Scanning Old Slides with Q2 Macro

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This looks very interesting.

I will try it.

[LocalHero1953]

19 hours ago, JimD said:

Not sure I understand the macro ratio thing...I use the macro setting on the Q2 and the DNG image on initial capture is 46.7 MP, but then in post processing I crop the image into 5"x7" and make adjustments to the sharpness, and the lighting and color if needed.  Then I save it in TIFF format which yields a 9.5 MP size image.  That ultimate size produces very acceptable results when printed out (much better than the 2 MP JPEG images that I post on-line).  I haven't seen any focus field distortion, although the camera I used 60 years ago was a Kodak fixed lens with a manual focus ring based on my estimate of distance to subject...so some of my slides back then turned out fuzzy because I didn't estimate the focus distance properly enough (or forgot to change it).

When I get a Q3, the results should be even better with its added resolution.

The macro ratio is the size of the scene divided by the size of the sensor. If you can fill a frame with a 35mm slide, which would be ideal, then the ratio is 1:1. I measured the minimum length of a ruler with the Q2 at about 140mm, so the macro ratio is about 4. The Q2 sensor is 8368 pixels long, so a 36mm long slide/negative frame, once cropped, would be 2092 pixels long and 1395 wide, or just under 3mp. Good enough for smallish prints (and for old slides/negatives in poor condition, and for social media) but a bit limiting if you want better resolution.

This is not to criticise what you have done, but just to put some bounds on how far the Q2 can be used for such purposes. (And to show how we don't always need 100mp to get a valuable image!)

Edited June 10, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[JimD]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The macro ratio is the size of the scene divided by the size of the sensor. If you can fill a frame with a 35mm slide, which would be ideal, then the ratio is 1:1. I measured the minimum length of a ruler with the Q2 at about 140mm, so the macro ratio is about 4. The Q2 sensor is 8368 pixels long, so a 36mm long slide/negative frame, once cropped, would be 2092 pixels long and 1395 wide, or just under 3mp. Good enough for smallish prints (and for old slides/negatives in poor condition, and for social media) but a bit limiting if you want better resolution.

This is not to criticise what you have done, but just to put some bounds on how far the Q2 can be used for such purposes. (And to show how we don't always need 100mp to get a valuable image!)

Wow, thanks for explaining all that.  Altho it's sure disappointing to find out it's only 3 MP.  If that's the math, so be it.  Well, I still like the end product of my 9.5 MP TIFF images in print form.  They look real clear and colorful to me so I'm going to continue doing this with my old slides so I can enjoy seeing them again.  Just curious, would the Q3 higher resolution be significantly better for the end result of all this?

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, JimD said:

Just curious, would the Q3 higher resolution be significantly better for the end result of all this?

Better but, IMO, not significantly so: about 25% more pixels: about 3.7mp.

Although it's called 'macro' mode, and there isn't a formal definition of macro, if you want to translate a 35mm negative/slide frame into the full res of your sensor (which is the same size as a 35mm negative/slide), you'd need a system capable of doing 1:1. I use the Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm and ELPRO adapter on my SL2-S, which does achieve 1:1, and gives me 24mp to play with. But, as I wrote above, an image with 2000 pixels on the side is more than good enough for normal online use and smaller printing. For many old slides and negatives all you will achieve with higher macro ratios is more detailed blurriness!

[JimD]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Better but, IMO, not significantly so: about 25% more pixels: about 3.7mp.

Although it's called 'macro' mode, and there isn't a formal definition of macro, if you want to translate a 35mm negative/slide frame into the full res of your sensor (which is the same size as a 35mm negative/slide), you'd need a system capable of doing 1:1. I use the Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm and ELPRO adapter on my SL2-S, which does achieve 1:1, and gives me 24mp to play with. But, as I wrote above, an image with 2000 pixels on the side is more than good enough for normal online use and smaller printing. For many old slides and negatives all you will achieve with higher macro ratios is more detailed blurriness!

Ah, thanks!  That makes me feel better.  It's good to know the limitations.   I think I'll just stay with what I have in my Q2 setup and stick with small prints that are only 5"x7", which look really good to my 80-year-old eyes.  😃