Nikon 35 mm aspect ratio

[Arne-Lin]

Hey all!

So I recently started to scan my 35 mm archive with a proper scanner, Nikon Coolscan 5000. Most of my pictures were taken on a Nikon FM2. I never noticed before but now with the scans I realized the pictures seem to be much wider than 3:2 (36 mm x 24 mm). The whole negative seems to be more like 37 or 38 mm wide.

Is that something specific to Nikon cameras? Or is that a normal size for 35 mm negatives and I just never noticed? Or does the scanner crop at the top and bottom so the frame becomes wider?

I am just asking out of interest, I always assumed it was exactly 3:2 ...

cheers, arne

 

[Chan Tran]

I think the scanner crop something. The image should be very close to 24x36 not 1 or 2 mm different.

 

[gone]

I would ck your scanner for cropping, although I never saw this w/ my V ED scanner. All of my Nikon negs look like the rest of the negs from other cameras.

 

[Huss]

Yeah my Nikon negs look just like my Xpan negs, no diff.

j/k, they look the same as all my other regular 35mm cameras.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Measuring negatives from some Nikon (F2/F3/F4/FM2 ... don't know which) the width is indeed oversize at 36.12 mm.

I take it you are scanning mounted slides and not the film itself. With the slide mount doing some cropping, and the scanner probably doing some more to remove the fuzz around the slide mount aperture, I'd say some change in aspect ratio should be expected. If a constant amount of crop is made in the horizontal and vertical dimensions the aspect ratio will change to a higher value.

 

[abruzzi]

I can easily tell my Nikon F2 negs from my other 35mm negs, but not due to size but because they have rounded corners. My other Nikons don’t do that.

 

[AgX]

As a film gate is not in contact with the film, there is also is a difference depending on the built of the lens, of the angle of its rear cone of rays.

 

[__Brian]

Agree with the above- "Back in the Day" My Nikkor 24/2.8 produced a larger image with the F2a than what my enlarger would project, so I filed down the negative carrier to match the image area.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I take it you are scanning mounted slides and not the film itself.

Oops. Sloppy reading on my part - I see you are scanning negatives. Discard the slide mount comments from my comments.

 

[Arne-Lin]

Hello everyone, thanks for the answers.
Yes I am indeed scanning negatives with the Nikon Coolscan 5000. It pulls in strip of negatives automatically with a little motor, so you can't manually position the negative inside the scanner or shift the masking.
I discovered the issue when cropping images with Lightroom setting the aspect ratio to 3:2, the cropped area on the right side of the image is quite large:



So I suspect that either the negative is wider than 36 mm or the scanner is cropping something on the top + bottom. Maybe the scanner really crops, since I am not able to scan the perforation or emulsion label on the negative ...?

Have a good day everyone

 

[AgX]

So I suspect that either the negative is wider than 36 mm or...

What I do not understand at your issue is that you got time to discuss this here, but seemingly not to just measure the image width at the negatives themselves and to measure the gate width at your camera.
Or do you lack acess to both, negatives and that camera?

 

[Chan Tran]

Measuring negatives from some Nikon (F2/F3/F4/FM2 ... don't know which) the width is indeed oversize at 36.12 mm.

I take it you are scanning mounted slides and not the film itself. With the slide mount doing some cropping, and the scanner probably doing some more to remove the fuzz around the slide mount aperture, I'd say some change in aspect ratio should be expected. If a constant amount of crop is made in the horizontal and vertical dimensions the aspect ratio will change to a higher value.

But I don't think it's 1mm off.

 

[NB23]

Each camera has its own gate size.

I can generally tell which camera shot which film when I’m printing. Each of them is different, either the size, either the corners...