Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
Harry Putnam wrote:
> Something that can take
> better advantage of the quality of 35 Millimeter over the average
> electornic camera?
>
That's not saying much. ;-> But then I prefer medium format to 35mm.
I assume you know that just using "35mm" won't automatically give you
better quality than a digital. There are some $1000 digital SLRs that can
easily rival film, for anything under an 11x14 print.
By the same token, if you use some pocket 35mm, you're not going to get
very good quality compared to an SLR, in most cases, but even that's
relative. It boils down to technique and GLASS. Don't use off-brand
lenses. Stick to Nikon, Canon or the best - Zeiss lenses. The 80 mm Zeiss
lens on my Rollei is just amazing.
But yeah, you can get 35mm film scanners that will *directly* scan your
negative or slide.
Stay away from flatbeds with "slide adapters". Don't even consider them.
Trust me : been there, done that, wasn't impressed.
Look at the new Nikon 4000 DPI scanners. Don't look at any others. The
Nikons rock. I have an older Nikon LS2000 which scans at 2700 DPI and I
easily get 13x19" prints from the scans.
The Nikon scanners have the ability to remove dust and fingerprints from
slides and negatives without noticeably affecting image quality.
Last Christmas I scanned *hundreds* of my wife's family slides going back
50 years and you can imagine the shape they were in, sitting around in
wooden and cardboard boxes (oozing film destroying gasses). Anyway, the
point is that each scan only took a couple of minutes, including color
correction and spot/scratch removal. I would have never even tried to do
it had I not had the features of that Nikon scanner available.
I recommend shooting slide film, it's easier to scan than negative, and
available in higher quality.
If you shoot negative film, I'd recommend sticking to Kodak professional
film, nothing over ISO 100 (grain).
And, you can save money by getting the negatives developed without prints.
For slide film, I don't think anything can beat Fuji Velvia. It's very
nice, although slow (shoot it at ISO 40, not "50" as marked on the box).
But then it depends on what you're shooting too I guess. It's perfect for
nature landscapes and such where you can (and should!) use a tripod and
small apertures. Obviously you wouldn't shoot wedding candids on Velvia,
for that you'd use Kodak VPS (ISO 160, but expose at ISO 100). Never use
any Kodak film other than VPS or if they still make it, VHC, for their
accurate colors. Kodak slide film goes blue in shadows so I avoid it like
the plague.
OK anyway, a bit long winded, but "yes, slide/negative scanners will do
what you want".
Keep in mind that the resolution of a good Nikon film scanner is way more
than you need for video unless you're doing the "Ken Burns effect" (pan &
scan). Even so, scan at the high resolution and use Photoshop to crop or
scale the image down to your video frame size, you'll get better results.
There are other things you'll have to do with the scans to reduce
interlace jitter, but that's another topic.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram