kodaky

oh, wow!

nice setup, mac gyver!

: )

have you tried a thin piece of glass instead of the ring?
and i don't understand why you don't cut the film in pieces; i guess it would make thinks easier (and be better for the film) ?

anyways, the system seems to work pretty ok!

Also, if you want to get the white, black points and colour just right, you can "scan" a piece of unexposed film and use that to set the levels for further scans. This helps sort out how "white" your lamp light through paper really is, so you can adjust for that, as well.

Most colour film has an orange filter layer on it that you have to account for if you want a neutral image you can play with.

Too bad you don;t have a magnifying eyepiece, too, so you can get the plane of the negative as close to perfect focus as you can. Because of how depth-of-field works you have to be more precise at macros distances than at near-hyper-focal distances. This depends on the lens used to capture the image, of course, but scanning at 1 metre or so might allow you to be a little less precise with focus.

I know it isn't your intention to be perfect, of course. I'm just intrigued by the process and can't help thinking about the problems that need to be solved.

*** tests update ***
using incandescent lamp, my best results were achieved making the white balance set without the film, i.e., balancing on the temperature of the light source, not considering the film orange filter.