Converting an Enlarger to Digital

Optical labs are being converted to digital printers with devices such
as the "D-Carrier" and some other units.

http://www.dcarrier.com/


It appears that there is a commercially available Digital enlarger
available made by Devere.

http://www.odyssey-sales.com/news/br...sp?article=347

Has anyone succesfully converted an enlarger to a Digital unit using
LCDs? Understanding that this would require a high resolution LCD and
software to control exposure colour etc.

Please reply to this Newsgroup and email me remove "REMOVE" in my email
address.

"Helge Buddenborg" wrote in message
...
Optical labs are being converted to digital printers with devices such
as the "D-Carrier" and some other units.

http://www.dcarrier.com/


It appears that there is a commercially available Digital enlarger
available made by Devere.

http://www.odyssey-sales.com/news/br...sp?article=347

Has anyone succesfully converted an enlarger to a Digital unit using
LCDs? Understanding that this would require a high resolution LCD and
software to control exposure colour etc.

Please reply to this Newsgroup and email me remove "REMOVE" in my email
address.

The DeVere 504DS uses a LCD giving a 8MPix resolution as a negative,
probably a color model as the color head is a traditional halogen with
dichroic filters (but with a built-in shutter). From what I believe, the LCD
has not such a resolution itself but is slightly moved between several
mini-exposures to increase the resolution.

I sent Odyssey a couple of digital files (Nikon D70 + 20/2.8AF at full
resolution) to print and they were kind enough to print them in two sizes
(around 18x24cm/7x9.5" and 30x40cm/12x16") on Kodak Endura paper.
The small one was very good, nearly perfect. The big one was good too but
when looking at it very closely (around 10cm/4") it shows a slight pattern,
probably the LCD matrix. I visited their stand at the Photokina and the
samples all show this same pattern.
I must say that I looked at them in a very critical way, all the "normal"
persons I showed them the prints were enthusiastic about them.

The price of this enlarger is much lower than the current digital monsters
but still out of reach of the average amateur.

This kind of enlarger is similar to a classic enlarger, the resolution being
fixed indipendently ofthe enlargment ratio, like with classic negatives,the
larger the print, the worse the quality. "classic" digital enlarger work
like laser printer, they have a fixed resolution on the paper and thus,
provided you have a good file, the larger the print, the better quality
you'll have.
I would say a DevEre is probably better for small prints and a laser/led
based enlarger better for larger prints.

I don't know of the Optical Labs device but from the resolution they
indicate, looks like a 5MPix total resolution.

Actually, the advanced amateur who wants to go digital has the choice
between printing himself on inkjets system (and a probably reduced longevity
of the prints) or giving the files to labs that have the money to buy such
enlargers (and loose the control over what he's producing).

From what I've seen at the Photokina, many laser/leds medium-to-high volume
enlargers coupled with theRA-4 processing machine, many inkjets with plenty
of choice of papers/inks but *nothing* intended for a low-volume,
high-quality silver-based printing.

From a market point of view there is a big niche no one wants to fill.
Until someone markets a digital enlarger for us, I'll probably have to stay
completely analog
Not a big problem, I have the equipment, I have the skills and I have time
to wait&see ...

Regards,
--
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch

I would think this should be realitively
easy technology to accomplish. I must say it intrigues me.

How different would it be from the device to utilize say
a projector that projects images like those being used
to project from a computer,...just reverse the image back to being a
negative image in Photoshop.


In article ,
"Claudio Bonavolta" wrote:

From a market point of view there is a big niche no one wants to fill.
Until someone markets a digital enlarger for us, I'll probably have to stay
completely analog
Not a big problem, I have the equipment, I have the skills and I have time
to wait&see ...

Regards,

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I would think this should be realitively
easy technology to accomplish. I must say it intrigues me.

How different would it be from the device to utilize say
a projector that projects images like those being used
to project from a computer,...just reverse the image back to being a
negative image in Photoshop.


In article ,
"Claudio Bonavolta" wrote:

From a market point of view there is a big niche no one wants to fill.
Until someone markets a digital enlarger for us, I'll probably have to stay
completely analog
Not a big problem, I have the equipment, I have the skills and I have time
to wait&see ...

