Newbie with scanner lust...what to buy??

[Michael Siemon]

The Coolscan V or 5000 is not scanning full negative area, is it ? With
the strip film holder one is getting something like 3700dpi out of 4000
dpi (short side of film).

This may or may not be an issue[*]. I don't think that most people
compose 35mm shots so tightly that this (fairly minor) cropping
matters -- some do, and their priorities need to take that into
account. For myself, I am sufficiently uncertain while shooting
just exactly where the outer bounds of the image will be that I
tend to leave final composition to the digital darkroom (or take
shots with indefinite pictorial bounds). For me, that slice off
the edge is not (usually) a problem. I like the Coolscan V a lot;
now I just need to upgrade my 4-year old system to take better
advantage of it!
-
[*] Note that this cropping is on the standard supplied film
carrier; the issue does not arise for slides, where people tend
to be more concerned (because of traditional slide-show usage)
with getting initial composition dead on. Negatives tend to
imply some cropping for the traditional presentations anyway,
so unless you were really shooting for an 8 x 12 (vs. 8 x 10)
in the first place, your "shot" should have allowed for this.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

The Coolscan V or 5000 is not scanning full negative area, is it ? With
the strip film holder one is getting something like 3700dpi out of 4000
dpi (short side of film).

This is a partial myth. A full specification 35mm frame has sides of
36mm x 24mm. ie. The short side of a frame is *not* one inch! So at
4000ppi the most you should expect to get on the short side of a frame
are 3779 pixels.

The Nikon scanners all have a scan area of 25.1 x38mm, or 3546x5782
pixels at 4000ppi, which exceeds the size of a full specification 35mm
frame - indeed it exceeds the size of *any* frame from any standard 35mm
camera that has ever been marketed (excluding panoramic cameras). So
the scanners do *not* crop the frames to less than the 35mm
specification - PERIOD!

The SA-21 unmounted film strip feeder does have a restricted width -
which is specified as at least 23.3mm, resulting in a scan width of 3654
pixels at 4000ppi. In practice, the scan width is closer to 23.5mm,
which provides around 3700 pixels.

However, compare that 23.5mm width to high quality standard slide mounts
from, for example, GePe - both glass and glassless mounts were measured.
These have an active area of 22.9 x 34.9mm - ie. cropping in *both* axes
by more than *twice* the amount that the Nikon unmounted feeder crops in
just width! (the SA-21 will scan a slide which is 37.8mm long, much
longer than a standard 35mm frame). Lesser quality mounts crop by an
even greater extent.

In short, the SA-21 adapter *NOT* the Nikon scanners, will crop the
frame width but by less than half of the best slide mounts. In
addition, if such marginal frame cropping proves to be a concern, you
can always use the FH-3 film strip holder (standard accessory for the
LS-5000, optional extra for the LS-50) and achieve the full frame
without any problems. I have even managed to scan some 38mm square
frames with Nikon scanners at 4000ppi and achieved 3950x5960 pixel
results, corresponding to 25.1 x 37.8mm active area - far greater than a
standard 35mm frame.

In addition to this, very few 35mm SLRs actually provide a full
specification frame in the viewfinder. I can only think of a dozen or
so such examples in the past 40 years that do -and most of those were
developments of each other. So the crop that you are concerned about
probably never even appeared in your viewfinder when you framed the
image - and if you happened to use a camera which did provide more that
97% in the viewfinder, then the Nikon scanners can handle it with the
appropriate film holder.

 

[Ivan]

The experience and knowledge in this forum is rich and thick. I tip my hat
to everyone contributing to this thread and especially Ed Hamrick. The
"Nikon V" it will be then, with no reservations.
Ivan

 

[sumofan]

However, compare that 23.5mm width to high quality standard slide mounts
from, for example, GePe - both glass and glassless mounts were measured.
These have an active area of 22.9 x 34.9mm - ie. cropping in *both* axes
by more than *twice* the amount that the Nikon unmounted feeder crops in
just width! (the SA-21 will scan a slide which is 37.8mm long, much
longer than a standard 35mm frame). Lesser quality mounts crop by an
even greater extent.

Gepe and Wess both make full frame 35mm mounts which expose the full
image area 24x36mm.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Gepe and Wess both make full frame 35mm mounts which expose the full
image area 24x36mm.

Indeed they do, in Gepe's case these are type 6012/3, but these are
special order and certainly not standard slide mounts of the type your
lab will generally provide. The measurements above were standard, metal
aperture, Gepe glass and glassless mounts, as stated.

In any case, should you actually get hold of type 6012/3 mounts then you
will certainly be able to scan the full frame area with the Nikon
scanners, which is proof in itself, that the scanner does not crop
standard 35mm frames at all.

 

[sumofan]

Indeed they do, in Gepe's case these are type 6012/3, but these are
special order and certainly not standard slide mounts of the type your
lab will generally provide. The measurements above were standard, metal
aperture, Gepe glass and glassless mounts, as stated.

In any case, should you actually get hold of type 6012/3 mounts then you
will certainly be able to scan the full frame area with the Nikon
scanners, which is proof in itself, that the scanner does not crop
standard 35mm frames at all.

There is also a Gepe 7012 full frame mount specifically for scanning.
Both the 6012 and 7012 are available in the US without a special order.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

There is also a Gepe 7012 full frame mount specifically for scanning.
Both the 6012 and 7012 are available in the US without a special order.

None of this changes the fact that a standard high quality mount crops
twice as much in each direction as the SA-21 adapter does in just width,
and the scanner can cover more than the 35mm frame in both length and
width. So the whole issue about the Nikon scanners cropping frames is
simply a myth.

 

[Bryan]

Hi Ivan. Have you considered older Nikon scanners? I am thinking
about that myself. I have a HP Photosmart S20, which I like and have
used for about 2 years now to scan my 35mm and some 126 negatives.
However, I have found some large format negatives (about 2"x3" -- is
this 120?) that I want to scan and can't with the HP. Also, I really
would like to use digital ICE on some old, scratched negatives.

I'm thinking the Nikon LS2000 might be all that I need. I don't scan
above about 900 dpi. I wonder if the LS2000 is all that different
than the newer models, other than bells and whistles. Has anyone
researched this?

Thanks!

 

[Bill Tuthill]

... So the whole issue about the Nikon scanners cropping frames is
simply a myth.

The SA-21 film feeder, which most people use because it is provided,
unlike the extra-cost full-frame FH-3, does crop a bit. Reports vary.
My 35mm frames vary from 23.5 to 24mm high, depending on camera.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008LJg

[*] Note that this cropping is on the standard supplied film
carrier; the issue does not arise for slides, where people tend
to be more concerned (because of traditional slide-show usage)
with getting initial composition dead on.

Cough.
Evidently you found a lab with very magical slide-mounting hardware.
If you've ever looked at mounted slides from Fuji's Arizona facility,
you would see many slides that have gaps on left or right, slides
with crooked pieces of film, etc. That was my experience, anyway.
A typical slide mount crops about as much as the typical 4x6 print.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

The SA-21 film feeder, which most people use because it is provided,
unlike the extra-cost full-frame FH-3, does crop a bit. Reports vary.

Shame you didn't read the thread first - we have been through this issue
in detail. Reports vary because some numpties cannot actually measure
the thing properly - we have posters in this thread who think they
should be getting 4000 pixels across the frame width!

My 35mm frames vary from 23.5 to 24mm high, depending on camera.

And the viewfinder coverage on your camera is what percentage of the
frame? In short, how much of that 24mm frame height did you actually
see when framing the image?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Hi Ivan. Have you considered older Nikon scanners? I am thinking
about that myself. I have a HP Photosmart S20, which I like and have
used for about 2 years now to scan my 35mm and some 126 negatives.
However, I have found some large format negatives (about 2"x3" -- is
this 120?) that I want to scan and can't with the HP. Also, I really
would like to use digital ICE on some old, scratched negatives.

I'm thinking the Nikon LS2000 might be all that I need. I don't scan
above about 900 dpi. I wonder if the LS2000 is all that different
than the newer models, other than bells and whistles. Has anyone
researched this?

LS2000 is a very good scanner for negatives, although the 2700ppi can
show grain aliasing (making the film grain appear coarser and larger
than it is in reality) on more films than the modern 4000ppi Nikon
scanners. Also, for scanning slides, the 12-bit per channel capability
of the LS-2000 is a little too limited too pull detail out of the
deepest shadows.

 

[sumofan]

None of this changes the fact that a standard high quality mount crops
twice as much in each direction as the SA-21 adapter does in just width,
and the scanner can cover more than the 35mm frame in both length and
width. So the whole issue about the Nikon scanners cropping frames is
simply a myth.

You may have dispelled the myth. But my suggestion of using full frame
mounts can help the original poster in achieving his goal of getting
full frame scans. There is no need to get defensive.

 

[Bryan]

Thanks, Kennedy. But I'm having a hard time finding a film scanner
that will do odd-sized negatives. I have some 1950's negatives (color
and b/w) that I want to scan, but they are 120 and 620 size (as well
as some other odd sizes, all less than 2"x3" though). Can the LS2000
or LS4000 handle that?

I'm not so concerned with the 12-bit vs. 16-bit and the ppi as I am
with just be able to scan the darned things (although I at least want
to use a film scanner and not a flatbed/lightbox!).

Bryan

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Thanks, Kennedy. But I'm having a hard time finding a film scanner
that will do odd-sized negatives. I have some 1950's negatives (color
and b/w) that I want to scan, but they are 120 and 620 size (as well
as some other odd sizes, all less than 2"x3" though). Can the LS2000
or LS4000 handle that?

I'm not so concerned with the 12-bit vs. 16-bit and the ppi as I am
with just be able to scan the darned things (although I at least want
to use a film scanner and not a flatbed/lightbox!).

No, the LS-2000 will only scan 35mm film or smaller. It certainly won't
be able to scan 120/220 films.

Even your 126 frames, whilst they can be scanned, will be cropped. If I
recall correctly, a 126 frame was 28mm square, and the widest the Nikon
will cover is 25.1mm. However that is 25,1 mm from the centre of the
35mm wide film, so the 3mm crop is almost entirely from the top of the
frame, which can be a problem in some cases. I have actually cut the
base off 126 frames in the past just to get an acceptable crop. In any
case, unless you have mounted slides, you will need to use the FH-2 film
strip holder for the 126 format, so make sure that is included with the
scanner if you buy it.

You might be able to find a used Minolta Scan Multi that would cope with
your 120/220 film and would probably be a lot cheaper than the nearest
Nikon equivalent, the LS-8000. Apart from that, I am afraid it will
have to be a flatbed with a film transparency unit. For scanning large
format film though these are not nearly as bad as you seem to think. A
lot of people have a film scanner for 35mm and a flatbed with film
adapter or light built into the lid for larger format.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

You may have dispelled the myth. But my suggestion of using full frame
mounts can help the original poster in achieving his goal of getting
full frame scans. There is no need to get defensive.

Sorry, I wasn't getting defensive. Your comment could be interpreted
either way: supporting the myth or not. Since this myth has been doing
the rounds in cyberspace for a while any misinterpretation really needs
to be clarified.

You are quite correct that the use of these mounts enables the Nikon
owner to get a full frame scan without using the FH-2/3 and this also
*proves* that the scanner does not crop standard 35mm frames at all.

However it is just as important to emphasise that the minimal crop
imposed by the SA-21 adapter is actually less than a *standard* slide
mount (and a lot less than many accepted mounts, such as those used on
Kodachrome) and also a lot less than the typical crop in the viewfinder
of the vast majority of 35mm cameras. I doubt that any of those
complaining about the 0.5mm crop on the SA-21 actually know, let alone
own and use, a camera which shows more of the frame in the viewfinder
and, if they shoot slides, have never bothered to have them put into
full frame mounts.

 

[Bryan]

Thanks again. After some further research, I think you're right; a
film scanner is probably overkill for what I need to do with the few
120s and 620s that I have. I have been reading a lot of posts and
reviews, and it looks like the Epson 2450 may fit the bill for me.
Even though it doesn't have dICE, it does scan film up to 4"x5", has a
120 mask, and of course does reflective material as well. This could
replace the Epson 640U flatbed that I have. Epson is selling 2450
refurbs for $199. I can probably get a decent used one or a refurb on
eBay for less than that. I'm hoping for around $100.

For 35mm (and 126 that I stuff in there), I already have an HP
Photosmart S20 that I am more than happy with. These are going very
cheap now (under $150 as I recall) and do a fine job with 35mm film
and slides. I also have Vuescan, which helps a lot with color
balance.

Thanks again for your help!
Bryan


P.S. ...a lovely little thing about a bugger when he's pissed.