 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / July 2005we make slides from digital files
We are a professional photo lab in Fountain Valley, CA one of the services we offer is making slides from digital files. If you have any questions please call us at 714-375-7717, or visit our store 8884 Warner Ave Fountain Valley, CA > We are a professional photo lab in Fountain Valley, CA one of the > services we offer is making slides from digital files. If you have any > questions please call us at 714-375-7717, or visit our store > 8884 Warner Ave > Fountain Valley, CA Since you feel inclined to spread spam, I am going follow up and advise everyone that reads this to avoid doing business with you and your lab at all cost, you ignorant slut.  SignatureIn my book its another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. >> We are a professional photo lab in Fountain Valley, CA one of the >> services we offer is making slides from digital files. If you have any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >reads this to avoid doing business with you and your lab >at all cost, you ignorant slut. On behalf of all the other people who read this newsgroup, I have to apologize for the boorish behaviour of only one of many readers. I ** WILL ** call you to get more information. I am interested. Your "ad" could be construed as almost a public service announcement, since I've never heard of anyone else who does this. And in my own experience, digital photography is great until you try to project an image. What's the point of all those hi-res Canon and Nikon pro SLRs if you lose at least 75% of the resolution, not to mention dynamic range, with the typical "data projector." In article <44tmc1t2tccc0nn0ar6qa9o4avghnhkpgi@4ax.com>, Father Kodak <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote: > On behalf of all the other people who read this newsgroup, I have to > apologize for the boorish behaviour of only one of many readers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > if you lose at least 75% of the resolution, not to mention dynamic > range, with the typical "data projector." Its spam plain and simple, however you want to justify it. SignatureYes I made, another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. >>> We are a professional photo lab in Fountain Valley, CA one of the >>> services we offer is making slides from digital files. If you have any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > if you lose at least 75% of the resolution, not to mention dynamic > range, with the typical "data projector." Father Kodak, after you use this service, would you please follow up and tell us something about the quality? Specifically, with 6 megapixel digital images, can you get better detail than with digital projector? Thanks. Wasn't it Father Kodak who said... > >spammer wrote: > >> We are a professional photo lab[...] > >Since you feel inclined to spread spam, I am > >going follow up and advise everyone that > >reads this to avoid doing business with you and your lab > >at all cost, you ignorant slut. > On behalf of all the other people who read this newsgroup, I have to > apologize for the boorish behaviour of only one of many readers. > I ** WILL ** call you to get more information. I am interested. Please think about what you are doing. This poster has already demonstrated a willingness to break the rules. Are you really ready to send him your money? If so, would you send me some, as well? :-) > Your "ad" could be construed as almost a public service announcement, > since I've never heard of anyone else who does this. There are many similar services around the country. I know of two just here in Baltimore. Just look up "film recording" and you'll find some - many others who don't spam newsgroups. If you reward the spammer for his unwanted and prohibited post, you'll most definitely see more of its kind. Is that *really* what you want? SignatureJoe Pucillo Baltimore, Maryland USA To reply by email, please remove the .xx Wasn't it Father Kodak who said... > I've never heard of anyone else who does this. Others who do this (internet based): replicolor.com iprintfromhome.com/slides gammatech.com slideplus.com eslide.com galleriaventures.com slides.com bermangraphics.com/artshows/slides.htm iqimaging.com expressdigitalimages.com/prod02.htm exslides.com visualhorizons.com artcompetitionslides.com These, just from the first page of this google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22slides+from+digital+files %22 So, you see, there's really no reason to deal with a spammer, since it's well known that spammers *always* lie. And, as Bill requested, when you use one of these sites, please post your experience so that others won't get sucked into using a spammer, either. Thanks! SignatureJoe Pucillo Baltimore, Maryland USA To reply by email, please remove the .xx From my other postings, some of you may have noted that I am still all film. I do plan to go digital probably later this year with a Nikon D2X. (no flames, please. I have 3 Nikon film bodies and 8 Nikon lenses, plus bellows/slide copier, Nikon SB-28 speedlight, and who knows what else.) So sometime later I will try out - one - of these services. I appreciate the poster who enlightened me about other services. Obviously now I won't feel like I have to work only with the OP of this thread, Having said that, I think that the vituperation that a "spammer" elicits is demeaning to both the responders to the "spam" and to the group as a whole. What ever happened to "civilized discourse?" Or, the Usenet as it was say 20 years ago, when it was all "uucp, " " bang paths" through inhp4, and (almost all) people were actually polite to one another. And, yes I do go back 20+ years on the usenet. For example, I remember the famous 1984 spoof from "kremvax". >Wasn't it Father Kodak who said... >> I've never heard of anyone else who does this. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >post your experience so that others won't get sucked into using a >spammer, either. Thanks! > What ever happened to "civilized discourse?" Or, the Usenet as it was > say 20 years ago, when it was all "uucp, " " bang paths" through > inhp4, and (almost all) people were actually polite to one another. Then the spammers came. > And, yes I do go back 20+ years on the usenet. For example, I > remember the famous 1984 spoof from "kremvax". And you top post? Pull the other leg. Nick Signature--------------------------------------- "Digital the new ice fishing" --------------------------------------- > From my other postings, some of you may have noted that I am still all > film. I do plan to go digital probably later this year with a Nikon > D2X. (no flames, please. I have 3 Nikon film bodies and 8 Nikon > lenses, plus bellows/slide copier, Nikon SB-28 speedlight, and who > knows what else.) Film is good. > So sometime later I will try out - one - of these services. I > appreciate the poster who enlightened me about other services. > Obviously now I won't feel like I have to work only with the OP of > this thread, Explain the need for slides if your going digital,...just curious for your reasons. > Having said that, I think that the vituperation that a "spammer" > elicits is demeaning to both the responders to the "spam" and to the > group as a whole. In a kinder gentler world we just kill file them & their posts and move on, and they never wise up. If you ever want to see the level spam is capable of attaining read the rec.digital group unfiltered Every twit under the sun- spammer and scumball resides there. In many groups other than photo, people just post a "plonk you" after the spam and nothing else. > What ever happened to "civilized discourse?" > Or, the Usenet as it was > say 20 years ago, when it was all "uucp, " " bang paths" through > inhp4, and (almost all) people were actually polite to one another. It changed obviously when people started seeing the Usenet as a free means to whore their services unasked for, I freshly recall the days I unwittingly used my real name and address and would receive hundreds of unwanted spam emails. I also have a business phone which at one point had similar problem of people feeling the need to solicit every type of mortgage lending under the sun. Now with caller ID I seldom answer 800 or unavailable number calls,...problem solved. SignatureYes I made, another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. >> From my other postings, some of you may have noted that I am still all >> film. I do plan to go digital probably later this year with a Nikon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Explain the need for slides if your going digital,...just curious for >your reasons. Real simple. Say I want to show some photos to a group of people, which I do from time to time. For some of my photographs, I might use photos taken say 20 years ago along with contemporary images. So far, so good. Now, if the contemporary images are digital, how do I do all that? 1. Do a slide projection + data projection show. The latter's images will look terrible in comparison with Kodachrome, no matter how many mpixels I have in my future digital camera. 2. Scan all my slides and show only digital images. Eliminates the problem in #1, but then all the images are sub-par. It's the projector! 3. Get slides some of my digital images, and then people might remark on how I'm still using Kodachrome 25. (This assumes a pro-level D SLR, no C vs. N wars here.) OK? >> Having said that, I think that the vituperation that a "spammer" >> elicits is demeaning to both the responders to the "spam" and to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >other than photo, people just post a "plonk you" after the spam >and nothing else. And these jerks have dragged everyone else down to their level. The slimy cave-dweller from Lord of The Rings, I forget his name, that's their level. With the slimy people, just ignore them. Otherwise stupid flame wars erupt, and worse. > >Explain the need for slides if your going digital,...just curious for > >your reasons. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > OK? In my experience film recorders do not do a terrific job representing digital images as slides, but thats my limited experience with making digital slides. As for the "scum" I have eliminated 99% of the trouble simply by taking someone's suggestion of kill filing x-posted articles beyond several groups. On occasion an ugly thread comes up but then I just kill that quick too :) SignatureYes I made, another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. I feel obliged to comment about the technology here because I've been making slides from digital files in a commercial lab scenario for twenty years. It's true that a projected file using a digital projector will not be as good as projecting a slide film made from the same file, but neither is as good as original camera film, especially Kodachrome or Velvia. The differences between an original slide and one made on the very best film recorders may only be seen on a really good slide projector, but under a loupe it should be obvious that original film is best. Like most things, film recording can be as involved as one wants to make it, and a great, color-managed and well processed slide is a far cry from the usual slide made on a Polaroid recorder on 200 asa film and run through the local minilab. Then there's digital film recording on an LVT, which is to this process what a drum scanner is to a flat bed. An LVT really does rival original film and in many ways, really surpasses it. john c. tech photo & imaging "Father Kodak" > Real simple. Say I want to show some photos to a group of people, > which I do from time to time. For some of my photographs, I might use [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > on how I'm still using Kodachrome 25. (This assumes a pro-level D > SLR, no C vs. N wars here.) >I feel obliged to comment about the technology here because I've been making >slides from digital files in a commercial lab scenario for twenty years. > >It's true that a projected file using a digital projector will not be as >good as projecting a slide film made from the same file, but neither is as >good as original camera film, especially Kodachrome or Velvia. The John, Ah. My "excitement" was based entirely on reading an ebay description and specs of a Polaroid CI5000S film recorder. I have zero practical experience in this area, except some 35 mm slides of PowerPoint slides, made by Genigraphics years ago. And of course, a PPT slide is not a great way to determine ultimate image quality. >differences between an original slide and one made on the very best film >recorders may only be seen on a really good slide projector, but under a >loupe it should be obvious that original film is best. Always true. Question is, if I start with a really high quality digital file, say from the Canon 16 mpixel D SLR or the 12 mpixel Nikon D2X,, what is the image quality of the resulting 35 mm film recorder slide. And, what are the factors influencing that quality. And, what are "best practices" to ensure a high quality 35 mm slide? >Like most things, film recording can be as involved as one wants to make it, >and a great, color-managed and well processed slide is a far cry from the >usual slide made on a Polaroid recorder on 200 asa film and run through the >local minilab. Ah. I for one would really appreciate it if you could share your experience and knowledge with the group. I'd like to learn more about this area, since I will surely end up getting slides from digital files, either as a service or doing it myself. I can see the attractions of digital photography, but I'm not about to be seduced by the "instant" factors to the point where I abandon my expectations for image quality. >Then there's digital film recording on an LVT, which is to this process what >a drum scanner is to a flat bed. An LVT really does rival original film and >in many ways, really surpasses it. What is an LVT? Who makes them, and how much do they cost? Somehow I know in advance I won't really like that answer. -:) My initial excitement was that I somehow thought that I could get a low-cost film recorder to complement the Nikon scanner I'm planning to buy, as part of my soon-to-be-built digital darkroom. Oh well. Father Kodak >john c. >tech photo & imaging > Ah. My "excitement" was based entirely on reading an ebay description > and specs of a Polaroid CI5000S film recorder. I have zero practical > experience in this area, except some 35 mm slides of PowerPoint > slides, made by Genigraphics years ago. And of course, a PPT slide is > not a great way to determine ultimate image quality. A film recorder works by aiming a camera with an open shutter at a flat screen monochrome CRT. There are three passes, one through each of red, green and blue filters, and on each pass, indiviual lines of resolution are exposed in a slow passing scan across the CRT. Several things become quite important to the resulting image. The size of CRT (bigger is better), the sharpness of the focused lines on the CRT, the quality of the lens and the filters and the cleanliness of everything in the optical path. These things together effect flare which will soften and degrade the sharpness, Dmax and color gamut. Most slides are made at 4096 pixels in the long dimension (4k), but Geni slides were usually made at 2k on 200 speed film for economy and speed. 