Modern way of creating microphotographs/microform?

jsmoove · Apr 3, 2019

Those found in things such as Stanhopes.
Is a film recorder (computer output) the best way to go about it?

AgX · Apr 3, 2019

No, optical reduction would yield greater resolution.

jsmoove · Apr 3, 2019

What are some modern methods of optical reduction? Sorry for my ignorance

AgX · Apr 3, 2019

There are no modern ways of optical image reduction.

jsmoove · Apr 3, 2019

What are the known ways of optical image reduction out there ? That are not modern?

AgX · Apr 3, 2019

Basically a (inverted) microscope.

For lesser reduction a high-scale macro-lens as a Luminar (which already resembles a microscope lens).

jsmoove · Apr 3, 2019

@AgX How does optical reduction yield a greater resolution?
Do you have any examples you can link to help me understand the process for an inverted microscope to make microphotos?

AgX · Apr 3, 2019

In optical reduction the limiting factors are the resolution of the microscope lens and the film. In film-recorder reduction it is the resolution of the recorder. In addition the common recorders have as smallest format 24x36mm, but you would only a tiny area out of that and thus only gain a fraction of the initial resolution/image of the recorder.

calebarchie · Apr 3, 2019

Can you give us reason/purpose for experiment? Are you trying to make your own resolution chart/target?
Film recorder is for different purpose, too low resolution.

Bill Burk · Apr 4, 2019

Let your loved one walk across the street and pose. You take a picture on color slide film with camera on a tripod and wide angle lens.

Then cut out the tiny figure and cement it into a cleverly designed ring where you can look at them any time you want.

jsmoove · Apr 4, 2019

@AgX So if you were to optically reduce an image to a specific size, that image would technically be able to be resolved with an imaging system more lossless-ly than trying to resolve the same image that was written with a film recorder?
@calebarchie No charts. Just trying to understand optics and resolution and if there were modern ways of making and reading a microform other than on a film recorder or computer output microfilm device. Would like to try making my own somehow

AgX · Apr 4, 2019

A film recorder is designed for a certain maximum image size. The information then must be sufficient for a 24x36mm slide to be strongly enlarged to that size (or respectively a 6x9 one enlarged to a lesser extent). In both cases the slides contain the same information, only spread on different areas.
The recorder system is not designed to expose a micro-slide or a microdot. To do so and retain the information one must exchange its optics for a microscope lens or at least modifiy its optical system to expose only such tiny area with the full image. In case either would be possible without too much hassle.
Thus my advise to skip the film recorder and stay with a pure optical system. It might involve less hassle.

For a basic understanding contemplate on terms as LinePairs/image and LinePairs/mm.

jsmoove · Apr 4, 2019

@AgX Right, but more or less a microslide or microdot would have more information (more lp/mm) opposed to film exposed in a film recorder is what you are saying?
If you took a digital image and reduced to a certain size (say size X) using pure optical reduction in microslide format
and then compared it to the same digital image exposed on a 4k film recorder
then compared the microslide to the same size X portion of that image from the film recorder
there would be a clear difference between the two in lp/mm?

And for a pure optical system you mean an inverse microscope or are there other ways?
An inverse microscope is new info to me, I dont even know where to look....so pretty much what im wondering is, what is the most cost effective way to go about creating high resolution digital images in physical microform format, while still keeping the actual physical size of the film/microform small? My definition of small is anything that could fit in your hand, so it wouldnt have to be necessarily something as miniscule as a microdot at all.

If a 4k film recorder that writes to a 35mm film is limited to a certain lp/mm (what is this by the way, how can I calculate?)
Is there anything that is better resolution than this process, also that is able to write to 35mm format?
Or is a film recorder the best you can get for writing a digital image to 35mm?
Im only curious to see the difference between two exact formats (35mm or anything of the same size) written in different ways, and finding which method in turn yields the higher lp/mm within the actual physical space when resolved by the same lens system (scanner or whatnot).

I guess my question should have been: is there anything better than a film recorder for writing digital images to a microform, film/paper.

