Washed out signs

I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm slides.
The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector to a
screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I can
see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont, NH"
the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO to
80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to maxmim
number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I use a
2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP, and if
I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is the
same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
Any suggestions?




http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

-----------

Remove "not" for return address.

Bob M wrote:
I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm slides.
The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector to a
screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I can
see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont, NH"
the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO to
80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to maxmim
number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I use a
2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP, and if
I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is the
same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
Any suggestions?

Hi Bob...

Way back when I tried what you're doing, and given that I'm
old and long retired with lots of time on my hands, I did every
experiment I could think of to get satisfactory results, but
failed. I suspect from your sample that you've done already
than I ever did, but of course cameras have much improved since
I did it, so...

Anyway, if you're looking for the best results, you want a
dedicated film/slide scanner, preferably with digital ice
to remove dust from your pics. (you will see it

Next best will be a flatbed scanner with a backlight for
scanning film/slides. I have an Epson which works great.

Be aware that if you have many slides/negs, it's a long and
tedious project. I've been at a lifetime collection for a
couple of years now, and am about half finished

Finally, if you insist on using your camera, don't project,
but rather get yourself a light box, and photograph the
slide/film directly. This will provide far better results
than projecting.

Just my two cents worth.

Take care.

Ken

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:47:04 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:

Hi Bob...

Way back when I tried what you're doing, and given that I'm
old and long retired with lots of time on my hands, I did every
experiment I could think of to get satisfactory results, but
failed. I suspect from your sample that you've done already
than I ever did, but of course cameras have much improved since
I did it, so...

Anyway, if you're looking for the best results, you want a
dedicated film/slide scanner, preferably with digital ice
to remove dust from your pics. (you will see it

Next best will be a flatbed scanner with a backlight for
scanning film/slides. I have an Epson which works great.

Be aware that if you have many slides/negs, it's a long and
tedious project. I've been at a lifetime collection for a
couple of years now, and am about half finished

Finally, if you insist on using your camera, don't project,
but rather get yourself a light box, and photograph the
slide/film directly. This will provide far better results
than projecting.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am also retired, and this is the project
that has finally risen to the top of the priority list.
I got out the old screen and projector a couple of weeks ago to look at some
old Florida vacation slides from 1964. It was such a hassle, it reminded me
why we have not done that in such a long time. The screen has creases in it,
and seems ready to fall over. I have 2 Anscomatic 40 slide tray projectors and
neither works very well. Jamming up, needing a nudge now and then.
We watch the digital camera's pictures on the TV via a laptop, and I want to
do the same with the old slides.
The TV has really poor resolution by design, and the computer puts out a
compatable signal. Pictures on the TV look a lot fuzzier than on the computer.
I need to look into some way of using the TV's HDTV to show the pictures with
better resolution.

I looked at 2 attachments, the Opteka HD2 for about $60.00 which has bad
reviews, and a Specialty Photographic model for about $100.00 plus an adapter
to fit the Kodak. I may get the latter, but I am concerned that the Z650 may
not be able to focus well enough. I set up a light source, a diffuser and a
slide holder on a bench. After several experimental shots, I could not get the
Z650 to focus adequately. It has manual control over everything but focus. I
wonder if it would work any better with one of these adapters?

-----------

Remove "not" for return address.

On 2006-10-28 10:15:21 -0400, Bob M said:

I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm slides.
The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector to a
screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I can
see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont, NH"
the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO to
80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to maxmim
number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I use a
2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP, and if
I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is the
same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
Any suggestions?



http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

-----------

Remove

"not" for return address.


Best way... invest in a film scanner, either a dedicated film scanner
or very recent model flatbed with slide/film scanning capability.
Second best (read expensive) send your slides out to be scanned.
Projecting a slide to photograph it introduces too many variables to
ever get a decent reproduction. (Quality of the projector lenses, lack
of flatness of field, too high a light contrast (as you have seen),
texture of the projected surface etc. etc. ) Back before digital the
slide was photographed with a camera with a slide copy attachment (A
belllows or rigid tube) attached. A frame held the slide and light was
shone through the slide. Either special slide copy film was used (which
had much lower contrast than normal film) or copy negative file was
used if the goal to was to make a large print. Digital scanning is the
way to do this. Suitable scanners can be had for under 300 USD these
days.

Jim
--
Jim

"Bob M" wrote in message
...
I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm
slides.
The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector
to a
screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I
can
see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont,
NH"
the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO
to
80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to
maxmim
number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I
use a
2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP,
and if
I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is
the
same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
Any suggestions?




http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

-----------

Remove "not" for return address.

If your camera has exposure compensation, experiment with different
settings. -1 would be a good starting point.
John

I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm
slides.
The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector
to a
screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera.

The only way to digitize slides properly is to use a film scanner. Trying
to take a photo off of a projected image is going to result in near complete
loss of luminance and color saturation information.

You have already seen how unacceptable such images are. I know of no way to
improve them sufficiently to look like scanned transparencies. Even
low-resolution scans, similar to those on a Kodak Picture CD, are far
superior to any of the do-it-yourself schemes that do not involve use of a
real film scanner.

Hi Bob,

Sounds like you are trying to capture a scene that is a bit overexposed. You
might be better off scanning the slides. There are a number of scanners out
there that can scan slides as well as negatives. Not sure if you have a
scanner, but they are great for a lot of applications and having one with
the capacity to scan slides would be worth any extra money. You are going to
get a better image via a scan than taking a picture with your camera. You
may want to consider it.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"Bob M" wrote in message
...
I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm
slides.
The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector
to a
screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I
can
see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont,
NH"
the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO
to
80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to
maxmim
number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I
use a
2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP,
and if
I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is
the
same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
Any suggestions?




http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

-----------

Remove "not" for return address.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:19:13 GMT, "jeremy" wrote:

The only way to digitize slides properly is to use a film scanner. Trying
to take a photo off of a projected image is going to result in near complete
loss of luminance and color saturation information.