8k slides can be done and even 16k, but these resolutions are beyond the ability of the optics, so there are only disadvantages in these cases. Also, the film recorder/film/processing combination needs to be calibrated to achieve a managed gray scale using a cutom look up table or LUT. Manufacturers provide them built in, but they're only approximations of real conditions and ones that are quite old by now and not related to today's films. Also, good workflow must include a custom color profile to achieve a reault that closely matches a profiled monitor. The conversion to the profile is done in Photoshop before the image is sent to the film recorder. >>differences between an original slide and one made on the very best film >>recorders may only be seen on a really good slide projector, but under a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > recorder slide. And, what are the factors influencing that quality. > And, what are "best practices" to ensure a high quality 35 mm slide? Resolution will likely be 4096 x 2731pixels including the part of the image that falls under the slide mount (about 4 percent loss). You don't have to res up your files if they're smaller since the film recorder software will do that for you, but it's nice to have control over the process. Any more resolution will be lost. Work in RGB and something larger than sRGB, like Adobe1998. Keep your white level below 255. >>Like most things, film recording can be as involved as one wants to make >>it, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What is an LVT? Who makes them, and how much do they cost? Somehow I > know in advance I won't really like that answer. -:) The LVT was made by Kodak, then by Dice America who also sold the Durst Lambda. They're only on the used market now. Originally they sold for up to $130,000, but one can get them for under $1,000 now. The problem is service and parts. They are available, but pricey. The technology is similar to a drum scanner. A highly focused beam of modulated colored light is aimed at a spinning piece of film attached to a drum. As the drum spins in the dark chamber, the writing head moves across the length of the drum exposing the length of a piece of sheet film - say an 8x10 chrome. Since the image isn't going through any lens or filters, there's almost zero flare. Also the density range exceeds camera film. We manufacture the HCT color targets for Hutchcolor consulting using an LVT. They're used to create custom profiles for high end scanners. john c. tech photo & imaging >screen monochrome CRT. There are three passes, one through each of red, >green and blue filters, and on each pass, indiviual lines of resolution are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >reault that closely matches a profiled monitor. The conversion to the >profile is done in Photoshop before the image is sent to the film recorder. John, From your posting it sounds like you work in the "high end" of this field. For ordinary mortals on a "reasonable" budget, what is your opinion for buying a used film recorder off ebay? Which brands or models would you prefer, and which to avoid? How much should one expect to pay for a unit that produces good quality slides, including the necessary software? >Resolution will likely be 4096 x 2731pixels including the part of the image >that falls under the slide mount (about 4 percent loss). You don't have to >res up your files if they're smaller since the film recorder software will >do that for you, but it's nice to have control over the process. Any more >resolution will be lost. Work in RGB and something larger than sRGB, like >Adobe1998. Keep your white level below 255. Can you do this work in Photoshop? >> What is an LVT? Who makes them, and how much do they cost? Somehow I >> know in advance I won't really like that answer. -:) > >The LVT was made by Kodak, then by Dice America who also sold the Durst >Lambda. They're only on the used market now. Originally they sold for up to >$130,000, but one can get them for under $1,000 now. The problem is service Leaping lizards and geckos! 130 grand!! Too rich for my blood. >and parts. They are available, but pricey. The technology is similar to a >drum scanner. A highly focused beam of modulated colored light is aimed at a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Hutchcolor consulting using an LVT. They're used to create custom profiles >for high end scanners. Thanks for posting this information. Father Kodak "Father Kodak" < > From your posting it sounds like you work in the "high end" of this > field. For ordinary mortals on a "reasonable" budget, what is your > opinion for buying a used film recorder off ebay? Which brands or > models would you prefer, and which to avoid? The problem with buying used is that you can't really qualify the unti beforehand. All it takes is a minor scratch on the CRT, and the unit is useless without you purchasing a new tube for about $3,000. Tubes also wear out, getting darker and eventually dying suddenly as they age. Ergo, don't bid too much on Ebay. The best units were made by MGI (Management graphics) and Agfa (formerly Imapro). Imapro also went back into business under their own name after their agreement with Agfa expired, so an Imapro can be newer or older than an Agfa. These units all have large tubes and interchangeable modules. The module is the camera assembly. It can be for 35mm movie film, 35mm full frame, long roll 35, 70mm, 4x5 or 8x10. The better 35mm modules are the long roll versions and they had better optics as well as focus and alignment controls. A good unit to get would be an Agfa PCR or Alto or an MGI Solitaire. Remember that technicians and repairs are scarce consisting