🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:07:21 +0100, Ernst Dinkla <NoEntry@pigment-print.com> wrote:

>P. Taine wrote:
>> 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
>
>Unlike Ralf writes any thickness of carton will do I would use 
>1 mm thick or if you know where best focus is use that 
>thickness. That's on the 4990.
>
>To get good masks and to clamp the different sizes you could 
>use the magnetic vinyl masks I use from time to time.  But 
>most of the time I use wet mounting for film. You will 
>probably have difficulty with the glass negatives. Often they 
>have thick emulsion and little light gets through while the 
>dynamic range isn't that wide. There are solutions but that 
>goes a bit further than using a Stanley knife.
>
>http://www.pigment-print.com/CTG_0049/target0.html
>
>Ernst

Thank you for the comments and reference.  I've saved the web-page for which you gave the link, and will look into emulating your
solution.

P. Taine