film/slide scanner(s)

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
three colours, not black as well.

RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
subtractive, colors.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:26:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul in Houston TX
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Sorry, this is OT really, but I thought there might be those here who
know.

For some time, I've been looking for one that does 126-format film
and
slides;

You probably have already posted in the photo groups, but if not
you might want to post at least in:
alt.photography

There are people there that really know their stuff.


I suspect they know their stuff to a level that would be above my head.
126-format isn't one of the large-format ones that used roll film of a
large size: those are 120 and similar. 126, or to give it its commoner
name "Instamatic", was the commonest format for cheap cameras from
about
the late sixties to the mid-seventies - a drop-in cartridge. (OK, it
had
rolled film inside, but you know what I mean.) And 110 was the one that
came in in (I think) the late seventies, that still used a drop-in
cartridge, but for smaller "pocket" cameras (sort of flat ones). [...]

126 is actually 35mm film stock without the sprocket holes, and so
with room for a larger image. It will fit the 35mm holder, but the
mask is

I know ...

sized for a 35mm frame, so there's a crop. A DYI frame & mask will
handle that nicely.

HTH

No, because the _sensor_ in most "35mm" (actually 135 format) scanners
is only expecting an image in the centre 24mm.

Dedicated scanners, yes, or probably. I haven't used on in years, have
no ides what the latest models will/not do.

Multi-format scanners, such as the Canon 9000F, will scan anything up
the full width and length of the backlight, less a mm or two.

It's the software that "expects" a 35mm frame, and it displays the 35mm
frame in Preview, but that frame can be altered any way you like, up to
the boundaries of the scannable area.

HTH


The real McCoy aren't exactly priced for home users.

£1,999
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pl...r-review-21622

£1,550
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/re...r-review-26360

And this is where the rest of the industry is headed. Save
those old shoe boxes.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/6...itizer-scanner

I'm not very good with tools. Where can I get the commercial version of
that?

In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m_Film_To.html

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:26:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul in Houston TX
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Sorry, this is OT really, but I thought there might be those here who
know.

For some time, I've been looking for one that does 126-format film
and
slides;
You probably have already posted in the photo groups, but if not
you might want to post at least in:
alt.photography

There are people there that really know their stuff.


I suspect they know their stuff to a level that would be above my head.
126-format isn't one of the large-format ones that used roll film of a
large size: those are 120 and similar. 126, or to give it its commoner
name "Instamatic", was the commonest format for cheap cameras from
about
the late sixties to the mid-seventies - a drop-in cartridge. (OK, it
had
rolled film inside, but you know what I mean.) And 110 was the one that
came in in (I think) the late seventies, that still used a drop-in
cartridge, but for smaller "pocket" cameras (sort of flat ones). [...]
126 is actually 35mm film stock without the sprocket holes, and so
with room for a larger image. It will fit the 35mm holder, but the
mask is
I know ...

sized for a 35mm frame, so there's a crop. A DYI frame & mask will
handle that nicely.

HTH

No, because the _sensor_ in most "35mm" (actually 135 format) scanners
is only expecting an image in the centre 24mm.
Dedicated scanners, yes, or probably. I haven't used on in years, have
no ides what the latest models will/not do.

Multi-format scanners, such as the Canon 9000F, will scan anything up
the full width and length of the backlight, less a mm or two.

It's the software that "expects" a 35mm frame, and it displays the 35mm
frame in Preview, but that frame can be altered any way you like, up to
the boundaries of the scannable area.

HTH

The real McCoy aren't exactly priced for home users.

£1,999
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pl...r-review-21622

£1,550
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/re...r-review-26360

And this is where the rest of the industry is headed. Save
those old shoe boxes.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/6...itizer-scanner

I'm not very good with tools. Where can I get the commercial version of
that?

In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m_Film_To.html

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2


Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.

https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/l...scanner/BH8AU7

And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)

At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
it's a "complete" product.

When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"
resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
when to stop.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA...UUA1 LMUT8F03

"You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."

Which may or may not be including the effects of the
JPG step.

Paul

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:49:48 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2015-04-03 6:01 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:48:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Indeed, though for scanners/cameras, I think there will only be the
three colours, not black as well.

RGB, i.e. mixing light, not ink, better known as additive, not
subtractive, colors.

The "black" is covered by the brightness of the coloured dot.

Well, that seems to me to be an odd way of putting it. In additive
colors, saying that black is the absence of light seems less odd (more
intuitive) to me. Maybe I'm not handling metaphor well today :-)

Even in subtractive colors the black is theoretically not really
necessary, but the colored inks aren't accurate enough to give a good
black and good darker colors with full-on CMY dots, so black is used to
improve the appearance of colors in color printing, and additionally to
make black printing (monochrome text comes to mind) cheaper & easier.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:39:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:26:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul in Houston TX
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

SNIP

And this is where the rest of the industry is headed. Save
those old shoe boxes.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/6...itizer-scanner

I'm not very good with tools. Where can I get the commercial version of
that?

