film/slide scanner(s)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Sorry, this is OT really, but I thought there might be those here who
know.

For some time, I've been looking for one that does 126-format film and
slides; I've been surprised that so few do, as it was a very popular
format ("Instamatic") in the 1960s and '70s. (Ones that do 135 format -
"35 mm" - cut off the top and bottom.)

Anyway. There is what seems to be one - google for "22MP film scanner"
and you'll find it. 7dayshop in the UK are selling it for £60; Amazon
(UK and US) are selling one from "jumbl" that appears to be the same
unit.

It seems to basically be a small camera and light box; reviews vary
widely, but on the whole it seems that the conclusion is that it's fair,
though not too good at highlights and shadows. Whatever, I'm considering
it.

What virtually nobody seems to say, though, is: are the film sizes and
the exposure controls done in software (image processing) or hardware
(lenses, variable lighting)?

It does 135 ("35mm"), 126KPK ("instamatic"), 110 ("pocket instamatic"),
and even Super 8 (though it doesn't create movies).

It's basically a 14MP sensor (the 22MP is just the 14 interpolated).

What I want to know, though, is: since 110 film is so much smaller than
the first two sizes (it uses 16mm wide film; 135 images are 24×36mm, and
126 ones are 28×28), but apparently it produces images of a similar size
in MP, does it actually have different lenses that come in for 110
format, or does it just scale up by interpolation? Even more so for 8mm:
apparently it produces 6MP images from that size film, but since 8mm
images are a lot less than 6/14 the size of 135 ones, the same question
applies.

And apparently there is variable exposure and colour control - but,
again, I'm not seeing any indication of whether that's done by (e. g.)
genuinely altering the light source or sensor parameters, or just by
processing the images (which I can do just as easily - probably more
easily - afterwards on the computer).

Yes, I have tried asking the sellers (I started by asking what
resolution, optical, for the various formats). When the first reply I
got was something like "this unit does not offer optical resolution", I
hope you can see why I'm asking here instead ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

no good deed goes unpunished. This is an iron-clad rule in Netiquette.

[Paul in Houston TX]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Sorry, this is OT really, but I thought there might be those here who know.
>
> For some time, I've been looking for one that does 126-format film and
> slides;

You probably have already posted in the photo groups, but if not
you might want to post at least in:
alt.photography

There are people there that really know their stuff.

[Big_Al]

I bought one film scanner, Minolta DiMage Scan Dual 3. It is a 35mm scanner. I had a ton of these slide / print
negatives. I do have a few 2x2 print negs that I still want to do but the Minolta did the 1000 slides I have and it
took over a year to do them, and a relatively good job. The unit was about $250 US. So it may be a more feature rich
item. You put the negatives in a slide tray that took a strip of 6 pictures. You could batch scan or individual scan
by picking pic #x. I'm not sure who did the adjustments, there was a driver of course and then software. When I was
taking the scan it was just like any flatbed scanner I've used. You had adjustments to the scan but I'm not sure who
was doing it, just like you. The unit did take a few seconds doing a focus, so there was that mechanical adjustment.

I never did get "quality" scans. The films were very degraded over years, not from my mistreatment, but just age. I
noticed the trend that some film types (I used mostly all Kodak) faded more than other film types, Ektachrome,
Kodachrome etc. And the amount of grain was worse than I thought it would be. May have been the scanner but they
scanned at 2000+ x 3000+ resolution. Still I wound up getting the most / best I could out of the scanner and then
running each through Photoshop to finish them off. My daughter's day job is graphics editing and she spent lots of
time getting mom and dad up to speed on photoshop. My wife and I took turns doing folders of scans. But that didn't
work well as her monitor was not the same as mine in setup and I stopped her and did it all on mine. I think I had
better color quality in the monitor.

I know this isn't an answer, and I agree that a photo newsgroup may/will give you better answers.

[Art Todesco]

Here's what I did. I had probably 2000 or so 35mm family slides from
1970 up until digital. My wife had one carousel done "professionally"
and the results were not good. They redid them and they were better but
not really that good. So I took my old Sawyers projector and started
playing with it. I removed the lens and put a block of wood to mount a
digital camera (Canon SD700). I put a piece of white translucent plastic
behind the slide. I used plastic from a lens cover which was made for
white balancing through the cover. I did dim the light a bit using a
Variac, but not too much as the light starts to turn really orange. The
camera was white balanced just shooting the white plastic with no slide
in place. The slides has to be turned in the carousel in order to get
the right orientation. The results were much better than expected.
Here's link to a few pics of the modified projector:
https://plus.google.com/photos/110114360581351833631/albums/6133127047629323473?banner=pwa
I did sacrifice the projector, but I'd probably never use it again for
projecting slides anyway. If you'd like to be bored silly, check out
this link:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/94609058@N00/sets/?&page=2
and scroll down to where the album names are "slides-something"
I was able to do a little centering and cropping, but with so many
slide, that didn't really happen too much. BTW, the ones that were done
"professionally" have now been redone with my kludge. The purchased disk
is somewhere, but I don't know where and probably should be in the
garbage. My wife wants to through out all the slides, but I will never
throw out original source media ... that's a job for my kids to do when
they are cleaning out our estate.

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-01 7:25 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Sorry, this is OT really, but I thought there might be those here who know.
>
> For some time, I've been looking for one that does 126-format film and
> slides; I've been surprised that so few do, as it was a very popular
> format ("Instamatic") in the 1960s and '70s. (Ones that do 135 format -

> "35 mm" - cut off the top and bottom.) [Etc]

I've read the other posts, here's my experience:

I had a dedicated 35mm scanner, slow, limited output options. Then a
Canon 880F faster, handled all common formats, did a very good job with
faded and other problem slides/film..

Now I have a Canon 9000F. Like 8800F, a great machine, handles
everything up to 120 format with included masks. You can make additional
masks for odd film sizes. The back-light for the film scan in the lid is
80mm (3-1/8th") wide, 275mm 910-3/4") long, effective scan size is a
couple of mm narrower/shorter. I've scanned 4x5 negs, adjusted crop by
sliding the neg around. Much faster than the Canon 8800F, but still not
as fast as professional scanners.

However, if you have thousands of negs/slides to scan, it will be worth
considering the trade-off between time and dollars. Professional
scanners and services are expensive, but as you get older your time
becomes more valuable.

HTH

--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

[Big_Al]

Not bad resolution. Cute idea. I have the same slide projector too.

[OldGuy]

I don't have any 126 or remember much about 126.

I do have a Wolverine "F2D Super Plus" scanner that works well with
135.
I says it does 126KPK (Kodak Pocket)
Would that work for you?
It was around $100.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Paul]

OldGuy wrote:
> I don't have any 126 or remember much about 126.
>
> I do have a Wolverine "F2D Super Plus" scanner that works well with 135.
> I says it does 126KPK (Kodak Pocket)
> Would that work for you?
> It was around $100.

Does it pull detail out of the pictures ?

Having looked at Amazon and seen how many
different brands are attempting to sell gadgets
like that, the next question is:

Are there any internal lens artifacts,
such as "wide angle lens effect" ?