Regards,

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

I would think this should be realitively
easy technology to accomplish. I must say it intrigues me.

How different would it be from the device to utilize say
a projector that projects images like those being used
to project from a computer,...just reverse the image back to being a
negative image in Photoshop.


In article ,
"Claudio Bonavolta" wrote:


From a market point of view there is a big niche no one wants to fill.
Until someone markets a digital enlarger for us, I'll probably have to stay
completely analog
Not a big problem, I have the equipment, I have the skills and I have time
to wait&see ...

IMO, the preferred way to do this, if designing a machine for hobby
photographer use, would be a scanning laser system using steered
mirrors, akin to that used in laser printers. In fact, with a change of
laser source to include semiconductor lasers in red, green, and blue,
and appropriate software control equivalent to filtration, such a
machine could be built competitive with a color laser printer -- devices
that are currently under $1000. The self-same machine could also be
used for output to multigrade B&W paper, with the blue and green lasers
controlled for relative output just as is done with filtration in
conventional color or multigrade heads.

Mounting the imaging head on a variable column would be unnecessary;
output at 600 ppi or better on paper up to 11x17 could be obtained in a
fixed unit strongly resembling a color laser printer, but more compact
because of elimination of the three or four toner systems and fuser
assembly; larger print capacity would cost more, just as larger printers
cost more -- it simply costs more to make a machine to handle the larger
paper and accurately apply the image.

Combine the printer with a roll paper feeder and an RA-4 auto processor
and you'd have a digital output machine that could produce results as
good as most mini-labs, if only from digital media -- and shouldn't cost
more than $5000 (compared to many tens of thousands for a mini-lab with
digital capability). No, the print rate wouldn't be anything like as
high -- on the order of five minutes output time for one maximum size
print, and up to ten minutes for the first dry print to emerge -- but it
would be accessible to the dedicated hobbyist (same people who spend
$3000 on a Leica or $5000 on a new DSLR), and the price would come down
over time.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

What I think your missing is the image direct to existing RA paper
aspect of this , which is what I desire. No toner, just
regular old RA Color photo paper
that is currently made. Perhaps the goal should be, "as you
have stated in the other thread":

Is to have a film recorder of sorts that would could output digi files
to film that can later be printed, therby yielding a higher level of
detail and more acceptable keeping qualities/Endura/Crystal Archive etc.

So far I have been unimpressed with the resolution I have seen
from such recording devices. Certainly the price is high for new.



In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:

IMO, the preferred way to do this, if designing a machine for hobby
photographer use, would be a scanning laser system using steered
mirrors, akin to that used in laser printers. In fact, with a change of
laser source to include semiconductor lasers in red, green, and blue,
and appropriate software control equivalent to filtration, such a
machine could be built competitive with a color laser printer -- devices
that are currently under $1000. The self-same machine could also be
used for output to multigrade B&W paper, with the blue and green lasers
controlled for relative output just as is done with filtration in
conventional color or multigrade heads.

Mounting the imaging head on a variable column would be unnecessary;
output at 600 ppi or better on paper up to 11x17 could be obtained in a
fixed unit strongly resembling a color laser printer, but more compact
because of elimination of the three or four toner systems and fuser
assembly; larger print capacity would cost more, just as larger printers
cost more -- it simply costs more to make a machine to handle the larger
paper and accurately apply the image.

Combine the printer with a roll paper feeder and an RA-4 auto processor
and you'd have a digital output machine that could produce results as
good as most mini-labs, if only from digital media -- and shouldn't cost
more than $5000 (compared to many tens of thousands for a mini-lab with
digital capability). No, the print rate wouldn't be anything like as
high -- on the order of five minutes output time for one maximum size
print, and up to ten minutes for the first dry print to emerge -- but it
would be accessible to the dedicated hobbyist (same people who spend
$3000 on a Leica or $5000 on a new DSLR), and the price would come down
over time.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:
What I think your missing is the image direct to existing RA paper
aspect of this , which is what I desire. No toner, just
regular old RA Color photo paper
that is currently made. Perhaps the goal should be, "as you
have stated in the other thread":