In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m_Film_To.html

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2


Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.

https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/l...scanner/BH8AU7

And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)

At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
it's a "complete" product.

When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"
resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
when to stop.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA...UUA1 LMUT8F03

"You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."

Which may or may not be including the effects of the
JPG step.

Paul

So a commercial version of the shoebos *is* on the way, and only £40...

Actually, it seems to be in stock at B&H, and for only $50:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...op+Nav-Search=

http://tinyurl.com/pw9nodg

I built this a while ago, but never put film in it:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...lf_3 5mm.html

http://tinyurl.com/no5v8pq

I think mine was a prior version, but it looks the same.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:38:52 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?

It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
Not getting at you, Don!

It's probably really a silly question, but the answer is one lens and
one sensor for anything under $793.

That's a very precise price (-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:05:29 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

Colour printing is very tricky, depends on the way ink and paper react,
etc. Chemistry IOW, which is not easy to control. Same is true for
inkjets, which is why you will get the best results when you use the
inks and papers made for your printer. Ever notice the colour dots or
squares on a flaps of a cereal box? They help the printer control the
colour.

I've had a couple of cases recently where I was printing black and grey
with the intention of distinguishing between major and minor lines on a
graph, and important and unimportant things in a text document.

But the greys on the paper were too light, even though they looked OK on
the screen. And that wasn't even color!

For the graph thingy, I just modified the program to use a darker color
than I started with. For the document, I didn't care :-)

Obviously I've never calibrated my system for color and monochrome
printing, and probably won't unless I became an artist in my old age :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
[]
In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

As many of the reviewers have said, the results aren't up to the quality
of scanners (and they mostly _are_ scanners) costing many times more,
but are surprisingly good a lot of the time - and the speed and
convenience make the probability that one will actually get round to
doing it!

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f2d20_20MP_35
mm_Film_To.html

Having done more probing, it seems that the Wolverine model is the
F2D20SUPER, for the 20 MP, bright yellow, unit that takes (has guides
for) four sizes (135, 126, 110, 8mm). I _think_ that unit is genuinely
20 MP (though possibly only for 135/126 material). The 7dayshop or jumbl
unit that looks very similar (but isn't bright yellow) is 14MP with the
option of interpolating to 22MP (though goodness knows why anyone who
actually understands what interpolating means, would bother). There's
another Wolverine F2D20 with something other than SUPER after the F2D20,
which is shaped more like a beer can, and I think that does seven
formats. There also seem to be earlier Wolverine models with names
starting F2D14, F2D8, etc., presumably reflecting the sensor resolution.
(Including one - no longer available according to Amazon - called
something like the SNaP which does slides/filmstrips as well as prints;
obviously a larger unit. I know other manufacturers such as Ion do such
combi units, but they're all 135-format only for the slide/film part.)

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2

I did find an email address for Wolverine on one of the YouTube videos,
so I've sent them some questions; I just hope I get someone who has a
clue (I presume all these units, Wolverine, Jumbl, Ion, etc. are
actually made in China) to answer them. I'll share if I get any reply.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:39:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:26:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul in Houston TX
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

SNIP

And this is where the rest of the industry is headed. Save
those old shoe boxes.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/6...itizer-scanner
I'm not very good with tools. Where can I get the commercial version of
that?

In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m_Film_To.html

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2

Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.

https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/l...scanner/BH8AU7

And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)

At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
it's a "complete" product.

When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"
resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
when to stop.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA...UUA1 LMUT8F03

"You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."

Which may or may not be including the effects of the
JPG step.

Paul

So a commercial version of the shoebos *is* on the way, and only £40...

Actually, it seems to be in stock at B&H, and for only $50:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...op+Nav-Search=

http://tinyurl.com/pw9nodg

I built this a while ago, but never put film in it:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...lf_3 5mm.html

http://tinyurl.com/no5v8pq

I think mine was a prior version, but it looks the same.


Now you'll need to find a "digital back" to slap on
that puppy.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/17/ni...-cameras.aspx/

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/up...3-digital.jpeg

Paul

On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 21:33:50 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:39:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:26:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-04-03 6:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2015-04-02 3:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul in Houston TX
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

SNIP

And this is where the rest of the industry is headed. Save
those old shoe boxes.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/6...itizer-scanner
I'm not very good with tools. Where can I get the commercial version of
that?

In fact I have one of the cheap scanners like the ones that John
Gilliver seems to be afraid of. For me it's quite adequate. The real
problem is that I keep forgetting to scan more stuff.

This is the current version (mine is discontinued):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...m_Film_To.html

http://tinyurl.com/kz4m9l2

Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.

https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/l...scanner/BH8AU7

And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)

At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
it's a "complete" product.

When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"
resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
when to stop.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA...UUA1 LMUT8F03

"You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."

Which may or may not be including the effects of the
JPG step.

Paul

So a commercial version of the shoebos *is* on the way, and only £40...

