slide projectors

[LCHIEN]

Probably there's a few of you around who took a lot of 35mm slides when you were younger, like me. I have probably thousands and I have my father's as well so it covers my family going back 60 years.

A year or so again there was a big deal about the last roll of Kodachrome being processed... oh, I knew Kodachrome well.

Anyway, I haven't viewed my slides in a while. the big problem was that both my Carousel and my Dad's carousel projectors have failed, the advance mechanism going bad. THis is a common problem for older carousel projectors because of a plastic link in the advance mechanism, it rots after 20+ years.

I once got a kit to fix it and I started in on the unit and it was horribly complex i put it off and have since lost the kit somewhere in the house. The kit was cheap but I've since read you have to set aside a day and have the patience of a god to do it as well as put ups with some bodily damage.

I recently got a yen to look at slides again and looked into used carousel projectors.

I knew that there was a parts problem and didn't know how to trust a used projector knowing that it could soon fail with the same problems.

Turns out that they fixed the materials problem with models released after about 1981. THis includes the Carousel 4000 series and 5000 series and Ektagraphic III models which are all good to go if you buy one.

Older models Carousel 5xx, 6xx 7xx and 8xx and earlier Ektagraphic models were subject to failure unless rebuilt. There's lots of these for sale and some sellers admit they won't advance, but the others all say the unit is untested as is, or they claim they turned it on and it worked (probably means the light and fan came on).

The Ektagraphic models were sold for professional heavy duty use and the Carousels for home use.

I was able to buy a used Ektagraphic III for $45 including shipping and a hard case with a synchronizing cassette unit. Autofocus, zoom lens, remote, manuals, etc.

Tonite I looked at some 20-year old slides... what fun. My old stack loader fits, so later I'll look at ones that aren't in trays but in slide boxes.

Except for that plastic link the Kodak projectors are largely very functional, well built and last forever. Models in the 1970s cost a few hundred dollars and the unit I got was around $800 in the 90's. I since ordered a couple of spare bulbs and a $10 zoom lens that will let me stack it over my video projector to view on my 70" side screen. (I'll have to build the stacking unit as a woodshop project, maybe with some fan sound baffling for both units...)

Just passing along the results of my research if any of you are interested.

[BobSch]

I've got a lot of slides that I still look at occasionally, including some half-frame slides my dad took before I was even a gleam in his eye. I've scanned a few and should probably finish that up... someday.

[phrog]

Those were the good ol' days of photography. I had both a Canon F-1 and a Nikon Photomic FTN. The cameras built in the 70's and early 80's had metal gears instead of plastic. They were heavier but sturdier. The lenses were glass and metal instead of plastic and plastic. Unfortunately, those days are gone. I wish there were a thin digital sensor that could be put in those cameras to take the place of film so the cameras of those days could be used today without the film. But time marches on. I often look at my old 35 slides (both Kodachrome and Ektachrome) and wonder if we have progressed or regressed.

[cabinetman]

Just passing along the results of my research if any of you are interested.

I'm interested.

.

[LCHIEN]

Those were the good ol' days of photography. I had both a Canon F-1 and a Nikon Photomic FTN. The cameras built in the 70's and early 80's had metal gears instead of plastic. They were heavier but sturdier. The lenses were glass and metal instead of plastic and plastic. Unfortunately, those days are gone. I wish there were a thin digital sensor that could be put in those cameras to take the place of film so the cameras of those days could be used today without the film. But time marches on. I often look at my old 35 slides (both Kodachrome and Ektachrome) and wonder if we have progressed or regressed.

When I got a job and could afford nice photo equipment everyone I knew had Canon or Nikon stuff like the F-1 and the FtN you mentioned. At that time Olympus was hitting the scene with their OM SLR system which was a fresh start and not burdened with being backwards compatible with years of existing models, accessories and lenses like Canon and Nikon, Pentax and Minolta didn't have as much history but they followed the same basic designs.

The Olympus OM system was the brain child of Y Maitani, the Olympus head designer and freshened everything. It was lighter and quieter than the others. It was smaller and since i was not a large-framed person my hands fit the camera better. All the lenses had a smarter interface and were smaller and more compact. It was all very well engineered (and brilliantly promoted, probably). I eventually had an OM-1 a second OM-1, and OM-4 and later my dad's OM-2 as well as a slew of lenses and photomacro equipment which I used for many years.

