I prefer the roll-over image because it's a little less grainy although
it doesn't have quite as much contrast. As a practical matter there's
almost nothing to choose between them. Both could benefit by a little
bit of post processing which would likely make them indistinguishable
from one another.
I assume you're having to use a short extension tube on the 5D so that
the bellows can clear the pentaprism hump in front. I haven't tried it
yet but thought that additional extension might be problematic in making
a 1:1 image using the 50/3.5 with bellows and slide duplicator... might
not be possible to get *down* to 1:1. I can see where your 80/4 with
its longer focal length would be immune from the over-magnification
problem if it exists. I briefly considered trying the Vivitar 90/2.5
macro but I think there's a size/clearance problem somewhere but I can't
remember what it is. Ah, so much experimenting to do after the move.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Another direction this might go - If you didn't check the link in the
> other thread
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/MOM01_02-Cmp.htm>. Which
> image would you pick as a better "scan"?
>
> I just picked up an Auto 80/4 and slide duplicator for the OM bellows
> from Bill. His post of those items led me to follow up on a thought I've
> had about how to deal with the many old film images that are very time
> and space consuming to scan. Quick calculation shows that a FF copy of a
> 35 mm frame on the 5D is equivalent to about 3000 dpi, slightly higher
> than the 2700 of my first film scanner. For older film, I've thought
> that more than about that would mostly just enlarge the grain further,
> without capturing any more detail.
>
> So my little sample comparison is 5D, bellows, 80/4 and slide duplicator
> vs. FS4000 film scanner, although not necessarily in that order. ;-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|