Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

My mediocre attempt to scan film with a DSLR

profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
http://thewestturn.com/2013/05/07/getting-techy-scanning-film-with-dslr/

Enjoy, I suppose haha.
May 7 2013 8:53AM
11 2
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
for the lazy ones..

May 7 2013 8:54AM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Nice read, couple of them came out pretty well too.
May 7 2013 9:25AM
0 0
profile picture
Swaggermager
Posts: 2576 - Karma: 951
That was really cool! I don't know much about shooting film but all of those pictures looked really cool to me. The whole process seemed very simple but effective
May 7 2013 11:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Randy_Quench
Posts: 5447 - Karma: 4,342
interesting. I was wondering what he meant by "scan" with a dslr. Might have to give it a whirl this summer when I have time to learn the realm of film.
May 7 2013 11:30AM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
I started doing this and meant to make a thread about it. My setup uses these plastic strips that hold the film very flat (normally used for making enlargements i think) in front of an acrylic board which is diffusing the light from a flash behind the board. It would work incredibly well if I had a macro lens or extention tubes but is sub par as of now. I found this asian website that has incredibly well done exaples of this technique, I'll see if it's not still in my history.
May 7 2013 11:59AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
I was thinking next time of just sticking the film between a couple pieces of tape, while laying on my computer monitor as it lays flat. Then turning off the lights, and putting the camera on a tripod to keep it real steady. The cup is only a thing for when there are lights on, or something.

Either way, I really want to try it again in a better fashion.
May 7 2013 6:17PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
^you can easily rid that blue cast if you fuck around with curves. Also, an easy way to get closer to the neg (loosing some sharpness) is "mounting" a prime backwards upon the camera.
May 7 2013 8:40PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
Yeah, I just don't have a reverse ring, otherwise, that's what I'd have probably done.

and I know how to get rid of the colour casting, since I do it whenever I make a scan. I just didn't really feel like messing about with it too much at the time haha.


May 7 2013 8:56PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Yeah messing with the curves is a tedious and frustrating task. But as for backwards lens mounting, I opted for rubber bands rather than a reverse ring.
May 7 2013 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
I'd just get an extension tube and go with that... it's like maybe 5 bucks for a vintage pentax one...
May 7 2013 10:26PM
1 0
profile picture
skiP.E.I.
Posts: 7598 - Karma: 20,034
I'm definitely going to do this, thanks for posting!
May 8 2013 9:54AM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Oh I agree, I went with the cheap ass option first to see if it would work at all before I put any money and time waiting for shipping into it. I'm hoping after I find a sucsessful method I'll get into developing so I never have to wait for processing and whatnot.
May 8 2013 10:19AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
Stoked. My next implementation will have a macro lens to work with. Just picked up a Nikkor 55mm f2.8 'micro' for Free.99

Booyah.
May 8 2013 8:45PM
1 0
profile picture
SamColby
Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006
I enjoyed your website, your a skilled css writer
May 8 2013 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5674 - Karma: 4,227
Maybe try flipping your lens backwards? Last I recall that creates other optical effects, but you can get pretty close doing that.

I once "scanned" a 120 neg with my point and shoots macro feature. Probably easier than a 35mm frame.
May 8 2013 10:03PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
No need. See above! :)
May 8 2013 10:11PM
0 0
profile picture
VT_scratch
Posts: 8710 - Karma: 5,615
fucking bad ass, nice work mayne
May 8 2013 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
hollygrove
Posts: 7845 - Karma: 93
uh am i the only one to notice that they all look like crap? not a single one is in focus and teh grain is all fucked up
May 9 2013 12:21AM
0 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
Dude. Did you not read "mediocre" in the title? haha. Congratulations on stating the obvious.
May 9 2013 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
RileySnyderPhoto
Posts: 688 - Karma: 1,451
Just would like to clarify that fewer MP does not necessarily mean lower IQ, just a smaller file
May 9 2013 1:54AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
Well yeah, and when you crop down to 1/9th of the original size of a file twice as large...

...am I mistaken by thinking it wouldn't be better image quality in such a case?





May 9 2013 2:00AM
0 0
profile picture
RileySnyderPhoto
Posts: 688 - Karma: 1,451
Image size and image quality are not the same thing. That is the big misconception of MP, more is not necessarily better just makes a larger image
May 12 2013 12:31AM
0 0
profile picture
jeremy.g
Posts: 4931 - Karma: 459
do yourself a favor and pick up an epson v600 scanner for under $200. i dont know why you would even want to try that process. tedious, way more work than convention scanning, and for almost unusable results. no thanks.
May 12 2013 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
Did you even read the article whatsoever?

I already have a scanner. I tried this out as an experiment, and I fucked up. I'm going to try it again with a macro lens, and without the stupid cup-contraption and see how good of results I could actually get.
May 13 2013 8:07PM
0 0
profile picture
jeremy.g
Posts: 4931 - Karma: 459
yea i did. and im not trying to be a dick here but i just dont get why you would do this. okay cool diy project or whatever, but fyi nobody gives a fuck about how you scan your shit, or do anything for that matter. when people are viewing a finished product thats all they care about. your process is irrelevant. thats just how it is

May 13 2013 8:48PM
0 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
I'm not going to get into hypothetical situations where it could be deemed useful... but I could definitely see myself using this process in the future if I can get good results...
May 13 2013 9:28PM
0 0
profile picture
loganimlach
Posts: 5132 - Karma: 14,052
someone needs to pull their tampon out. "Your process is irrelevant"? Dude was doing a little DIY experiment to see if it worked, then shared his results, so the process was the whole point. I had never seen anything like this and it seems like an awesome way to proof your negatives before dropping money on drum scans or dropping $200 on a mediocre scanner.
May 14 2013 5:09AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24703 - Karma: 29,680
Bingo. It's not like I'm saying this is the way to go, or anything. Shit haha.
May 14 2013 5:55AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)