P3D Re: HP Scanner Adapter

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

Greetings,

My pair of adapters ($11 even) arrived yesterday, and it works (so far)!!   

I did a quickie test before going to bed last night by scanning the first
35mm 2x2 "beamsplit" slide I could find (2x2 to keep the first test "simple").

One I found has a plastic Polaroid mount (I mounted them) and is 
at least  7 or 8 years old.  It wasn't the best test subject, the 
slide subject is very high in contrast and slide's a bit washed out.

I scanned it at 1200 dpi on my Microtek IIhr scanner that I recall being
rated 1200 x 600 dpi optical.  I used default settings.  I'm sure this
will require some experimentation to optimize (lotsa buttons and sliders
in the scanner's scan interface).

I then took the result and reduced the dpi by a factor of ten (to 120dpi)
and increased the image size by a factor of exactly 3 (Photoshop).

I put a "medium compression" jpeg of that version on my web page at:

	http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/5488/

It's a hair too large, but I can still freeview it okay.  Vertical bar
is quite wide, I probably cheated on the f/stop in the bright sun for
better DOF.

Certainly I've got gamma corrections (etc) to do... as well as 
trying an original slide with better exposure (and a dynamic range 
that fits better).  This is just a quick "flash report"! :-)

The scanned version looks fuzzier and more washed out than the original
although looking at the slide directly will "of course" look sharper. :-)

Certainly I've got gamma corrections (etc) to figure out and do... as well as 
finding a test slide with better exposure (and a dynamic range that fits 
the film better).

However, neither the original scan (full size) nor the reduced version
has *any* digital artifacts that I have detected (and which were quite
easy to spot on the whale example yesterday).

> The device is more sophisticated than it looks. Although it appears to
> be a simple "45-45-90 plactic" pyramid with crude mirrors, the patent on
> this device is 36 pages long!  A careful inspection will reveal that it
> is not completely symetric, which accounts for the registration arrow on
> one corner of the pyramid which is designed to fit ito the upper right
> corner of the scanner. 

Quite true.  I speak from experience that it doesn't seem to work at
all if used "reversed".  Did that the first time, trying to go *too*
quick...  unless I did something else wrong and attributed it to the 
device being backwards.

> The adapter is a great value for $5.50, but there still is a reason that

To say the least!  Thanks again for finding it (and where to order it)!!!!

> high quality film scanners (2700DPI, 36-bits, 40 sec. scan time) cost
> well over $1500.  

If the $5.50 adapter had a 2700 dpi optical flatbed scanner under it, 
it'd probably cost a bit more than $5.50 (total) too.  :-)


Mike K.


------------------------------