I could watch you scan film with a string of wackier capture methods all day

At 100% I am basically nothing compared to the sheer resolution or resolving power of that microscope

What's bleach bypass?

How are you sometimes getting color on older b&w film stocks? Our are they color ones?

Awesome

What you have there is possibly the optimal tool for scanning Minox negatives. The 8x11 mm image area would only require a few dozen cropped frames, but would easily outperform almost any other method of getting a digital image from such a small frame. BTW, if you find one cheap, you might try the same thing with a lower power objective -- or even with a wide field microscope (they're typically 20x with the eyepieces -- and yes, most of them are stereo). A common 20x should come close to getting a whole Minox or perhaps even 110 frame in a single image (possibly a better chance if you use direct eyepiece projection or even prime focus -- that is, remove both the eyepiece and camera lens and let the microscope objective directly focus the image onto the camera sensor). You might even try that with your existing microscope, with the low power objective and a simple eyepiece tube (you should be able to find those in T mount which then adapts to almost any commercial lens mount). There are also inexpensive mounts that can let your smart phone look into the eyepiece, and the one in this house does a fine job of capturing detail not much larger than that film grain (individual cell structure of corals, from our experience).

Did I accidentally my sleep until April 1st? 5/7 shitpost 👌

I have a similar scanner. I 3dprinted film holders for the 4x5 inch and 10x15cm inch negatives. To get them in focus, the film needs to be 2mm away from the glass.

_The devil makes work for idle hands_ starts to become clear.

How about old Microfiche or old Micro Film. Like libraies story old news papers on them in the past. They were super small yet seemed to have lots of detail. How would that look under a microscope to scan?

Hang on, aren't you losing 2/3 of each roll? It takes three photos to creates one photo, after all

It can be done. Next time come to our lab and you'll get access to a 16 bits scientific monochrome camera, a research microscope with a condenser and a plan apo lens, a motorized stage, software to pilot image acquisition and stich gigabytes of data, and last but not least training to properly do it all.

Microscopist here. Microscope objectives only produce a flat field of focus in the centre of the field of view. And that's for really good objectives from Leica, Mitutoyo, Nikon, Olympus, or Zeiss. The sensor on your DSLR is going to be much larger than that region as it isn't designed to work with a microscope and microscopes aren't designed to work with DSLRs. Due to vignetting on both the imaging and illumination legs of your microscope the brightness of the image will not be constant across the field of view. We generally correct this by taking a picture of a blank region of slide and using this to correct the unevenness.

This is really interesting. If a person wanted maximum resolution for an image - using something like Adox 20 ISO film, and then set up a little arduino system and stepping motors to move the stage around programatically, with consistent lighting and manual exposure. Using only the sharp centre of the field. It'd be interesting to see the maximum resolving power you could get from the 35mm frame using a modern lens at an optimum aperture with a camera with a mirror lock-up feature and a release on a heavy tripod.

Why didn’t you pre-flash some frames?

Absolutely loved the inclusion of the Mavica. You've a like and sub for it! 😁 I remember my uncle coming around for Xmas party in 97 with the Mavica and it was like magic. He's always been the gadget freak in the family and bought lots of these stuff like the HP Omnibook running Windows 3.1 (albeit in monochrome). Out of curiosity, does the setup work if you sandwich the film in between 2 glass/ plastic plates instead of wet mounting?

compare grain size on high speed vs low speed film

I wonder if you can do a comparison when looking at the resolutions and resolving power.

Rawdinal! 😆

I actually believe that with the right lenses and processing power this could be an incredible tool for scanning and preserving films. I'm one of those nut jobs that's looking for efficient DIY motion picture film options and while this is insanely impractical I think you could find a software solution to some of the problems you mentioned. The idea of having a direct film scan in that kind of quality makes me giddy and I want to believe.

in future I want to see grain test with every filmstock you shoot and how difrent proceses change the grain..

Looks like the assembled panorama has issues with vignetting?

What about scanning super 8 reels?

Try scanning half Frame 35mm

Pretty good budget entry level film scanning option. However, the Fujifilm GFX produces much higher resolution and resolving power resulting in crisper scans.

Now is when you buy a 3d printer and an arduino. You need an automated articulating platform to stitch everything together.

6:40 "hidden amongst the grain", Of course, the KKK hooded guy.

The film mad scientist strikes again, great work :D

There's no comparison when you look at the sheer resolution and resolving power of the microscope

Great job. Had you try an digital microscope those of one use in electronic

6400 dpi is definitely not the way for the Epson. I use it as my main scanner and everything over 2500 dpi starts to have issues.

Now you just have to rig up a couple stepper motors to move the X-Y axis to automate the process, and probably a well-regulated high CRI light to illuminate the film. Then the digital nerds will never be able to talk about megapixel count or resolving power again! I've had the same problem with my Epson though. I wish there was a better option for high-res medium and large format (without selling a kidney). I tried to order one of those BetterScanning holders that are adjustable with grub screws to tune the focus but I think he's out of business.

for cleaner stitching you may have better results by using nona and enfuse

Take a shot every time attic darkroom says "there is no comparison when looking at the resolution and resolving power"

I also had the idea of using a microscope for film scanning, so i really enjoyed your video. Thanks for sharing it. p.s. the background music is irritating and strangely also used by other film photography youtube channels such as SprocketHoles and several others.

This is my favourite video by far.

A Man Shot Trichrome For 3 Years. This Is What Happened To His Brain.

Curious to see what 8mm frames might look with the higher objectives!

You are awesome! Just needed to share that. Also, if you want to start shooting 110, I've gotten the best results shooting Lomography Orca at places like wild west museums and steam train museums. The images are so crusty, they look like they were taken in the 1800's.

take a shot everytime he says “There is no comparison when looking at the resolution and resolving power” ***blacks out***

Can't you just set the same exposure for all three pictures and compensate in photoshop

First time in my life I heard the word ‘kilopixel’

Cms20. Could be interesting, maby you can use PT gui for stitching instead of photoshop

I’d be interesting to see 8mm or Kodak’s Disc Film, both smaller than 110

Please scan some 110.

Video idea: develop a roll of film with no timer and you eat 10 edible gummies before you develop the film

i want that Mavica! it's too cool

you should try minox! smallest film around

look at astrophotography cameras..

Have you considered using a roll of adox cms 20 and seeing how well that emulsion resolves under a microscope?