You would be better off basing your decision on actual data. 6400ppi is just vaporware. Given enough memory, I could even resample these images to, say, 25600 ppi.The software tells me I'm getting 6400 ppi, which comes to about but I've seen many conflicting reports on what the actual optical resolution of the V850 might be.
You would be better off basing your decision on actual data.
That's the right tool for the job; go and make a setup with a suitable light source using the Micro Nikkor and enjoy far better quality images than you'll ever be able to get from the flatbed or a projection 'scanning' setup.We have a Micro Nikkor for the Nikons
But he said "I have access to are Nikon D70 and D90, neither one of which will beat the pixel count I can get from my V850 scanning the negatives directly.". But I do agree that either 6 or 12MP is much more than you want out of such a tiny negative unless all you want is grain. Yes he already got more than 12MP out of his negative scanning normally with his Epson V850.
The pixel count the OP 'thinks' he's is getting from his D850 is a marketing illusion all manufacturers take part in. Scanning at 6400dpi doesn't make a more detailed file, it is simply the biggest interpolated file the V850 can create. The maximum optical resolution of the V850 is 2600 at best, 2300 if not using Silverfast software, and some say it's more like 1600dpi.
Here is an explanation for you, scroll down to 'Image Quality of the Epson V850'
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV850Pro.html
in which the 6400dpi myth is exploded.
As for 6mp or 12mp being 'more than you want' for copying 35m that is far from the truth, I use a 45mp camera and yes I see grain, individual grain if I zoom in, which is good because it is grain that creates the image, otherwise all you have is mush. But the OP will get a better sharper image with the D90 (and macro lens) than he will with the V850.
I currently have access to a Flextight Precision II which scans 35mm up to 6300dpi. I also have the same Scan Dual IV that you have. Comparing scans of both, I would agree with your statement, but with the caveat that if you go up a few notches (or even very many notches; see e.g. @dokko's work), a very good negative/slide may hold some more resolution than this. However, that's really under optimal conditions and with a marginal net gain in actual resolving power. From a more practical perspective for a home/small amateur lab perspective, I think 3200dpi is a reasonable upper limit of what you can get from a film negative. Anything beyond this tends to constitute only a marginal net benefit.My flatbed is rated only at 600dpi and doesn't scan film so I never scan film with it. To scan film I use the Minolta Dual Scan IV which is rated at 3200dpi and it gives me about 13MP file from a 35mm film. I do find that's about all the detail a piece of 35mm film has even with Ektar or Kodachrome.
I'm sure both of those will have visible screen pixels by the time I fill a frame in the D90 with a Minolta 16 12x18 frame
Even a wobbly tripod with a cable release should do OK. Small problems with parallel placement can be resolved by the combination of depth of field (accepting a little diffraction on the digital capture side) and using digital tools to straighten things back up again.the small one I have isn't rigid enough for this kind of use
Okay, so for light source I have an old smart phone and (recently acquired) a Surface Pro 5 tablet computer with 12.3" 2k screen; I'm sure both of those will have visible screen pixels by the time I fill a frame in the D90 with a Minolta 16 12x18 frame, never mind 8x11. I've read about someone getting a "tile light" from home improvement store -- a flat panel LED intended to replace older technology ceiling lights -- but I don't recall reading how well it worked. Then for a copy stand, I've got nothing, really. Both of my sturdy tripods are huge, for large format, and the small one I have isn't rigid enough for this kind of use (and won't permit aiming the camera down between its legs anyway).
Using a tablet as light source for copying film doesn't work.
Okay, so for light source I have an old smart phone and (recently acquired) a Surface Pro 5 tablet computer with 12.3" 2k screen; I'm sure both of those will have visible screen pixels by the time I fill a frame in the D90 with a Minolta 16 12x18 frame, never mind 8x11. I've read about someone getting a "tile light" from home improvement store -- a flat panel LED intended to replace older technology ceiling lights -- but I don't recall reading how well it worked. Then for a copy stand, I've got nothing, really. Both of my sturdy tripods are huge, for large format, and the small one I have isn't rigid enough for this kind of use (and won't permit aiming the camera down between its legs anyway).
