Modern way of creating microphotographs/microform?
-
A
- Thread starter jsmoove
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Expired Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 - 120
- Started by Adam W
-
For Sale FS: 3x4 Pacemaker Speed Graphic Camera with 4x5 Cambo Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Black Nikon fm2n
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale 3 boxes of 4x5 Acros
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Mistake
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
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.
Last edited:
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.
Film recorder is for different purpose, too low resolution.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,323
- Format
- 4x5 Format
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.
Then cut out the tiny figure and cement it into a cleverly designed ring where you can look at them any time you want.
@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
@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
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.
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.
Last edited:
@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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
@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
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
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.
But in the end all depends what you have in mind as final photograph. We all have no real idea on this.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Buy yourself one of these:
https://www.nikonprecision.com/products-and-technology/mini-steppers/nes1w/
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |