What scanner will do 126 instamatic negatives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Corliss
  • Start date Start date
J

John Corliss

I have a large number of 126 instamatic film negative strips that I
would like to scan. Instamatic 126 film image size on the negative
strips are 28x28mm and 35mm film is 36x24mm. Otherwise, the film strips
are the same height as 35mm film but only have sprocket holes on one
side. Since 35mm film is 36x24mm film scanners normally just use a scan
strip width of 24mm and scan lengthways. When used for 126 Instamatic
film this means that I will miss a strip of 4mm at the top or bottom,
depending on how I orient the strip.

Is there any scanner that will scan 126 instamatic negative strips at a
resolution greater than 2700 dpi and without losing that 4 mm or
requiring me to continually move the negative strip so that the space in
between the pictures can be avoided? Cutting the strips into separate
images is not an option either, since these negatives are family
property and I don't want to scan them one at a time anyway.

Currently I have a SmartDisk Smartscan 2700:

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review1261.html

which is no longer listed at the manufacturer's site. It does 35mm all
right (for my purposes), but it's a real pain to do 126 on it. I lose
that 4mm section and can only do one picture at a time.

I've contacted Epson, Microtek, Hewlett-Packard and Canon, but none of
them had any affordable (less than $250) solutions.

In the past, I've had the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Film
Scanner recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/nkp5y

but after reviewing the manual (link is further down on that same page),
it seems that it only does 35mm and thus would have the limitations
which I am trying to avoid.

I've also had the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/lq45z

but at the time I couldn't afford it. Now it's probably been superseded
by another model from Epson.

Can anybody suggest a scanner I might be interested in and which is
under $250? Please note that I'm not interested in technique
suggestions, but only am looking for a scanner that will do what I need.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations you can provide.
 
John said:
I have a large number of 126 instamatic film negative strips that I
would like to scan. Instamatic 126 film image size on the negative
strips are 28x28mm and 35mm film is 36x24mm. Otherwise, the film strips
are the same height as 35mm film but only have sprocket holes on one
side. Since 35mm film is 36x24mm film scanners normally just use a scan
strip width of 24mm and scan lengthways. When used for 126 Instamatic
film this means that I will miss a strip of 4mm at the top or bottom,
depending on how I orient the strip.

Is there any scanner that will scan 126 instamatic negative strips at a
resolution greater than 2700 dpi and without losing that 4 mm or
requiring me to continually move the negative strip so that the space in
between the pictures can be avoided? Cutting the strips into separate
images is not an option either, since these negatives are family
property and I don't want to scan them one at a time anyway.

Currently I have a SmartDisk Smartscan 2700:

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review1261.html

which is no longer listed at the manufacturer's site. It does 35mm all
right (for my purposes), but it's a real pain to do 126 on it. I lose
that 4mm section and can only do one picture at a time.

I've contacted Epson, Microtek, Hewlett-Packard and Canon, but none of
them had any affordable (less than $250) solutions.

In the past, I've had the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Film
Scanner recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/nkp5y

but after reviewing the manual (link is further down on that same page),
it seems that it only does 35mm and thus would have the limitations
which I am trying to avoid.

I've also had the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/lq45z

but at the time I couldn't afford it. Now it's probably been superseded
by another model from Epson.

Can anybody suggest a scanner I might be interested in and which is
under $250? Please note that I'm not interested in technique
suggestions, but only am looking for a scanner that will do what I need.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations you can provide.
Click to expand...

Hi John...

I'm in sorta the same position, though much much worse. Been looking
for a solution for a couple of years. Haven't found one so I've been
procrastinating, but can't hold out much longer :(

I have a couple of dozen of those old Kodak disk negatives that I have
to scan. Not only do I have smaller negs with them, but because they're
on a circular disk each and every one of them has to adjusted in the -
don't know what word - has to be set one by one to be "square". Quality
is going to be lousy, but the memories are there, so...

I use an Epson flatbed. Thinking of making up a black cardboard
equivalent to the holders that Epson supplies, with some sort of
Rube Goldberg type of pin to allow me to rotate them and have them
end up at least close to "straight".

However, if you manage to find something better, please be sure to
share it with me :)

Thanks, and take care.

Ken
 
John Corliss said:
I have a large number of 126 instamatic film negative strips that I would
like to scan. Instamatic 126 film image size on the negative strips are
28x28mm and 35mm film is 36x24mm. Otherwise, the film strips are the same
height as 35mm film but only have sprocket holes on one side. Since 35mm
film is 36x24mm film scanners normally just use a scan strip width of 24mm
and scan lengthways. When used for 126 Instamatic film this means that I
will miss a strip of 4mm at the top or bottom, depending on how I orient
the strip.

Is there any scanner that will scan 126 instamatic negative strips at a
resolution greater than 2700 dpi and without losing that 4 mm or requiring
me to continually move the negative strip so that the space in between the
pictures can be avoided? Cutting the strips into separate images is not an
option either, since these negatives are family property and I don't want
to scan them one at a time anyway.

Currently I have a SmartDisk Smartscan 2700:

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review1261.html

which is no longer listed at the manufacturer's site. It does 35mm all
right (for my purposes), but it's a real pain to do 126 on it. I lose that
4mm section and can only do one picture at a time.

I've contacted Epson, Microtek, Hewlett-Packard and Canon, but none of
them had any affordable (less than $250) solutions.

In the past, I've had the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Film Scanner
recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/nkp5y
Click to expand...

The ScanDual IV will not work with any film holder other that the 35 mm
strip holder supplied, They crop the top of 126 film as you said above.
but after reviewing the manual (link is further down on that same page),
it seems that it only does 35mm and thus would have the limitations which
I am trying to avoid.

I've also had the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/lq45z

but at the time I couldn't afford it. Now it's probably been superseded by
another model from Epson.

Can anybody suggest a scanner I might be interested in and which is under
$250? Please note that I'm not interested in technique suggestions, but
only am looking for a scanner that will do what I need.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations you can provide.
Click to expand...

126 is no longer a standard film format, and the 35 mm film holders
are not designed for 126 film.

126 film has the same width as 35 mm film, but the frame format goes all the
way to the top of the film and 35mm film holders mask the top of the film.

You must have a 120 film size capable scanner and create your own mask for
the 126 format. You can easily cut a mask from Construction paper or a light
cardboard.

I have a Canon Canoscan 8400F and it is capable of scanning 126 film.

It is a flatbed scanner with 3200 DPI film scanner ability, it is less
scanner that a dedicated film scanner, but it can scan 126 film with a
homemade mask.

I have a web page describing how to scan a non standard film in the Canon
8400F.

This example is using "127 Super Slide" which is a 1.5" X 1.5" frame. But
there is no reason that cutting a mask to fit the 126 film would not work
the same way.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/odd_size_film/Odd_film.htm
 
CSM1 said:
The ScanDual IV will not work with any film holder other that the 35 mm
strip holder supplied, They crop the top of 126 film as you said above.


126 is no longer a standard film format, and the 35 mm film holders
are not designed for 126 film.
126 film has the same width as 35 mm film, but the frame format goes all the
way to the top of the film and 35mm film holders mask the top of the film.
You must have a 120 film size capable scanner and create your own mask for
the 126 format. You can easily cut a mask from Construction paper or a light
cardboard.
I have a Canon Canoscan 8400F and it is capable of scanning 126 film.
It is a flatbed scanner with 3200 DPI film scanner ability, it is less
scanner that a dedicated film scanner, but it can scan 126 film with a
homemade mask.
I have a web page describing how to scan a non standard film in the Canon
8400F.
This example is using "127 Super Slide" which is a 1.5" X 1.5" frame. But
there is no reason that cutting a mask to fit the 126 film would not work
the same way.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/odd_size_film/Odd_film.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks for replying and clarifying that problem with the Scan Dual IV.

As for the CanoScan 8400F:

http://tinyurl.com/4vsfu

it sounds like just what I'm looking for! And it comes in well under the
price wire, even on the Canon website. I am on my way now to check out
your webpage.

Many, many thanks! And since I'm doing this huge scan project in order
to be able to distribute it to my family on discs, I can speak for them
too in offering that thanks.
 
Ken said:
Hi John...

I'm in sorta the same position, though much much worse. Been looking
for a solution for a couple of years. Haven't found one so I've been
procrastinating, but can't hold out much longer :(

I have a couple of dozen of those old Kodak disk negatives that I have
to scan.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_film
Not only do I have smaller negs with them, but because they're
on a circular disk each and every one of them has to adjusted in the -
don't know what word -
Click to expand...

Probably "rotation" is what you mean. Measured in degrees, and I don't
know of a program that will allow rotation in fractions of a degree, so
scanning it as straight as possible is a good idea.
has to be set one by one to be "square". Quality
is going to be lousy, but the memories are there, so...
Click to expand...

I hear you. That's exactly my problem. And the negatives are getting
worse with time. I have them stored in as dry and cool an area in my
house as I can find, but they were already pretty bad.
I use an Epson flatbed. Thinking of making up a black cardboard
equivalent to the holders that Epson supplies, with some sort of
Rube Goldberg type of pin to allow me to rotate them and have them
end up at least close to "straight".
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be too hard as long as there's some kind of alignment mark or
hole on the disk. And all you'd need would be one, since the images are
24 degrees apart (if they're the 15 shot type disks that I think they are.)
However, if you manage to find something better, please be sure to
share it with me :)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that since neither I nor anybody that I know or knew ever
used that format, I can't really offer you any suggestions. In fact, I
couldn't even find a picture of one of the disks on the internet. Sorry.
 
John said:
Are you talking about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_film



Probably "rotation" is what you mean. Measured in degrees, and I don't
know of a program that will allow rotation in fractions of a degree, so
scanning it as straight as possible is a good idea.



I hear you. That's exactly my problem. And the negatives are getting
worse with time. I have them stored in as dry and cool an area in my
house as I can find, but they were already pretty bad.



Shouldn't be too hard as long as there's some kind of alignment mark or
hole on the disk. And all you'd need would be one, since the images are
24 degrees apart (if they're the 15 shot type disks that I think they are.)



I'm afraid that since neither I nor anybody that I know or knew ever
used that format, I can't really offer you any suggestions. In fact, I
couldn't even find a picture of one of the disks on the internet. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Hi John...

Wow, now I feel even older!! :)

I got the cameras for the kids (free) from Kodak after Polaroid sued
them for patent infringement over their instant cameras.

Anyway, if there's no pics at all of the discs, here's one for
you with a 35mm slide beside it for size comparison :)

http://members.shaw.ca/kweitzel/disc.jpg

Take care.

Ken
 
Ken said:
Hi John...

Wow, now I feel even older!! :)
Click to expand...

Oh they were around (I'm 54) but everybody seemed to be using 126 where
I live (So. Oregon).
I got the cameras for the kids (free) from Kodak after Polaroid sued
them for patent infringement over their instant cameras.

Anyway, if there's no pics at all of the discs, here's one for
you with a 35mm slide beside it for size comparison :)

http://members.shaw.ca/kweitzel/disc.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks! And that seems to indicate that it would be real easy to make an
alignment frame of some kind that would have a stop which would fit in
the notches between the images.
Take care.
Click to expand...

Those are like you said though, very small. What do you intend to use as
a DPI resolution for the scans? Offhand, I'd guess at least 4k dpi.
 
Hi John,

In the past I have used a Polaroid Sprintscan 35+ to scan the full
frame of 126 slides.

The Sprintscan 35+ does 2700dpi, and can scan up to 'superslide' size.
It is SCSI-based, but I have successfully scanned on XP so it is still
compatible with current technology.

Slides were easy because the mount has the same exterior dimensions as
a 35mm slide, but for film you may have a problem. If you are willing
to cut the film into individual negs, you could mount them as slides
(if you can find the holders these days) and scan them that way. I
don't believe there was a 126 strip holder made for the 35+, but you
could try to fashion your own if you were dedicated.

Another way would be to design some sort of glass-mount (to keep the
film flat, although you would have to use anti-newton glass) and use a
flatbed scanner. The reviews I have seen of the latest Epson scanner
sound comparable to film scanners - probably better than something of
the Sprintscan vintage. I tried doing a few scans of the 126 slides on
an Epson flatbed scanner. The Epson software would auto-crop to a 35mm
frame, but playing around with an eval version of Vuescan it seemed
possible to set it up to scan 126 frames in a batch mode.