I can understand a flatbed with a linear
array doing a good job of scanning, but I
just can't understand how you can take a
2D CMOS array (which doesn't move), slap
a plastic lens in front of it ($100 target price),
and get an image that isn't distorted in the
corners.

One reviewer said his scanner of that type,
it didn't pull a lot of detail from the photo.
Nice scanners have a D of around 4.2, and
you can see details in shadows. I doubt the
CMOS sensor is good for more than 3 or so
(log scale). I think my old CCD scanner,
it was only good for 3.2 or so, so can't
even come close to a proper slide scanner.

I've run one negative on my flatbed scanner,
and to my surprise the color came out good
(convert negative to positive color) - but
the pixelation and noise is just terrible. But
that's an old scanner too, and only 1200DPI.
That scanner has both transmission and reflection
CCFL lights on it, and the top light runs when
you do slides. The bottom light runs when
scanning paper. After seeing what kind of a job
it did on my negative, I haven't scanned any more
film with it. For that scanner, you tell it the
film type, and the scanning plugin fixes the colors.

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mfi48v$kqu$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul in Houston TX

I suspect they know their stuff to a level that would be above my head.
126-format isn't one of the large-format ones that used roll film of a
large size: those are 120 and similar. 126, or to give it its commoner
name "Instamatic", was the commonest format for cheap cameras from about
the late sixties to the mid-seventies - a drop-in cartridge. (OK, it had
rolled film inside, but you know what I mean.) And 110 was the one that
came in in (I think) the late seventies, that still used a drop-in
cartridge, but for smaller "pocket" cameras (sort of flat ones).

I was seeking people with computer knowledge (I thought here would be a
good place to look), who'd know for this particular model of scanner
(the one you find if you google 22MP slide scanner)

o uses different lenses for the different slide/film sizes, or just uses
electronic zooming

o genuinely offers exposure control (by changing light levels/colour,
shutter times, or similar), or just tweaks the images afterwards to
pretend to do so.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A kind of steely kindness - Carol-Ann Duffy on U. A. Fanthorpe, on Radio 4
2011-12-19

[Paul in Houston TX]

I understand. I used to use all those formats.
Still miss my 35mm Canon.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mfjova$1nmh$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, OldGuy

<nos...@spamnot.om> writes:
>I don't have any 126 or remember much about 126.
>
>I do have a Wolverine "F2D Super Plus" scanner that works well with
>135.

Thanks. For some of the reviews of the one I looked at, they said the
Wolverine appeared to be the same thing other than a different colour.

>I says it does 126KPK (Kodak Pocket)

Yes, the one I've been looking at calls them that as well. I didn't know
what KPK stood for - yes, they probably did invent it. (Still don't know
what the second K is for though!) It was mostly marketed as
"Instamatic".

For those that don't know: 135 format - "35mm" - uses 35mm film, with
holes down each side (it was originally designed to use 35mm movie film
stock), and takes 24×36mm images that go between the rows of holes. 126
"Instamatic" uses the same width, 35mm film, but with just one smaller
hole per frame and only along one side, taking 28×28mm images. (So the
majority of "film/slide" scanners that are designed for "35mm" WILL NOT
do 126, at least without cropping.)

>Would that work for you?

Does the Wolverine also claim to do 110 format (which uses only 16mm
wide film) and Super 8 (guess)? If so, does it use a different lens, or
just scan at the same resolution and zoom up afterwards?

Does it offer exposure adjustment, and actually do it, or just pretend
to do it, actually just taking the same image and adjusting it
afterwards?

>It was around $100.

Sounds like it could well be the same, more or less, as 7dayshop are
asking £70 for.

>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Fortunately radio is a forgiving medium. It hides a multitude of chins ...
Vanessa feltz, RT 2014-3/28-4/4

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:56:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:


> For those that don't know: 135 format - "35mm" - uses 35mm film, with
> holes down each side (it was originally designed to use 35mm movie film
> stock),

And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
etc,

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <mfi48v$kqu$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul in Houston TX
> <Pa...@Houston.Texas> writes:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> Sorry, this is OT really, but I thought there might be those here who
>>> know.
>>>
>>> For some time, I've been looking for one that does 126-format film and
>>> slides;
>>
>> You probably have already posted in the photo groups, but if not
>> you might want to post at least in:
>> alt.photography
>>
>> There are people there that really know their stuff.
>>
>>
> I suspect they know their stuff to a level that would be above my head.
> 126-format isn't one of the large-format ones that used roll film of a
> large size: those are 120 and similar. 126, or to give it its commoner
> name "Instamatic", was the commonest format for cheap cameras from about
> the late sixties to the mid-seventies - a drop-in cartridge. (OK, it had
> rolled film inside, but you know what I mean.) And 110 was the one that
> came in in (I think) the late seventies, that still used a drop-in

> cartridge, but for smaller "pocket" cameras (sort of flat ones). [...]

126 is actually 35mm film stock without the sprocket holes, and so with
room for a larger image. It will fit the 35mm holder, but the mask is
sized for a 35mm frame, so there's a crop. A DYI frame & mask will
handle that nicely.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mmkTw.185003$lw2....@fx14.iad>, Wolf K

I know ...

>sized for a 35mm frame, so there's a crop. A DYI frame & mask will
>handle that nicely.
>
>HTH
>

No, because the _sensor_ in most "35mm" (actually 135 format) scanners
is only expecting an image in the centre 24mm.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <hnjrhapk6smucv38l...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,

Into 126 cartridges you mean. (Not forgetting the backing paper, and/or
blanking off the window! [Though the paper did help you keep count.])
You are not alone! (And I reversal processed B/W film, too ["penny a
frame" from the music master; I have some very nice B/W slides as a
result.) We just had to frame the shots to neglect the top row of holes
... and wind on twice, or the detent mechanism that was looking for the
single hole would cause overlaps. Ah, happy days ... (-:

I guess _those_ _would_ scan OK in a "35mm" (135 format) scanner, unless
you really wanted the bits round the holes!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:40:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <hnjrhapk6smucv38l...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,
> MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
> >On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:56:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> ><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> For those that don't know: 135 format - "35mm" - uses 35mm film, with
> >> holes down each side (it was originally designed to use 35mm movie film
> >> stock),
> >
> >
> >And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
> >me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
> >it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
> >much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
> >etc,
> >
> Into 126 cartridges you mean.

No, I mean 35mm cartridges...

> (Not forgetting the backing paper, and/or

... and there was no backing paper.

> And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
> to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
> Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.

And to be even further off-topic <g> this fall I'll be spending a
couple of nights in into the Real Best Exotic Marigold Hotel--AKA
Ravla Khempur.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <f6athap3sq7b76br1...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,

MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:40:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <hnjrhapk6smucv38l...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,
>> MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
>> >On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:56:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> ><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> For those that don't know: 135 format - "35mm" - uses 35mm film, with
>> >> holes down each side (it was originally designed to use 35mm movie film
>> >> stock),
>> >
>> >
>> >And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
>> >me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
>> >it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
>> >much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
>> >etc,
>> >
>> Into 126 cartridges you mean.
>
>
>No, I mean 35mm cartridges...
>

Ah, sorry, I didn't read carefully enough! I (and schoolfriends) _did_
indeed reload 126 cartridges with 35mm film.

