![]() Some might disagree, but this is what the maths says to me for me to get the sort of quality of images I want. The object is to try to make the sensor as high-res as possible to eliminate artefacts. When the monochrome has the same resolution as a colour digital camera, the monochrome will be far more accurate with a higher resolution (line pairs per mm). If you’re only scanning b&w, then use a monochrome camera. ![]() ![]() My take: the camera will need at least 45 mega-pixels for a 35mm standard frame and even more for medium format. But they don’t include the camera or lens, both of which are expensive and problematic. There are others with bundled packages: copy stand, ight source, film holders. Cost $ € ¥ £įirst the equipment: mirrorless digital camera, macro lens (not extension rings), film holder, light source, copy stand/tripod… While there are many options to consider, some brands offer helpful accessories: Pixl-latr. And even if it is hidden, it may be time-intensive to setup. And, unless it’s hidden away, it may not be that attractive. The setup will take up space, more space than the standard standalone scanner. It’s a bit like the home-brew PC culture of yore. There is a downside – cost in space, $ € ¥ £, time. Scanning with a digital camera sounds appealing: “I’ll save money and get better results.” But… There’s always a but. While there is much interest in scanning with a digital camera, there are other ways of scanning negatives: using a lab or home-scanning with a dedicated scanner. Featured image movie still from Modern Times, Charlie Chaplin (Platinum-toned remix of United Artists, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |