Microfilm into wall size poster please??

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

slakka

2008-10-20 04:58:26 UTC

Dear NG,
I wonder how to move foward with the above header please?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

slakka

rec.photo.digital , soc.libraries.talk ,rec.photo.film
+labs ,alt.graphics.photoshop ,misc.business.records-
mgmt ,rec.photo ,rec.photo.darkroom ,rec.photo.equipment.
35mm,comp.periphs.scanners

Digital John

2008-10-20 05:01:38 UTC

Permalink

Ask Maxwell Smart.

Post by slakka
Dear NG,
I wonder how to move foward with the above header please?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks in advance!
slakka
rec.photo.digital , soc.libraries.talk ,rec.photo.film
+labs ,alt.graphics.photoshop ,misc.business.records-
mgmt ,rec.photo ,rec.photo.darkroom ,rec.photo.equipment.
35mm,comp.periphs.scanners

John McWilliams

2008-10-20 05:20:58 UTC

Permalink

Post by Digital John
Ask Maxwell Smart.

fu set

Sir F. A. Rien

2008-10-20 14:36:34 UTC

Permalink

First, don't crosspost, show enough interest to make individual posts.

Second, see answer in my reading group.

Bert Hyman

2008-10-22 14:19:51 UTC

Permalink

Post by Sir F. A. Rien
First, don't crosspost, show enough interest to make individual posts.

Please crosspost.

Making individual posts means that everybody who reads the
groups he's posting to will see the article multiple times.
Cross-posted articles are presented to readers only once.

Possibly more important, making several individual posts with the same
text will trip spam detectors.

Post by Sir F. A. Rien
Second, see answer in my reading group.

And what group might that be?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | ***@iphouse.com

John McWilliams

2008-10-22 16:20:13 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bert Hyman

Post by Sir F. A. Rien
First, don't crosspost, show enough interest to make individual posts.

Please crosspost.
Making individual posts means that everybody who reads the
groups he's posting to will see the article multiple times.
Cross-posted articles are presented to readers only once.
Possibly more important, making several individual posts with the same
text will trip spam detectors.

Post by Sir F. A. Rien
Second, see answer in my reading group.

And what group might that be?

Who cares. fu set

Pat

2008-10-20 18:00:58 UTC

Permalink

You'll either have to scan the microfilm at a very high resolution or
make an inter-negative.

Ideally you can find someone with an old 35mm camera hooked to a
microscope. You could then shoot an inter-neg using ortho film and
get a pretty good image off of it.

Digital John

2008-10-20 18:22:12 UTC

Permalink

Just get as high as possible resolution drum scan of the original film.
Internegs, microscopes, etc will only degrade the final image.

Pat

2008-10-21 00:09:01 UTC

Permalink

Post by Digital John
Just get as high as possible resolution drum scan of the original film.
Internegs, microscopes, etc will only degrade the final image.

Microfilm is all generally ortho, so you can reproduce it pretty well
without well without degradation.

Post by Digital John

You'll either have to scan the microfilm at a very high resolution or
make an inter-negative.
Ideally you can find someone with an old 35mm camera hooked to a
microscope. You could then shoot an inter-neg using ortho film and
get a pretty good image off of it.

Toby

2008-10-22 08:20:02 UTC

Permalink

Litho film as an interneg will give you a hard edge at boundaries, so it
will "sharpen" text and halftone images, but it might not work well if you
have continuous tone.

Toby

Post by Digital John
Just get as high as possible resolution drum scan of the original film.
Internegs, microscopes, etc will only degrade the final image.

You'll either have to scan the microfilm at a very high resolution or
make an inter-negative.
Ideally you can find someone with an old 35mm camera hooked to a
microscope. You could then shoot an inter-neg using ortho film and
get a pretty good image off of it.

Pat

2008-10-22 14:06:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by Toby
Litho film as an interneg will give you a hard edge at boundaries, so it
will "sharpen" text and halftone images, but it might not work well if you
have continuous tone.

I've never worked to much with microfilm, but I don't remember ever
seeing any with continuous tone (or color). I think it would much
harder to deal with the grain on really small images if you had
anything but a litho film.

But a inter-neg on litho, from a litho original is going to be a
pretty faithful repro. -- and of course you can then go as big as you
want without any grain.

Post by Toby
Toby

Post by Digital John
Just get as high as possible resolution drum scan of the original film.
Internegs, microscopes, etc will only degrade the final image.

You'll either have to scan the microfilm at a very high resolution or
make an inter-negative.
Ideally you can find someone with an old 35mm camera hooked to a
microscope. You could then shoot an inter-neg using ortho film and
get a pretty good image off of it.

Sir F. A. Rien

2008-10-22 15:06:02 UTC

Permalink

Post by Pat

Post by Toby
Litho film as an interneg will give you a hard edge at boundaries, so it
will "sharpen" text and halftone images, but it might not work well if you
have continuous tone.

I've never worked to much with microfilm, but I don't remember ever
seeing any with continuous tone (or color).

It is capable of 'continuous tone', but as the subject is high contrast and
it's exposed and developed for high contrast, it's seldom 'seen'.

Post by Pat
I think it would much
harder to deal with the grain on really small images if you had
anything but a litho film.

Microfilm is a special extra fine grain.

Post by Pat
But a inter-neg on litho, from a litho original is going to be a
pretty faithful repro. -- and of course you can then go as big as you
want without any grain.

Ummmm, if it's 'faithful' to the original, it will carry across the grain of
the microfilm !

NO copy, regardless of what it's done with is better than the original.

Post by Pat

Post by Toby
Toby

Post by Digital John
Just get as high as possible resolution drum scan of the original film.
Internegs, microscopes, etc will only degrade the final image.

You'll either have to scan the microfilm at a very high resolution or
make an inter-negative.
Ideally you can find someone with an old 35mm camera hooked to a
microscope. You could then shoot an inter-neg using ortho film and
get a pretty good image off of it.

u***@domain.invalid

2008-10-22 21:11:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by Sir F. A. Rien
NO copy, regardless of what it's done with is better than the original.

That's not true with old documents, because copies and use filtration
and even entirely different spectral bands. Consider some document
that was rolled up, burned to a crisp, and then buried for 2000 years.

Sort of hard to read! But, copying it with an infrared camera and it
becomes quite clear.

I've copied letters from my great grandparents that are 170 years old
and are completely unreadable. Using ordinary infrared B&W film they
are mostly readable with great effort. Looked at with a 1.8 micron
TV camera they are as clear as the day they were written.

Doug McDonald

slakka

2008-10-24 02:25:21 UTC

Permalink

Post by u***@domain.invalid

Post by Sir F. A. Rien
NO copy, regardless of what it's done with is better than the original.

That's not true with old documents, because copies and use filtration
and even entirely different spectral bands. Consider some document
that was rolled up, burned to a crisp, and then buried for 2000 years.
Sort of hard to read! But, copying it with an infrared camera and it
becomes quite clear.
I've copied letters from my great grandparents that are 170 years old
and are completely unreadable. Using ordinary infrared B&W film they
are mostly readable with great effort. Looked at with a 1.8 micron
TV camera they are as clear as the day they were written.
Doug McDonald

Microfilm into wall size poster please?
Hi guys, I need this done commercially in NYC. Any ideas please?

John J

2008-10-20 20:19:32 UTC

Permalink

Post by slakka
Dear NG,
I wonder how to move foward with the above header please?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

The microfilm I work with is strips of film with the same dimensions as 35mm
film EXCEPT it has no sprocket holes. Beware that the Nikon Coolscans use
sprocket holes to register (align frames) so the strip feeder will not work.
At all. You can't even force it to expose. It considers the nondetection of
sprocket holes an error.

A work-around is to mount it as a 35mm slide and then scan it.

Given that microfilm is pure black-and-white, you can scan at a high
resolution and do some good work with photoshop to refine edges, if
necessary.

Otherwise you might be better off shipping the film to a custom photographic
printer (many available) who can print right to a very large paper.

bino

2008-10-21 21:04:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by John J

Post by slakka
Dear NG,
I wonder how to move foward with the above header please?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

The microfilm I work with is strips of film with the same dimensions as
35mm film EXCEPT it has no sprocket holes. Beware that the Nikon Coolscans
use sprocket holes to register (align frames) so the strip feeder will not
work. At all. You can't even force it to expose. It considers the
nondetection of sprocket holes an error.
A work-around is to mount it as a 35mm slide and then scan it.
Given that microfilm is pure black-and-white, you can scan at a high
resolution and do some good work with photoshop to refine edges, if
necessary.
Otherwise you might be better off shipping the film to a custom
photographic printer (many available) who can print right to a very large
paper.

Really? I've never tried this with my 8000ED, but it seems it wants to see
the black of the film between the first and second frame, and after that,
it's good. Of course, I defer to your actual experience.

Toby

2008-10-22 08:24:02 UTC

Permalink

I have made glass carriers out of glass slide mounts for my Coolscan and
used the normal slide adapter. Sprocket holes or no, it works well. The big
advantage is that it holds the film completely flat, which is helpful in
maintaining sharpness with the very limited DOF of Coolscan scanners. Dust
is, of course, a problem, but can be sorted out quite easily in Photoshop.

Toby

Post by bino

Post by John J

Post by slakka
Dear NG,
I wonder how to move foward with the above header please?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

The microfilm I work with is strips of film with the same dimensions as
35mm film EXCEPT it has no sprocket holes. Beware that the Nikon
Coolscans use sprocket holes to register (align frames) so the strip
feeder will not work. At all. You can't even force it to expose. It
considers the nondetection of sprocket holes an error.
A work-around is to mount it as a 35mm slide and then scan it.
Given that microfilm is pure black-and-white, you can scan at a high
resolution and do some good work with photoshop to refine edges, if
necessary.
Otherwise you might be better off shipping the film to a custom
photographic printer (many available) who can print right to a very large
paper.

Really? I've never tried this with my 8000ED, but it seems it wants to
see the black of the film between the first and second frame, and after
that, it's good. Of course, I defer to your actual experience.

slakka

2008-10-22 08:45:06 UTC

Permalink

Post by Toby
I have made glass carriers out of glass slide mounts for my Coolscan and
used the normal slide adapter. Sprocket holes or no, it works well. The big
advantage is that it holds the film completely flat, which is helpful in
maintaining sharpness with the very limited DOF of Coolscan scanners. Dust
is, of course, a problem, but can be sorted out quite easily in Photoshop.
Toby

Post by John J

Post by slakka
Dear NG,
I wonder how to move foward with the above header please?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

The microfilm I work with is strips of film with the same dimensions as
35mm film EXCEPT it has no sprocket holes. Beware that the Nikon
Coolscans use sprocket holes to register (align frames) so the strip
feeder will not work. At all. You can't even force it to expose. It
considers the nondetection of sprocket holes an error.
A work-around is to mount it as a 35mm slide and then scan it.
Given that microfilm is pure black-and-white, you can scan at a high
resolution and do some good work with photoshop to refine edges, if
necessary.
Otherwise you might be better off shipping the film to a custom
photographic printer (many available) who can print right to a very large
paper.

Really? I've never tried this with my 8000ED, but it seems it wants to
see the black of the film between the first and second frame, and after
that, it's good. Of course, I defer to your actual experience.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Great stuff!
Where could I go to have this done commercially?
I live in N.Y.C.