Railfan Technology > Scanning "funny size" 35mm?

In attempting to scan old slides and negatives at the Western Railway Museum Archives, I've found out the hard way that not all "35mm" images are created equal. I've attached a sample below of slides and negatives photographed on a light table to illustrate the different image sizes that still fit in a 2"x2" cardboard frame or within the bounds of a film strip 35mm in width.

- The slide at upper left is essentially a "normal" 135 slide, with the frame masking about 1 mm on each side to leave an image that measures 34mm x 23mm.
- Second from the left is what I believe to be an 828 format slide with a somewhat larger image area, 38mm x 26mm. Assuming the same loss of about a millimeter on each side, the image on the film would be 40mm x 28mm.
- Third from the left is a 126 Instamatic slide with an image area measuring 27mm x 27mm.
- Fourth from left is a 127 format "Super Slide" with an image area measuring 38mm x 38mm

- The strip of negatives in the middle is probably also 828 format, with images that are 40mm x 28mm and film stock that has far fewer sprocket holes than modern 135 slide or print film.

- The slide at the bottom is a stereo slide. Wikipedia calls this "Realist" format - did it have a format number? Although obviously not in a 2"x2" frame, the film inside is 35mm according to Wikipedia, And I haven't had the guts to rip one open to find out for sure. Which brings us to the problem...

The admittedly rather old film scanners that I'm familiar with (Minolta DiMage 5400, Nikon Supercool Scan 9000) use slide and film holders that have opaque frames sized for 135 film with a maximum image area of 36mm x 25mm. A 126 or 828 slide will fit in the slide holder, and losing the extra few millimeters on each side usually isn't a disaster, but for archival purposes it is desirable to capture as much of the image as possible. A 127 slide will not work in the slide holders, as the clips that hold the slide down are positioned such that they would actually be pressing on the film itself. For 828 negatives, having to eject the holder and reposition a strip of four after every scan can be a pain, and again, some image is lost because the holder's frames aren't the right size. None of the holders willingly accept stereo slides. I've tried scanning 828 and stereo slides on a decent quality flatbed (Epson V750) but haven't been impressed with the results. My solution so far has been to rig up an adapter out of tagboard that will accept stereo slides and fit in the Nikon's 120 film holder, but this doesn't hold the slides particularly flat.

Looking through what's available in film scanners today, the only product that actually advertises that it scans 126 and 127 slides is the Wolverine F2D Mighty, but I haven't heard great things about the image quality from Wolverine products. The Pacific Image (Reflecta) and Plustek scanners look like they have the same problem as my ancient scanners in that the 35mm holders limit the scannable area to 36mm x 25mm. Anybody else out there successfully cracked this nut? Is there a decent quality consumer film scanner that will scan an entire filmstrip from end to end and across 28-30mm of the 35mm width, or nearly the entire 5cm x 5cm area of a slide, or handle the extra long dimensions of a stereo slide?

---

My Plustek 7400 will do 25 x 36 mm max. That would work for your first 2 examples, but crop the rest.
Your best bet may be an Epson flatbed scanner with a backlight for transparencies.
The Epson Perfection V600 advertises a 2.7" x 9.5" transparency area. Costs about $200.

Here's a screen shot from the Plustek

---

I scan 127 and 126 format slides all the time with a Plusek 8200i and Vuescan. You have to change the scan area to manual and adjust accordingly. Thinking outside the box sometimes leads to interesting things.

Evan

You might have to rip open one of those stereo slides and count the sprocket holes. According to George Thelemis, a leading US stereo photography authority:

Most stereo cameras made in the USA in the 1950s (Realist, Kodak, Revere, TDC, etc.) produce film chips which are 5 film sprockets wide (23mm unmasked or 21mm masked).
This is known as the “Realist” or 5p format.

Certain stereo cameras of European mainly origin (Belplasca, Busch Verascope, FED) produce film chips that were 7 film sprocket wide (30mm unmasked or 28mm masked).
This is known as the “European” or 7p format. It is interesting to note that the Realist can be modified to take 7p images!

Most all 2D cameras today and certain stereo cameras (RBT) produce film chips that are 36mm wide, known as “Full Frame” or 8p format.

Stephanie Ann

rsanchez Wrote:

> I scan 127 and 126 format slides all the time with
> a Plusek 8200i and Vuescan. You have to change the
> scan area to manual and adjust accordingly.

