Scanning 70mm negatives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark

I want to scan a collection of old b&w 70mm photo
negatives. I can rent a Nikon Coolscan 8000 locally,
but that scanner only goes as large as 120. So it appears
that I will need to purchase a flatbed scanner with a
transparency adapter, and make do with that level of
scan quality.

One possibility is the Epson 3170 Photo. Epson lists
a "medium format adapter" as an included accessory.
Does anyone here know whether that would be
adequate for 70mm?

Any other scanner suggestions?

Thanks
-Mark
 
I want to scan a collection of old b&w 70mm photo
negatives. I can rent a Nikon Coolscan 8000 locally,
but that scanner only goes as large as 120. So it appears
that I will need to purchase a flatbed scanner with a
transparency adapter, and make do with that level of
scan quality.

One possibility is the Epson 3170 Photo. Epson lists
a "medium format adapter" as an included accessory.
Does anyone here know whether that would be
adequate for 70mm?

Any other scanner suggestions?

Thanks
-Mark
Click to expand...

Mark,

The opening in the medium format negative carrier measures 83 mm x
57mm (to within .5mm I'd say). But I'm not sure that the supplied
Epson software allows for the use of the entire area. However, I just
finished scanning some old 2 1/4 negatives, and with Vuescan I was
able to get the entire negative easily.

If you're considering it, you may want to check out the deal on a
refurbished one at
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=45471984
for $124, free shipping. I got mine about early this month, and it's
fine. Certainly not up to the Nikon, but perfectly adequate for hobby
use.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
The opening in the medium format negative carrier measures 83 mm x
57mm (to within .5mm I'd say).
Click to expand...

Is that going to really allow scanning of a full sized 70 mm negative? If
you can get it to work you will be orienting the image sideways in the
holder and if you have more than 1 frame to a film strip, won't it pinch the
film in the sideways position? Maybe I am just missing something here...
If true, I am guessing the best bet is to try and cut your own mask/holder
and secure them by taping them down.

Doug
 
Charlie said:
The opening in the medium format negative carrier measures 83 mm x
57mm
Click to expand...

This evening, I showed my negatives to a friend with some photography
experience. He said "Oh, that's not 70mm, it has no sprocket holes.
That's just called 'roll film'." He knew of no more specific designation for
it, but he said it was commonly used in the olden days (early 1930's,
for my negatives.) Whatever it is, it fits very nicely in 70mm storage
sleeves. The exposure is 62mm x 107mm. The film is 69mm wide,
and each negative is cut to about 118mm long. There are no sprocket
holes.

Does anyone here know if there is any special designation for this
type of film?

I read Doug Fisher's web page, and it led me to a review of the
Epson 4870 scanner at http://photo-i.co.uk. This scanner looks
like it might be the answer to my problem, if I can make the
5x4 inch film holder work with my negatives. Any ideas on
what would be involved to do this?

Thanks
-Mark
 
Is that going to really allow scanning of a full sized 70 mm negative? If
you can get it to work you will be orienting the image sideways in the
holder and if you have more than 1 frame to a film strip, won't it pinch the
film in the sideways position? Maybe I am just missing something here...
If true, I am guessing the best bet is to try and cut your own mask/holder
and secure them by taping them down.

Doug
Click to expand...

You are correct, it will not fit. I didn't know the actual dimensions
of 70 mm film, that's why I gave the actual dimensions of the cutout.
After reading the more recent post by the OP which gives the
dimensions of his film, it's obvious that it won't fit.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
70 mm = 2.7559 inches.
69 mm = 2.7165 inches.
The 118 mm length is no problem. 118mm = 4.6457 inches long, the Epson 3170
transparency adapter is 2.6 X 9 inches.

2 1/4 (120) is actually 61.32 mm wide, in inches = 2.414. That is the
actual width of the film itself.

70 mm will not fit in a 120 film holder.
The only way to scan a 70 mm film is with a Flatbed with transparency
adapter that will scan up to 2.8 inches.

The Epson Photo 3170 has a limit of 2.6 inches wide for transparencies.
It would scan the 70 mm, but it would crop the edges.
 
Second post to give you a link to a page that has a scan from a Kodak
Photographic products catalog for 1977-1978. The 70 mm list is at the bottom
of the page.
Click on thumbnail for 1110 x 724 pixel image.

I hope this information is useful to you.
http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Temp/
 
Mark,
I have had an Epson 4870 for 3 or 4 months now and I see no reason why it
would not scan your film. You would need to make some sort of holder for
your odd sized film which seems to be a panorama format.
The Epson can actually batch scan two 4"x5" sheets of film at the same time
with one of the supplied holders. The largest I think it can handle would be
approx 24x14cm as this is the area of the transp lids scanning area.
For larger film sizes the Epson is excellent, especially its Digital ICE
feature which removes dust and scratches, etc. sitting on the surface of the
film saving vast amounts of time spotting.
The type of holder you make will depend on how much film you have to handle.
As long as its opaque, matte black and holds the film flat you should be
fine with it. The simplest way would probably be a piece of plastic or metal
cut to sit inside the 4"x5" holder with a suitably sized cutout. Then tape
your film carefully, stretching it tight to remove any wavyness or popping
during the rather long scan. I would suggest making a test one out of thick
cardboard first.
Depending on how this film has been stored you would be advised to
aclimatize it in the room you are doing the scanning in at least overnight
and preferably a few days as waiting nearly an hour for a scan only to find
it has "popped" or moved during the scan can be very frustrating.
A 48bit, 4800dpi scan with Digital ICE enabled takes around 20mins on a
6x6cm frame. If you custom made the whole holder you could probably do 4
frames at a time. ie: Set it up, hit scan, and come back in 3 or 4 hours!
Because it can scan and output in 48bit the file sizes can be massive. A
single 35mm frame scanned at 4800dpi in 48 bit is 151Mb. A Single 6x6cm
frame is over 800Mb.
Your films would supply files well over 1.5Gb each and probably would need
the 48 bit scans as old black and white stuff tends to be very dense in the
highlights compared to modern films and will probably need substantial
curves work in Photoshop.
Point being you will need a FAST computer, heaps of ram, (at least 2Gb) and
at least two hard disks with Adobe Photoshop CS to handle the 48bit files
+2Gb files. Using adjustment layers, (which you should!) your files will
easily be over the 2Gb limit for PSD files. You will need to save your files
in Photoshops PSB format which will handle over 2Gb files.
Opened 6x6cm files with a few duplicate layers, masks, paths and adjustment
layers as well as 15 or so history steps frequently take my scratch disk
usage well over 5-6 Gbytes.
If you don't need the 4800dpi resolution the scanner is capable of, your
file sizes will of course be smaller and if you have a lot to do you would
need to have them smaller or set aside a few years to do it! Frankly I think
anything much over 3000dpi is just enlarging the grain rather than giving
you more visible detail anyway.
If money is no object and ultimate quality, (maximum resolvable detail along
with highlight and shadow detail) you would get the best results from an
Imacon flextight scanner (various models) which is a type of upright drum
scanner. However these are very expensive, upwards of AUS $15,000 and the
other constraints re. file sizes, workstation etc would still be there.

Regards,
Frank from OZ
 
This evening, I showed my negatives to a friend with some photography
experience. He said "Oh, that's not 70mm, it has no sprocket holes.
That's just called 'roll film'." He knew of no more specific designation for
it, but he said it was commonly used in the olden days (early 1930's,
for my negatives.) Whatever it is, it fits very nicely in 70mm storage
sleeves. The exposure is 62mm x 107mm. The film is 69mm wide,
and each negative is cut to about 118mm long. There are no sprocket
holes.

Does anyone here know if there is any special designation for this
type of film?
Click to expand...


Dunno, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
for a seemingly comprehensive list of old film formats.

The type 130 film is said to be 2 7/8 x 4 7/8 inch.
 
Frank S. said:
Point being you will need a FAST computer, heaps of ram, (at least 2Gb)
and
at least two hard disks with Adobe Photoshop CS to handle the 48bit files
+2Gb files. Using adjustment layers, (which you should!) your files will
easily be over the 2Gb limit for PSD files. You will need to save your
files
in Photoshops PSB format which will handle over 2Gb files.
Click to expand...

Yikes! It sounds like I'm in for an expensive system upgrade, and perhaps
a software upgrade as well (I use PaintShop Pro v7, which only handles
24-bit files.)
 
Frank S. said:
Point being you will need a FAST computer, heaps of ram, (at least 2Gb)
and
at least two hard disks with Adobe Photoshop CS to handle the 48bit files
+2Gb files. Using adjustment layers, (which you should!) your files will
easily be over the 2Gb limit for PSD files. You will need to save your
files
in Photoshops PSB format which will handle over 2Gb files.
Click to expand...

