V500 Canner MF Mask - what's that about?

[tikkathreebarrel]

My recently acquired from here V500 scanner is doing sterling service - thanks MindofMel"

I am not going to scan 35mm as routine. I may play with high res scans on particular negs to see how they compare with shop scans.

But the MF neg mask/film holder: exposes two and a bit frames on a scan. Not three or even two, but two and a bit!

Why is that and has anyone trimmed their film holder to accomodate 3 frames per scan?

 

[excalibur2]

Have you set the the scanner to medium format size?

 

[trevorbray]

Yep..the mask is too small. It'll do 2 6x6 or 1 6x9
I've placed an order for a Better Scanning holder. the shot on their web site seems to indicate it will hold 4 6x6.
Maybe someone here will confirm.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

Have you set the the scanner to medium format size?

I'm sure so. But it's not an inputtable measurement issue: it's a physical restriction. :shrug:I'm using the black plastic templatey thing which holds the film strip flat and aligned for the scan - do you know the thing? There length of the window is 123mm and whilst I might get three negs in by cutting them up and losing some of the inter-frame, that's more effort and time than I'm prepared to commit.

I'm going to try just placing a 3-frame neg on the glass bed without the plastic holder and if all three scan I shall progress towards surgery.

 

[medwaygreen]

The mask /holder you describe is for 120, it should be for three negs at 645, two negs at 6x6 and one neg for anything larger. You should not have to cut any strips as the top and bottom of the holder has run off area,s designed for you to position the negs you require to scan.

Richard.

 

[medwaygreen]

Yep..the mask is too small. It'll do 2 6x6 or 1 6x9
I've placed an order for a Better Scanning holder. the shot on their web site seems to indicate it will hold 4 6x6.
Maybe someone here will confirm.

Hi Trevor,

I am not sure that the light unit cover 24cm for 4 6x6 negs, plus spacing?

 

[trevorbray]

Hi Trevor,

I am not sure that the light unit cover 24cm for 4 6x6 negs, plus spacing?

Bother...

 

[skysh4rk]

But the MF neg mask/film holder: exposes two and a bit frames on a scan. Not three or even two, but two and a bit!

Why is that and has anyone trimmed their film holder to accomodate 3 frames per scan?

I use a Digitaliza 120 film holder, which comfortably holds three 6x6 frames, with my Epson scanner. You should be able to pick one of these up for about £30 and they work quite well. It's also available in the 35mm variety too.

 

[freecom2]

That's the lomography one right? Interesting - I heard it is very good at keeping film flat as well?

 

[skysh4rk]

That's the lomography one right? Interesting - I heard it is very good at keeping film flat as well?

Yeah, it's from Lomography. I'm normally quite sceptical of anything bearing the Lomo name, but their Digitaliza holders are easy to use and do a solid job of keeping the negatives flat (or at least the 120 holder does; I haven't used the 35mm version).

 

[freecom2]

Yeah, it's from Lomography. I'm normally quite sceptical of anything bearing the Lomo name, but their Digitaliza holders are easy to use and do a solid job of keeping the negatives flat (or at least the 120 holder does; I haven't used the 35mm version).

£27.30 on the Lomo shop at the moment... hmm

 

[skysh4rk]

£27.30 on the Lomo shop at the moment... hmm

They're very good for the price.

I wish they showed just a bit more of the film edges, but I really can't complain given how much less these are than other options, such as the better scanning holders.

All of my MF photos on Flickr have been scanned using the Digitaliza 120 holder.

 

[freecom2]

They're very good for the price.

I wish they showed just a bit more of the film edges, but I really can't complain given how much less these are than other options, such as the better scanning holders.

All of my MF photos on Flickr have been scanned using the Digitaliza 120 holder.

Decided to buy the 120 and 110 film holders, they are discounted on their website at the moment, and with 10% discount with the code ILOVELOMO, it came to a reasonable sum.

My Epson film holder normally only allows scanning of two 120 frames, so hopefully this will speed up things as well.

 

[excalibur2]

Yeah, it's from Lomography. I'm normally quite sceptical of anything bearing the Lomo name, but their Digitaliza holders are easy to use and do a solid job of keeping the negatives flat (or at least the 120 holder does; I haven't used the 35mm version).

But how does it prevent the 120 neg bowing in the middle?

 

[skysh4rk]

But how does it prevent the 120 neg bowing in the middle?

Right, there is a metal piece that fits into the outside bottom of the holder. After placing a strip of film inside the open holder, you then put another piece over top that is magnetically attracted to the metal piece at the bottom. Once the film is sandwiched between these two layers, you can then close the holder and remove the two magnetised pieces and the film should be held relatively taut across the open span of the holder.

I hope that makes some sense.

I've found that it does a pretty solid job keeping my strips flat on the whole, although there might be some slight bowing with particularly troublesome negatives. I can't really complain about its performance for the price though.

 

[excalibur2]

Right, there is a metal piece that fits into the outside bottom of the holder. After placing a strip of film inside the open holder, you then put another piece over top that is magnetically attracted to the metal piece at the bottom. Once the film is sandwiched between these two layers, you can then close the holder and remove the two magnetised pieces and the film should be held relatively taut across the open span of the holder.

I hope that makes some sense.

I've found that it does a pretty solid job keeping my strips flat on the whole, although there might be some slight bowing with particularly troublesome negatives. I can't really complain about its performance for the price though.

Oh well...If I had invented this I would patent it, approach Epson because of their contacts and sales and collected the royalties.