>What about just filing out the film holders a bit? Not on the Minolta; most of them (especially the medium format holders) are made of plastic and contain glass for starters.
Secondly, the medium format holders if without glass would not be able to hold a full frame 35mm frame in the proper position to do an optical maximum resolution scan of that frame since it would be smaller than the opening and would fall through. The same might very well be true for 645 frames in larger format film holders without glass. If one were to file the 35mm film holders for negative strips you would wind up filling through the frame dividers in the holders so that the whole strip would sag since those film holders do not use glass. If you filled the 35mm slide holders, you would still have to cut your negs into individual frames and either use glass or slide mounts to hold the film and keep it from falling through the holder. If you used slide mounts, you would not get full frame scans unless you used full frame glass 35mm slide mounts. >I've never understood why full frame holders weren't standard issue for >enlargers and film scanners. I can think of a number of reasons. 1. Not everyone seeks full frame scans or enlargements. Full frame images with the black border or the frame numbers showing on the outer edge is sort of an artsy thing that became fashionable within the art circles a decade or so ago and may have even gone out of fashion by now. Most people, I would suggest crop their images when they print them and most analog prints (especially color ones) were made by automated processors which were designed to print borderless prints which were cropped to meet standard photographic paper sizes. Then digital scanning and printing came along and attempted to emulate traditional one hour lab photographic standards in terms of paper sizes and the cropping of 35mm proportions down to 8x10 proportions and aspect ratios. 2. Most early film scanners were used by those in the publishing industry who scanned primarily transparencies and not negatives. Hence most of the 35mm slides where in mounts that cropped the image and had to be removed to allow the film to be mounted on the drum of the drum scanner: thus they were individual frames and not strips. However, later with the emergence of the CDD filmscanner the 35mm slides were left in the mount for placement in film holders for the CDD film scanners primarily due to the fact that people were reluctant to go through the effort to remove the frames from the mounts in order to scan them and then had to remount the slides for storage. When these scanners were beginning to be used to scan 35mm negatives, which came from the processor in strips of 4 or 6, people did not want to cut the strips into individual frames for purposes of scanning or printing. It is not easy to make a full frame holder for a full strip of uncut negatives (4 to 6 in a strip) and retain the sorts of rigidity and flatness that is required to keep the film from buckling and bowing. As for medium format film, They usually have windows that are slightly larger than the frame but typically use masks that are slightly smaller than full frame to prevent stray light from hitting the image area during the scan so theoretically one could probably do a full frame 645 to 6x9 in the holders if you do not use the mask; but then there is nothing to prevent the film from buckling or bowing or stray light from hitting the image area. This is further complicated by the fact that most film holders for medium format used by film scanners, unlike enlarger film holders, do not utilize the clam shell design and probably could not effectively do so without the scanner becoming bigger and bulkier. 3. Designers tend to design for the masses in a mass market economy and not for the elite few; and even if they are designing for professionals and industrial users, they are designing for the masses within that market and not the unique few. 4. Lastly, tradition plays a big part. Film sizes and formats as well as paper sizes and formats tend to change frequently over time as to what aspect ratios they use; but despite that the sizes and formats that are considered standard tend to live longer lives and persist long after the size and format of the day has changed. Photographic paper as tended to be of certain sizes and photographic prints tended to keep to those sizes. Often camera manufacturer's have built cameras that utilize negative sizes with aspect ratios and formats which do not fit the standard traditional paper sizes. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Todd Flashner Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Full frame scans on 12/23/01 1:59 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > It is possible for 35mm and maybe some of the smaller medium format sizes - > 645 and 6x6 - on the Minolta Scan Multi and Multi II (I do not know about > the Multi Pro, although I suspect it is possible there too). However, I do > not think you would like the process with respect to 35mm and 645 formats. > > First you would need to cut the film down to individual or sets of two > frames. Second you would have to put those frames in the glass medium > format holder (in the case of 645 in a larger medium format glass holder) > such that they were in the center section that the scanner will scan at the > maximum optical resolution without interpolation. Third you would have to > preview and scan each frame individually. > > As for the black borders you would have to do that yourself in Photoshop. Your right, I would not enjoy cutting my film down to individual frames and using glass! What about just filing out the film holders a bit? I've never understood why full frame holders weren't standard issue for enlargers and film scanners. I don't get why the designers/engineers/manufacturers believe we should want our images cropped, and then to loose more image to flare refracting off the holders edges. Who the hell designs these things, and what I really want to know is how that fool managed to get a job with every manufacturer out there.... Thanks Laurie Todd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
