Use an enlarger together with a See-thru Flatbed Scanner

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>has anybody ever tried to put a flatbed scanner under an enlarger, set it on see-thru and scan?<br>

I wonder if this would give any results, but optically it should just happen the same as with a negative lying right on the glas plate of the scanner. <br>

Sadly I don't have a scanner to try this setting, but maybe someone tried it before and can tell about her/his results?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i think<br>

as the scanner "looks" at the enlarger, it will see a bright spot the light from the lens.<br>

just guessing, i think you will need a dimly lit room and a piece of white colored plastic on which to<br>

project the image.then it might possibly wirk.<br>

this will or might solve some problems "scsnning" odd sized negatives.</p>

<p>I don't think you'll be able to throw an aerial image that will focus in the right plane. You would need another lens.</p>

 

<p>by "white plastic" I meant something like a thin translucent sheet<br>

possibly a piece or RC enlarging or ink jet paper.<br>

or a piece of plain paper with little grain.<br>

possibly a piece of frosted graphics plastic<br>

something to diffuse the light and which to project the image.</p>

<p>You might have better results combining a slide projector with a digital slr. At least you'd be able to see the image while working with it, and the projector bulb is color-corrected (I think).</p>

<p>Les:<br /> I would get a higher resolution, because the enlarger would upscale the image. (While I could scan a 6x6 slide with 2400 dpi, scaling it to the double size would give it a 4800 dpi resolution.)<br /> Also there should be no problems with newton-rings.</p>

<p>I've read somewhere about a large-format camera connected to a scanner in order to get really high resolution images. If I find the article, I will post the link.</p>

<p>Thanks so far for your answers!</p>

<p>Edit: I found the link:</p>

<p>http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Papers/EG.04.pdf</p>

<p>Interesting question, The scanner optics are focused on the top side of the glass, If the enlarger can project an image onto the glass then it should work. A viewing screen may not be necessary, the scanner should focus the aerial image. The scanner lamp would need to be disabled. Worth some more research I think.</p>

 

<p>I have heard of using a Scanner as a back for an 11x14 view camera.</p>

<p>I know where I heard it.. right here here is the link.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00Qc9p</p>

<p>I have a Vivitar VI enlarger with a color head, an 8X8 sheet of optical ground glass, and a few consumer grade scanners.<br>

So, I've thought about doing this a lot as I already have this equipment. The goal would be equal or better results than spending $ on a new scanner, Considering I have negs from 35mm to larger. <br>

My prelininary calculations, however, indicate that the light source is insufficient, and ironically the B&W head of the enlarger may have a brighter source, realizing the color correction need only be in the scanning software. So the project is on the back burner while I look for the old B&W never used head I stored away some where. <br>

The problem with translucent plastic , I think, is blooming - bright areas bleed to adjacent dark areas. The conecern with the optical ground glass - like the glass used as a focusing device in LF camera, it the individual pit size relative to projected film grain. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>You need a groundglass on the scanner to focus the projected image onto for the scanner to read. <br>

This was the method used by Kodak and Xerox to make prints from slides in their early colour copiers (1970"s). The physics of light has not change.</p>

I suppose you could spray paint the scanner glass flat white. Or you could get some AAA grit grinding compound or maybe 220 sand paper and grind the scanner glass yourself. I made my own ground glass for a view camera that way. Even a normal ground glass on a view camera is very grainy looking when focusing with a loupe.

<p>

 

<p>I think you could just put a sheet of paper on the glass-plate of the scanner for fokusing, and then take it away in order to scan.<br>

Also I think you should wrap some dark cloth or better a bellow around the scanner and the lens, to prevent surrounding light to hit the scan-line. This would probably also eleminate the problem with the weak light-source as mentioned by Terence.<br>

In the Heidrich-Paper (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Papers/EG.04.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Papers/EG.04.pdf</a>) they do not put a groundglass between the scanner and the lens of the large-format camera. So why shouldn't it work with the enlarger as well?</p>

 

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>has anybody ever tried to put a flatbed scanner under an enlarger, set it on see-thru and scan?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a great idea!</p>

<p>How about vellum (not calf skin, but the modern plasticized cotton kind used for drafting) in place of the ground glass. It's much thinner than glass and much easier to obtain in arbitrarily large sizes.</p>

<p>Back in the early, early days of chip design this was essentially what was done but just in reverse. "Taping out" literally meant taping and drawing on large vellum sheets, then photographically reducing the original for the lithography steps. Perhaps everything old is new again.</p>

 

<p>I'm not so sure that you would need a matte or ground glass screen. It's only use is to make sure that the image is focussed on the plane of the scanner glass. After focussing is achieved, the scanner optics should be able to focus an aerial image, without a screen, onto its sensor.<br>

The light from the image on a led scanner might surprise you in its low intensity. The leds shine upwards illuminating the target, and its the illuminated target that the ccd is focused on, not the light source. The amount of light is not great.</p>

<p>If you use a b/w neg it would also work with a non-see-thru scanner I think. But for color images the problem ist, that the light comes from three different lightsources in the colors red, green and blue, which is than reflected and read out by the very same scanner-line. <br>

That's why I thought a see-thru-scanner would solve this problem.<br>

Or you dissasemble the light-source inside the scanner and put a color-filter-wheel between the scanner and the enlarger. (If you use a color-enlarger you just need to change the color of its light-source.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Les: <br>

The light source for which it is programmed to properly expose for would have to be simulated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Greg supposes, the light must not be that strong. So maybe the aperture of the enlarging-lense would be the apropiate tool to adjust the light properly. Otherwise a stronger bulb needs to be installed.<br>

The different color-temperature of the bulb could be corrected by using VueScans function of producing raw-scans which would need to be white-balanced in Photoshop for example.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robert:<br>

What a great idea!</p>

 

</blockquote>

Thank you very much!

<br />

<br />

<br />

So, who's got the equipment, time and interest to try it?

<p>This is one way service bureaus scanned 35mm slides say back way in 1992 to say 1998.<br>

<br /> One had a big buck Canon Color copier with scanner head; and a digital Fiery box a computer to interface as a Twain device to ones computer.<br>

<br /> The copier's 11x17 " scan head had a very long optical path; a laser beam; rotating mirror; moving scan bar with a mirror.<br>

<br /> A 35mm slide attachment was an accessory for a digital scan; or making just a print too. It was a stalk; a pole with a slide/negative holder; a projector bulb; one focues on the scan glass; basically an enlarger or projector.<br>

<br /> One turned off the room lights; did a Twain scan; one got a digital scan of a 35mm slide in color; 8 bit RGB.<br /> It was not as good as scan as from a Canon 2710 35mm scanner we got about 10 years ago; but way better than a 1200 dpi flatbed scan of that era; probably about as good as today flatbeds in resolution.<br>

<br /> An trace of room lights added a washed out look to an image; some folks seem to have "bad luck" with these gizmos just becuase a scan was done in a non dark room.<br>

<br /> <br /> This was a commerical product over 15 years ago.<br>

<br /> With a regular flatbed it is not designed for an more normal/90 degree light; it is often real glancing in angle; thus results are often poor. One should use a unit that is for scanning transparencys; and one fakes off the scanner so the scanners lamp is off. Experiments like this go back eons too; say early 1990's.</p>