of people who used to work for these companies who are now on their own. One such company is Upgrade Technologies. They refurbish Agfa units and bring them to new heights of performance for Hollywood CGI service. The best software to drive the unit is made by Graphx and is called Raster Plus. There are versions for Mac as well as PC. You'll need a SCSI board or a Natioinal Instruments GPIB board to connect the recorder to your computer. Which one depends on the recorder. > How much should one expect to pay for a unit that produces good > quality slides, including the necessary software? I don't know. The biggest cost will be your learning curve and your nerves. There are a lot of do's and don'ts with these. For example, changing a module on an Agfa unit without shutting it off will probably blow out the tube, but a MGI is no problem. >>Resolution will likely be 4096 x 2731pixels including the part of the >>image [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you do this work in Photoshop? That's the best place. My final thought, unless you have experience in this area, you would be best off dealing with someone who could set you up with a working unit, computer and software as a turn-key system including a little training rather than buying off of Ebay. Otherwise, for a few buck per slide, have a service bureau do the imaging for you. I admit that I'm in the business and stand to make a few cents for doing such a service, but really, for what this stuff pays, I'd starve if I had to rely on a steady diet of it. It's almost at the level of a favor these days. > I feel obliged to comment about the technology here because I've been making > slides from digital files in a commercial lab scenario for twenty years. > > It's true that a projected file using a digital projector will not be as > good as projecting a slide film made from the same file, but neither is as > good as original camera film, especially Kodachrome or Velvia. Since I brought up the idea of buying your own machine, I'd definitely agree with this -- I use my recorder mainly for images that were born digital, so the choice is digital projector vs. recorded slide, there's no "original film" option. While careful work and good color profiles make for better recorded slides, doing them out-of-the-box on 200-speed film processed at th 1-hour minilab still looks better than most digital projection systems. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html> "Joshua Putnam" > recorded slide, there's no "original film" option. While careful > work and good color profiles make for better recorded slides, doing > them out-of-the-box on 200-speed film processed at th 1-hour minilab > still looks better than most digital projection systems. Says a lot about the digital projectors, don't it? > "Joshua Putnam" > > recorded slide, there's no "original film" option. While careful [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Says a lot about the digital projectors, don't it? and something about the people that prefer them. SignatureYes I made, another pointless post from another nameless nobody. I hope it made you feel better. -- LOL. > So sometime later I will try out - one - of these services. I > appreciate the poster who enlightened me about other services. > Obviously now I won't feel like I have to work only with the OP of > this thread, Recording digital on film seems to be a declining industry, since digital projectors are getting better and better. That can be a Good Thing. My used Polaroid CI5000S film recorder was less than $100 with drivers and software. Sure it's lower resolution than newer models, only 4096x2732, but it works beautifully and has never given me any trouble. And 4096x2732 is still a lot better than I get with any data projector I can afford. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html> >> So sometime later I will try out - one - of these services. I >> appreciate the poster who enlightened me about other services. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >never given me any trouble. And 4096x2732 is still a lot better than >I get with any data projector I can afford. Wow! I had NO IDEA that you could get a film recorder that cheap. I was under the impression that you had to spend at least five grand, on something that took photographs off a CRT. Tell me more. What's the catch? Only Polaroid slide film? It only works with 286-class PCs running DOS 3.1? For that price, why use a lab? Father Kodak > Wow! I had NO IDEA that you could get a film recorder that cheap. I > was under the impression that you had to spend at least five grand, on > something that took photographs off a CRT. Tell me more. What's the > catch? Only Polaroid slide film? It only works with 286-class PCs > running DOS 3.1? Got it on eBay, takes standard 35mm film or Polaroid pack film, slide or negative or B&W, has a SCSI-I interface, works fine with Windows. Looking on eBay today, I see a brand new HR6000 with a $295 Buy It Now price. Don't know why more people don't buy their own machines instead of sending work to a lab, other than the continuing decline in the number of people who *want* slides instead of digital. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Books List: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.