--- You wrote:
How much difference in frame length could that make?
Art
--- end of quoted material ---
I expect quite a lot when you are looking at figures like 99.5 %. Fractions of
a percent! It would be easy to do the geometry to see how the gap would affect
accuracy at different focal
Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote
As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple
of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100%
view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view
finders show only
Moreno Polloni wrote:
As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a couple
of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which give 100%
view of what ends up on the film) The vast majority of camera view
finders show only 92-96% of the image which is recorded
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote:
At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote:
As some may know, almost all viewfinders, except one Contax and a
couple of older Nikons (F2, I think) and maybe one other camera which
give 100% view of what ends up on the film) The vast
24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is
rather
difficult to position the film precisely
From the LS4000 pdf file:
Scanning area (max.) 25.1 x 38mm (3,946 x 5,959 pixels)
Effective area SA-21: 23.3 x 36.0mm (3,654 x 5,646)
(size/pixels) MA-20(S): 25.1 x 36.8mm*
Art wrote:
Ah, some more make the list. OK, I obviously was too severe in my comment
;-)
Yes, Art sometimes does that, but never without a bit of wit. :)
Let's just say that most mid priced SLR cameras, are not likely to come
with 100% viewfinders, and that more likely, cameras which do
For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8%
horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100%
as one can expect.
One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length
of the lens used. Take some photos on the same roll of
: LS4000 slide removed from mount
For sake of interest, Popular Photo rated their F3 test camera at 98.8%
horizontally by 99.2% vertically. I guess that's about as close to 100%
as one can expect.
One thing that no one seems to take into consideration is the focal length
of the lens used. Take
Is it that big a difference? We're speaking of the light angle
differences which can allow for an exposed area due to the gap between
the internal frame mask within the camera and the film plane... so,
that's based upon how far the guide tracks stand out from the frame
surface. On the Nikon
All of the Nikon F series, the Canon F1, and the Topcon had 100% viewfinder
coverage. One of the reason most SLR did not was because registration
(viewfinder/film image coincidence) did not need to be as precise.
Jim Sims
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote:
At 23:40 02-06-01 -0700,
Dieder Bylsma wrote
[snip].. I mounted the single frame into the strip film holder (FH-3?)
and got a full frame scan from it. Worked great.
That's interesting Dieder. I have already complained here (in the thread 'the
whole frame') that the Nikon LS-30's FH-2 Strip Film Holder masks the edges
I just measured the FH-2 holder with a vernier calliper. Each frame opening
is
23.5mm wide, 35.5mm long -- that means it's masking .25mm of each edge of
the
image.
What size openings does the FH-3 holder have?
24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is rather
Thanks for that, Vlad
Peter Marquis-Kyle
24.1 x 36.0 mm as I measured it. Extra 0,5 mm will be useful - it is rather
difficult to position the film precisely
Greetings, Has anyone using the new Nikon LS4000 had experience
removing a slide from the mount to get more of the image? Best way.
Any problems with buckling or focus? Occasionally I crop too tight in
the camera and my 1v allows no room for error with it's 100%
viewfinder. I am speaking
14 matches
Mail list logo
