Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
--- You wrote: How much difference in frame length could that make? Art --- end of quoted material --- I expect quite a lot when you are looking at figures like 99.5 %. Fractions of a percent! It would be easy to do the geometry to see how the gap would affect accuracy at different focal lengths. It would have been simpler before lenses got so complex too. Years ago, lenses weren't so far from the pinhole, where all the light came from one point. I don't know the terminology, but in modern lenses, retrofocus and so forth, a lens set at 50 mm might send light to the film plane as though the center of the lens were 90mm away or something similar. It's pretty remarkeable that thye get the registration as true as it is. Rich
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Is it that big a difference? We're speaking of the light angle differences which can allow for an exposed area due to the gap between the internal frame mask within the camera and the film plane... so, that's based upon how far the guide tracks stand out from the frame surface. On the Nikon I just looked at, the guide rails actually make up the top and bottom edge of the film frame mask, so the difference there is zero, the short edges do have a small gap, I'm guessing less than 1/32nd of an inch, assuming the film lies perfectly flat. How much difference in frame length could that make? Art Moreno Polloni wrote: >> For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% >> horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% >> as one can expect. > > > One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length > of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest > wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of > the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This > is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg > carriers.
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Uhm, I think that's that word that Rob and I were trying to think of and couldn't. :-) With a wide-angle lens, your image will tend to "spread out" a little behind the shutter, rather than being cut off by it. I wouldn't have thought it was a particularly measurable distance, but on 4-square it aparently is, since Mr. Polloni has measured it. That's another disadvantage of not being on the metric system in the US, IMHO. ;-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:41:06 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount > For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% > horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% > as one can expect. One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg carriers. --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
> For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% > horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% > as one can expect. One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of film with your widest wide angle and your longest telephoto. You'll find that the image size of the wide angle is slightly larger than that taken with your telephoto. This is a bit of a bugger when you're trying to file out the aperture of your neg carriers.
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Art wrote: > Ah, some more make the list. OK, I obviously was too severe in my comment ;-) Yes, Art sometimes does that, but never without a bit of wit. :) > Let's just say that most mid priced SLR cameras, are not likely to come with 100% viewfinders, and that more likely, cameras which do have them, are top of the line models... Mine does, but it's a 1960's model Pentax, which I like so much I've never been tempted to replace. Fix it, yes, but not replace. OTOH, I've never been tempted to to push the edges, in composition. That's for View Cameras, IMHO. Another 2-cent's worth from the Rust Belt. ;-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
> > 24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is > rather > > difficult to position the film precisely > >From the LS4000 pdf file: Scanning area (max.) 25.1 x 38mm (3,946 x 5,959 pixels) Effective area SA-21: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646) (size/pixels) MA-20(S): 25.1 x 36.8mm* (3,946 x 5,782) FH-3: 24.0 x 36.0mm (3,762 x 5,646) IA-20(S): 16.1 x 26.9mm (2,525 x 4,219) SA-30: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646) SF-200(S): 25.1 x 36.8mm* (3,946 x 5,782) FH-G1: 22.9 x 35.0mm (3,591 x 5,488) * Actual effective size depends on slide mount aperture size.
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote: > At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: > >> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a >> couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which >> give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of >> camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to >> the film frame. > > > > Just FYI, the Canon EOS1n and EOS-1v have this ability. I use the former > for copy work and rely on the 100% viewfinder feature extensively. I > never shoot images all the way to the edge but with the 100% viewfinder > coverage I don't have to worry about it either. I believe the Nikon F4 > and F5 have the same capability. > > Thanks for the update. I admit to being out of touch on this matter in newer cameras. I'm glad to see some of the manufacturers have gone back to the 100% viewfinder. Art
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Moreno Polloni wrote: >> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple >> of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% >> view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view >> finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. > > > Just a correction: every Nikon I've used (F3, F4, F5) has had 100% > viewfinder coverage. And as far as I'm aware, so does the Canon EOS IV and > most of it's predecessors. Thanks to all for correcting my statement. It appears the 100% club is larger than memory served me. It is still the top of the line products, principally, but not as exclusive as I stated, for sure. For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8% horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100% as one can expect. Art
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: > Arthur Entlich wrote > > >> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple >> of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% >> view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view >> finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. >> >> The reason viewfinders do not show the whole frame is because the >> exception that the images will either be mounted in slide mounts or >> cropped during printing by the film carrier. >> >> So, unless you are using one of a very small group of cameras, that >> extra edge of the frame wasn't supposed to be in your composition >> anyway, and was a "bonus" that didn't show in your viewfinder. > > > Quite right as a general observation, Art. And thanks for the information that > there is a Contax SLR with a 100% viewfinder -- I didn't know about that. I can > add the Leicaflex to your list, and the three models of the Canon F-1. And maybe > Leicas in the R series, and perhaps the Pentax LX? > Ah, some more make the list. OK, I obviously was too severe in my comment ;-) Let's just say that most mid priced SLR cameras, are not likely to come with 100% viewfinders, and that more likely, cameras which do have them, are top of the line models... The feature costs $$, so only the "creme of the crop" gets that I agree with you that the real reason behind the mid and lower end cameras not being 100% was due to cost of trying to calibrate accurate viewfinders to film frame. The 92-86% numbers (I've even read of 90% or 89%) do allow for quite a "fudge factor" in the design. Art
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
> As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple > of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% > view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view > finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. Just a correction: every Nikon I've used (F3, F4, F5) has had 100% viewfinder coverage. And as far as I'm aware, so does the Canon EOS IV and most of it's predecessors.
