If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
The scanner thread pinged my imagination. Didn't come up with a response
but reminded me... 8x10 enlarger light source - what about an intense tube light moved by a scanner (stepper) motor close to the negative? It would make a low profile head, be cool (temp), is programmable (motion rate), and just fill my weeks with an excuse not to shoot! Gosh, what else? Oh, I got a ping response (60000ms) and it said, "Ya broke yer metronome, so how about putting that VAX 11/730 to use in there? It's got a bad disc that has just about the right tick! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
On 11/11/2008 5:18 PM John J spake thus:
The scanner thread pinged my imagination. Didn't come up with a response but reminded me... 8x10 enlarger light source - what about an intense tube light moved by a scanner (stepper) motor close to the negative? It would make a low profile head, be cool (temp), is programmable (motion rate), and just fill my weeks with an excuse not to shoot! Lemme see if I understand this: this would be a light source that would be "scanned" across the negative (I assume in just one axis, not an x/y scan) while the exposure is being made? So the stepper would have to complete its run in the time of the exposure? Hmmmmm ... verrrrry eenteresting. -- Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/11/2008 5:18 PM John J spake thus: The scanner thread pinged my imagination. Didn't come up with a response but reminded me... 8x10 enlarger light source - what about an intense tube light moved by a scanner (stepper) motor close to the negative? It would make a low profile head, be cool (temp), is programmable (motion rate), and just fill my weeks with an excuse not to shoot! Lemme see if I understand this: this would be a light source that would be "scanned" across the negative (I assume in just one axis, not an x/y scan) while the exposure is being made? So the stepper would have to complete its run in the time of the exposure? Hmmmmm ... verrrrry eenteresting. If the idea came to my mind, then it is certain that someone smarter has already considered, then discarded it. But I'll sleep on it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
John J wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote: On 11/11/2008 5:18 PM John J spake thus: The scanner thread pinged my imagination. Didn't come up with a response but reminded me... 8x10 enlarger light source - what about an intense tube light moved by a scanner (stepper) motor close to the negative? It would make a low profile head, be cool (temp), is programmable (motion rate), and just fill my weeks with an excuse not to shoot! Lemme see if I understand this: this would be a light source that would be "scanned" across the negative (I assume in just one axis, not an x/y scan) while the exposure is being made? So the stepper would have to complete its run in the time of the exposure? Hmmmmm ... verrrrry eenteresting. If the idea came to my mind, then it is certain that someone smarter has already considered, then discarded it. But I'll sleep on it. It has been done in various ways for a very long time. In 1927 or thereabouts, my grandfather made one of the first television systems at Bell Labs. They did not have image orthocon tubes, or even iconoscopes in those days. He invented a way to make sensitive photocell tubes. They placed these around the studio (which was illuminated with subdued lighting. They had a carbon arc light that went through a spinning Nipkow disk (a disk with a spiral of holes in it) and an optical system so the beam of light scanned the scene and the photocells picked up the light. This actually worked, and was a lot cooler than if the entire scene were illuminated to the level the arc light put out. This link shows a little of how it worked, but important details seem to be missing: http://www.earlytelevision.org/bell_labs.html This link shows my grandfather holding one of the photocells he made: http://movingimage.us/site/calendar/...7/1987_dec.pdf This one is a bit easier to read: http://www.corp.att.com/history/television/ives.html http://www.corp.att.com/history/tele...witworked.html Since they did not have CRTs yet that would show to a crowd, they made a monitor that was a huge neon sign tube that went back and forth to make up the image area, with lots of electrodes that could control the brightness of each picture element. There was a big synchronous motor (had to be synchronized with that in the "camera") to select which picture element would be illuminated. We have come a long way in less than 100 years. Later, devices called flying spot scanners were made, that generally used a CRT as the light source. But when my grandfather started out, no one had put a phosphor at the front of a crt before, and they generally deflected the beam only along one axis. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 22:35:01 up 4:18, 4 users, load average: 5.18, 4.41, 4.18 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
In 1927 or thereabouts, my grandfather made one of the first television systems at Bell Labs. They did not have image orthocon tubes, or even iconoscopes in those days. He invented a way to make sensitive photocell tubes. They placed these around the studio (which was illuminated with subdued lighting. They had a carbon arc light that went through a spinning Nipkow disk (a disk with a spiral of holes in it) and an optical system so the beam of light scanned the scene and the photocells picked up the light. This actually worked, and was a lot cooler than if the entire scene were illuminated to the level the arc light put out. And I'll bet was awesome to be there! That's a great example of inventive thinking. [.. snip more great stuff ..] Later, devices called flying spot scanners were made, that generally used a CRT as the light source. But when my grandfather started out, no one had put a phosphor at the front of a crt before, and they generally deflected the beam only along one axis. My small story: My Uncle, Domina Jalbert worked for fifty years on a wind lift sail/kite problem - to make one effective without any rigid stays. At 60-something years old it came to him all at once. He went into his shop, sewed up a 6' prototype, took it outside and said it nearly lifted him off his feet. "I knew I had it then". It is known as the Jalbert Parafoil - the first parasail. Patented 1964. Here it to our inventive ancestors! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
