Display:
The 750 is no competition for the LS-50 I have on 35mm - I can do some examples next week. It can't handle xpan as far as I know. Is xpan on 35mm? I thought it was 120!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 at 05:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
xpan is 35mm film but the frames are longer. So if it gets put in a 35mm holder with frames along it, the images get chopped up.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 04:11:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 I've pondered a similar problem with my medium format Mamiya 7 camera and its 35mm panoramic adapter. It yields about a 64mm long  x 23mm wide panoramic strip on 35mm film without frame breaks.

 I kind of wonder if the Nikon 35mm film scanners might provide enough overlap of standard frames so one might at least be able to stitch several together in Photoshop.

   I don't believe my Nikon 5000 film scanner has frame breaks on the film holder, but I'm not certain how much length it is capable of taking in on a single full magnification scan frame. I think it scans an entire 6 frame segment of 35mm at once during preview mode.  I'll have to do some experimenting and let you know.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Dec 4th, 2009 at 10:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not great news. I scanned a five segment 35mm strip and here is what a single frame covered.  I believe this is the maximum area that the scanner can cover in a single scan. It does cover slightly more than a single 35mm frame, but there would be problems in trying to overlap parts of a single long strip because the scanner feeds the entire strip in and then automatically divides it into 37x25 segments.  There is an off-set adjustment in the scanner software that could provide some overlap but it seems to me that it would likely be a tedious process to use for our purposes.


This one measured 37.75mm in length by 25.05mm in width.

I think the scanner preview process just runs each segment in turn over the optics/sensor. It runs the low res scans so fast that it appears to scan the entire film strip at once. Maybe Colman can figure out something.

  I do know that I can scan an 12 frames of 35mm without segmenting on my old Epson 3200 flat bed.  I suspect the V700/750, as well as the V500, can do the same with better resolution.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 12:06:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for having a go with that.  I think some googling around other forums may be in order. The photo of the mountains above was scanned on the Epson V750 which is capable of very good resolution if you can cope with huge file sizes.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your question got me thinking after I posted above.  I think I might be able to cut my film strips to allow overlaps that would permit auto stitching in Photoshop, but again it could be tedious.  Keep us posted on the results of your google efforts.

My impression is that the V500, a much less expensive alternative to the V700 line, might suit you. It also scans up to 6500 dpi I believe.  Of course if you're looking for totally professional results, an Hasselblad Flextight Drum or other high-end scanner is the only true solution; and unless you do large volumes it's probably not worth the cost.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 11:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okaaay.

Scanning three test slides I shot with my Voigtlander Bessa 3A on slide film - because slide was a better test of the meter.

6400dpi on the 750, multi-exposure. This takes a while ... might only scan one tonight, actually, since I just realised I had scanned the first two to JPG, which sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Silly Vuescan and/or silly Colman.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 05:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
v750, crop of about 50% of frame:

ls-50, crop of about 50% of frame:

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 05:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
v750, 100% crop.

ls-50, 100% crop

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 05:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To my eyes - and it's more obvious when you're not posting JPEGs - the ls-50 is much sharper and contrastier than the v750.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 05:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And practically, using slide mounts gives the v750 an easy time, since the mount holds the film flat while the standard 35mm holder doesn't hold negs flat. I could probably get better results tweaking adaptor heights and so on, but that gets old really fast,

Whether any of this matters is another matter, though there's not much point paying big money for lenses and then losing all their contrast and sharpness in the scanner.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 05:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series