Over the past two weeks I have been experimenting with a piece of equipment which, by all rights, should not do a very good job of enlarging tiny sections of photos, but has consistantly surprised me with the results. This all began in a quest to find a some what easy way to satisfy the customer who brings in a 2x3 photo and wants one face in it enlarged to impossible proportions. In my travels down the digital highway I came across a site which sells reconditioned and new microscopes plus an assortment of other optical stuff. There, sitting in the reconditioned section was a large copy stand complete with Monitor, panasonic CCTV camera with a fujiconzoom TV lens, light bars(2) and associated cables for a price less than a copy stand. I grabbed it. Upon arrival and set up, the fun began. Not only did it work perfectly the results fo the first test session are attached for your examination (these folks at this business are great to work with--All pros). I think that the use of video cameras as capture devices is worth looking into if you do a lot of black and white older photos which need to have areas enlarged. Color does not do nearly as well but since most of my work is with B/W that is not a real problem for me. This system is one than could be easily assembled from components at a modest cost. Here's the link to the site I found this little number at; http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/
and here's the first test pics. As a side note, it has already come in handy (as in producing income). Thanks Tom

Very cool!

I noticed some haloing...is that a raw image, or did you USM it? It would be interesting to compare that side-by-side with a flatbed scan at the highest optical resolution from the same section of the image.

The haloing is from the USM , I usually slightly oversharpen as when I print on the matte paper it seems to disappear and if no halo is present the prints tend to come out a tad bit soft. So far I have not had real good results trying the flat bed scans, but as my scanner is getting old that may have something to do with it. I am seriously drooling over the Epson 1680 pro ..... Tom

You and me both, brother, you and me both :)

Tom,

That's very interesting to say the least. How large was the original print?

Ed

Ed, nominal size was around 6x8 or so and the individuals were rather indistinct. The enlargements I have done for customers with this equipment have been of two types; (1) To bring out details of old Farm equipment for restoration of said equipment and (2) To capture some degree of recognizable image for family albums etc., where no other photos are known to exist. The beauty of this is that no-one expects formal portrait perfection from the print, they are very pleased to just get a recognizable image. From start to finish it takes around 15-20 minutes to produce a print with minimal retouching and even out here, no one has complained about price! I think this illustrates the flexability of this business and the importiance of not locking ones self into strictly one type of restore/copy work. Diversification is the key to survival business wise...Just my opinion though. Digital now seems to be where Silver based photography was around the 1860-1870 period...it is accepted by the public, there is a growing demand for it, but now it needs to be explored and experimented with to realize its true potential. Hows that for a bit of "behind the barn" philosophy? Tom

Along the same lines, I've used a Cannon Vizcam that can be found at:

http://www.canondv.com/canonprojectors/products/vizcam.html

...although we installed this piece of equipment in our showroom to make it easy for our clients to view their old negatives as positives on a 25" TV screen, it works well as another tool for copying objects that don't want to fit into any other type of a copy setup. I've tried it in a few cases for extreem enlargements but nothing of importance, just testing.

Jim Conway
Timemark Photo Conservators

I think you've got it right Tom. Diversify! Would it be practical (or possible) for you to copy old home movie film frames? I'm talking about 8mm or super 8mm. Would you even be able to make an image suitable for viewing on a monitor?

Ed

Ed, I'll do some checking and get back on that. I am sure there is equipment out there to do that type of work. It is an interesting idea...I know some film collections have been transfered from the nitrate based to plastic based supports to avoid the deterioration and fire hazards the older film presents.
Jim, thanks for the link. While not a solution for every enlarging challenge, the video cameras with proper lens assemblies and good output do add a nice little tool to the tool kit. Tom

Ed, I put a link over in Input/Output which should help get you started. Good luck...Tom

Tom,

Thanks for the link. But I probably didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that if somebody had a few *individual* frames to copy, would this be something beyond your capabilities? Or would you even be interested in providing a service such as that? Just thoughts on another possible way of expanding your services.

Ed

Looks interesting Tom. I'll have to look into it more closely when I get more time. Thanks for the link.
DJ

Ed, Sorry, I thought you ment transfering an entire role of 8mm to digital format. I suppose individual frames could be scanned if the scanner could support transparency function and if a special holder were avaliable to hold the film without damaging it. The Minolta I use can scan strips of 8mm or 16mm film, but,(and heres the problem), the film has to be cut in the proper length to fit the holder. Very ungood if preserving the role in one piece is desired. I think that some sort of transfer device to grab individual frames would fit the bill but will continue investigating. Tom

It can be done because Marni's husband is into that kind of work as a videographer. I know he transfers film on to CD, Video etc and single frame also but he has very specialized equipment that costs quite a bit.
DJ

I *might* have a few frames that I would like to have copied. Marni's husband was looking into a possible source for the service in my area. But it's been quite a while since I've heard anything from her. I guess he couldn't find anyone. I'm not even *sure* if I have any to copy, but reading Tom's post gave me the idea that it might be something else for him to add to his services.

Ed

It's definately worth a look see for sure.
DJ

Jim
That Vizcam 1000 looks good but when they say contact a sales rep for prices I get the impression I'm buying something pretty costly. Must be looking at a $1000 ore more? Looks like they get good results from it.
DJ

Chiming in late---but I have had some luck taking stills from old super-8 films without cutting them up. This is a subject near and dear to my heart, since mostly what I have left of my childhood is on 49 short rolls of super-8.

My current scanner is a four-year-old Microtek X6, $89 special, with a "LightLid". I also have a moldy-oldy 8mm editing setup, the old hand-driven one with reels on both sides, and it was easy to set it up to where I could load a reel into the editor, roll it to the still I wanted, and then carefully remove it from the editor and stretch it up to the scanner. No cutting or splicing, but cleanliness is all-important, as is keeping cats etc. out of the way during the process.

As a caveat, I didn't get the kind of resolution being discussed here out of my X6, but the stills were still useable. I had no idea what I was doing at the time---this site hadn't yet been invented! I want to re-scan using the same technique as soon as I acquire a decent scanner, my old X6 is finally showing blurry, noisy scans with lime-green and magenta vertical lines from bad CCD pixels. (Or perhaps I'm just more picky these days?)

8mm is about 1/3 of an inch. With a 2400dpi scanner with a lighted lid, e.g. the Epson Perfection 2450, 600x800 (or so) is eminently possible, not much but probably good for a 3x4 print at 200dpi. Better than I would have expected with less than $500 in materials. A 4000-dpi film scanner will get you into the 5x7 category. Better than that will require cutting it up and outsourcing to a drum ($$$).

Also, I had this discussion on photo.net a while back, and I notice there are a few more threads. If you go hunting, also look at the threads on scanning 110 film, since it's very similar in size.

Someone displayed onto a screen and photographed the result with slide film, but was unhappy with the results. One suggestion was to simply mount 110 film in a standard 2x2 mount and scan it, I don't know why that wouldn't work for 8mm if you were willing to snip it. I would worry that it would fall down inside the scanner if using one with motorized feed.

(BTW, since 8mm film moves at 24 frames per second you can snip out a good chunk without actually disturbing the action to any great degree. Snip 3 consecutive frames, that's 1/8 of a second, faster than my eye can grab. Stitch back together and no one will be the wiser except grandma, of course.)

Let us know what you figure out!

Originally posted by DJ Dubovsky
Jim
That Vizcam 1000 looks good but when they say contact a sales rep for prices I get the impression I'm buying something pretty costly. Must be looking at a $1000 ore more? Looks like they get good results from it.
DJ

You are right about the cost at 1K but the quality of the unit is worth the price and then some. They use them in the school science rooms so there apparently is a big market for them and I had to wait three months for delivery. I tried it a few days ago with a roll of 8mm, stripped the film out and taped it down on the light table then brought the unit down to about 1/4 in above a single frame. The enlargement (to about 6 inches on the monitor) is no problem but stabilizing the unit is! Touch the table or camera arm and it takes a few minutes for it to stop moving from the vibration. Nice to know it can be done I guess, however I was testing it with a pro film and have found in my past experience that most of the amature films were pretty soft to begin with. Hope there isn't much of a market for this or we will all go broke - I spent an hour goofing around with it to get one frame. :-)

Jim Conway
Timemark Photo Conservators

Jim
I figured it had to be at least that much. It may be out of my reach at this point but something to wish for for sure.

Kaulike
First, welcome aboard. I have the Epson Perfection Photo 1650 which has the built in transparancy adapter. I thought there should be some way to use it on film but I have a feeling even the ability to scan at 3500 dpi might not be enough for a frame that is only half inch wide. It is certainly worth a try. I'm a bit booked right now but I will definately give it a try after the holiday crunch when I get more free time. Unless someone else beats me to it. :D
DJ