Thanks to the advice from this newsgroup, I bought an Epson 4490 Photo
Scanner. It does a better job than the Projector/Camera method.

The very first slide I scanned is shown as the 2nd link below. While it did
show the signs which were missing from the camera attempt, it was a little too
dark, losing some of the fall colors in the background. I ran it thru Kodak'a
Enhancement software, and got the 3rd result.

First the Projector/Camera shot:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

The Raw output of the Epson Scanner. Only "ICE" was checked off.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

After running it through Kodak's "Enhance"
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

It isn't quite right yet. If you look at this part, cut from the scanned
image, there is something wrong just to the left of the sign. At the edge
between the bright white and the darkness of inside the bridge, there is some
kind of distortion. How do I get rid of that?

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

-----------

Remove "not" for return address.

Bob M wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:19:13 GMT, "jeremy" wrote:

The only way to digitize slides properly is to use a film scanner. Trying
to take a photo off of a projected image is going to result in near complete
loss of luminance and color saturation information.


Thanks to the advice from this newsgroup, I bought an Epson 4490 Photo
Scanner. It does a better job than the Projector/Camera method.

The very first slide I scanned is shown as the 2nd link below. While it did
show the signs which were missing from the camera attempt, it was a little too
dark, losing some of the fall colors in the background. I ran it thru Kodak'a
Enhancement software, and got the 3rd result.

First the Projector/Camera shot:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

The Raw output of the Epson Scanner. Only "ICE" was checked off.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

After running it through Kodak's "Enhance"
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

It isn't quite right yet. If you look at this part, cut from the scanned
image, there is something wrong just to the left of the sign. At the edge
between the bright white and the darkness of inside the bridge, there is some
kind of distortion. How do I get rid of that?

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

-----------

Hi Bob...

Glad you bought a scanner, glad you bought Epson. Now I'm a
little jealous being that I still have a 3200

Hope you're using the twain driver and importing the output into
some graphics program rather than using Epson's stand alone stuff.
Hope you visited Epson's site to grab the latest updates if available.
Know that the scanner is new to you, but there may have been updates
since the machine was packaged. The original twain that came with
mine is nowhere near as good as the latest available (free)

Hope you're using the twain driver in pro mode.

Looked at your bridge, and it's obvious that the whites are blown
out... mine does it too. The defense is to do your pre-scan,
crop if necessary, click on the auto button, then click the
histogram and pull down the whites by about 5 points. Look at
the new histogram with the "show output" button.

Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
that the effect came about from radical downsizing?

It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
and put it on your site without downsizing.

Finally, I played with your pic a bit with Paint Shop Pro;
I'll try to email it to you directly, and hope that's OK.

Take care.

Ken

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:47:42 GMT, Ken Weitzel wrote:

Hi Bob...

Glad you bought a scanner, glad you bought Epson. Now I'm a
little jealous being that I still have a 3200
The Epson looked like a good compromise for price/performance. I doubt that I
will need the higher 9600dpi resolution offered at twice the price (This one
had a max 4800 dpi).
I hope I won't regret choosing a flatbed over a dedicated slide scanner. I
realize that there is glass between the slide and the sensor on a flatbed, and
I hope that is not what is causing the distortion I mentioned. Fringing I
believe it is called, or chromatic aberrance.

Hope you're using the twain driver and importing the output into
some graphics program rather than using Epson's stand alone stuff.

Wish I knew what you meant by that. I save the output from the scanner in a
file, which I can then operate on using the Kodak Software or Photoshop. Is
there another way?
Hope you visited Epson's site to grab the latest updates if available.
Yes, I downloaded the latest 3.01a version.
Hope you're using the twain driver in pro mode.
I am now.

Looked at your bridge, and it's obvious that the whites are blown
out... mine does it too. The defense is to do your pre-scan,
crop if necessary, click on the auto button, then click the
histogram and pull down the whites by about 5 points. Look at
the new histogram with the "show output" button.
I seem to have a handle on the blown out whites. I am in process of trying the
histogram adjustment. I have tried unsharp mask off and on with each of the 3
levels, low, med & high. In all cases I get the "Fringing".

Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
that the effect came about from radical downsizing?
I don't think so. The fringing is visible without zooming in on it. It is not
on the original slide, it did not show on the screen when I projected it, and
of course, it was not there in the camera shot of the projected image. It
started to appear when I started using the scanner.

It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
and put it on your site without downsizing.
I will try that later, but I don't see (yet) how that would be any different
from cutting out part of the initial scanned jpeg? Which was done at 4800 dpi.

Finally, I played with your pic a bit with Paint Shop Pro;
I'll try to email it to you directly, and hope that's OK.
Sure, it is appreciated. My results with PaintShop were not as good. I posted
the Kodak Enhanced version because it had a crisper version of the signs on
the bridge.

Take care.
You too.

Ken

One pleasant surprise is that the 4490 deals with Black & White negatives.
Last night I scanned a negative of a Baltimore & Ohio Railroad exhibit taken
by my father 1n 1927. I have the negatives, but never saw prints of them. I am
amazed that the scanner can do that.
Next on the list is to see what it can do with some old (Agfa?) slides which
my brother "Liberated" from a Nazi SS officer during WWII in Germany. They are
terribly faded, so I do not have too much hope for them, but I will try.

-----------

Remove "not" for return address.