• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

110/16mm Camera Image Quality

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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
With effective resolution of V850 being about 2.500dpi you are getting about 1.5MP from a 10x14mm frame.
 
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.
 
brbo said:
you are getting about 1.5MP from a 10x14mm frame.
Click to expand...

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.
 
charlotteRF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 

Attachments

  • P1010276_101.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 86

 
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.
 

Attachments

  • T1010021.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 80
  • T1010020_02.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 78

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?
 
Question, I've been messing with a few Minolta 16s, including the 16 and 16 MG-S.

The number 0 lens seems to be impossible to find, doesnt seem to be many out there? How bad is it only being able to shoot f16/f11 at infinity?

I take it is the same issue on the 16 MG-S too and I would need a 16 QT if I want infinity, but those seem to be plastic/less reliable from reading this thread.

I think I finally fixed my MG-S. Meter wires had broken off so I had to resolder them on after trying to clean the ISO dial from being stiff. Have some film from FPP loaded up ready to go loaded on my cartridge.

I don't know how I feel about 110 cameras. I've had crummy luck with the Rollei A110 and Pentax Auto 110. Found a cheap Minolta autopak 470 and it works so going to give that a shot. But being able to reload 16mm in a dark bag seems far more convenient on what feels like more reliable cameras.
 
Last edited:
blee1996 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Along the same lines, I use a glass negative carrier in a 4x5 enlarger for my Minox and 16mm negatives. It makes a great contact sheet on a sheet of 8x10" paper with images enlarged enough so that they are actually useful. You can do the same thing with a medium format enlarger too.
 

Without that pressure plate I don't know how you can get good pictures. It's spring-loaded and is only applied to the film when the camera is fully opened. I can't imaging how that could be missing. Fortunately, the Vega/Bera 2 can be found in good condition for very little money. And if you decide on a replacement camera, have a look at the Kiev 30 or 30M. Basicallty the same camera, but with a larger 13x17mm image size.
 

Since it's IR film, that light leak could be happening before or after the film is put in the camera -- or BOTH!!!
 

The QT is a quality shooter, but it has a slightly slower f3.5 lens, and a PX30 battery -- that you have to make a substitute for. Plus, it only has two shutter speeds. Quality is not its limitation. And it does focus to infinity, and can use the Minolta Spy Finder. You think the #0 close-up finder is harder to find?

The best way to look for a #0 filter is to find one in a Minolta 16 filter set. I've found mine because they came inside a Minolta 16 II camera case. The original cases have two slots inside to hold auxiliary filters. Many sellers don't even notice they are inside the case when they sell them. Lucky me.

I don't find the infinity issue as too big a problem -- especially with the MG-s, which has a built-in close-up lens, so the main lens is fixed closer to infinity than the lens on the Minolta 16 II. I normally shoot the Minolta 16mm cameras in bright light so getting to f11/16 is normally not a problem. If I need a wider f-stop, I use a slower shutter speed instead -- and find a way to stabilize the camera.

The main problem I have with the QT is that you have to look through the viewfinder for the metering information. On the MG-s, it's on the top plate -- just pick an appropriate shutter speed, and it picks the f-stop, which is usually good for quite a wide range 3' (w/ CU lens) -32' at f5.6.

I just nabbed my THIRD Minolta MG (NOT MG-s). It's the predecessor to the MG-s, and has a match needle exposure system. Just turn the dial with your thumb to get the red needle in the "Y" and it sets the f-stop & speed together. I got it basically for free since it came in a good of "camera stuff" for next to nothing. It was in the original case, with a Minolta cassette (never used), and the TWO impossible-to-find MG filters -- Yellow & UV. I'm going to turn the UV into an IR filter. And since the 20mm lens has to be focused closer with IR film reaching infinity is not a problem -- because the lens is fixed at 10 feet, infinity will be reached open wide.
 
Last edited:
I've actually been looking at ebay auctions with cameras that do have a filter. Lots of #1 filter and UV filters so far is what I've seen. I'll double check my case to see if it has one hidden. And I have the #1 and UV filter.

I actually also have an MG, the size is really nice on it, and has the filters too, but the meter is dead on mine.
 
xkaes said:
a slightly slower f3.5 lens, and a PX30 battery
Click to expand...

I have a QT, it works fine without the battery (except of course having to manually set exposure).
 
Good point. The QT, MG, and MG-s all work without batteries. The battery is only for the meter. The Minolta 16 EE and 16 CDS might need the battery because I think that's used to set the f-stop. It's easy to substitute newer batteries in the QT. The batteries for the MG-s are still available, and the MG doesn't need a battery.
 
I ended up finding a 16 II on ebay with the #0 lens, and snatched that up heh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register