What's the cheap-best 120 holder with borders for DSLR scanning?

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders,
If you are scanning 8x10 negatives, absolutely not.
If you are scanning 35mm negatives, there are excellent arguments for scanning using a digital camera.
Given what I've seen of the quality of your scans from 6x6 negatives, I would say why change?
Unless the volume of scanning you need to do makes the switch advantageous.
Case in point re: the existing quality of your photography (hope you don't mind):
View attachment 324289

Matt, thanks for the comment, and the compliment -- you are kind. FWIW, that was a 4990 scan of a Tri-X negative I shot with a Rolleiflex ages ago.

These days, I am printing platinum-toned kallitypes using digital negatives. I've just started shooting film again for these prints -- until now I've been shooting a Sony A7 with an IR sensor. But I finally shot a Rolleicord for this series with an expired roll of Efke 100, and I liked what I got with it -- the 4990 at 4800ppi gave me a sharper image file than what the A7 gives me. I'm attaching a copy of the 4990 film scan -- it's an old scanner but it works well enough for me.

 

[Munky]

2 Years later, as I was googling to see if any new solutions had been released, it seemed the only new kid on the block was the NS Basic Kit with the Optional Border Cassette. From what I've heard, since there's little to no info or media on this Combo 10 months after its release, cassettes, and glass bring new dust sources into the equation. I've also heard that using the MKII with the Border Cassette but without the glass will not keep your film 100% flat, either.
So, my current setup is still the solution for "the cheapest 120 with borders".

Note: If you're looking at this thread for info like I was, don't get hung up on "the film has to be 100% flat". With 120, unless you're using a flatbed or something like the NS that introduces glass on top of the film, it'll never be 100% flat, but honestly, it's not a big deal; it sounds worse than it really is. I've been scanning at home for over five years, and most of my Full Border 120 Scans weren't 100% flat, and you can't tell; take a look at the attached images.

 

[GLS]

With 120, unless you're using a flatbed or something like the NS that introduces glass on top of the film, it'll never be 100% flat

The best solution I have found is to use a single piece of high quality ANR glass underneath the film. The film gets taped to that by its borders, emulsion side up, and under tension so it sits perfectly flat. This way you get the film flatness, yet no resolution loss or distortion from having to capture the digital frames through a piece of ANR glass on top. You also get no vignetting or colour casts on the sides/corners of the frames from shadows/reflections introduced via a traditional holder (this is particularly impactful for colour negatives in my experience). The downside is it is slow and tedious to digitise many frames this way.

 

[250swb]

The best solution I have found is to use a single piece of high quality ANR glass underneath the film. The film gets taped to that by its borders, emulsion side up, and under tension so it sits perfectly flat. This way you get the film flatness, yet no resolution loss or distortion from having to capture the digital frames through a piece of ANR glass on top. You also get no vignetting or colour casts on the sides/corners of the frames from shadows/reflections introduced via a traditional holder (this is particularly impactful for colour negatives in my experience). The downside is it is slow and tedious to digitise many frames this way.

I think the idea you get distortions 'through' the ANR glass is bogus, it's high quality glass made for scientific use. Perhaps confused somewhere along the way with 'non-reflective glass' in the abounding photography myths and half-truths we have to endure. So use ANR glass as a weight on the negative (matt side down) to keep it flat. Armed with a small piece of ANR glass enough to cover the negative format you want to scan it's possible to make your own negative masks from sheets of model makers polystyrene plastic card. Not everything needs to be complicated and bound up in fear and myth.

 

[GLS]

I think the idea you get distortions 'through' the ANR glass is bogus, it's high quality glass made for scientific use. Perhaps confused somewhere along the way with 'non-reflective glass' in the abounding photography myths and half-truths we have to endure. So use ANR glass as a weight on the negative (matt side down) to keep it flat. Armed with a small piece of ANR glass enough to cover the negative format you want to scan it's possible to make your own negative masks from sheets of model makers polystyrene plastic card. Not everything needs to be complicated and bound up in fear and myth.

I thought someone might pick up on the distortion comment. I only included it to be comprehensive because not all ANR glass is made to the same standard, and cheap ones may exhibit a little bit here and there. The main thing is the resolution loss if you shoot through it, which is absolutely real and noticeable.

 

[250swb]

I thought someone might pick up on the distortion comment. I only included it to be comprehensive because not all ANR glass is made to the same standard, and cheap ones may exhibit a little bit here and there. The main thing is the resolution loss if you shoot through it, which is absolutely real and noticeable.

