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.