>
>> (Not forgetting the backing paper, and/or
>
>
>... and there was no backing paper.
>

No, not if you were indeed using proper 135 cartridges.

>
>> And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
>> to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
>> Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.
>
>
>
>And to be even further off-topic <g> this fall I'll be spending a
>couple of nights in into the Real Best Exotic Marigold Hotel--AKA
>Ravla Khempur.

Enjoy!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Europeans see luxury as a badge of civilisation. Whereas we [British] have
shabbiness as a badge of civilisation. - Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, in Radio
Times 12-18 October 2013

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:03:22 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <f6athap3sq7b76br1...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,
> MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
> >On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:40:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> ><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <hnjrhapk6smucv38l...@4ax.com>, "Ken Blake,
> >> MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> writes:
> >> >On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 22:56:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> >> ><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> For those that don't know: 135 format - "35mm" - uses 35mm film, with
> >> >> holes down each side (it was originally designed to use 35mm movie film
> >> >> stock),
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
> >> >me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
> >> >it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
> >> >much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
> >> >etc,
> >> >
> >> Into 126 cartridges you mean.
> >
> >
> >No, I mean 35mm cartridges...
> >
> Ah, sorry, I didn't read carefully enough! I (and schoolfriends) _did_
> indeed reload 126 cartridges with 35mm film.
> >

Not a problem. We all do the same now and then.

> >> (Not forgetting the backing paper, and/or
> >
> >
> >... and there was no backing paper.
> >
> No, not if you were indeed using proper 135 cartridges.
> >
> >> And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
> >> to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
> >> Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.
> >
> >
> >
> >And to be even further off-topic <g> this fall I'll be spending a
> >couple of nights in into the Real Best Exotic Marigold Hotel--AKA
> >Ravla Khempur.
>
> Enjoy!

Thanks very much.

[Wolf K]

Dedicated scanners, yes, or probably. I haven't used on in years, have
no ides what the latest models will/not do.

Multi-format scanners, such as the Canon 9000F, will scan anything up
the full width and length of the backlight, less a mm or two.

It's the software that "expects" a 35mm frame, and it displays the 35mm
frame in Preview, but that frame can be altered any way you like, up to
the boundaries of the scannable area.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <0BzTw.135987$Fh7.1...@fx20.iad>, Wolf K

I think you're talking about either rather expensive pieces of kit, or
flatbed scanners.

If you just Google film or slide scanner, you'll find there are a lot of
devices that have come onto the market in the last few years that are
designed for, and only, 135-format ("35mm", 35mm wide film with holes
down both edges and 24×36mm images between them); in the majority of
these, the actual sensor optics only go for that size image. Some are
really a small camera, some are a linear sensor which the original is
passed over, same as a flatbed scanner (as in most all-in-one
"printers").

These "film/slide scanners" are small devices, that you slide the
film/slides through, usually in a holder that holds 4 slides or a strip
of 6 uncut (though some have slide feeders you can load with a stack of
slides).

The one I'm considering is, it seems from reviews, of the camera type,
but does claim to do 135 ("35mm"), 126KPK ("Instamatic"), 110 ("pocket
instamatic"), and Super 8 film; I'm just trying to find out whether it
uses different lenses for the different formats, or just snaps the whole
area (which would have to be about 36×28mm), and then masks in software
as you suggest, and then blows up, thus losing (_real_) resolution. [I
do have some 110 format material - and super and standard 8 for that
matter!]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as he tasted the bacon in his sandwich.

[Don]

I have a VuPoint Solutions digital film scanner model FS-C1-VP. It has
two manually moved trays that hold either three mounted slides or a
strip of six unmounted 35mm images. Comes with it's own software CD and
connects via USB 2.0. Uses a 5 mega pixels CMOS sensor and scans at
that resolution. However, it uses Win XP and they did not upgrade their
software to run beyond XP. I have and maintain an old Acer XP laptop
for that and several other reasons. I have digitized mine, my father
and father-in-laws' slides. A bit tedious but have had satisfactory
results.

Don

[Paul]

The real McCoy aren't exactly priced for home users.

£1,999
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/plustek-opticfilm-120-film-scanner-review-21622

£1,550
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/reflecta-mf5000-medium-format-scanner-review-26360

And this is where the rest of the industry is headed. Save
those old shoe boxes.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/64128-diy-film-digitizer-scanner

Paul

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 1:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <0BzTw.135987$Fh7.1...@fx20.iad>, Wolf K
> <wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <mmkTw.185003$lw2....@fx14.iad>, Wolf K
>>> <wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:

[...]

>>>> sized for a 35mm frame, so there's a crop. A DYI frame & mask will
>>>> handle that nicely.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>>
>>> No, because the _sensor_ in most "35mm" (actually 135 format) scanners
>>> is only expecting an image in the centre 24mm.
>>
>> Dedicated scanners, yes, or probably. I haven't used on in years, have
>> no ides what the latest models will/not do.
>>
>> Multi-format scanners, such as the Canon 9000F, will scan anything up
>> the full width and length of the backlight, less a mm or two.
>>
>> It's the software that "expects" a 35mm frame, and it displays the
>> 35mm frame in Preview, but that frame can be altered any way you like,
>> up to the boundaries of the scannable area.
>>
>> HTH
>>
> I think you're talking about either rather expensive pieces of kit, or
> flatbed scanners.

Flatbed. There isn't any non-profession expensive kit available any
more. The resolution of flatbed scanners is 24dpi optical and better.
24dpi = 300 pixels/inch,

> If you just Google film or slide scanner, you'll find there are a lot of
> devices that have come onto the market in the last few years that are
> designed for, and only, 135-format ("35mm", 35mm wide film with holes
> down both edges and 24×36mm images between them); in the majority of
> these, the actual sensor optics only go for that size image.

[...]

> These "film/slide scanners" are small devices, that you slide the
> film/slides through, usually in a holder that holds 4 slides or a strip
> of 6 uncut (though some have slide feeders you can load with a stack of
> slides).

That was my first scanner, it was a mistake. Pretty good for slides/negs
that hadn't faded too much, or weren't over/under-exposed too much, but
very slow.

> The one I'm considering is, it seems from reviews, of the camera type,
> but does claim to do 135 ("35mm"), 126KPK ("Instamatic"), 110 ("pocket
> instamatic"), and Super 8 film; I'm just trying to find out whether it
> uses different lenses for the different formats, or just snaps the whole
> area (which would have to be about 36×28mm), and then masks in software
> as you suggest, and then blows up, thus losing (_real_) resolution. [I
> do have some 110 format material - and super and standard 8 for that
> matter!]

I have no idea, but IMO scanner-bar technology is superior to any
possible camera-based scanner, since it either masks as you suggest, or
it adjusts focus to capture the complete image, both of which would mean
different dots per image-inch for different formats.

I've found that anything over 2400 dpi merely shows more grain. 110
films are very grainy. Super 8 isn't quite as bad, because the cameras
have large lenses that capture a lot of light even at small f-stops, and
the exposure is about 1/60th sec, so finer-grained, slower emulsions
could be used.