Actually, it seems to be in stock at B&H, and for only $50:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...op+Nav-Search=

http://tinyurl.com/pw9nodg

I built this a while ago, but never put film in it:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...lf_3 5mm.html

http://tinyurl.com/no5v8pq

I think mine was a prior version, but it looks the same.


Now you'll need to find a "digital back" to slap on
that puppy.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/17/ni...-cameras.aspx/

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/up...3-digital.jpeg

Paul

My budget can't keep up with you, Paul :-)

That back is clever, interesting, and IMO, totally strange :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Paul
writes:
Gene E. Bloch wrote:
[]
Here is the shoebox version. It's a box that holds
the film, while your *smart phone* snaps the picture.
Like, a shoebox and a light ? Such a reasonable price.

https://www.coolshop.co.uk/product/l...scanner/BH8AU7

And the manufacturer is so unsure they'll lose their
shirt on the thing, it's not available yet :-)

At $100, your Wolverine is a better buy. Because at least
it's a "complete" product.

I've found an email address for them (at the end of a YouTube video), so
I've sent them a few questions. We'll see.

When they quote 20MP for the Wolverine. what's the "real"

I think, from reading lots of reviews, that it actually is 20MP; none of
the reviews mention interpolation, or, more significantly, any other
resolution.

resolution ? Interpolation is so much fun, nobody knows
when to stop.

I cannot understand why any sort of scanner does it internally: it's
just making more data to be sent over the channel (or put on the memory
card, or whatever), which will only slow things down or fill them up (or
both). But marketing (to the dumb) trumps all, I suppose ...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RUUA..._viewpnt?ie=UT
F8&ASIN=B00GIDADP0#RUUA1LMUT8F03

"You can't adjust the quality of the scanned image.
A 126 film produces a 2MB image - period."

Which may or may not be including the effects of the
JPG step.

I'm pretty sure that comment was indeed from someone who doesn't know
about JPEGging.

Paul

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:07:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:38:52 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

You have not - not just you, everyone else on this thread so far -
answered my question, which is: does the small scanner that claims to be
able to do multiple formats, do so by just snapping them all at a fixed
resolution, and then (crop and) zoom them electronically afterwards, or
does it use different lenses for the different formats, thus genuinely
giving similar image sizes (in pixels) for the different formats?

It seems such a simple question, but obviously I'm not asking it right.
Not getting at you, Don!

It's probably really a silly question, but the answer is one lens and
one sensor for anything under $793.

That's a very precise price (-:!

Precise but not in the least accurate :-)

Oddly enough, I learned the difference between those two words pretty
late in life, but *now I know* :-)

BTW, I think that when I use numbers like that, people automatically
realize it's a bit of whimsy to give a rough idea in the absence of
actual knowledge, rather than interrupt the flow of speech. But a few
years into my marriage to someone, she happened to mention that she
finally realized that when I do that I am making the numbers up.

Go figure.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:16:49 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:07:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:

That's a very precise price (-:!

Precise but not in the least accurate :-)

Oddly enough, I learned the difference between those two words pretty
late in life, but *now I know* :-)


I also learned the difference relatively late in life.

To make it clearer for others here, dimensions of 6 inches, 6.0
inches, 6.00, 6.000 inches, etc. seem like the same number to most
people, but they are different in precision. The number 6 means it's
closer to 6 than it is to 5 or 7, but 6.0 means it's closer to 6.0
than it is to 5.9 or 6.1, and so on.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 11:39:27 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2015-04-07 11:26 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 16:16:49 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:07:27 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:

That's a very precise price (-:!

Precise but not in the least accurate :-)

Oddly enough, I learned the difference between those two words pretty
late in life, but *now I know* :-)


I also learned the difference relatively late in life.

To make it clearer for others here, dimensions of 6 inches, 6.0
inches, 6.00, 6.000 inches, etc. seem like the same number to most
people, but they are different in precision. The number 6 means it's
closer to 6 than it is to 5 or 7, but 6.0 means it's closer to 6.0
than it is to 5.9 or 6.1, and so on.

6 = 6 +/- 0.5
6.0 = 6.0 +/- 0.05
6.00 = 6.00 +/- 0.005
etc.


Yes. You've said the same thing I did, only in a slightly different
way.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

To make it clearer for others here, dimensions of 6 inches, 6.0
inches, 6.00, 6.000 inches, etc. seem like the same number to most
people, but they are different in precision. The number 6 means it's
closer to 6 than it is to 5 or 7, but 6.0 means it's closer to 6.0
than it is to 5.9 or 6.1, and so on.

Cliff Stoll, of _Cuckoo's Egg_ fame, sells Klein bottles from his website
(www.kleinbottle.com). They come with calibration stickers, showing at
different levels volumetric quantities of:


--- 0,000 mL (+/- 5%)

--- 000

--- 00

--- 0.0

--- 0.00


As you've probably guessed, the web site is filled with jokes about the
subject; even if you're not in a Klein-buying mood reading the material on
the web pages is good for a laugh.

Joe