AgX · Apr 4, 2019

jsmoove said:
@AgX Right, but more or less a microslide or microdot would have more information (more lp/mm) opposed to film exposed in a film recorder is what you are saying?

As I said here is your misunderstanding. More information means more LP per image .

If the format shrinks, then for the same image information the LP per mm must be higher.

A microslide basically could be made both ways. But as the film recorders I know of have as smallest formart 24x36mm they will not yield the image information you could expect by going the pure optical way.

jsmoove · Apr 4, 2019

@AgX Oh.....For some reason I'm having a hard time understanding this sorry.......
So if there was more digital information in the actual image to be written, the only negative factor for a film recorder is the actual film recorder's resolution, thats what you were saying before right?
I dont know, im still confused. Ill do some research

jsmoove · Apr 4, 2019

@AgX Saw your edit. Yeah thats more what im curious about, so this pure optical way....can it be done with a digital image input (digital2analog) like a film recorder? And can it be done also in 24x36mm format? Im not sure what kind of equipment is recommended?

AgX · Apr 4, 2019

Yes, if the film recorder had a higher resolution per image then you would be better off and might use a cut-out of a 24x36 slide as your micro image.

But in the end all depends what you have in mind as final photograph. We all have no real idea on this.

AgX · Apr 4, 2019

jsmoove said:
@AgX Saw your edit. Yeah thats more what im curious about, so this pure optical way....can it be done with a digital image input like a film recorder? And can it be done also in 24x36mm format? Im not sure what kind of equipment is recommended?

A pure optical way means only using film and a lens. As in an enlarger.
This of course excludes a digital film recorder (and this is what I understand by film recorder).

jsmoove · Apr 4, 2019

@AgX And higher resolution per image you mean LP per image yes?
As a final photograph im literally wanting to attempt the modern way/method of making something similar to the IBM 1360 photostore chip, so not really a "photo" per say.

jsmoove · Apr 4, 2019

@AgX I see....so really its singular lens vs CRT to lens then. ? Unless there are film recorders that act like an enlarger?
Maybe LVT film recorders? I dont know enough...
Wiki says LVT film recorders are 120 lp/mm
Would pure optical with an enlarger still equate better?

AgX · Apr 4, 2019

If you got a film recorder with really high resolution per image, that does not mean it will project on smaller formats than 24x36, if at all at 24x36.
You then have to either exchange/modify its optics or cope with the highest resolution per mm on film it yields, and cut out a respective area from that exposeed and processed film.

calebarchie · Apr 4, 2019

I recall you asking same kind of questions in another thread. Something to do with barcodes and geocaching.

Just remember normal films are not capable of microdot resolutions and secondly you still need system to properly read back data.

If you looking for simpler approach to recreate microdot just research how they did it in WW1(?) for pidgeon messaging system.

We had this discussion before I would avoid film recorder, the CRT source itself just doesn't have enough resolution itself, regards of how much you reduce it. You are only reducing a limited amount of data.

AgX · Apr 4, 2019

There is something as a 45Megapixel film recorder, but the question is whether even a fraction of this can be compressed into a tiny area. These machines are not designed for such.

By the way, all this time were are discussing a hybrid pathway in a analog forum. But as this is in the direction to film...

calebarchie · Apr 4, 2019

Basef on my discussions with OP close to a year ago now, I have fair idea what he is trying to do. A recorder will simply not do, trying to fit maximum amount of "visually encoded" data into minimum space.

Microdot is a way to do this, but something like an agfa alto or kodak LVT just not designed for it. OP should look at M-disc that is relatively modern.

nmp · Apr 4, 2019

jsmoove said:
@AgX Saw your edit. Yeah thats more what im curious about, so this pure optical way....can it be done with a digital image input (digital2analog) like a film recorder? And can it be done also in 24x36mm format? Im not sure what kind of equipment is recommended?

Buy yourself one of these:

https://www.nikonprecision.com/products-and-technology/mini-steppers/nes1w/

Modern way of creating microphotographs/microform?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency