Our new slide unit

[kentek]

WOW.
Roger, which EOS Rebel is being used and what do they cost?
Also, If one ordered one today, when would it be shipped?
I would guess all of the production details need to be addressed.

I wonder if the manufacturer of the slide projector would sell a modified unit to you if you could guarantee them enough production. Even if they shipped partially disassembled it could save you time.

Very nice clean design.

[MovieStuff]

WOW.
Roger, which EOS Rebel is being used and what do they cost?
Also, If one ordered one today, when would it be shipped?
I would guess all of the production details need to be addressed.

I wonder if the manufacturer of the slide projector would sell a modified unit to you if you could guarantee them enough production. Even if they shipped partially disassembled it could save you time.

Very nice clean design.

Thanks!

The slide projector is just a basic industrial grade Kodak Ektagraphic. They don't make them any more. We gut them except for the advance mechanism. Quite the ordeal, really, but easier than the older Kodak projectors that were put together with punch-metal and bendy-tabs. Eeech.

Anyway, the original Canon EOS or the XT work fine. I lose track of the various Rebel models but they're all basically the same. It has has to have the video out and remote socket. The SlideStream is $2195 plus $45 domestic shipping or $120 to Canada (only shipping in North America at the present). There is always a 45-60 day window from receipt of funds until we ship due to the 80-100 customers we always have on the books. Contact me offlist if you would like to chat about it.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Okay, I'm a dumbass.

I did some experimenting and found that the images could be vastly improved by isolating the motor to reduce vibration and changing the f-stop on the lens to a sharper setting. I was previously stopping all the way down to f-36, just to get maximum depth of field, since each slide lands in a slightly different position. However (and I should have known better) that high an f-stop is less than ideal for maxium sharpness. By simply opening up to f-22 and isolating the motor vibration, the difference is like day and night. After making some design changes, I rescanned the slides and I have just updated the website with new, much sharper versions (you can now see the grain) and have reformatted the samples to better accomodate internet display. After the changes, we did a side by side test in-house and, surprisingly, the new versions are very similar in resolution to our Epson 2450 slide scanner. I would have never thought it possible but you can see for yourself.

The link to the SlideStream unit is here:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/slidestream.html

The sample page is here:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/slidestream_samples.html

Again, I feel like a dumb-ass. I should have forseen the vibration and f-stop issues but I didn't think they'd amount to much. Nothing like working with a professional, ya know?

Roger

PS: Thanks to christoph for some CC tips.

[JhnZ33]

Okay, I'm a dumbass.

Nonsense, we're only human

After the changes, we did a side by side test in-house and, surprisingly, the new versions are very similar in resolution to our Epson 2450 slide scanner. I would have never thought it possible but you can see for yourself.

The link to the SlideStream unit is here:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/slidestream.html

The sample page is here:

http://www.moviestuff.tv/slidestream_samples.html

Very nice Roger. My personal favorite is the bagpipes. The depth of field is amazing. It's almost 3D!

JJP

[MovieStuff]

Okay, I'm a dumbass.

Nonsense, we're only human

Then I'm a dumbass human. Really, this was a pretty amateur mistake. I had done some previous tests during development with different slides and had used lower f-stops of f-5.6, f-8, f-11, etc. They had been sharp in the middle but were soft on the edges. Knowing that this particular lens would go down to f-36 (odd, yes?) I simply forged ahead and then stopped down when doing the sample slides for the web, figuring that would solve the soft edge problem. And it did! It made them soft all the way across! I know that high F-stops are not ideal for maximum sharpness but I have never seen something go this soft before and I wasn't paying attention. And the difference between f22 and f36 is so vast, I am surprised that they even allow the lens to go down to f36. It is a really useless f-stop, at least on this lens. F-22 is fine and does the job of keeping the edges in focus but anything higher on this lens and it's crap. The motor vibration thing was a no-brainer, too. Not really sure how much it is really affecting the image but adding rubber motor mounts seemed like the right thing to do, if I was going to rescan the slides.

Glad you liked the babpipes. I do, too. I got all these old slides off of ebay. Fascinating family history there. I especially like the snowmobile/car thingy. Very Jonny Quest looking.

Roger

[JhnZ33]

Fascinating family history there. I especially like the snowmobile/car thingy. Very Jonny Quest looking.

Roger

I agree. Nice collection of slides overall.

JJP

[kentek]

Hey, go ahead, make our day Roger.

These slides look great. I don't know what else any one could ask for.

I'm trying to make a business case for buying one of these. How much time is spent loading carousels, sorting etc?

And, does the EOS camera move the bits directly into the PC or is that another step? If the camera allowed you to stream direct to a hard disk it would really speed things up.

[MovieStuff]

These slides look great. I don't know what else any one could ask for..

I hope to have a comparison between our Epson scanner and the SlideStream by this evening. It is quite surprising, actually...

I'm trying to make a business case for buying one of these. How much time is spent loading carousels, sorting etc?

After polling my client base, I found that people who shot slides in the 50s and 60s generally did so with gusto. They often had several thousands of slides and usually had them in trays for projection. That is a good thing for a variety of reasons. One is that putting them in trays saves time. The second is that tray mounted slides usually are cleaner than ones kept in cardboard boxes. The third is that tray mounted slides usually have already been sorted and the bad slides weeded out. All these things make handling the slides easier.

Putting slides into Kodak trays isn't hard and only takes a few minutes. It is really worth it, too. Once the locking ring is on, it is virtually impossible to spill the slides accidentally and they are automatically indexed with a numbering system on the side of the tray. That makes keeping track of the number and location of slides in an order more organized. You can genereally load a Kodak 120 slide tray in about 3 minutes or less. There are still used stack loaders for Kodak projectors on ebay, which would eliminate the need to load a tray but I don't recommend it. We plan on producing a version of the SlideStream in a Leica/Rollei tray version, as well. But, for now, most slides are in Kodak trays.

And, does the EOS camera move the bits directly into the PC or is that another step? If the camera allowed you to stream direct to a hard disk it would really speed things up.

You'd think so but that isn't the case. It only takes about 3 seconds to write each frame to the flashcard. So it only takes about 15 minutes to transfer a 120 tray. But using the USB cable from the camera takes a whopping 20 seconds per slide, and that's just for JPEGs! RAW files take even longer. So it is really more efficient to transfer to the flash card then bring them onto your Mac or PC when you're ready. Otherwise you are trying up both your computer and your SlideStream unit for no reason. Also, keeping the flashcards with the slide trays is a more effective workflow, from an organizational standpoint. They then transfer to the computer very quickly and it won't matter if you are working with Mac or PC. You just put them all in a folder and use the Photoshop automatic action command to process the folder for a vertical flip and auto-levels on all slides.

Roger

[threeinv]

BIG difference in the sample images, Roger! Those were great improvements on your part. Do you have any plans to include dust-removal in the software you're creating? Or is there a good Photoshop plug-in you recommend to automatically remove dust after scanning? I guess it would be impossible to integrate Digital ICE, since in flatbed scanners it requires an extra, slow infrared pass.

--Derrick

[MovieStuff]

BIG difference in the sample images, Roger! Those were great improvements on your part.

Thanks. I can't believe how soft the original samples were. That's what I get for working too fast. I had so many people emailing me that wanted to order a unit and wanted to see samples that I just got up early one morning and slammed some out without paying attention. The original samples are embarrassing, frankly. Pure carelessness on my part. But I'm very happy with the new samples.

Do you have any plans to include dust-removal in the software you're creating? Or is there a good Photoshop plug-in you recommend to automatically remove dust after scanning? I guess it would be impossible to integrate Digital ICE, since in flatbed scanners it requires an extra, slow infrared pass.

I looked into the whole Digital ICE thing but, aside from having to pay a royality for using it, the process really slows things down tremendously, which defeats the purpose of the unit, which is to handle volumes of slides at an affordable price. My clients have been prisoners of the slow cycle times of the Nikon and Epson scanners for years, even if you turn Digital ICE off, and that made it hard to turn a profit on large slide jobs. They usually ended up doing the slides at break-even just to get the telecine and video tape archive work that a customer might bring in with the slides. So, as I noted before, the usual mantra when a customer walked with a big box of stuff to archive was "Please let there be no slides. Please let there be no slides....."

Now they can actually make money doing large volumes of slides and can also afford to raise the rates on Nikon scans because they have an effective alternative. Every slide no longer has to be run through a slow-poke Nikon scanner; only the ones that require specially handling for big blow ups, etc.

Roger

[RCBasher]

I did some experimenting and found that the images could be vastly improved by isolating the motor to reduce vibration and changing the f-stop on the lens to a sharper setting.

That's interesting because I've been testing out my projector with and without the motor running. Probably not a completely valid test, but I removed the drive belt to stop the film advancing and took frame grabs with and without the motor running. The motor speed seemed critical as it would set up different resonances depending on its setting. These are two enlarged sections for comparison, the second image being the best I could get it with the motor on:
EDIT: changed to links - my pictures are not relevent to this thread...only the vibration problem!
http://www.cfav.co.uk/misc/projector/motoroffcrop.jpg
http://www.cfav.co.uk/misc/projector/motoroncrop.jpg
Full frame images can be found here:
http://www.cfav.co.uk/misc/projector/nomotor.jpg
http://www.cfav.co.uk/misc/projector/motoron.jpg
Don't take much notice of the quality or lighting...still using a webcam while waiting for my Guppy F-80C to turn up!

These tests are making me think about sacrificing speed for quality and using a stepper motor to advance the film and then pausing for vibrations to subside...but that's just a theory right now!

Frank

EDIT:
PS Nice machine by the way...will probably put my trusty old Nikon LS1000 to shame! Hmmm, I've got a Canon 350D...no, mustn't go down that route...

[VideoFred]

Looks like an excellent product, and I hope you have good luck with it. So much in fact that you will want to give up making movie transfer equipment, and give up the market to some other company making it that will be nameless.

Hah! Be careful what you wish for!

What you both need is a European Headquarter.
(Me of cource)

I suggest you both send me -free - some units.
For euch... demonstration purpose only. :lol:

Being independent, I would sell both systems, depending on the customers needs. Because there is a marked for both.

Another videoFred idea :idea:

Haha
Fred.

[filmamigo]

WOW, much better images Roger.

Don't feel silly -- it's satisfying to find that you can make large improvements in results by making simple operational changes. At least, that's how I rationalize all of my mistakes! :lol:

Your new samples are much more what I expected. The resolution may be limited compared to a high-res scanner, but sharpness and colour rendition are bang-on. It seemed weird that the previous samples went so mushy at 100%, but suddenly that makes a lot of sense. Now, at 100% you see grain and pixels, not softness.

Is the f-stop fully under the control of the operator? If so, for critical work on FLAT slides, you could move the lens further into it's sweet spot. Most lenses are horribly soft at f/22, let alone f/36. But for volume work where you can't predict the curvatures, I understand the need to use as small an aperture as possible.

[johnnhud]

I'm impressed with the machine as well. I probably wont be in line to order one for a while however. I'm still trying to figure out how to turn a sizable profit with my WorkPrinter! Of course being that I mostly do "hobby grade" work in my spare time could be a factor in not hitting the cash cow on S8 & 8mm stuff.

Looks cool Roger!