Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Full frame scans

Laurie any and all these reasons may be correct, but the question remains,
why is being locked into a cropped image deemed preferable to giving the
option to crop OR go full frame, like a drum scan, or like photographers who
file their own carriers?

I am of the mind that tradition has gotten it wrong, that standard issue
should be full frame carriers, with
pay-extra-to-have-your-image-arbitrarily-cropped-carriers optional, and
perpetuating an error is silly. So though you may have factually explained
how manufacturers have allowed themselves (as has the paying public) to
lapse into jaded ignorance, I can't conceive of how such apathy has gone on
for so long.

Oh well, call me an idealistic fool.


PS, Austin lives, Leaf rules!

>> I've never understood why full frame holders weren't standard issue for
>> enlargers and film scanners.
> I can think of a number of reasons.  1. Not everyone seeks full frame scans
> or enlargements.  Full frame images with the black border or the frame
> numbers showing on the outer edge is sort of an artsy thing that became
> fashionable within the art circles a decade or so ago and may have even gone
> out of fashion by now.  Most people, I would suggest crop their images when
> they print them and most analog prints (especially color ones) were made by
> automated processors which were designed to print borderless prints which
> were cropped to meet standard photographic paper sizes.  Then digital
> scanning and printing came along and attempted to emulate traditional one
> hour lab photographic standards in terms of paper sizes and the cropping of
> 35mm proportions down to 8x10 proportions and aspect ratios.
> 2. Most early film scanners were used by those in the publishing industry
> who scanned primarily transparencies and not negatives.  Hence most of the
> 35mm slides where in mounts that cropped the image and had to be removed to
> allow the film to be mounted on the drum of the drum scanner: thus they were
> individual frames and not strips.  However, later with the emergence of the
> CDD filmscanner the 35mm slides were left in the mount for placement in film
> holders for the CDD film scanners primarily due to the fact that people were
> reluctant to go through the effort to remove the frames from the mounts in
> order to scan them and then had to remount the slides for storage. When
> these scanners were beginning to be used to scan 35mm negatives, which came
> from the processor in strips of 4  or 6, people did not want to cut the
> strips into individual frames for purposes of scanning or printing.  It is
> not easy to make a full frame holder for a full strip of uncut negatives (4
> to 6 in a strip) and retain the sorts of rigidity and flatness that is
> required to keep the film from buckling and bowing. As for medium format
> film, They usually have windows that are slightly larger than the frame but
> typically use masks that are slightly smaller than full frame to prevent
> stray light from hitting the image area during the scan so theoretically one
> could probably do a full frame 645 to 6x9 in the holders if you do not use
> the mask; but then there is nothing to prevent the film from buckling or
> bowing or stray light from hitting the image area.  This is further
> complicated by the fact that most film holders for medium format used by
> film scanners, unlike enlarger film holders, do not utilize the clam shell
> design and probably could not effectively do so without the scanner becoming
> bigger and bulkier.
> 3.  Designers tend to design for the masses in a mass market economy and not
> for the elite few; and even if they are designing for professionals and
> industrial users, they are designing for the masses within that market and
> not the unique few.
> 4. Lastly, tradition plays a big part.  Film sizes and formats as well as
> paper sizes and formats tend to change frequently over time as to what
> aspect ratios they use; but despite that the sizes and formats that are
> considered standard tend to live longer lives and persist long after the
> size and format of the day has changed.  Photographic paper as tended to be
> of certain sizes and photographic prints tended to keep to those sizes.
> Often camera manufacturer's have built cameras that utilize negative sizes
> with aspect ratios and formats which do not fit the standard traditional
> paper sizes.

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe' in the 
title or body


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.