In the end, I decided I could live with the cropping and went with an
LS-2000 with a slide adaptor. Because of the ability to scan in
batches, I managed to get through 1200 slides in 3 weeks - the sad part
is I am only 1/3 of the way through!

Hope this helps,

C
 
cubilcle281 said:
Hi John,

In the past I have used a Polaroid Sprintscan 35+ to scan the full
frame of 126 slides.
The Sprintscan 35+ does 2700dpi, and can scan up to 'superslide' size.
It is SCSI-based, but I have successfully scanned on XP so it is still
compatible with current technology.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have been a problem on my computer, since I have a PCI SCSI
card installed and it works great with my Microtek E6 flatbed. I'm
running XP Home with SP2 as well. However, I had to install an older
version (2.54) of Scanwizard because, frankly, the newest version
totally sucks.
Slides were easy because the mount has the same exterior dimensions as
a 35mm slide, but for film you may have a problem. If you are willing
to cut the film into individual negs, you could mount them as slides
(if you can find the holders these days) and scan them that way.
Click to expand...

Thanks but as I mentioned in the OP, cutting the strips into individual
negs isn't an option. They're family property and it's not for me to
make such a decision. Besides, I don't want to cut them up any more than
my brothers or sisters would want me to.
I don't believe there was a 126 strip holder made for the 35+, but you
could try to fashion your own if you were dedicated.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at mechanical fabrication, but would prefer to buy a
scanner that will be able to do what I need without having to go to much
effort in that area. And from what I've seen and been told, it looks
like fabrication is going to be necessary no matter what route I take.

The industry just isn't interested in accommodating the needs of those
with 126 negatives, even though at one time it was a format that was
very popular. Or at least they don't want to do this economically. I was
happy though, when Hewlett-Packard emailed me that they were going to
forward my suggestion to their product development department.

They were the only company I contacted that responded this way.
Another way would be to design some sort of glass-mount (to keep the
film flat, although you would have to use anti-newton glass) and use a
flatbed scanner.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I can make a holder that doesn't need any glass. The
negatives have been stored in a rolled out position for long enough that
they don't distort when laid on a surface.
The reviews I have seen of the latest Epson scanner
sound comparable to film scanners - probably better than something of
the Sprintscan vintage. I tried doing a few scans of the 126 slides on
an Epson flatbed scanner. The Epson software would auto-crop to a 35mm
frame,
Click to expand...

Was that in whatever they call the "expert" mode as well? I tried a
friend's Epson (think it was a 3170) and I was unable to successfully
scan 126. I may not have been doing it correctly though. She hovered
over me the whole time, was rushing me and chatted incessantly the whole
time. Under those kinds of conditions, it's impossible to concentrate.
but playing around with an eval version of Vuescan it seemed
possible to set it up to scan 126 frames in a batch mode.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I checked out CSM1's recommendation of a Canon Canoscan
8400F flatbed, and I'm really interested in that one. The Newegg site
has plenty of positive user feedback on the item, and CSM1's page
describing how to scan 126 on that unit makes me believe that it would
be easy for me to do. Not only that, but I love the price.

Only problem is that my computer only has USB 1.1, but Newegg also sells
an inexpensive PCI USB-Firewire adapter.
In the end, I decided I could live with the cropping and went with an
LS-2000 with a slide adaptor.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there is the crux of the matter. I've used my SmartDisk
Smartscan 2700 to successfully scan individual pictures from the 126
negative strips, but I'm unwilling to accept losing a 4 mm strip from
the top or bottom of the images. And frankly too, I don't think that
2700 dpi (at least the way my Smartscan does it) is enough resolution
for satisfactory results.
Because of the ability to scan in
batches, I managed to get through 1200 slides in 3 weeks - the sad part
is I am only 1/3 of the way through!
Click to expand...

And here you've hit on another issue. I want to be able to scan in
batches too. As you've discovered, it speeds things up tremendously.
Hope this helps,
Click to expand...

You added clarification about the Sprintscan 35+ (and thanks for noting
that there are plus and "non-plus" versions of that scanner.) Thanks
very much for replying!
 
John said:
Wouldn't have been a problem on my computer, since I have a PCI SCSI
card installed and it works great with my Microtek E6 flatbed. I'm
running XP Home with SP2 as well. However, I had to install an older
version (2.54) of Scanwizard because, frankly, the newest version
totally sucks.



Thanks but as I mentioned in the OP, cutting the strips into individual
negs isn't an option. They're family property and it's not for me to
make such a decision. Besides, I don't want to cut them up any more than
my brothers or sisters would want me to.



I'm pretty good at mechanical fabrication, but would prefer to buy a
scanner that will be able to do what I need without having to go to much
effort in that area. And from what I've seen and been told, it looks
like fabrication is going to be necessary no matter what route I take.

The industry just isn't interested in accommodating the needs of those
with 126 negatives, even though at one time it was a format that was
very popular. Or at least they don't want to do this economically. I was
happy though, when Hewlett-Packard emailed me that they were going to
forward my suggestion to their product development department.

They were the only company I contacted that responded this way.



Pretty sure I can make a holder that doesn't need any glass. The
negatives have been stored in a rolled out position for long enough that
they don't distort when laid on a surface.



Was that in whatever they call the "expert" mode as well? I tried a
friend's Epson (think it was a 3170) and I was unable to successfully
scan 126. I may not have been doing it correctly though. She hovered
over me the whole time, was rushing me and chatted incessantly the whole
time. Under those kinds of conditions, it's impossible to concentrate.



Thanks, but I checked out CSM1's recommendation of a Canon Canoscan
8400F flatbed, and I'm really interested in that one. The Newegg site
has plenty of positive user feedback on the item, and CSM1's page
describing how to scan 126 on that unit makes me believe that it would
be easy for me to do. Not only that, but I love the price.

Only problem is that my computer only has USB 1.1, but Newegg also sells
an inexpensive PCI USB-Firewire adapter.



Ah, but there is the crux of the matter. I've used my SmartDisk
Smartscan 2700 to successfully scan individual pictures from the 126
negative strips, but I'm unwilling to accept losing a 4 mm strip from
the top or bottom of the images. And frankly too, I don't think that
2700 dpi (at least the way my Smartscan does it) is enough resolution
for satisfactory results.



And here you've hit on another issue. I want to be able to scan in
batches too. As you've discovered, it speeds things up tremendously.



You added clarification about the Sprintscan 35+ (and thanks for noting
that there are plus and "non-plus" versions of that scanner.) Thanks
very much for replying!
Click to expand...

Hi John...

Epson's scan software in "professional" mode will scan any
size mask that you like. Should you have the opportunity
to try out your friend's again, click preview and it will
quickly scan the entire bed. Draw a mask around any portion
at all of that preview, and click zoom. That will make it
scan again, but only that portion plus a bit that you've masked
so that you may tweak your mask, etc.

If you'd care to send me an email, I'll be happy to send you
small(ish) pictures of the templates that come with the
scanner. (easier that putting them up and posting a link)

My old memory clicks in... there was a fellow here or in
a photo group that made and sold epson templates for other
film sizes, but that same old memory can't remember a name
or url. I asked a couple of years ago if he'd consider a
kodak disc version, but.... Anyway, going to go through
old archives and see if I can't find it again for you.

Take care.

Ken
 
Ken said:
Hi John...
Epson's scan software in "professional" mode will scan any
size mask that you like. Should you have the opportunity
to try out your friend's again, click preview and it will
quickly scan the entire bed. Draw a mask around any portion
at all of that preview, and click zoom. That will make it
scan again, but only that portion plus a bit that you've masked
so that you may tweak your mask, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation Ken, but my friend only calls me when she's
having computer problems and otherwise pretty much keeps to herself. She
had a massive stroke at the age of 35 (almost died) and hasn't acted
normally since then, so I make allowances for her by leaving her alone
unless she contacts me first.
If you'd care to send me an email, I'll be happy to send you
small(ish) pictures of the templates that come with the
scanner. (easier that putting them up and posting a link)
Click to expand...

That's all right Ken. I've pretty much decided on that Canon Canoscan
8400F that CSM1 recommended. All the positive user reviews at Newegg
sold me on it.
My old memory clicks in... there was a fellow here or in
a photo group that made and sold epson templates for other
film sizes, but that same old memory can't remember a name
or url. I asked a couple of years ago if he'd consider a
kodak disc version, but.... Anyway, going to go through
old archives and see if I can't find it again for you.
Click to expand...

Please don't bother Ken. I appreciate the offer, but I'm sure I can come
up with something for that Canon without too much trouble.
Take care.
Click to expand...

I very much appreciate you taking the time to reply. Have a great day!
 
I've pretty much decided on that Canon Canoscan 8400F that CSM1
recommended. All the positive user reviews at Newegg sold me on it.

Late to this party, wonder if you have already put your money down. By
coincidence, I spent the weekend at big box and at local owner stores,
opening boxes and examining the accessory pieces for 5 of sub<$400
flatbeds, focusing on their potential for securing 6x6mtd diapos, and
their lid lights for width, again for 6x6mtd. The lid light in my Epson
2480 was just wide enough, but its successor 3490 is only wide enough to
illuminate a 135mtd with long side || to the lid long side. Of the other
4, Epson 4490 and the CanoScan 8400 lid lights are adequate, and the MF
holder for the 4490 has wider plastic borders. So more margin to carve
notches to secure the mounts. The reviews suggest Canon's FARE has
similar function to Kodak's D-ICE, and that the Epson is s...l...o..w.
I REALLY WANTED the Micotek i800 for its flexible options in its film
holder. But couldn't find the extra $100+ over the rebate price of the
Epson 4490. [You can't always get what you want,....get what you need]
Regards,
Theo
 
If you use the expert mode in Epson Scan you can set whatever crop
area you want, just scan in ormal mode, not thumbnail mode.
I have used the Epson 4990 for old 126 film with OK results. I think
the camera/film combination I used at the time does not really contain
more information that what the Epson can resolve, and in general, the
"color enhance" function has given me OK results with somewhat faded
negatives. For the most part I have used the 35mm strip holder and
accepted that I miss a bit of the frame, but if the film is flat, you
can just put it on the glass with the emulsion side down.


JC> Wouldn't have been a problem on my computer, since I have a PCI SCSI
JC> card installed and it works great with my Microtek E6 flatbed. I'm
JC> running XP Home with SP2 as well. However, I had to install an older
JC> version (2.54) of Scanwizard because, frankly, the newest version
JC> totally sucks.


JC> Thanks but as I mentioned in the OP, cutting the strips into
JC> individual negs isn't an option. They're family property and it's not
JC> for me to make such a decision. Besides, I don't want to cut them up
JC> any more than my brothers or sisters would want me to.


JC> I'm pretty good at mechanical fabrication, but would prefer to buy a
JC> scanner that will be able to do what I need without having to go to
JC> much effort in that area. And from what I've seen and been told, it
JC> looks like fabrication is going to be necessary no matter what route I
JC> take.


JC> The industry just isn't interested in accommodating the needs of those
JC> with 126 negatives, even though at one time it was a format that was
JC> very popular. Or at least they don't want to do this economically. I
JC> was happy though, when Hewlett-Packard emailed me that they were going
JC> to forward my suggestion to their product development department.


JC> They were the only company I contacted that responded this way.


JC> Pretty sure I can make a holder that doesn't need any glass. The
JC> negatives have been stored in a rolled out position for long enough
JC> that they don't distort when laid on a surface.



JC> Was that in whatever they call the "expert" mode as well? I tried a
JC> friend's Epson (think it was a 3170) and I was unable to successfully
JC> scan 126. I may not have been doing it correctly though. She hovered
JC> over me the whole time, was rushing me and chatted incessantly the
JC> whole time. Under those kinds of conditions, it's impossible to
JC> concentrate.


JC> Thanks, but I checked out CSM1's recommendation of a Canon Canoscan
JC> 8400F flatbed, and I'm really interested in that one. The Newegg site
JC> has plenty of positive user feedback on the item, and CSM1's page
JC> describing how to scan 126 on that unit makes me believe that it would
JC> be easy for me to do. Not only that, but I love the price.


JC> Only problem is that my computer only has USB 1.1, but Newegg also
JC> sells an inexpensive PCI USB-Firewire adapter.



JC> Ah, but there is the crux of the matter. I've used my SmartDisk
JC> Smartscan 2700 to successfully scan individual pictures from the 126
JC> negative strips, but I'm unwilling to accept losing a 4 mm strip from
JC> the top or bottom of the images. And frankly too, I don't think that
JC> 2700 dpi (at least the way my Smartscan does it) is enough resolution
JC> for satisfactory results.


JC> And here you've hit on another issue. I want to be able to scan in
JC> batches too. As you've discovered, it speeds things up tremendously.


JC> You added clarification about the Sprintscan 35+ (and thanks for
JC> noting that there are plus and "non-plus" versions of that scanner.)
JC> Thanks very much for replying!


JC> --
JC> Regards from John Corliss
 
I have a large number of 126 instamatic film negative strips that I
would like to scan. Instamatic 126 film image size on the negative
strips are 28x28mm and 35mm film is 36x24mm. Otherwise, the film strips
are the same height as 35mm film but only have sprocket holes on one
side. Since 35mm film is 36x24mm film scanners normally just use a scan
strip width of 24mm and scan lengthways. When used for 126 Instamatic
film this means that I will miss a strip of 4mm at the top or bottom,
depending on how I orient the strip.

Is there any scanner that will scan 126 instamatic negative strips at a
resolution greater than 2700 dpi and without losing that 4 mm or
requiring me to continually move the negative strip so that the space
in between the pictures can be avoided? Cutting the strips into
separate images is not an option either, since these negatives are
family property and I don't want to scan them one at a time anyway.

Currently I have a SmartDisk Smartscan 2700:

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review1261.html

which is no longer listed at the manufacturer's site. It does 35mm all
right (for my purposes), but it's a real pain to do 126 on it. I lose
that 4mm section and can only do one picture at a time.

I've contacted Epson, Microtek, Hewlett-Packard and Canon, but none of
them had any affordable (less than $250) solutions.

In the past, I've had the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Film
Scanner recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/nkp5y

but after reviewing the manual (link is further down on that same
page), it seems that it only does 35mm and thus would have the
limitations which I am trying to avoid.

I've also had the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo recommended:

http://tinyurl.com/lq45z

but at the time I couldn't afford it. Now it's probably been superseded
by another model from Epson.

Can anybody suggest a scanner I might be interested in and which is
under $250? Please note that I'm not interested in technique
suggestions, but only am looking for a scanner that will do what I need.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations you can provide.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm kinda late to this topic, and maybe you've already purchased
the canon, but here are my $0.02:

First off, this Canon. Yes, it offers decent scan quality with
negatives, but with a few caveats. First, no digital ICE for dust
removal. Yes, I know it has Canon's FARE technology, but especially
for old negs FARE doesnt even come close to full dust removal, and
often leaves artifacts that can be more destructive than the dust
itself. Second, film flatness. This idea of making a film holder
yourself worries me for one reason: I believe (correct me if I'm wrong)
that 126 film has sprocket holes on only one side, so you cannot use
them to keep the film flat. I understand that your film has been
stored flat and looks flat, but take it from my experience in
professional scanning that looking flat and being optically flat are
two very, very different things, and even the slightest curve can
result in newton rings or center softness. Also, you would need to
make the holder from plastic or sheet metal, cardbord holders will
contribute to a probably-already-significant dust problem.