I had my own darkroom and a Durst autofocus enlarger with all the stuff to do B&W prints up to 11x14, I also processed some color slide films but gave that up quickly since it was very process sensitive, not something you do for creative reasons (very rote with lots of possibilites to screw up) and the available emulsions and processes never really rivalled Kodachrome for color saturation and brilliance.

As for the magic screen to put in the 35mm cameras to make them digital, it'll never happen. Technically its possible but the market is too small and the camera makers will make a lot less money than selling you a new camera and system.

Its also full of compromises. A 35mm frame sized sensor would be very quiet and noise-free, probably giving great photo performance but would also be prohibitively expensive. Putting a CCD sensor of the size used in digital cameras would give reasonable quality images but using a fraction of the area would make your normal lenses into telephotos and you long teles into super teles. (thats why normal zooms for digital SLRs are like 15-55mm) All the wide aperature, corner to corner sharpness of your expensive 35mm system lens will be wasted. And carrying around a lot of size and weight for no reason.

Olympus tried selling Digital SLRs that had an adapter to use their 35mm OM-system lenses but it has not been real popular.

I'd love to have a full digital system but with the $1000 and up bodies going obsolete in a matter of 2-3 years I'm reluctant to buy in on any of them now.

[phrog]

When I got a job and could afford nice photo equipment everyone I knew had Canon or Nikon stuff like the F-1 and the FtN you mentioned. At that time Olympus was hitting the scene with their OM SLR system which was a fresh start and not burdened with being backwards compatible with years of existing models, accessories and lenses like Canon and Nikon, Pentax and Minolta didn't have as much history but they followed the same basic designs.

The Olympus OM system was the brain child of Y Maitani, the Olympus head designer and freshened everything. It was lighter and quieter than the others. It was smaller and since i was not a large-framed person my hands fit the camera better. All the lenses had a smarter interface and were smaller and more compact. It was all very well engineered (and brilliantly promoted, probably). I eventually had an OM-1 a second OM-1, and OM-4 and later my dad's OM-2 as well as a slew of lenses and photomacro equipment which I used for many years.

I've also used the OM System and was quite impressed but already had so many Nikon (inherited) and Canon lenses (bought these) that I didn't want to invest in a third system. Otherwise, having small hands also, I would have looked more deeply into the Olympus system.

I had my own darkroom and a Durst autofocus enlarger with all the stuff to do B&W prints up to 11x14, I also processed some color slide films but gave that up quickly since it was very process sensitive, not something you do for creative reasons (very rote with lots of possibilites to screw up) and the available emulsions and processes never really rivalled Kodachrome for color saturation and brilliance.

I, too, had my own darkroom including a Durst enlarger. (Mine was manual focus) My favorite subjects in college were physics and chemistry - photography and darkroom work brought them together. Boy do I miss those days.

As for the magic screen to put in the 35mm cameras to make them digital, it'll never happen. Technically its possible but the market is too small and the camera makers will make a lot less money than selling you a new camera and system.

Its also full of compromises. A 35mm frame sized sensor would be very quiet and noise-free, probably giving great photo performance but would also be prohibitively expensive. Putting a CCD sensor of the size used in digital cameras would give reasonable quality images but using a fraction of the area would make your normal lenses into telephotos and you long teles into super teles. (thats why normal zooms for digital SLRs are like 15-55mm) All the wide aperature, corner to corner sharpness of your expensive 35mm system lens will be wasted. And carrying around a lot of size and weight for no reason.

Olympus tried selling Digital SLRs that had an adapter to use their 35mm OM-system lenses but it has not been real popular.

I remember that Canon or Nikon (maybe both) had an interchangeable back that allowed the use of Polaroid film for instant gratification. That is why I thought about a "digital back."

I'd love to have a full digital system but with the $1000 and up bodies going obsolete in a matter of 2-3 years I'm reluctant to buy in on any of them now.

Same here, unfortunately.

[LCHIEN]

more info on purchasing a used Kodak carousel-type projector. At least one said they were interested.

As I said before, the Kodak 4000- and 5000 series Carousels and the Ektagraphic III are the ones with the solid mechanics now even though made from 1981 to 2004.

The 4000, 4200, 4400, 4600, 5200 and 5600 are progressively better units in that order.THe 4000 is bare bones, the 4200 4400 and 4600 add remote, remote focus, and autofocus capabilities. The 5200 and 5600 I think add some more like timer and built-in screen.