Anyhow, I recommend a flatbed with 2400 dpi optical or better. As I
said, I like my Canon 9000F, but Epson also makes very good machines. If
you want to see what they can do, go to alt.binaries.pictures.rail, I
posted some scans from prints there the other day. Look for "Huron
Central". The images were resized down, so they show some artifacts
compared to the original scans, but they faithfully reproduce the colour
variations of the prints. You'll have to download about 1000 posts, the
group is very busy, doubles as a chat room. ;-)

Final caveat: if you want speed and automated colour correction, you
should go for a professional machine. I may still do that myself, since
my time is becoming more and more valuable.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mfmlv2$eo7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Don

<donovanh...@msn.com> writes:
>On 4/3/2015 1:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>> I think you're talking about either rather expensive pieces of kit, or

As Paul has shown )-:!

If a 5 MP sensor, producing 5 MP images, then that's presumably a camera
mechanism (takes a picture; if it was a linear sensor over which the
original was moved, it'd be a lot fewer pixels). No matter.

>their software to run beyond XP. I have and maintain an old Acer XP
>laptop for that and several other reasons. I have digitized mine, my
>father and father-in-laws' slides. A bit tedious but have had
>satisfactory results.
>
>Don

Thanks. All, presumably, "35mm" slides/negatives.

You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?

It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
Not getting at you, Don!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All that glitters has a high refractive index.

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 2:38 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]

> Thanks. All, presumably, "35mm" slides/negatives.
>
> You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
> answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
> able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
> resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
> does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
> giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?
>
> It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
> Not getting at you, Don!

Well, I can't recall you mentioning the brand and model, so....

;-)

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 2:40 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>
> Flatbed. There isn't any non-profession expensive kit available any
> more. The resolution of flatbed scanners is 24dpi optical and better.
> 24dpi = 300 pixels/inch,

Should be "2400dpi...."

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <g8BTw.171481$7p1....@fx10.iad>, Wolf K

<wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On 2015-04-03 1:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>> I think you're talking about either rather expensive pieces of kit, or
>> flatbed scanners.
>
>Flatbed. There isn't any non-profession expensive kit available any
>more. The resolution of flatbed scanners is 24dpi optical and better.
>24dpi = 300 pixels/inch,

I think you've dropped a couple of zeros somewhere (-:! To me, "dpi"
means Dots Per Inch, so 2400 DPI is 2400 dots per inch - so 2400 pixels
per inch, or maybe 800 if you have three dots per pixel for the three
colours.
[]

>> These "film/slide scanners" are small devices, that you slide the
>> film/slides through, usually in a holder that holds 4 slides or a strip
>> of 6 uncut (though some have slide feeders you can load with a stack of
>> slides).
>
>That was my first scanner, it was a mistake. Pretty good for
>slides/negs that hadn't faded too much, or weren't over/under-exposed
>too much, but very slow.

That's in agreement with a lot of the reviews - not so good at shadows
and highlights. (Although as for speed, I can't imagine using a flatbed
is all that fast either, with all the loading, unloading, and
post-editing involved.)

>
>> The one I'm considering is, it seems from reviews, of the camera type,
>> but does claim to do 135 ("35mm"), 126KPK ("Instamatic"), 110 ("pocket
>> instamatic"), and Super 8 film; I'm just trying to find out whether it
>> uses different lenses for the different formats, or just snaps the whole
>> area (which would have to be about 36×28mm), and then masks in software
>> as you suggest, and then blows up, thus losing (_real_) resolution. [I
>> do have some 110 format material - and super and standard 8 for that
>> matter!]
>
>I have no idea, but IMO scanner-bar technology is superior to any
>possible camera-based scanner, since it either masks as you suggest, or
>it adjusts focus to capture the complete image, both of which would
>mean different dots per image-inch for different formats.

Yes, but that's actually what I'd want: I want more DPI for the smaller
formats, to give the same image size.

>
>I've found that anything over 2400 dpi merely shows more grain. 110
>films are very grainy. Super 8 isn't quite as bad, because the cameras
>have large lenses that capture a lot of light even at small f-stops,
>and the exposure is about 1/60th sec, so finer-grained, slower
>emulsions could be used.

I think it's a lot more the film speed than anything else: the standard
8 camera I had used 10 ASA film if I could get it, otherwise 25; the
super 8 used 40 ASA. Unless you go back to the early '60s, most stills
cameras didn't often use that slow a film (except perhaps some
semi-professionals with lights) - certainly by the time the hobby was
dying, 100 to 400 ASA were the norm (and I did try some 1000ASA, though
that _was_ grainy).

>
>Anyhow, I recommend a flatbed with 2400 dpi optical or better. As I
>said, I like my Canon 9000F, but Epson also makes very good machines.

I take it these are machines with some sort of backlight in the lid?
[]

>Final caveat: if you want speed and automated colour correction, you
>should go for a professional machine. I may still do that myself, since
>my time is becoming more and more valuable.

[]
Me too. But it just seems there's a big gap, with nothing in the middle:
there are plasticky scanners sold in doorstep or listings-magazine
leaflets, which produce pretty poor results (though acceptable to people
who haven't had their projector out to look at their slides for some
decades), and there are expensive machines costing a couple of thousand,
which do the job properly (the best even have a separate sensor that
uses UV or IR, and just picks up the scratches, for later processing).
But there doesn't seem to be anything in the middle - at least, not
widely advertised.

And any even slightly technical question about the cheap ones seems to
have a snowball's chance in hell of being actually answered, at least by
anyone who knows what they are talking about (cf. the response I got
from one seller that "this scanner doesn't offer optical resolution").

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You'll need to have this fish in your ear. (First series, fit the first.)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ghBTw.11777$%p.1...@fx07.iad>, Wolf K

That's because this particular model seems to be sold under several
names: as I've said, if you google (or search ebay for) "22MP slide
scanner" you'll find some of them (it is actually 14 MP, but optionally
interpolates to 22, so that's how it is marketed). In UK, 7dayshop seem
to be selling it under their own name; Amazon UK and US seem to be
selling it under a name something like jumbl; and there may be a variant
called something like Wolverine. But you can soon tell when you've hit
it: it claims the 22 or 14 MP, and to be able to do 35mm, 128KPK, 110,
and 8mm material, both mounted slides and negatives, and has some sort
of guide/holder for each of those. It sells for between about 60 and 110
pounds, or about the same number of dollars (maybe not as low as 60).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 3:07 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> I think you've dropped a couple of zeros somewhere (-:! To me, "dpi"
> means Dots Per Inch, so 2400 DPI is 2400 dots per inch - so 2400 pixels
> per inch, or maybe 800 if you have three dots per pixel for the three
> colours.

Yup, lost 2 0s.

2400dpi at 24bit colour --> 3 dots/pixel --> 300 pixels/inch.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <PMBTw.138316$yX2.1...@fx18.iad>, Wolf K

<wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On 2015-04-03 3:07 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>> I think you've dropped a couple of zeros somewhere (-:! To me, "dpi"
>> means Dots Per Inch, so 2400 DPI is 2400 dots per inch - so 2400 pixels
>> per inch, or maybe 800 if you have three dots per pixel for the three
>> colours.
>
>Yup, lost 2 0s.
>
>2400dpi at 24bit colour --> 3 dots/pixel --> 300 pixels/inch.
>

800?

