format film yet and that’s my main digitizing goal.

 

[Lachlan Young]

And in fact few folks would exceed 16" x 20" print from 135 for the simple reason of 16.9x mangification of grain!

I was really referring to 12x18" on 16x20" if anything - so about 12.7x from 35mm - which is a pretty standard exhibition size. And often from Tri-X. What matters is representing the film character granularity reasonably accurately/ sharply, not how much granularity there is.

 

[wiltw]

I was really referring to 12x18" on 16x20" if anything - so about 12.7x from 35mm - which is a pretty standard exhibition size. And often from Tri-X. What matters is representing the film character granularity reasonably accurately/ sharply, not how much granularity there is.

I wrote about the effective limit of 16" x 20" from film neg only because of your comment, "and most of them aren't making 20x24's, let alone 24x36's or 40x60's from 135 on any sort of regular basis. "

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wrote about the effective limit of 16" x 20" from film neg only because of your comment, "and most of them aren't making 20x24's, let alone 24x36's or 40x60's from 135 on any sort of regular basis. "

I'm still a bit perplexed as to why you seem to be under the impression that people shouldn't be making 16x24" prints from 35mm negs - it has very little to do with the nominal resolution of the film itself by that point, and much more about the ability of the optical system you use (be it enlarger or scanner) to adequately and sharply represent the totality of the negative's characteristics.

 

[wiltw]

I'm still a bit perplexed as to why you seem to be under the impression that people shouldn't be making 16x24" prints from 35mm negs - it has very little to do with the nominal resolution of the film itself by that point, and much more about the ability of the optical system you use (be it enlarger or scanner) to adequately and sharply represent the totality of the negative's characteristics.

I did NOT state that folks should not be making bigger prints.

I am stating the observation that in the past most folks CHOSE to limit 135 enlargement to about 16x for grain size reasons. You will often see that opinion expressed in posts by folks! When they routinely want larger prints, they chose to shoot on medium format for the same reason.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Realistically 16-24mp is good enough for most applications that end users need (all the way up to LF too) - and most of them aren't making 20x24's, let alone 24x36's or 40x60's from 135 on any sort of regular basis. The problem is that they need a VW, want a Ferrari, but all too often end up with a Lada...

LOL... that's one way to put it.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

And in fact few folks would exceed 16" x 20" print from 135 for the simple reason of 16.9x mangification of grain!

This is true, but even making a 16-24MP scan of 120 film is enough total resolution that any reasonably executed digital print at most sizes will look good. A 16-24MP scan displayed on a 65 inch 4K TV looks outrageously good. In terms of physical print sizes, that's a really big print.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The reason I would like to have a full frame digital camera for digitization is that I already have a full frame 35mm slide film copying setup, including an appropriate full frame macro lens, and there really is no practical way to use it with a smaller than full frame sensor.

Just out of curiosity, what does a nice full frame digital camera cost for whatever your chosen lens mount is? What does it cost to get a nice APS-C camera that can work with that lens, copy stand, light (if you don't already have one that will work), and film holder (your enlarger negative carriers will work, but say you wanted to buy one). is the price difference small enough to still justify a full frame digital camera? That's what I'd be looking at.

 

[MattKing]

My slide copier (35mm and 126 only, although I think 828 can be made to work) is an Olympus OM bellows unit with slide copier stage and OM Zuiko macro lens.
I can adapt the unit to other full frame camera mounts like the Canon EF mount that I already have an adapter for, but the limits on the lens to slide holder dimensions mean that I would have to change the lens in order to image to a smaller sensor. And there aren't really any obvious solutions as to what alternate lens would work in that unit - OM mount and particular lens hood size included.
I've borrowed both a full frame and APS-C Canon camera body, and tests confirm that for me.
The bellows and slide copier unit deals with all the issues of keeping things parallel very nicely and simply, and it is relatively trivial to deal with the light source.
I just want to avoid the cost of buying a full frame camera, when I am absolutely happy with the family's micro 4/3 digital camera for the other things that I like to do with digital.
And I want to use the Olympus bellows and slide holder unit - it is beautifully made and a treat to use!

 

[wiltw]

This is true, but even making a 16-24MP scan of 120 film is enough total resolution that any reasonably executed digital print at most sizes will look good. A 16-24MP scan displayed on a 65 inch 4K TV looks outrageously good. In terms of physical print sizes, that's a really big print.

I do not at all disagree. I took at 12Mpixel Canon P&S image, cropped it primarily for alteration of aspect ratio, and printed 12" x 60" prints on canvass for wall display in my home. No one ever commented "Too bad, you need better resolution camera!"

 

[wiltw]

My slide copier (35mm and 126 only, although I think 828 can be made to work) is an Olympus OM bellows unit with slide copier stage and OM Zuiko macro lens.!...The bellows and slide copier unit deals with all the issues of keeping things parallel very nicely and simply, and it is relatively trivial to deal with the light source.

Thank you, Matt! The world has largely forgotten about the existence of slide duplication equipment which would hold a slide in place in front the lens at a precise distance to made 1:1 duplicates of slides. Now we need 1:1.6 version of the same thing. I just posted about this line of products just a moment ago.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-do-not-own-a-projector-why-slides.183909/page-3#post-2418358

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Now we need 1:1.6 version of the same thing.

That's Canon's ratio. Admittedly, they are the 800 pound gorilla, but if one were to make such a unit, it'd be better to make one that can handle 1:2 to 1:1.5 so that the user has a choice from micro four thirds out to Sony/Nikon/Fuji's APS-C crop of 1.5.

Even then, with Canon, that 1.6 is approximate. Their APS-C sensors sizes from model to model have actually varied by nearly a mm in both directions over the years. They're really just nominally 22-23mm on the long edge and 14-15mm on the short edge and they just crop in camera to get 2:3 aspect ratio inside that larger nominal space. If you use a raw processor that ignores their cropping and masking tags you'll discover that their sensors actually have extra meat out on the edges. It's not a huge amount, but it's enough that the raw aspect ratio is almost never 2:3, and if you use those extra pixels, it's not 1.6 any more.

I suspect that the other mfg. are the same in being quite nominal.