The Ektagraphic III comes in E, A, AMT and ATS variants. Also some that start with B for dual voltage operation (110/220) - rare.
The E is plain, the A adds autofocus, the AMT adds a timer and the ATS adds the timer and a built in screen.

The Ektagraphic is the pro line - heavier duty and tighter tolerances for slide positioning and many people don't know about it so they were more expensive originally but often go for less than the Carousels on the used markets. The EKtagraphic series also uses different bulbs ( and the Carousels 4000-5000 use different bulbs than the older 700s and 800s) and has a louder fan (much to my chagrin). I noticed a lot of universities and businesses were clearing out Ektagraphics with long lenses probably used in larger lecture halls and auditoriums.
The most common lens is the 100mm-150mm (4" to 6") zoom (great for most home situations) and the Ektagraphics usually have a flat field lens (FF, best for glass slide mounts) and the Carousels come with Curved field lenses (C, best for cardboard mounted slides). You may not notice the difference in sharpness around the edges if you use the FF or C type lens with the wrong slide type. But if you have an old carousel of almost any vintage its lens will probably fit the newer projectors, as will most accessories (stack loaders, trays, remotes, stands)

eBay will have multiples of these on any given day.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kodak.com%2Feknec%2Fdocuments%2Fa6%2F0900688a807890a6%2Fhistory.pdf

[cabinetman]

I still have a good working Airequipt projector with a manual changer. It takes a stacked rack with framed slides.

.

[Charlie R]

Used to see advertisements for converting slides to digital files. My HP flat bed scanner has that ability. If you have them converted you won't have to worry about the projector mechanics and bulb failure or film fading or getting brittle.

[cabinetman]

Used to see advertisements for converting slides to digital files. My HP flat bed scanner has that ability. If you have them converted you won't have to worry about the projector mechanics and bulb failure or film fading or getting brittle.

+1. There are many sites for hardware/software for converting film/slides to JPEG.

.

[LCHIEN]

I've got a specialty 35mm and negative scanner but its slow and labor intensive. THat's bad because I have between me and my father's collections close to 40 boxes containing 600-750 slide per box, I'd estimate 30,000 slides.

To even sort out which ones I want to scan, I need the projector. I'm sure I could whittle the ones I want to scan down to much smaller set. But I'd still end up with a lot of slides.

When I do scan them I want to do them justice. I spent years with the highest quality photo equipment, and used the highest quality film and Kodak processing laboratories to end up with high quality photographs.

In order to make much headway I'd have to get a high quality slide scanner with an autofeeder which start around $4 grand.

Thanks for the point about quality scanning which I neglected to mention, MPC (next post).

[phrog]

Used to see advertisements for converting slides to digital files. My HP flat bed scanner has that ability. If you have them converted you won't have to worry about the projector mechanics and bulb failure or film fading or getting brittle.

How well does that work? I've thought about buying a specialized slide scanner that connects to the computer via USB but wondered if the quality of the scanned image was any good.

[mpc]

There are quite a few low priced slide scanners out there - one to two hundred bucks. Generally they are poor performers. They're okay for folks that want to scan a few slides to get email-able versions... but would be disappointing for folks looking to permanently archive good photographs.

There are a couple really good slide scanners out there but they do cost a bit. Last time I looked a Nikon unit was one of the few real pro-quality scanners out there for $4000. Such scanners use very high resolution scanning and have a wide color range. Many "consumer" grade scanners have limited color capability (like most LCD display panels too) and poor dynamic range - i.e. they can't really capture faint differences in brightness... so sky shots often washout. Or shadow details mush into a black void.

Certain Epson flatbed scanners include plastic frames to hold negatives and slides - many different sized negatives too. These carriers hold 8 or more slides (depending on scanner model) and the scan driver software recognizes the various carriers and automatically separates the individual images. The scanned results I've seen from these scanners is pretty darn good. Maybe not to the level of that $4K Nikon unit but quite a bit better than most consumer units I've seen. You still have to manually load the slides into the carriers... but the process goes fairly quickly and is easy to do while watching TV or whatever. Filenames auto-increment so you don't have to name each slide as it gets scanned; just scan each carousel to a separate subdirectory (folder) on your computer and sort them later. The Epson units I've personally seen and liked were from the "Perfection" series and were fairly large/bulky looking jobs - pretty thick/tall units compared to most scanners today that want to look like Ultrabook laptops.

mpc

[phrog]

Thanks Loring, Charlie R, and mpc for all the info. I'm sure there are many of us who can use these comments.