Any advantage to scanning emulsion side of slides?

[Doc]

When scanning slides, I wonder if there could be any advantage to scanning
the emulsion side of the slides and then reversing the image?

[c***@go.com]

From my experience (which is reasonable, if not professional!) with

film scanners up to 4000 dpi, nothing that I could spot. But it's
possible it *could* make a small difference depending on the optics and
light path. The difficulty will be detecting whether it really is
different for that reason, or whether it has just focused slightly
better/worse..

Why not try it on your scanner and see for yourself?

[RSD99]

Yes ... why would you want to scan **through** the base?

Post by Doc
When scanning slides, I wonder if there could be any advantage to scanning
the emulsion side of the slides and then reversing the image?

[Doc]

Post by RSD99
Yes ... why would you want to scan **through** the base?

That's why I made the inquiry. All the "here's how to scan slides" sites
I've seen direct you to slide the non-emulsion side to give you the same
perspective as the projected image, but after thinking about it, I wondered
if that could degrade the image to some small degree.

[grol]

Post by Doc

Post by RSD99
Yes ... why would you want to scan **through** the base?

That's why I made the inquiry. All the "here's how to scan slides" sites
I've seen direct you to slide the non-emulsion side to give you the same
perspective as the projected image, but after thinking about it, I wondered
if that could degrade the image to some small degree.

Surely because they are transparencies, the light projected through them should
be the same either side, unless the coating on one side reflects the light. ??

[J. A. Mc.]

Post by grol

Post by Doc

Post by RSD99
Yes ... why would you want to scan **through** the base?

That's why I made the inquiry. All the "here's how to scan slides" sites
I've seen direct you to slide the non-emulsion side to give you the same
perspective as the projected image, but after thinking about it, I wondered
if that could degrade the image to some small degree.

Surely because they are transparencies, the light projected through them should
be the same either side, unless the coating on one side reflects the light. ??

Yes, it can. but ... think this way ... In the enlarger and projector the
light source is on the coated (non-emulsion) side and the emulsion is to the
lens' rear port. You're doing the same thing by placing the emulsion closest
to the glass, as most scanners today have a lens system to 'read' the item
just above the glass.

FWIW, I keep the slide in a Wess 'Duplicator' mount to keep anything from
touching the actual film. This is a special mount that shows the entire
exposed area, unlike standard plastic or cardboard mounts.

[c***@go.com]

Can you show any examples? Back when I was a very keen film-scanner
(about 2 years back, don't do all that much now..) this question came
up quite a few times on the filmscanner lists I was on, but no-one
could show any convincing evidence either way. I'm genuinely
interested..

(sorry if double-posted..)

[Graham Smith]

Post by c***@go.com
Can you show any examples? Back when I was a very keen film-scanner
(about 2 years back, don't do all that much now..) this question came
up quite a few times on the filmscanner lists I was on, but no-one
could show any convincing evidence either way. I'm genuinely
interested..

My hunch and aging knowledge of physics tell me that it would make no
discernable difference whatsoever. I've got a micrometer somewhere and
could measure the thickness of a transparency, but there's no point,
quite frankly. The depth of field of your typical scanner is >> the
thickness of the film.

[RSD99]

It's not about "depth of field" ... it's about putting the crap,
aberrations, dirt, and distortion of the *film base* between the scanner
and the image.

It was never designed to be used that way. The film base is simply a
substrate to support the emulsion, and is/was never "controlled" as part of
the optical chain.

[c***@go.com]

Yep, and there's also the issue of the light path and optics - the
light paths in flatbed/film/drum scanners can be quite different to
that of a projector (and of the taking lens for that matter). Just
like in enlargers, some clearly use more/less parallel/diffuse light
sources than others, some *do* have extremely limited depth of field
(eg nikon LED scanners). So to dismiss the idea that turning the film
around will have no visible effect may be a bit rash.

To start another argument ((O;) it's a bit like saying that an
optically flat UV filter will have no effect on the sharpness of your
images. In fact, if you start looking at it very closely and looking
at the light path and how it is affected by that (admittedly small, but
*extra* refraction), you will see it may not be quite true..

But to contradict myself (grin) - like I said above, I have not
actually seen direct evidence of a difference, and it would be pretty
hard to prove that it wasn't just a slight difference in focus.