RE: filmscanners: LS-40/Vuescan cropping

[Bruce Kinch <pvx@ma.ultranet.com>]

>  >> Surely, the frame spacing has no relationship to the make of
>>>  film.  It should be a standard 8 sprocket holes.  Any variance
>>>  has to come from the camera.  Some very cheap ones don't even
>>>  register the sprocket holes and vary spacing throughout a film.
>
>Both rolls were shot on a Canon EOS300 - not a particularly 'cheap'
>camera (although some professionals on here may disagree with that ;-).
>Obviously, since the same camera was used for both it *must* be the film
>that differs.

In their zeal to make totally electronic cameras, Canon eliminated 
the sprocket that counts eight holes per frame, replacing it with an 
infrared sensor. I'd suggest that plays a role your "nonstandard" 
spacing.

Also, the damn things fog infrared film. Annoys the hell out of my 
students who have to shoot an IR assignment. Teaches them not to let 
Daddy buy their toys anymore, though:-)

There are (were) cameras with non-standard spacing-Widelux, Xpan and 
other panoramics, half frame and stereo. There was once a 24x30mm or 
so Nikon M rangefinder, very rare and could be traded for an Imacon 
straight up if you find one.

What also varies is the width of the actual 35 frame. A wide angle 
lens on a RF camera sits deep enough to "expand" the frame slightly. 
I had a 15mm Hologon on a Leica for a while, and the frames almost 
touched. The 15mm Voightlander I use now is better, but I still can't 
scan full frame on a 4000SS.
--