🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:33:41 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:

>"P. Taine" <user@domaine.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:i37c025f72b6pb629j27c99hckbrvqcntc@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:09:14 -0500, rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:07:12 +0100, Ernst Dinkla
>>><NoEntry@pigment-print.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is a picture of the Epson lenses at the Japanese pages:
>>>>http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/colorio/scanner/gtx900/technology.htm
>>>>
>>>>I expect that the Nikon 8000/9000 still beats the Epson V750-M
>>>>Pro in MF and 35 mm quality but the Nikon doesn't scan 4x5 and
>>>>panorama sizes (and possibly 5x7's) at 3000 PPI, doesn't do
>>>>reflective A4 and 8x10 film at 2000 PPI, doesn't come with wet
>>>>mount carriers from the factory.
>>>>
>>>>The first German magazine tests of this scanner will tell
>>>>more. Photo-i is always fast but not very consistent in its
>>>>testing and it is also very manufacturer friendly. ISO
>>>>standards tell more.
>>>
>>>
>>>I was actually impressed at the degree of attention
>>>and technical detail given by Epson on the Epson-
>>>Japan website.  Eg., showing the lens arrangement,
>>>down to elements and groups. Maybe that's a good omen.
>>>
>>>Another good omen is their specific references to
>>>wet-mounting.  Unless Epson is just being devious
>>>and cynical.
>>>
>>>I can tell you that a "typical" flatbed scanner
>>>has a lens on the order or 20 mm f/8 or so, and
>>>that even the 4990 is probably not much better
>>>than this.  By comparison: the MF Coolscans use
>>>a lens that's around 75mm f/4.
>>>
>>>So, we'll just have to wait and see.  If nothing
>>>else, it's comforting that Epson still has not
>>>given up film, and (most surprisingly) on medium-
>>>and large-format film.
>>>
>>>Apparently they've noticed a "hole" in the market
>>>and decided to address it.  I only wish Nikon would
>>>try to compete in that same niche.
>>>
>>>If it turns out that the new Epsons really offer
>>>a significant upgrade to the 4990, I will probably
>>>buy one.  Even at $500 or $750, these are still
>>>in what I'd call the "dirt cheap" category, for
>>>a MF or LF film scanner.
>>>
>>>
>>>rafe b
>>>www.terrapinphoto.com
>>
>> I am a novice, looking for a scanner for a collection of negatives.  I've 
>> been leaning towards the 4990, but I have a (probably
>> dumb) question.
>>
>> These negatives are in a wide range of sizes.  Just to check, I have:
>>
>> Standard 35mm, both color & b&w -- badly curled, as some are in full rolls 
>> that haven't been opened since the 1940's
>> 35mm color, with widely spaced sprocket holes on one side only.
>> disk negatives
>> individual negative.  Here I'm giving the image area, variable clear areas 
>> on the sides
>> 6.9 x 11.3 cm
>> 6 x 8.8 cm
>> 8.8 x 8.8 cm
>> 4.5 x 6.5 cm
>> 6 x 8.3 cm
>> 8.1 x 13.8
>> 6.2 x 10.8
>> 5.7 x 7.9
>> and quite a few other sizes
>> a number of glass negatives, of various sizes.
>>
>> So -- after reading about Newton rings, differing focal planes, etc.  What 
>> SHOULD I do?  How does one hold these various (many
>> hand-cut) negatives flat and at the proper height, and how does one mask 
>> them?  Or must I simply plop them down on the glass and
>> take what I can get?
>>
>> Puzzled
>> P. Taine
>
>Here is a list of Kodak Still camera films from 1977-1978. This list has the 
>Kodak film type number and the size of the image.
>
>http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Pdf/Still_Camera_films.pdf
>
>Maybe this list will help identify the film you have. To know if a scanner 
>will handle the film you have, you measure the full width of the film 
>including the non-image area. Find in the scanner specs the maximum size 
>transparency image it will scan.
>
>For instance the Epson Perfection 4990 PHOTO will scan up to a 8 inch X 10 
>inch transparency. (20.64 cm x 25.8 cm).
>There are not many Consumer Scanners that will scan that large of a 
>transparency. (It may be the only one).
>
>> 35mm color, with widely spaced sprocket holes on one side only.
>That is probably 126 film.
>
>-- 
>CSM1
>http://www.carlmcmillan.com

I know that the scanner has a large enough area, what I am worried about are the comments about the proper distance from the glass
(platen?) to the film (including not having them touch), and the importance of masking and of holding it as flat as possible.

I fear that the indicated web-site won't help me, as most of these are from the 1910's to the 1930's or 40's.  The glass negitives
are probably earlier.

'P. Taine