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
All of the Nikon F series, the Canon F1, and the Topcon had 100% viewfinder coverage. One of the reason most SLR did not was because registration (viewfinder/film image coincidence) did not need to be as precise. Jim Sims "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" wrote: > At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: > >As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple > >of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% > >view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders > >show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. > > Just FYI, the Canon EOS1n and EOS-1v have this ability. I use the former > for copy work and rely on the 100% viewfinder feature extensively. I never > shoot images all the way to the edge but with the 100% viewfinder coverage > I don't have to worry about it either. I believe the Nikon F4 and F5 have > the same capability. > > Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia > http://www.enochsvision.com/ http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all > these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. > The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." > ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Arthur Entlich wrote > As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple > of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% > view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view > finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. > > The reason viewfinders do not show the whole frame is because the > exception that the images will either be mounted in slide mounts or > cropped during printing by the film carrier. > > So, unless you are using one of a very small group of cameras, that > extra edge of the frame wasn't supposed to be in your composition > anyway, and was a "bonus" that didn't show in your viewfinder. Quite right as a general observation, Art. And thanks for the information that there is a Contax SLR with a 100% viewfinder -- I didn't know about that. I can add the Leicaflex to your list, and the three models of the Canon F-1. And maybe Leicas in the R series, and perhaps the Pentax LX? Yes, a less-than-100% viewfinder can be presented as a 'benefit' because of the expectation that the image will be cropped by slide mounts and film carriers. But I think it has as much to do with the extra cost of building an accurately adjusted viewing system. That cost premium, and the preference of professional users, explain why the most accurate viewfinders are confined to the more expensive 'professional' 35mm SLRs. Viewfinder accuracy was one of my reasons for replacing my Pentax SPs with Canon F-1s. I still use those F-1s and appreciate their accurate viewfinders, even though I no longer use my Leitz enlarger (whose film carrier did not crop the frame). Peter Marquis-Kyle Too obsessive?
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: >As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple >of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% >view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders >show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. Just FYI, the Canon EOS1n and EOS-1v have this ability. I use the former for copy work and rely on the 100% viewfinder feature extensively. I never shoot images all the way to the edge but with the 100% viewfinder coverage I don't have to worry about it either. I believe the Nikon F4 and F5 have the same capability. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/ http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded to the film frame. The reason viewfinders do not show the whole frame is because the exception that the images will either be mounted in slide mounts or cropped during printing by the film carrier. So, unless you are using one of a very small group of cameras, that extra edge of the frame wasn't supposed to be in your composition anyway, and was a "bonus" that didn't show in your viewfinder. Art Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: > Dieder Bylsma wrote > > >> [snip].. I mounted the single frame into the strip film holder (FH-3?) >> and got a full frame scan from it. Worked great. > > > That's interesting Dieder. I have already complained here (in the thread 'the > whole frame') that the Nikon LS-30's FH-2 Strip Film Holder masks the edges of > negatives. > > I just measured the FH-2 holder with a vernier calliper. Each frame opening is > 23.5mm wide, 35.5mm long -- that means it's masking .25mm of each edge of the > image. > > What size openings does the FH-3 holder have? > > I found a picture of the new holder on the Czech Nikon site > http://www.nikon.cz/ls4000.htm ). It looks like it does exactly the same job as > the FH-2. > > If it does have full-frame openings, perhaps I should buy one. Or just take a > file to my FH-2. > > Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Thanks for that, Vlad Peter Marquis-Kyle > 24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is rather > difficult to position the film precisely
RE: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
>I just measured the FH-2 holder with a vernier calliper. Each frame opening is >23.5mm wide, 35.5mm long -- that means it's masking .25mm of each edge of the >image. >What size openings does the FH-3 holder have? 24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is rather difficult to position the film precisely Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.256 / Virová báze: 129 - datum vydání: 31.5.2001
Re: filmscanners: LS4000 slide removed from mount
Dieder Bylsma wrote > [snip].. I mounted the single frame into the strip film holder (FH-3?) > and got a full frame scan from it. Worked great. That's interesting Dieder. I have already complained here (in the thread 'the whole frame') that the Nikon LS-30's FH-2 Strip Film Holder masks the edges of negatives. I just measured the FH-2 holder with a vernier calliper. Each frame opening is 23.5mm wide, 35.5mm long -- that means it's masking .25mm of each edge of the image. What size openings does the FH-3 holder have? I found a picture of the new holder on the Czech Nikon site http://www.nikon.cz/ls4000.htm ). It looks like it does exactly the same job as the FH-2. If it does have full-frame openings, perhaps I should buy one. Or just take a file to my FH-2. Peter Marquis-Kyle