I wasn't clear; I thought that was implied as the reason behind changing
the laser light source(s) in the printer mechanism to red, green, and
blue diode lasers -- to "print" directly to RA-4 paper, just as is
currently done with commercial digilabs, but to do it for much less than
1/10 the price by trimming off all the scanning and optical printing
options, potentially even the RA-4 processor (let the darkroom worker
handle developing the paper in his preferred manner) in order to bring
the price down enough to sell in quantity. The software drivers would
control whether the lasers are mixed and "filtered" for CMY, for
printing to color paper, or for blue and green only for contrast control
in printing to multigrade B&W material.

As a tiny little side benefit, this method of printing would once and
for all resolve the issues of "I have a color negative and I'd like to
make a B&W print from it." Instead of either having to chase down a
panchromatic paper (Seagull apparently just discontinued theirs, and
Ektalure has been gone for a while; is anyone even still making one?) or
make a B&W interpositive on panchro film, one just converts in software
and outputs to multi-contrast paper. For that matter, with software
contrast control, one could dispense with multigrade paper; print
everything on Grade 2 (or whatever, as long as the software is
calibrated so the screen image is a good likeness of how the paper will
look when dry) and simply control the contrast of the projected virtual
negative.

This device could serve both to combine color and B&W for most home
darkroom workers (you'd still need a certain amount of "dark" in order
to get the paper from the printer output tray into the processor, unless
it was built to load a daylight tube -- seemingly not very likely, but
not impossible, I suppose), and to kill the Zone system once and for
all, other than for those who simply like that technique -- what need to
control contrast when you can scan your negative at high resolution and
large dynamic range, and make the necessary adjustments in software?
The only real requirements would be a film that doesn't block highlights
(say, T-Max 100 or 400) and a scanner that can read high silver
densities (along with a computer that has enough memory, processor
power, and storage to massage the resulting file in a reasonably
efficient manner).

Is to have a film recorder of sorts that would could output digi files
to film that can later be printed, therby yielding a higher level of
detail and more acceptable keeping qualities/Endura/Crystal Archive etc.

I see the two devices as complementary -- one to archive the core
images, in the form of long-lived B&W separation negative, and the other
to convert digital images into prints that can be held in the hand.
Either could be used without the other, of course; the film recorder
could both archive digital images and, with appropriate software, act as
a backup device for immense storage systems (a microfilm emulsion in 35
mm should be capable of backing up multiple gigabytes to a single strip
as long as conventional 36 exposure film, even including error
correction capability capable of losing no data with significant chunks
of emulsion entirely missing) while the tri-laser photoprinter would
produce prints from any image available to the host computer, or (if the
design is set up this way) from film being read in real time from the
recorder/scanner unit.

These two units, a minimal dark space suitable for changing film and
loading paper into a processing unit, and a modest cabinet of chemicals
would make the photo hobbyist independent of commercial processing,
providing only that camera film, microfilm, at least one B&W paper and
at least one RA-4 paper, and their associated chemical suites, remain
available. Add a computer with software equivalent to next year's
version of Photoshop, and you have capability that would have cost
millions of dollars twenty years ago, if it existed at all.

So far I have been unimpressed with the resolution I have seen
from such recording devices. Certainly the price is high for new.

It is now -- but the technology certainly exists, in various forms.
Adapting a color laser printer to write to photo papers is almost within
the capability of a computer/photo hobbyist -- change of light source,
bypassing toner and fuser operations, and appropriate driver software
are almost all that would be required. Films scanenrs capable of 4000
ppi are expensive, but should become less so as time passes, and
oversampling sufficient to allow rescanning in register could be
synthesized from a genuine 4000 ppi device and multiple scan passes.
The only technology I don't know to exist is the ability to write to
film, in monochrome (likely with a laser in the green wavelengths, since
some of the films that might be desirable aren't panchromatic) at high
enough resolution, but if not, I don't know why not; microfilm output
devices have existed for nearly 20 years that can print to microfilm at
resolution suitable for text when enlarged 20x or more in a reader, and
the same technology can likely be stretched with variable beam
attentuation and optical reduction in the write phase.