Looks like system upgrade time. My Athlon 1200 with 512mb SDRAM
probably won't hack it.

Any suggestions for critical features I should be seeking on my next
motherboard? Emphasis is definitely on graphics manipulation, not
gaming. I'm especially interested in what type of memory I should
be using (various DDR speeds, RAMBUS, perhaps other choices?)

Thanks
-Mark
 
Mark,
I don't want to scare you off! Just think very carefully about what you need
to use your scans for and how much time/money you have for this project.
I only mentioned file sizes and requirements for a fairly high end computer
so you would have an idea what requirements scanners like the 4870 will have
if you are using large film sizes in high-bit. I assume you will have a
substantial quantity to do and hence the need for a scanner rather than
sending them to a bureau.
If you only want access to the files for emailing/cataloguing etc, the best
thing to do would be to do batch low res. (600-1200dpi) scans that can have
some corrections done and sized for web etc. Even a 600dpi file of your film
size would give you a file big enough to print at repro quality (300dpi) of
around A5 size ~21.4 x 12.4cm. This is more than large enough for a half
page magazine article on glossy stock, or much larger if on newspaper type
stock. You can set up a workflow for this size to do all images, then if you
have a requirement for something larger, then do the Higher res. scans. You
could save an enormous amount of time and money if these sizes are
sufficient and your current hardware is capable.
Don't forget that apart from your Hardware requirements you would also need
Adobe Photoshop CS, as I don't know if other software Adobe Elements etc
will support 48 bit files over 2 gigabytes. I use a single processor 3.0GHz
Pentium 4 HT, 1.5Mb DDR ram(70% to Photoshop and still not enough, but 1GB
ram sticks are still a bit pricey for me), Dual monitors, and a 200Gb
Hard-disk with Windoze XP. Its going in over the xmas break to have another
hard drive put in to act as a scratch disk to speed things up.
A 2.5GByte layered Photoshop "PSB" file takes around 10minutes just to open,
around the same time to save, and about 7-10 minutes to generate a preview
image in the file browser. Even with multiple hard disks, dual processors,
+3Gbytes DDR Ram (At present Photoshop Cannot use more than 2GBytes of Ram
so 2GB for Photoshop will leave 1 GB for your system.) these types of files
will be "slow" to open and close, not the near instant response you have
with sub 100Mb files.
If you are using these sizes and archive the finished layered files, don't
forget that you also need a DVD burner as they won't fit on a CDR. I can
usually fit only 2 or 3 images on a single layer DVD.

Regards,
Frank Styevko from OZ
 
Mark said:
I want to scan a collection of old b&w 70mm photo
negatives. I can rent a Nikon Coolscan 8000 locally,
but that scanner only goes as large as 120. So it appears
that I will need to purchase a flatbed scanner with a
transparency adapter, and make do with that level of
scan quality.

One possibility is the Epson 3170 Photo. Epson lists
a "medium format adapter" as an included accessory.
Does anyone here know whether that would be
adequate for 70mm?

Any other scanner suggestions?

Thanks
-Mark
Click to expand...
ask dough fisher of mf-filmholder or julio who is offering a
wet-scanning kit 5x7 inch. i will wait for epson 4990. i have also 70mm
films but long panoramic ones. i will have to scan them along the short
side due to the detection window at the short end. this window must be
kept free.
there is glas-solution shown
here:http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15
i dont know if this will help you or me.
right focus is evident.
 
Frank said:
Your films would supply files well over 1.5Gb each and probably would need
the 48 bit scans as old black and white stuff tends to be very dense in the
highlights compared to modern films and will probably need substantial
curves work in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

They can be scanned in 16-bit gray: 1/3 of the weight and same
grayscale depth; very practical within Photoshop.
At the very end of the adjustments, one may convert the final result to
24 bit sRGB to retain maximum compatibility.
This is my workflow (4000dpi Polaroid SS120, and 6x9 BW film).

Fernando
 
Fernando,
That's a lovely elegant bit of lateral thinking! I haven't had to do a job
with B&W film for nearly ten years, and even then it was with Kodak's T400CN
which is really a colour neg emulsion with dye instead of metallic silver in
the emulsion.
If I ever need to do some scans of "real" B&W stock I'll keep your
suggestion in mind!
Even so, Mark's files will still be somewhere around 500Mb each, without any
adjustment layers so will still require a reasonable computer with hopefully
at least 1Gb of fast Ram.
 
Back
Top