Of course, how much this matters depends on the application. If you
simply want quick scans for on-screen viewing and don't mind dust or
the occasional newton ring, go right ahead with your plan, it's capable
of decent results. However, if your purpose is to preserve the full
quality of your images in a distortion-free, dust-free form that can be
printed with high quality, you have a few options.
1) A dedicated medium format scanner with an anti-newton glass film
holder. Unless you manage an incredible deal on a used scanner, this
is well out of your price range.
2) Wet-mounted drum scans. This is something you would get a service
bureau to do for you. Its what professional medium and large format
photographers do with their best images. It also may be an option for
your best few negatives: with your small image sizes you may be able to
obtain drum scans for as low as $5-$7 each.
3.) Wet mounted flatbed scans. More and more, enthusiasts and
professional photographers are discovering the benefits of modifying
standard desktop flatbed scanners to allow the technique of wet
mounting, originally developed for drum scanners. While a flatbed
scanner will never equal a drum scanner for sheer image sharpness and
detail, today's high end flatbeds can, with modifications, come
reasonably close. And you do get all the other benefits of wet
mounting: no dust, perfect film flatness, enhanced contrast, and
reduced grain. However, you do need a fairly advanced flatbed scanner
(Epson 4990 or better), the skill to modify it (I make my living with
one of these modified flatbeds, so I'm afraid I will not give the
secrets of modifying it away), and about $100 in (fairly dangerous) wet
mounting supplies. The new Epson V750-M does allow wet mounting
without modification, but it costs $800 plus the supplies. If you dont
want to undertake this yourself, I can provide wet mounted flatbed
scans from your negatives at 3200dpi for $1 each I don't know how many
negs you have to scan, so I don't know if this is in your price range.
By the way, if Ken is reading this, I can provide a similar service for
disk negs if that plastic bit in the middle is removable (I've never
handled disk negs before). Prices for that will be lower as the negs
are smaller. Feel free to email me with any further questions.
 
I have a large number of 126 instamatic film negative strips that I
would like to scan.
Click to expand...


Hi john,

I have the same problem as you (and I just don't get it that we aren't
millions because Instamatic was such a huge thing all around the
world!).

Did you solve this?

I'm planning to build a custom (or modified) 126 film holder myself for
my brand new Epson V700 (yes it's a huge sum nowadays but I plan it to
be my LAST scanner and I don't forget that my first flat bed scanner, a
microtek 300 dpi, did cost me the modic sum of around $ 2000 17 years
ago!)


pc
 
Hi john,

I have the same problem as you (and I just don't get it that we aren't
millions because Instamatic was such a huge thing all around the
world!).

Did you solve this?

I'm planning to build a custom (or modified) 126 film holder myself for
my brand new Epson V700
Click to expand...

I have successfully scanned some of my wife's old instamatic negs with
my Canoscan FS4000 using the 35mm neg carrier. The results were
pretty good.

Brian Wickham
 
I have successfully scanned some of my wife's old instamatic negs with
my Canoscan FS4000 using the 35mm neg carrier. The results were
pretty good.

Brian Wickham
Click to expand...

Sure, I can do too. BUT You're missing 4mm, that can be the top of a
head or a foot or something like that...


pc
 
Sure, I can do too. BUT You're missing 4mm, that can be the top of a
head or a foot or something like that...
Click to expand...
Asked and answered several times in several forums in recent years, and
one solution is a home-brew art paper mask:
http://www.carlmcmillan.com/odd_size_film/Odd_film.htm

My solution on an Epson 2480 was to shave off one rail of the strip
holder for the 35mm mask with a foam board cutter. That device is just a
Xacto-type blade mounted in a slotted collet atop a heat pencil -remember
woodburning craft kits? With just one rail the sprocket hole edge was
secure but the film curl was a problem I couldn't resolve. Even so,
considering the medium, its original users, and the target audience
expectatations, I was satisfied with my batch scans.
Regards,
Theo
 
My solution on an Epson 2480 was to shave off one rail of the strip
holder for the 35mm mask with a foam board cutter. That device is just
a Xacto-type blade mounted in a slotted collet atop a heat pencil
-remember woodburning craft kits?
Click to expand...

Nice idea. Looks like a much better solution than cardboard (I know the
macmillan solution but it's far from being explicit and cardboard can
add dust to the scanner) but it looks like it will be difficult with
the V700 holder since it seems more sophisticated.
With just one rail the sprocket hole edge was secure but the film curl
was a problem I couldn't resolve.
Click to expand...

We need some kind of glass...
Even so, considering the medium, its original users, and the target
audience expectatations, I was satisfied with my batch scans.
Click to expand...

You mean low quality of the support? But what matters is the content
and it can be priceless and deserve the best treatment, don't you
think? (I'm the target audience and expects always the best I can)

Well... I'm thinking to another solution: a software solution!
Scan the negative two times, the first normally, the second time upside down.
There should nothing missing. And we could use a software to make one
image from the two...

What do you think?
(what software to use to make that almost automatically is the real
problem here - except that it will takes more time of course!)


pc
 
Back
Top