None of this requires breakthroughs, other than finding a way to make
and sell enough units to start bringing the price down to where ordinary
folks can afford them. The same thing was true of home computers when
they had 2k RAM, mass storage was audio cassettes, and your monitor
would also pick up the six o'clock news; look where they've come in the
past 25 years.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:

WOW, you had a lot bottled up didn't you :-) I am going save that
and reread it.

None of this requires breakthroughs, other than finding a way to make
and sell enough units to start bringing the price down to where ordinary
folks can afford them. The same thing was true of home computers when
they had 2k RAM, mass storage was audio cassettes, and your monitor
would also pick up the six o'clock news; look where they've come in the
past 25 years.

Why not a simple interface that slides into the enlarger like the
negative carrier and transmits the image to the existing optics?

Something you could hook a laptop to via USB or firewire,...Then you
could use existing light sensitive materials to create, prints/negatives
or whatever.

I just printed a reversed color image in PS onto heavy weight matte
surface paper. Then went down to my enlarger and printed the color
positive image from my paper negative/ actually better than I thought it
would be.

I wonder; would placing clear C41 film over the image make
filtration easier?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:

WOW, you had a lot bottled up didn't you :-) I am going save that
and reread it.

It helps to type fast...

None of this requires breakthroughs, other than finding a way to make
and sell enough units to start bringing the price down to where ordinary
folks can afford them. The same thing was true of home computers when
they had 2k RAM, mass storage was audio cassettes, and your monitor
would also pick up the six o'clock news; look where they've come in the
past 25 years.


Why not a simple interface that slides into the enlarger like the
negative carrier and transmits the image to the existing optics?

Mainly because it *will* require a breakthrough to make an LCD
transmission display with the resolution not to show the "pattern" that
appears in the deVere demo prints in larger sizes -- whatever resolution
display you can make, when you enlarge in 10x, it'll show, just like
grain does -- and unlike grain, which is random or stochastically
distributed, the matrix of the LCD will give an obtrusive gridded
appearance, even if there aren't any gaps between elements (which there
needn't be with TFT display technology). Add to that the fact that a
TFT LCD that will plug into a SVGA/XGA output and that can take the
light flux for projection (the liquid crystals tend to bleach in very
strong light, which makes them transparent) costs more than a color
laser printer or comparable device, and the printer can maintain 300 or
600 ppi for as long as you have the megapixels to back it up (BTW, 300
ppi on an 8.5 x 11 inch page is about 1.5 megapixels -- 600 ppi is four
times that, or 6 MP, still not a huge file), up to the limits of the
paper size it's built to handle.

Something you could hook a laptop to via USB or firewire,...Then you
could use existing light sensitive materials to create, prints/negatives
or whatever.

A parallel port is plenty fast for output; the printer drivers in the
computer are often the limiting factor when printing a stored graphic
like an image, and they're not much of a limit; figure on spending a lot
more time actually writing the image to the paper than you do
downloading it into the printer, and while you're at it, make sure the
laser unit has enough memory to store a 16 bits/channel image at full
size and resolution -- though that's less of an issue than it would have
been even five years ago, because memory is so cheap now. The 128 MB
that goes into most modern video cards intended for gaming is plenty,
and costs about $50 even in dual-port hyperfast form.

I just printed a reversed color image in PS onto heavy weight matte
surface paper. Then went down to my enlarger and printed the color
positive image from my paper negative/ actually better than I thought it
would be.

I wonder; would placing clear C41 film over the image make
filtration easier?

Contact printing in color? Why not print the digital negative on OHP
transparency, then? And project through an unexposed but developed C-41
leader -- but then you run into a snag; the C-41 mask is less dense in
image areas, because it's formed from the dye couplers (according to Ron
Mowrey, anyway); if you have constant mask density you'll see a blue
tint that increases with density; that is, if you have a fully saturated
red or green in the original scene, it will print too blue -- and blues
will look weak by the time you find a filter setting that makes the
other colors look okay.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.