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 3:07 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <g8BTw.171481$7p1....@fx10.iad>, Wolf K
> <wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:

[...]

>> Final caveat: if you want speed and automated colour correction, you
>> should go for a professional machine. I may still do that myself,
>> since my time is becoming more and more valuable.
> []
> Me too. But it just seems there's a big gap, with nothing in the middle:
> there are plasticky scanners sold in doorstep or listings-magazine
> leaflets, which produce pretty poor results (though acceptable to people
> who haven't had their projector out to look at their slides for some
> decades), and there are expensive machines costing a couple of thousand,
> which do the job properly (the best even have a separate sensor that
> uses UV or IR, and just picks up the scratches, for later processing).
> But there doesn't seem to be anything in the middle - at least, not
> widely advertised.

[...]

Look at:
\http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/scanners/film_negative_scanners/canoscan_9000f_mark_ii

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367877,00.asp

http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/peripherals/scanners/canon-canoscan-9000f

Search "Canoscan 9000F" for more.

[Rodney Pont]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:27:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>>2400dpi at 24bit colour --> 3 dots/pixel --> 300 pixels/inch.
>>
>800?

I also make it 800 pixels per inch. The 24 bits is just 3 colours at 8
bits resolution each.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 3:27 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <PMBTw.138316$yX2.1...@fx18.iad>, Wolf K
> <wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> On 2015-04-03 3:07 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you've dropped a couple of zeros somewhere (-:! To me, "dpi"
>>> means Dots Per Inch, so 2400 DPI is 2400 dots per inch - so 2400 pixels
>>> per inch, or maybe 800 if you have three dots per pixel for the three
>>> colours.
>>
>> Yup, lost 2 0s.
>>
>> 2400dpi at 24bit colour --> 3 dots/pixel --> 300 pixels/inch.
>>
> 800?

Actually, neither. We both got caught by taking "dots per inch"
literally (and I made an arithmetic error besdies). It all hinges on
what a "dot" actually is. On a printer, it's a spot of ink, so four
colours (CMYK) of 2400 dots/inch --> 600 pixels/inch. Monitors are
measured in pixels by pixels, regardless of physical dimensions.

Scanner manufacturers use "dot" differently. See:
http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/pdf/tech_scanner-resolution.pdf

It seems a scanner's "dots per inch" is actually pixels/inch.

"It's all rather confusing, really", as Neddy Seagoon often said.

So the Canoscan 900F's optical resolution of 2400 dpi or ppi translates
into about 7.6 MP for a full frame 35mm image.

The Jumbi's claimed 14MP is interesting, if correctly stated. The
description at the 7dayshop site uses the word "sensor", so I infer a
14MP internal camera. That would be about 3200 pixels/inch, pretty good,
especially at the price. But it's unclear whether there is refocusing to
get a full sensor frame for other image sizes. I don't think there are
additional lenses, that would require a rotating lens stage, which is
more complicated than refocusing. I note there is no scanning time
mentioned.

I would go to a real shop and ask for a demo, bring your own slides and
USB thumbdrive, and go away to look at the results on your computer.

Hope this helps, despite the fact that it's partly speculative. Please
report back if you get some direct experience of the machine.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <MRBTw.168893$IH4....@fx08.iad>, Wolf K
<wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
[]
>Look at:
>\http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/scanners/film_negative_
>scanners/canoscan_9000f_mark_ii

Flatbed scanner with film ability.
>
>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367877,00.asp

Says it's excellent for, and really aimed at, prints, but less good at
film. Also bundled with some image-editing software - I'm always
wondering how much of the price is for that. (Especially the OCR stuff
which is irrelevant to my needs here.) Definitely says that if you're
mainly interested in films and slides, not the machine for you.
>
>http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/peripherals/scanners/canon-canoscan-9000f
Can only scan film in holders, and these are only provided for 35mm and
120. 2―-4― minutes to scan a 35mm image.

>
>Search "Canoscan 9000F" for more.
>
>

I think I'll pass: really, I don't want another flatbed scanner, but the
real kicker is the fact that it doesn't know about formats other than
35mm (and 120/220 roll film). I have a _lot_ of 126-format - not just
mine, but also my grandmother's and my parents'.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die -
attributed to Carrie Fisher by Gareth McLean, in Radio Times 28 January-3
February 2012

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <2CCTw.205898$bk5....@fx06.iad>, Wolf K

<wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On 2015-04-03 3:27 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>> 800?
>
>Actually, neither. We both got caught by taking "dots per inch"
>literally (and I made an arithmetic error besdies). It all hinges on
>what a "dot" actually is. On a printer, it's a spot of ink, so four
>colours (CMYK) of 2400 dots/inch --> 600 pixels/inch. Monitors are

Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
three colours, not black as well.

>measured in pixels by pixels, regardless of physical dimensions.

[]

>It seems a scanner's "dots per inch" is actually pixels/inch.
>
>"It's all rather confusing, really", as Neddy Seagoon often said.

Hmm!
[]

>The Jumbi's claimed 14MP is interesting, if correctly stated. The
>description at the 7dayshop site uses the word "sensor", so I infer a
>14MP internal camera. That would be about 3200 pixels/inch, pretty
>good, especially at the price. But it's unclear whether there is

Hmm, at last, someone who's actually looked at the unit! (So you think
the one 7 are selling is the Jumbi too, do you? They're very cagey -
presumably worried we'll buy the same thing elsewhere, though for once I
think theirs is the best price.)

>refocusing to get a full sensor frame for other image sizes. I don't

It sure is!

>think there are additional lenses, that would require a rotating lens
>stage, which is more complicated than refocusing. I note there is no

Well, I wouldn't mind refocusing, if by that you mean they move the
camera closer to or further from the film - but I could see no mention
of that, certainly not on 7ds, but also in the many Amazon
reviews/questions I looked at. What I really want to know is, for the
smaller formats (110, I'm not too bothered about 8mm), that it doesn't
just snap it at the same distance as for 35mm and 126, and just then
crop and enlarge electronically.

>scanning time mentioned.

Ah, that is one of the few things that _is_ clear from the reviews: it
is quick. Which, if it's a camera, is understandable. I got the
impression that, if doing a sequence at least, it could be down to 2 or
3 seconds per image (actually far faster than I'd need anyway).

>
>I would go to a real shop and ask for a demo, bring your own slides and
>USB thumbdrive, and go away to look at the results on your computer.

Ha, I'd love to. Unfortunately, I very much doubt I'm going to find this
unit in a shop anywhere near me )-:. (I do carry a box of slides I don't
care too much about, in the car - mainly to explain the cropping effect
of trying to do 126-format ones in a 135-format-only system, but could
also be used for image testing, and I always have a USB drive or two in
my wallet.)

>
>Hope this helps, despite the fact that it's partly speculative. Please
>report back if you get some direct experience of the machine.
>

It does - someone who has at least looked at the same things I'm looking
at, and understood my questions! I certainly will, if I ever see one. (I
may give in and just buy one: as another has said, time is becoming more
valuable.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:38:52 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
> answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
> able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
> resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
> does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
> giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?
>
> It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
> Not getting at you, Don!

It's probably really a silly question, but the answer is one lens and
one sensor for anything under $793.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:04:33 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

> On 2015-04-03 2:40 PM, Wolf K wrote:
>>
>> Flatbed. There isn't any non-profession expensive kit available any
>> more. The resolution of flatbed scanners is 24dpi optical and better.
>> 24dpi = 300 pixels/inch,
>
> Should be "2400dpi...."

24 dpi is good enough for me :-)

What fun if all our scanners worked at just about one dot per
millimeter.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
> three colours, not black as well.

RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
subtractive, colors.

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm not very good with tools. Where can I get the commercial version of
that?

In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895264-REG/Wolverine_f2d20_20MP_35mm_Film_To.html

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 07:57:23 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
>>>me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
>>>it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
>>>much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
>>>etc,
>>>
>> Into 126 cartridges you mean.
>
> No, I mean 35mm cartridges...

I used to buy precut film in cans containing 5 films[1]. Much easier
than using the trimmer template. And I also mean 35mm cartridges, not
126. I admit to never having heard of buying 126 film and rolling your
own.

I recalled the length of a 36 exposure film as 1.5 m or 5 ft, but
looking online, I see that 1.65 m is correct; 5'5" is good for you
nonmetric types.

I also never used 135 film or cameras :-)

What I mean by the last is that I'm quite content to say 35mm without
enclosing it in quotes...

[1] The leader and trailer ends were precut to shape, with one leader
end joined to the next trailer end by perforations. Just pop 'em apart.

[Joe Morris]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> For those that don't know: 135 format - "35mm" - uses 35mm film, with
> holes down each side (it was originally designed to use 35mm movie film

> stock), and takes 24×36mm images that go between the rows of holes. 126
> "Instamatic" uses the same width, 35mm film, but with just one smaller
> hole per frame and only along one side, taking 28×28mm images. (So the
> majority of "film/slide" scanners that are designed for "35mm" WILL NOT do
> 126, at least without cropping.)

Sigh. You're making me feel old, since I have to agree with your decision
that an explanation of 35mm film geometry is necessary today.

Ken Blake's reference to bulk loading doesn't help:

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:
> And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
> me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
> it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
> much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
> etc,

I've still got the tail ends of bulk spools of Ektachrome, B&W reversal, and
litho 35mm film (the last because I shot slides of the biannual conference
logos for SHARE meetings for many years, then hand-colored them. (I've even
still got an unopened bag of 1-gallon Kodalith developer that's probably
about 15 years old...) I've also got a box of 8x10 litho that I'll probably
never use up.

One of the things I miss about the migration from wet-film to digital
photography is the almost total abandonment of the idea that you start the
creation of a quality image by composing in the camera, *then* use darkroom
techniques to fine-tune the rendering, all lost to rampant
point-and-shoot-and-pray. Of course, careful composition-in-the-camera
sometimes isn't practical but it certainly made later manipulation less of a
chore.

Think of "composing in the camera" as the photographic equivalent of
desk-checking your programs before compiling them.

Also, one reason for that migration is that the incremental cost of
point-and-shoot for digital photography is essentially zero, but the cost of
exposing a wet-film image is nontrivial; both film and chemistry are
consumed, and the cost (time and money) for the darkroom work just to get
proofs adds to the per-exposure outlay.

One of my favorite memories of composing in the camera was from back in the
1990s when on a trip I took my 4x5 Sinar F to the Grand Canyon. Some of the
other visitors were clearly puzzled why I kept moving the camera a few feet
in various directions when I'm on the South Rim and shooting into the
canyon; what I was doing was trying to frame some of the Canyon using
vegetation that was in the foreground.

Joe

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:08:06 -0400, Joe Morris wrote:

> Think of "composing in the camera" as the photographic equivalent of
> desk-checking your programs before compiling them.

As you doubtless know and meant to imply, that's obsolete too :-)

[Paul]

Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.

https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/lomography-smartphone-film-scanner/BH8AU7

And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)

At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
it's a "complete" product.

When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"
resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
when to stop.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA1LMUT8F03/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00GIDADP0#RUUA1LMUT8F03

"You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."

Which may or may not be including the effects of the
JPG step.

Paul

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-03 6:01 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
>> three colours, not black as well.
>
> RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
> subtractive, colors.

The "black" is covered by the brightness of the coloured dot.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:49:48 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

> On 2015-04-03 6:01 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
>>> three colours, not black as well.
>>
>> RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
>> subtractive, colors.
>
> The "black" is covered by the brightness of the coloured dot.

Well, that seems to me to be an odd way of putting it. In additive
colors, saying that black is the absence of light seems less odd (more
intuitive) to me. Maybe I'm not handling metaphor well today :-)

Even in subtractive colors the black is theoretically not really
necessary, but the colored inks aren't accurate enough to give a good
black and good darker colors with full-on CMY dots, so black is used to
improve the appearance of colors in color printing, and additionally to
make black printing (monochrome text comes to mind) cheaper & easier.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:39:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:26:27 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>
>>> Wolf K wrote:
>>>> On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>> In message <mmkTw.185003$lw2....@fx14.iad>, Wolf K
>>>>> <wol...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>>>> On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <mfi48v$kqu$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul in Houston TX
>>>>>>> <Pa...@Houston.Texas> writes:
>>>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<SNIP>

So a commercial version of the shoebos *is* on the way, and only £40...

Actually, it seems to be in stock at B&H, and for only $50:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=lomography+scanner&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

http://tinyurl.com/pw9nodg

I built this a while ago, but never put film in it:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1086860-REG/lomography_hp150slr_konstruktor_f_do_it_yourself_35mm.html

http://tinyurl.com/no5v8pq

I think mine was a prior version, but it looks the same.

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-04 6:20 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:49:48 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
>
>> On 2015-04-03 6:01 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
>>>> three colours, not black as well.
>>>
>>> RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
>>> subtractive, colors.
>>
>> The "black" is covered by the brightness of the coloured dot.
>
> Well, that seems to me to be an odd way of putting it. In additive
> colors, saying that black is the absence of light seems less odd (more
> intuitive) to me. Maybe I'm not handling metaphor well today :-)

Yeah, I realised after I typed it that was backwards, so to speak. But I
decided to leave it. ;-)
On a screen, etc, white/grey/black == zero ---> some value of brightness.

> Even in subtractive colors the black is theoretically not really
> necessary, but the colored inks aren't accurate enough to give a good
> black and good darker colors with full-on CMY dots, so black is used to
> improve the appearance of colors in color printing, and additionally to
> make black printing (monochrome text comes to mind) cheaper & easier.

Black is also used to help produce colours like brown.

Colour printing is very tricky, depends on the way ink and paper react,
etc. Chemistry IOW, which is not easy to control. Same is true for
inkjets, which is why you will get the best results when you use the
inks and papers made for your printer. Ever notice the colour dots or
squares on a flaps of a cereal box? They help the printer control the
colour.

Have a good day,

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-04 8:05 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 2015-04-04 6:20 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:49:48 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-04-03 6:01 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
>>>>> three colours, not black as well.
>>>>
>>>> RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
>>>> subtractive, colors.
>>>
>>> The "black" is covered by the brightness of the coloured dot.
>>
>> Well, that seems to me to be an odd way of putting it. In additive
>> colors, saying that black is the absence of light seems less odd (more
>> intuitive) to me. Maybe I'm not handling metaphor well today :-)
>
> Yeah, I realised after I typed it that was backwards, so to speak. But I
> decided to leave it. ;-)
> On a screen, etc, white/grey/black == zero ---> some value of brightness.

Sheesh, backwards again. Should be

black/grey/white == zero --> some value of brightness.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:05:29 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

> Colour printing is very tricky, depends on the way ink and paper react,
> etc. Chemistry IOW, which is not easy to control. Same is true for
> inkjets, which is why you will get the best results when you use the
> inks and papers made for your printer. Ever notice the colour dots or
> squares on a flaps of a cereal box? They help the printer control the
> colour.

I've had a couple of cases recently where I was printing black and grey
with the intention of distinguishing between major and minor lines on a
graph, and important and unimportant things in a text document.

But the greys on the paper were too light, even though they looked OK on
the screen. And that wasn't even color!

For the graph thingy, I just modified the program to use a darker color
than I started with. For the document, I didn't care :-)

Obviously I've never calibrated my system for color and monochrome
printing, and probably won't unless I became an artist in my old age :-)

[Paul]

Now you'll need to find a "digital back" to slap on
that puppy.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/17/nikon-patents-a-digital-back-for-35mm-film-slr-cameras.aspx/

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nikon-f3-digital.jpeg

Paul

[Gene E. Bloch]

My budget can't keep up with you, Paul :-)

That back is clever, interesting, and IMO, totally strange :-)

[OldeGuye]

Way OT but ....

I still have my 4x5 enlarger and lots of B&W paper.
Apo lenses.

I got bulk movie 35mm film in a big movie can.
All gone now.
Grainy but interesting effect.

My retouching kit is still all together.

Unfortunately my Norman 2000 has quit. probably dried out caps.

The local JC had a Cibachrome processor that I used.

Those were the days.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 07:54:01 -0700, OldeGuye
<Olde...@spamnothing.com> wrote:

> Way OT but ....
>
> I still have my 4x5 enlarger and lots of B&W paper.

I had several enlargers over the years, but none was larger than 2ź x
3ź, even though I owned three 4x5 cameras. I always had to use someone
else's darkroom when I needed to print from 4x5 negatives.


Both the enlargers and the cameras, as well as everything related to
them, are all gone now.


> Those were the days.


Ah, yes.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <12y1xyg03ms7m$.dlg@stumbler1907.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch

<not...@other.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 07:57:23 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>>>And for those who don't know, in those many avid photographers (like
>>>>me) used to buy large rolls of 35mm film, and in a darkroom would cut
>>>>it to appropriate lengths and load them into 35mm cartridges. It was
>>>>much less expensive than buying preloaded cartridges from Kodak, Agfa,
>>>>etc,
>>>>
>>> Into 126 cartridges you mean.
>>
>> No, I mean 35mm cartridges...
>
>I used to buy precut film in cans containing 5 films[1]. Much easier
>than using the trimmer template. And I also mean 35mm cartridges, not

Our music master had a bulk loader, which was basically a holder for a
large roll of 135-format film. It had some mechanism for transferring
this to normal cartridges without letting the light in - I forget the
mechanical details, He sold it (this was B/W film) at a penny a frame,
IIRR; you loaded as much or as little as you wanted (within the capacity
of the normal cartridge), then cut yourself a loading tongue.

>126. I admit to never having heard of buying 126 film and rolling your
>own.

I don't think you could buy 126-format film; it was designed to be
sold/bought in plastic cartridges/cassettes that were discarded by the
processing houses. I was an impecunious schoolboy, and having opened one
of these cartridges/cassettes carefully (rather than just breaking it
open as was supposed to be the way for the few who developed their own),
managed to reload it with 135-format film. When taking pictures with
such reloaded carts/cass, you had to frame your pictures to avoid the
top quarter or third, as the holes were there! Nevertheless, I have some
B/W slides (I got into reversal processing of B/W film) from those days
with which I'm still quite pleased.
[]

>I also never used 135 film or cameras :-)
>
>What I mean by the last is that I'm quite content to say 35mm without
>enclosing it in quotes...

I do, because 135 and 126 both used 35 mm wide film, but with different
hole patterns; people not realising this is at least part of the reason
for the confusion over "scanners".

>
>[1] The leader and trailer ends were precut to shape, with one leader
>end joined to the next trailer end by perforations. Just pop 'em apart.
>

Ah, I see - the "tongues". (Must have been quite fine perforations: film
is quite tough stuff!)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <mfnbq9$jhi$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.com>
writes:
>Gene E. Bloch wrote:
[]

>Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
>the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
>Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.
>
>https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/lomography-smartphone-film-scanner/BH8AU7
>
>And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
>shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)
>
>At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
>it's a "complete" product.

I've found an email address for them (at the end of a YouTube video), so
I've sent them a few questions. We'll see.

>
>When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"

I think, from reading lots of reviews, that it actually is 20MP; none of
the reviews mention interpolation, or, more significantly, any other
resolution.

>resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
>when to stop.

I cannot understand why any sort of scanner does it internally: it's
just making more data to be sent over the channel (or put on the memory
card, or whatever), which will only slow things down or fill them up (or
both). But marketing (to the dumb) trumps all, I suppose ...
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA1LMUT8F03/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt?ie=UT

>F8&ASIN=B00GIDADP0#RUUA1LMUT8F03
>
> "You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
> A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."
>
>Which may or may not be including the effects of the
>JPG step.

I'm pretty sure that comment was indeed from someone who doesn't know
about JPEGging.
>
> Paul

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <4mtcbbrc...@stumbler1907.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch

That's a very precise price (-:!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <dtjes7f2sizq$.dlg@stumbler1907.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch
<not...@other.invalid> writes:
[]

>In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
>Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
>problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

As many of the reviewers have said, the results aren't up to the quality
of scanners (and they mostly _are_ scanners) costing many times more,
but are surprisingly good a lot of the time - and the speed and
convenience make the probability that one will actually get round to
doing it!

>
>This is the current version (mine is discontinued):
>
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895264-REG/Wolverine_f2d20_20MP_35
>mm_Film_To.html

Having done more probing, it seems that the Wolverine model is the
F2D20SUPER, for the 20 MP, bright yellow, unit that takes (has guides
for) four sizes (135, 126, 110, 8mm). I _think_ that unit is genuinely
20 MP (though possibly only for 135/126 material). The 7dayshop or jumbl
unit that looks very similar (but isn't bright yellow) is 14MP with the
option of interpolating to 22MP (though goodness knows why anyone who
actually understands what interpolating means, would bother). There's
another Wolverine F2D20 with something other than SUPER after the F2D20,
which is shaped more like a beer can, and I think that does seven
formats. There also seem to be earlier Wolverine models with names
starting F2D14, F2D8, etc., presumably reflecting the sensor resolution.
(Including one - no longer available according to Amazon - called
something like the SNaP which does slides/filmstrips as well as prints;
obviously a larger unit. I know other manufacturers such as Ion do such
combi units, but they're all 135-format only for the slide/film part.)
>
>http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2
>
I did find an email address for Wolverine on one of the YouTube videos,
so I've sent them some questions; I just hope I get someone who has a
clue (I presume all these units, Wolverine, Jumbl, Ion, etc. are
actually made in China) to answer them. I'll share if I get any reply.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:07:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <4mtcbbrc...@stumbler1907.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch
> <not...@other.invalid> writes:
>>On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:38:52 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
>>> answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
>>> able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
>>> resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
>>> does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
>>> giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?
>>>
>>> It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
>>> Not getting at you, Don!
>>
>>It's probably really a silly question, but the answer is one lens and
>>one sensor for anything under $793.
>>
> That's a very precise price (-:!

Precise but not in the least accurate :-)

Oddly enough, I learned the difference between those two words pretty
late in life, but *now I know* :-)

BTW, I think that when I use numbers like that, people automatically
realize it's a bit of whimsy to give a rough idea in the absence of
actual knowledge, rather than interrupt the flow of speech. But a few
years into my marriage to someone, she happened to mention that she
finally realized that when I do that I am making the numbers up.

Go figure.

[Wolf K]

On 2015-04-06 7:16 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:07:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> In message <4mtcbbrc...@stumbler1907.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch
>> <not...@other.invalid> writes:
>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:38:52 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
>>>> answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
>>>> able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
>>>> resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
>>>> does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
>>>> giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?
>>>>
>>>> It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
>>>> Not getting at you, Don!
>>>
>>> It's probably really a silly question, but the answer is one lens and
>>> one sensor for anything under $793.
>>>
>> That's a very precise price (-:!
>
> Precise but not in the least accurate :-)
>
> Oddly enough, I learned the difference between those two words pretty
> late in life, but *now I know* :-)

One of the first lessons in Structure 200 (Statics) was that difference.
It followed immediately upon the instruction on how to use a slide rule.
Error range was included in that topic. Unless otherwise specified, the
error is +/- 1/2 the next smaller decimal fraction.

> BTW, I think that when I use numbers like that, people automatically
> realize it's a bit of whimsy to give a rough idea in the absence of
> actual knowledge, rather than interrupt the flow of speech. But a few
> years into my marriage to someone, she happened to mention that she
> finally realized that when I do that I am making the numbers up.
>
> Go figure.

:-)

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:16:49 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not...@other.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:07:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> > In message <4mtcbbrc...@stumbler1907.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch
> > <not...@other.invalid> writes:

> > That's a very precise price (-:!
>
> Precise but not in the least accurate :-)
>
> Oddly enough, I learned the difference between those two words pretty
> late in life, but *now I know* :-)

I also learned the difference relatively late in life.

To make it clearer for others here, dimensions of 6 inches, 6.0
inches, 6.00, 6.000 inches, etc. seem like the same number to most
people, but they are different in precision. The number 6 means it's
closer to 6 than it is to 5 or 7, but 6.0 means it's closer to 6.0
than it is to 5.9 or 6.1, and so on.

[Wolf K]

6 = 6 +/- 0.5
6.0 = 6.0 +/- 0.05
6.00 = 6.00 +/- 0.005
etc.

Unless another error range is specified.

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 11:39:27 -0400, Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Yes. You've said the same thing I did, only in a slightly different
way.

[Wolf K]

Not exactly. 6 = somewhere between 5.50+ and 6.50-

Most of the time it doesn't matter, but it does when you're buying gas,
for example. I don't want to pay for 6 litres of gas, or even 6.0, but
for 6.000. That's because 0.01 l of gas costs about 1.2 cents right now. ;-)

Have good day,

[Joe Morris]

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@kb.invalid> wrote:

> To make it clearer for others here, dimensions of 6 inches, 6.0
> inches, 6.00, 6.000 inches, etc. seem like the same number to most
> people, but they are different in precision. The number 6 means it's
> closer to 6 than it is to 5 or 7, but 6.0 means it's closer to 6.0
> than it is to 5.9 or 6.1, and so on.

Cliff Stoll, of _Cuckoo's Egg_ fame, sells Klein bottles from his website
(www.kleinbottle.com). They come with calibration stickers, showing at
different levels volumetric quantities of:


--- 0,000 mL (+/- 5%)

--- 000

--- 00

--- 0.0

--- 0.00


As you've probably guessed, the web site is filled with jokes about the
subject; even if you're not in a Klein-buying mood reading the material on
the web pages is good for a laugh.

Joe

[Geri]

Maybe so, but I'm looking for advice on a good 35mm slide scanner that
not going to cost me over $300.

Geri

[Gene E. Bloch]

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2

Good, not great.

[NY]

"Gene E. Bloch" <not...@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:3xagiv1w5knx$.dlg@stumbler1907.invalid...

> http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2
>
> Good, not great.

I don't know that one. I have a Minolta Scan Elite II which I've had for
about 10 years. It produces good results for slides on the whole, though
I've yet to crack the problem of getting acceptable results (colour, tone,
contrast) from colour negatives. Slides and B&W negatives are fine.

You need infra-red cleaning to get rid of as much dust and dirt as
possible - even when you've wiped the film with an anti-static cloth and
blown air from a blower brush, there's still lots of dust that remains, so
IR cleaning is a must. I've read that this doesn't work as well with B&W
negatives and Kodachrome slides because the residual silver makes the film
as opaque to IR in clean areas as in dusty areas, though I've found that it
*does* clean Kodachrome slides. Some form of grain reduction is useful as
well.

I've found that I get better results if I scan B&W negs (Ilford FP4/HP5) as
colour slides and then use software to convert to B&W negative; scanning as
B&W neg produces rather contrasty positives no matter what contrast and
gamma I try.

[Wolf K]

I had similar problems with an Optek Plus scanner, which is why I
switched to a Canon flatbed with film capability when the old flatbed
died. Does a much better job than the Optek did.

IMO, the older gear and/or software just isn't as capable. You may find
that 3rd party software improves the output, try VueScan for example.
The trial version is fully functional, just adds a watermark. Or maybe
you can upgrade/replace the software that came with the Minolta.

Good luck,

[NY]

"Wolf K" <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:JzaVw.172283$Fh7....@fx20.iad...

I've tried both the Minolta Software that came with the scanner and VueScan.
Part of the problem is that there are loads of presets for different types
of film, but it's difficult to relate the edge-marking on the film to the
correct preset because a lot of edge-markings don't seem to be listed - and
after a decade or two you forget which film you used.

The other problem with negatives is that the clouds in the sky are the
darkest part of the film and so they are prone to noise causing brown
speckle if you want to set the white point so peak white is almost but not
quite 255,255,255 to avoid bleaching out of highlight detail.

With a lot of effort and tweaking it is possible to get reasonable results.
There is certainly a LOT more shadow and highlight detail than on a
commercially-printed print, but tonal range tends to look a bit flat like a
printed photograph in a book from the 1940s or 50s.

[Gene E. Bloch]

The advantag of that scanner:

Adequate ("good, not great").

Cheap ($100).

No settings to speak of (easy to use).

YMMV, but it might satisfy Geri; it's OK for me - I just want to
digitize a lot of old slides and negatives (and the one I have does OK
with negative film).