If you have an enlarger, you can turn it on its side, take the lens off, retract the bellows completely (or whatever there is), set your digital camera on a regular tripod, rig up some way to hold the film in the enlarger, use the diffuser of the enlarger as your good backlight source.
The D90 doesn't use a Memory Stick, that's an old Sony format. The D90 uses an SD card format that is near-ubiquitous, SD cards and readers can be had down to dirt cheap prices.
This doesn't seem very practical with an Omega D2, for which I have only color and condenser heads...
This doesn't seem very practical with an Omega D2, for which I have only color and condenser heads...
I've been shooting Minolta 16 format for many years, and I'll be getting a Minox and associated accessories soon -- but these days I mostly scan my negatives, and my flatbed scanner (Epson Perfection V850) despite having very high resolution for medium format or smaller negatives, can't get all that much out of an 8x11 mm frame.
However, many years ago I saw a copy shop making color prints from slides with a projector set up to throw its image onto the scan glass of a color copier (I think there was a Fresnel lens on the copier bed). Since I have an enlarger, and now have a computer that can (probably) operate my scanner in my darkroom, I'm interested in using projection to get more pixels out of a tiny negative (and no, I don't have and can't afford a high resolution digital camera, other than the one in my smart phone that gives me very little control over exposure, contrast, or color and saves only in JPG).
My overall idea is to use the widest lens I can afford for the enlarger (28-35 mm) or try to find my Enlahead (made for Minolta 16, but I think I can mask it for 8x11) and set the enlarger head to give something an 8x10 projected image. I think (in order to have ray direction compatible with the scanner's sensor) I'll need to get one of those "sheet of paper" Fresnel magnifiers; if so, it would be advantageous (I think) to match the head height on the enlarger to the focal length of the Fresnel. What I don't know is how badly the Fresnel's zones will interfere with the scanned image, or whether there's an alternative (a sheet of frosted acetate on the scanner glass, maybe?).
I'd welcome ideas and comments, anything from "You're an idiot, this won't work because X" to "That's brilliant! I'm going to set up my scanner and enlarger this way!"
Consider turning that around into a mentality of seeing how you can tackle the problems you see. I'm speaking from personal experience here; it's a lot easier to shoot down ideas than to work on solutions, but ultimately the former gets you absolutely nowhere.
I don't think condenser head would work.
I've been shooting Minolta 16 format for many years, and I'll be getting a Minox and associated accessories soon -- but these days I mostly scan my negatives, and my flatbed scanner (Epson Perfection V850) despite having very high resolution for medium format or smaller negatives, can't get all that much out of an 8x11 mm frame.
However, many years ago I saw a copy shop making color prints from slides with a projector set up to throw its image onto the scan glass of a color copier (I think there was a Fresnel lens on the copier bed). Since I have an enlarger, and now have a computer that can (probably) operate my scanner in my darkroom, I'm interested in using projection to get more pixels out of a tiny negative (and no, I don't have and can't afford a high resolution digital camera, other than the one in my smart phone that gives me very little control over exposure, contrast, or color and saves only in JPG).
My overall idea is to use the widest lens I can afford for the enlarger (28-35 mm) or try to find my Enlahead (made for Minolta 16, but I think I can mask it for 8x11) and set the enlarger head to give something an 8x10 projected image. I think (in order to have ray direction compatible with the scanner's sensor) I'll need to get one of those "sheet of paper" Fresnel magnifiers; if so, it would be advantageous (I think) to match the head height on the enlarger to the focal length of the Fresnel. What I don't know is how badly the Fresnel's zones will interfere with the scanned image, or whether there's an alternative (a sheet of frosted acetate on the scanner glass, maybe?).
I'd welcome ideas and comments, anything from "You're an idiot, this won't work because X" to "That's brilliant! I'm going to set up my scanner and enlarger this way!"
the negative could be printed to A4 and then scanned to a size 20,000 pix.
try oiling different papers with pure palm oil.
This doesn't seem very practical with an Omega D2
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?