I fail to be convinced that there is any resolution loss, if you notice it maybe it is your glass that's at fault. In the UK you can get high quality ANR glass in convenient pre-cut or custom sizes for making your own negative holders from Knight Optical https://www.knightoptical.com/

 

[GLS]

I fail to be convinced that there is any resolution loss, if you notice it maybe it is your glass that's at fault. In the UK you can get high quality ANR glass in convenient pre-cut or custom sizes for making your own negative holders from Knight Optical https://www.knightoptical.com/

KO is where I get my ANR glass. I tested all this ages ago when I first started using a DSLR to digitise with. The resolution loss is minor, but there. It makes sense, as the micro-etched surface will scatter the transmitted rays from the film to some degree.

 

[dokko]

KO is where I get my ANR glass. I tested all this ages ago when I first started using a DSLR to digitise with. The resolution loss is minor, but there. It makes sense, as the micro-etched surface will scatter the transmitted rays from the film to some degree.

my experiences matches those of GLS. I tested several Anti-Newton glass manufacturers when I built my scanner:
At very high-resolutions, the small bumps in the glass start to act like micro-lenses, which affect the light rays, scattering them in random direction and introducing a swirly pattern. this is actually obvious if you think about it from a theoretical point of you, since this is how lenses work on a larger scale.
If you don't do a A/B comparison (AN glass to normal glass) you likely won't notice the effect because it can be mistaken for grain.

And with DSLR scanning most people will not notice anyway, because usually the lenses used are not high enough resolution and the bayer-pattern of the sensor introduces another source of artefacts.

 

[GLS]

and the bayer-pattern of the sensor introduces another source of artefacts.

True, although pixel-shift is supposed to eliminate that (in theory anyway). I assume your scanner uses a monochrome sensor and different coloured lights or filters to capture the RGB values? I believe this is how high end scanners for motion picture film work.

 

[Romanko]

I tested several Anti-Newton glass manufacturers when I built my scanner:

Did you end up using AN glass for your film holder or choose a glass-less design?

 

[250swb]

At very high-resolutions, the small bumps in the glass start to act like micro-lenses, which affect the light rays, scattering them in random direction and introducing a swirly pattern. this is actually obvious if you think about it from a theoretical point of you, since this is how lenses work on a larger scale.

ANR glass is etched, micro lenses are not created, that is the whole point

 

[dokko]

ANR glass is etched, micro lenses are not created, that is the whole point

I’m not sure how do you imagine a "edged" surface, but it certainly isn’t flat, but has small "bumps" (that is the reason why there are no newton rings).

I’m not sure if you’re really interested, but in case others are:
whenever light travels through a medium with different refractive index and two surfaces which are not parallel they will get diverted from their straight path. We all know this in the macroscopic scale from prisms and lenses, but also on microscopic scale like frosted glas.

This can be theoretically explained and calculated by both wave theory and quantum physics, or you can simply build a scanner of high enough resolution like GSL and I did and do a test with and without AN glass

 

[250swb]

This can be theoretically explained and calculated by both wave theory and quantum physics, or you can simply build a scanner of high enough resolution like GSL and I did and do a test with and without AN glass

A lot of things can be theoretically explained, the question is if there is enough sound judgement being made to decide if the theory is worth a damn in practical terms or if a theory has just become dogma. I have yet to see an actual example of ANR 'swirly rings' (@GLS), or whatever you were saying about ANR micro lenses producing something a photographer is mistaking for grain. These 'scientific' opinions about ANR glass are just the background noise of a mantra being chanted and in no way address the simply practical application for something un-noticeable in everyday use. So I'm not inclined to believe you given I have used both no glass and ANR glass and can see no difference especially in scans that should show a difference like copying very fine grain 35mm film. Maybe my DSLR scanning setup is better than yours, who knows, but results matter and I'm not seeing anything to the contrary.

 

[GLS]

for something un-noticeable in everyday use

Yet I noticed it, quite clearly. You can choose to believe me or not.

 

[dokko]

Maybe my DSLR scanning setup is better than yours, who knows, but results matter and I'm not seeing anything to the contrary.

Well, if you tested it on your system and don‘t have a problem, then be happy and don‘t worry about it.

Simply saying „I didn’t see a difference, so you cant either“ seems a bit silly considering that my setup is completely different than yours and goes up to 40‘000ppi (the AN glas texture starts to become visible around 8000-10‘000ppi, depending on the type).

 

[loccdor]

I didn't notice a sharpness decrease using 2 pieces of high quality ANR glass from Knight Optical in a sandwich, but there was a little less contrast. That is pretty correctable though. There's a dust/scratches increase too though, even with frequent cleaning.

The effective dpi you're DSLR scanning at will determine how flat the film needs to be (in other words, the magnification). If you are comparing a 6x9 and 35mm doing 1-shot scans, the 6x9 gets less magnification and therefore will have greater depth of field at the same aperture. That goes out the window when you start making medium format stitches and indeed the 120 flatness will become more challenging.