View Single Post
  #24  
Old 10th January 2017
Otto's Avatar
Otto Otto is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,505
Thanks: 83
Thanked 225 Times in 198 Posts
Likes: 841
Liked 730 Times in 470 Posts
Re: Kodak Ektachrome 100 Revival

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel View Post
Film scanners with LED light sources definitely accentuate film grain, in a way that traditional enlargers never did.
In the UK at least many enlargers had colour or variable contrast heads which use a diffuse light source, whereas heads intended for mono had a condenser. Condenser heads were well-known for accentuating film grain (and dust and scratches!) and produced a higher contrast.

I've been playing with slide copying using my E-M5 and an OM Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro lens, and a white LED panel with diffuser as the light source. I originally rigged that up as my old Nikon Coolscan IV was kaput and my Epson 4990 flatbed (also a diffuse light source) didn't produce good results from 35mm slides. Having found some servicing info on the web last week I've managed to sort out the scanner hardware problem (a dusty mirror!) and got it running on Windows 10.

Film grain and dust are much more noticeable on the scanned images, and actually, the image is quite a bit more detailed than from my E-M5 slide copier rig despite the scanner's lower resolution. Maybe I should hire a 60mm m43 macro lens from Ian and see how that compares as I'm guessing it's a better performer than the 50mm Zuiko. The scanner takes a minute or two to scan a 35mm slide whereas the E-M5 does it in 1/13 second which is a useful time saver . The Coolscan IV does use an LED source, whereas I believe some other film scanners use a diffuse light.
__________________
Regards
Richard
Reply With Quote
The Following User Liked This Post:
Naughty Nigel (10th January 2017)