Plustek says the scanning area for the 8200i is 36.8mm x 25.4mm, and from the looks of the film holders, those dimensions are set in stone (well, plastic anyway).

http://plustek.com/oeu/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-8200i-ai/

Are you saying you figured out a way to scan an area of the slide larger than those dimensions? If so, how did you get around the limitations imposed by the film holders?

jonjonjonjon wrote:

> Your best bet may be an Epson flatbed scanner with a backlight for transparencies.

As I mentioned, I've tried scanning 828 and stereo slides on a decent quality flatbed (Epson V750) but haven't been impressed with the results. Below are the results of scanning the stereo slide above with the Epson V750 (first) and the ersatz gizmo I rigged up for Nikon 9000 (second). Even though the film isn't held perfectly flat in the Nikon, the Nikon scan is still noticeably sharper than the Epson with less of a halo around the bright bits, not to mention that it does a better job with dust removal. So for something as small as a stereo slide (or a regular old 35mm slide), I'm inclined to think a dedicated film scanner is still better than a flatbed with a transparency adapter. The question is whether there is a film scanner that will accept something as oddly shaped as a mounted stereo slide, or even just a little bit outside-the-lines like 828 format.

---

---

I'm sure that my HP G4050 could handle whatever fits into the 2x2 holder; especially with the updated software-- lots of variable size capabilities.

Back when film holders for my Minolta were plentiful, I bought a spare and modified it with a slightly larger opening for scanning 126 and other "odd" size films. Tedious work but it gets the job done.

Evan_Werkema Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plustek says the scanning area for the 8200i is
> 36.8mm x 25.4mm, and from the looks of the film
> holders, those dimensions are set in stone (well,
> plastic anyway).
>
> http://plustek.com/oeu/products/opticfilm-series/o
> pticfilm-8200i-ai/
>
> Are you saying you figured out a way to scan an
> area of the slide larger than those dimensions? If
> so, how did you get around the limitations imposed
> by the film holders?
>

No, I was saying I scan 126 and 127 slides in the 35mm holder and will crop accordingly. I am typically not concerned with the entire image area and if the subject is too close to result in a decent image I switch to my V500 (yes the quality is not archive worthy, but it's the best I can afford).


Image #1 - The scan side of the 35mm slide holder with a 126 and a 35mm slide.

Image #2 - The loading side of the holder.

Image #3 - The 35mm negative holder with a set of 126 negatives loaded. You can scan two images before having to adjust the negatives in the holder.

I currently do not have a 127 slide handy to show how it looks in the holder. The stereo slides would have to be unmounted and scanned as from what you have experienced they will not scan well on a flatbed.

I did look at the Plutek 35mm slide holder and the plastic may be able to be cut to create a larger scan area. This might be an area to explore, but I'm not in the mood to cut up my holder to find out.

---

---

---

> The slide at the bottom is a stereo slide. Wikipedia calls this "Realist" format - did it have a format number?


I believe the "Realist" format was refereed to as 335 format. Here is what a 1955 box of Stereo Kodachrome in K335 looked like.

> Second from the left is what I believe to be an 828 format slide with a somewhat larger image area, 38mm x 26mm. Assuming the same loss of about a millimeter on each side, the image on the film would be 40mm x 28mm.

828 format is indeed 40mm x 28 mm. Here is what a 1950 box of Kodachrome in 828 looked like. Only 8 exposures per roll.

---

---

As a long time stereo shooter your bottom mount is indeed a stereo slide most likely Realist format. It's possible, but unlikely, that it could be a larger stereo format masked down for creative reasons. However, the Realist format was the most popular and easiest to get until digital took over. Kodak did make a special version of Kodachrome for stereo cameras but the only difference was how the leader of the film was shaped and possibly a different length to get an even number of stereo pairs. It was only produced for a short period of time in the 50's and most people just used standard 35mm slide film. Each "chip" in the stereo pair is 5 perts wide. It may still be possible to find 2x2 mounts that have an opening for a 5p frame but I would be leery messing with these unless you know stereo mounting or someone who does. The chips have been aligned to produce the best results and you don't want to disturb that.

One possible solution for your odd shaped frames would be to use a digital camera: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/
The results are pretty impressive and there's a link at the bottom for more detailed instructions.