"John J" wrote in message m... The scanner thread pinged my imagination. Didn't come up with a response but reminded me... 8x10 enlarger light source - what about an intense tube light moved by a scanner (stepper) motor close to the negative? It would make a low profile head, be cool (temp), is programmable (motion rate), and just fill my weeks with an excuse not to shoot! It would probably work, but IMHO, you've seriously violated the KISS rule. In order to get a low profile head and cool temp, you have introduced moving parts (possible vibration in the enlarger head) and the heat of the motor. But you just keep thinking outside the box-- after all, how many light bulbs didn't work before Edison found one that worked? How about this idea: use a grid of LED's to light up the whole negative. By varying the intensity of some of the LED's, you could dodge or burn-in portions of the negative. With computer control (perhaps a VAX 11/730?), the manipulation would be repeatable. By using a combination of different color LED's, you could control the contrast of a print, making a portion higher in contrast and another portion lower. You could do the same thing with a color print and adjust the color balance of different parts of the print. (BTW, if you manage to market this idea, I want a cut!) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
Ken Hart1 wrote:
"John J" wrote in message m... The scanner thread pinged my imagination. Didn't come up with a response but reminded me... 8x10 enlarger light source - what about an intense tube light moved by a scanner (stepper) motor close to the negative? It would make a low profile head, be cool (temp), is programmable (motion rate), and just fill my weeks with an excuse not to shoot! It would probably work, but IMHO, you've seriously violated the KISS rule. In order to get a low profile head and cool temp, you have introduced moving parts (possible vibration in the enlarger head) and the heat of the motor. Heat from the light would not be a problem, and suspending the unit a fraction of an inch above the physical head (from top of column) with only a compliant bellows might work. (This is a Saltzman enlarger - a 1,000 pound monster.) But I certainly understand KISS and appreciate the comment. I'm simply in a bit of despair finding a head for the 10x10, not using it and falling into strange ideas. How about this idea: use a grid of LED's to light up the whole negative. By varying the intensity of some of the LED's, you could dodge or burn-in portions of the negative. Well, LEDs have been suggested, and someone out there posted some great information regarding which type LED to use for polycontrast papers. I'll have to surf it out and thank the person. Dodging-burning - to break the KISS rule - I had an early IBM Thinkpad that had a removable screen that one could lay on a transparency projector. PING! Idea - use it over a negative with an image of the negative masked (good old Photoshop 3.0). Never did it. Wasn't KISS. With computer control (perhaps a VAX 11/730?), the manipulation would be repeatable. The VAX 11/730 was the tiny VAX of its time - about the size of a compact top-loading washing machine. A bit of an adventure for the time (about 1986) because it had all the system instructions in firmware - an idea that stopped right there 'cause, well I guess faster everything else came along. Ancient history. WOW - I've rambled! I should be printing instead. OK, if I miraculously come up with something on the scanning light source, I'll cut you in on the NET. John |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
John J wrote:
But I certainly understand KISS and appreciate the comment. I'm simply in a bit of despair finding a head for the 10x10, not using it and falling into strange ideas. If money is no object, consider: http://www.aristogrid.com/cold_light_chart.htm They might well make you one. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 21:35:01 up 6:43, 4 users, load average: 4.60, 4.38, 4.30 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
If money is no object, The way the economy is going money will be less than an object - it will become unobtanium! My retirement supplement lost 70% this year. Ya think I should just spend the money now because it will be worthless next year? Serious question! consider: http://www.aristogrid.com/cold_light_chart.htm They might well make you one. They have a couple that work out of the box and they are less expensive than the refurbished Durst (aka: whacky electrics) and others on that auction site. I'm reading the docs right now. Pretty good information. But this chart is soooo confusing to my simple brain: http://www.digoliardi.net/spectra.gif Looks like an overlay chart of the stock market, level of banker freak-out and my boss' tri-polar moods. One thing that I did not understand was a caution that the head can overheat and illumination drops. So that means the termostat on the heating element either is one-way or cooling is not properly managed. Correct? Thanks for the pointer, Jean-David. You have always been very helpful. John |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid Darkroom Idea
Ken Hart1 wrote:
But you just keep thinking outside the box-- after all, how many light bulbs didn't work before Edison found one that worked? At least one worked before Edison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 09:00:01 up 18:08, 4 users, load average: 4.29, 4.27, 4.23 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | William Graham | In The Darkroom | 105 | November 27th 04 05:42 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | William Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 24 | November 16th 04 11:08 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | Grainne Gillespie | Digital Photography | 0 | November 14th 04 01:58 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | David Napierkowski | Digital Photography | 1 | November 12th 04 06:05 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | David Napierkowski | Digital Photography | 0 | November 11th 04 04:30 PM |