110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[Patrick Robert James]

By the way for scanning I just use a CAnon 9950 flatbed and scan the film right on the glass with a sheet of anti-glare plexi on top of the negs to keep them flat. I've also used my Nikon 4000 with an anti-newton glass 35mm transparency mount that I modified to slide the 16mm film in. That is better than the flatbed but takes too much time. With the Canon I just scan the whole roll with Vuescan in raw mode, then I go back when it is done to pick out each individual frame with "save from preview" highlighted. Goes really fast that way. I also scan my Minox negs on the Canon. Good enough.

 

[blee1996]

Indeed, placing the 110 film stripes directly on the glass of flatbed scanner and hold down with anti Newton ring glass, seems to be the most convenient way to scan.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My Epson V850 claims 6400 ppi and I have a 3D printed 110/16 mm film holder for it (fits into a 35 mm window) that keeps the film above the glass (focus is about 2 mm above the glass surface). that comes to about 35 megapixels from a 10x14 frame. Unlike larger film, I won't need to size down the images for even basic manipulation -- but when I get a Minox, I'll have to come up with a film strip holder for 9.2 mm film with 8x11 frames...

 

[Sergey Ko]

By the way for scanning I just use a CAnon 9950 flatbed and scan the film right on the glass with a sheet of anti-glare plexi on top of the negs to keep them flat. I've also used my Nikon 4000 with an anti-newton glass 35mm transparency mount that I modified to slide the 16mm film in. That is better than the flatbed but takes too much time. With the Canon I just scan the whole roll with Vuescan in raw mode, then I go back when it is done to pick out each individual frame with "save from preview" highlighted. Goes really fast that way. I also scan my Minox negs on the Canon. Good enough.

Please mind, that the original 35mm holder make the gap between the film & glass. So I think the lenses is focused not to the glass. The question is can the depth of f-stop compensate this?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Woops, the old dropped decimal trick -- I'm getting about 35 kilopixels (or 1/30 megapixel) from a 10x14 frame. Seems like I could do better with my partner's D70 or D90 and suitable macro setup. And MUCH better with my Pixel 7 and a suitable film holder and macro add-on lens.

 

[brbo]

With effective resolution of V850 being about 2.500dpi you are getting about 1.5MP from a 10x14mm frame.

 

[charlotteRF]

I've picked up the Lomography DigitaLIZA+ for some camera scanning, as it supports 16mm and 127 film alongside the usual formats, I'm curious to see how it performs.

 

[Donald Qualls]

you are getting about 1.5MP from a 10x14mm frame.

One of us had better redo the arithmetic. 6400/25.4 = ~252 p/mm, if you allow what Epson claims; that gives about 2500 x 3500 pixels = ~8 megapixels. Downgrade to 2500 ppi optical limit, and it's roundly 1000 x 1400 = ~1.4 megapixel. Yours looks more right, though I'm pretty sure my scanner does better than 2500 ppi with a correctly height adjusted film holder. Still not going to be huge pixel counts with 8x11 from a Minox -- roughly 800 x 1100 => just under 0.9 megapixel by your resolution figure.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've picked up the Lomography DigitaLIZA+ for some camera scanning, as it supports 16mm and 127 film alongside the usual formats, I'm curious to see how it performs.

I'm actually thinking hard about one of the cardboard film carriers to use my Pixel 7. Better resolution than any digital camera I have access to (if I can get close to full frame from the negative), and the cardboard carrier is effectively free. Either that, or find a film carrier setup for my partner's microscope, for which we have an eyepiece adapter that carries a smart phone. I think even the lowest power objective would require stitching, though, and without manual exposure on my phone that could be an issue.

 

[cptrios]

I finally got my hands on an Ektramax, after well over a year of eBay watching. Looks like it's been through a bit but is mechanically functional. I loaded some nonperf 16mm in a cartridge without backing paper and got major overlap, so I suppose I'll have to double-advance to make it work (the little perforation sensor pin was already bent, so I clipped it off). Can't say I see myself being particularly enamored with the camera - it's pretty much as big as two Minox 35s side-by-side! Sort of defeats the purpose. The slightly-manual control is nice, though.

One heavily overlapped frame and a 100% crop. Definitely need to either use the backing paper or put something in to act as a pressure plate.

 

[charlotteRF]

A Kiev Vega 2 came into my possession missing most of its screws, a bent body.
Using some generic screws and some bending, I managed to get everything to 90%ish percent working order

It's a little funny on winding at times, and I couldnt fully get the bends out, but it does function.


I decided to test it with some FPP Infrared 16mm film I had laying around, see attached, perceptol 1:3 to develop (I scanned handheld with an EM5ii, sorry, its probably not even grain focused!)

Lightleaks galore, the whole thing was fogged, if that was my fault or the films extra sensitivity in the Australian sun, I'm not sure.
I'm going to shoot some R100 when my Jobo reel arrives and see if this lightleak issue happens on less sensitive films

 

[tjwspm]

A Kiev Vega 2 came into my possession missing most of its screws, a bent body.
Using some generic screws and some bending, I managed to get everything to 90%ish percent working order

It's a little funny on winding at times, and I couldnt fully get the bends out, but it does function.


I decided to test it with some FPP Infrared 16mm film I had laying around, see attached, perceptol 1:3 to develop (I scanned handheld with an EM5ii, sorry, its probably not even grain focused!)

Lightleaks galore, the whole thing was fogged, if that was my fault or the films extra sensitivity in the Australian sun, I'm not sure.
I'm going to shoot some R100 when my Jobo reel arrives and see if this lightleak issue happens on less sensitive films

 

[charlotteRF]

Try two at a "camera scan" with my new copystand setup, and an extra one, not bad for light leaking.

I realize now it kind of looks like lightpiping across the film, maybe that was the problem? But who knows, I need to get out there and take more shots anyway.

 

[charlotteRF]

Try two at a "camera scan" with my new copystand setup, and an extra one, not bad for light leaking.

I realize now it kind of looks like lightpiping across the film, maybe that was the problem? But who knows, I need to get out there and take more shots anyway.

Nope, it wasnt light piping, it turns out, Vega's are supposed to have pressure plates.
Mine doesnt, causing sharpness issues, and leaving a big gaping part in the camera that lets light in through the hinges

Has anyone seen that before?