Minolta Dualscan IV- Will 126 Slides damage the scanner Physically

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Koperskinospam, Dec 12, 2004.

  1. Help
    I have just purchased a Minolta Dualscan IV and have not even installed it
    yet. Most of my slides are 35mm but a few are 40 years old and came from a
    Kodak Instamatic camera that used 126 Film and some I think are 120 square
    Slides from an old twin reflex camera that take up all most all of the slide
    save for about 3/8 inch. I know that the scanner was not made for this
    older film and may not be able to scan the full slide and that is OK but
    will putting this slide in the scanner damage the optics or the scanner
    Physically?
    Thank you in advance for anyone's thought and guidance on this issue.
    Mike
     
    Mike Koperskinospam, Dec 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I haven't actually used this scanner but I can't imagine 126 slides or 127
    "super slides" damaging it as long as they aren't badly bent. If the slide
    fits into the same physical space as a 35-mm slide, it should go in and out
    just fine. This is based on my experience with other Minolta and Nikon
    scanners; I haven't actually used the one you mention.

    I rather wish 127 hadn't died out... I never got to use it.

    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael A. Covington
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html


    "Mike Koperskinospam" <> wrote in message
    news:SsPud.133245$-kc.rr.com...
    > Help
    > I have just purchased a Minolta Dualscan IV and have not even installed it
    > yet. Most of my slides are 35mm but a few are 40 years old and came from
    > a
    > Kodak Instamatic camera that used 126 Film and some I think are 120 square
    > Slides from an old twin reflex camera that take up all most all of the
    > slide
    > save for about 3/8 inch. I know that the scanner was not made for this
    > older film and may not be able to scan the full slide and that is OK but
    > will putting this slide in the scanner damage the optics or the scanner
    > Physically?
    > Thank you in advance for anyone's thought and guidance on this issue.
    > Mike
    >
    >
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Koperskinospam

    Paul Coen Guest

    In this specific case, it shouldn't -- I've got the Scan Elite II, which
    basically uses the same feed mechanism. 126 film fits, but gets masked at
    the top and the bottom by the holder, and the negative is shorter than a
    standard 35mm. The film is the same size, though.

    That other film should be OK -- never tried it, but unless it's hanging
    out, or so lose it could fall into the scanner you should be ok.

    On 11-Dec-04 23:06, Mike Koperskinospam wrote:
    > Help
    > I have just purchased a Minolta Dualscan IV and have not even installed it
    > yet. Most of my slides are 35mm but a few are 40 years old and came from a
    > Kodak Instamatic camera that used 126 Film and some I think are 120 square
    > Slides from an old twin reflex camera that take up all most all of the slide
    > save for about 3/8 inch. I know that the scanner was not made for this
    > older film and may not be able to scan the full slide and that is OK but
    > will putting this slide in the scanner damage the optics or the scanner
    > Physically?
    > Thank you in advance for anyone's thought and guidance on this issue.
    > Mike
    >
    >
     
    Paul Coen, Dec 12, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike Koperskinospam

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mike Koperskinospam wrote:

    > Help
    > I have just purchased a Minolta Dualscan IV and have not even installed it
    > yet. Most of my slides are 35mm but a few are 40 years old and came from a
    > Kodak Instamatic camera that used 126 Film and some I think are 120 square
    > Slides from an old twin reflex camera that take up all most all of the slide
    > save for about 3/8 inch. I know that the scanner was not made for this
    > older film and may not be able to scan the full slide and that is OK but
    > will putting this slide in the scanner damage the optics or the scanner
    > Physically?


    If you can get the film to be well held within the film holder and there is no
    chance of it slipping or popping out and getting into the mechanics of the
    scanner, then it should work fine.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike Koperskinospam

    CSM1 Guest

    "Mike Koperskinospam" <> wrote in message
    news:SsPud.133245$-kc.rr.com...
    > Help
    > I have just purchased a Minolta Dualscan IV and have not even installed it
    > yet. Most of my slides are 35mm but a few are 40 years old and came from
    > a
    > Kodak Instamatic camera that used 126 Film and some I think are 120 square
    > Slides from an old twin reflex camera that take up all most all of the
    > slide
    > save for about 3/8 inch. I know that the scanner was not made for this
    > older film and may not be able to scan the full slide and that is OK but
    > will putting this slide in the scanner damage the optics or the scanner
    > Physically?
    > Thank you in advance for anyone's thought and guidance on this issue.
    > Mike
    >
    >

    It won't hurt the scanner by putting 126 film into a 35 mm film strip
    holder.

    Here is a comparsion of 126 film to 35 mm film and 126 film in a Minolta
    Scandual IV film holder.
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Temp

    You can scan one frame of 126, move the 126 so that the next frame is fully
    in the frame area. Of the six frames that are available, at least one of the
    126 frames will show in one of the 35 mm frames with the top of the 126 film
    cut off by the 35 mm film holder.

    There is also a Kodak Catalog listing of 70 mm film for somebody else.

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
     
    CSM1, Dec 12, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike Koperskinospam

    Paul J Gans Guest

    In rec.photo.digital Michael A. Covington <> wrote:
    >I haven't actually used this scanner but I can't imagine 126 slides or 127
    >"super slides" damaging it as long as they aren't badly bent. If the slide
    >fits into the same physical space as a 35-mm slide, it should go in and out
    >just fine. This is based on my experience with other Minolta and Nikon
    >scanners; I haven't actually used the one you mention.


    >I rather wish 127 hadn't died out... I never got to use it.


    I have a Dualscan IV. The only way I know to scan slides
    is to put them into the special holder supplied with the
    scanner. These hold a 35mm mounted slide in either the
    horizontal or vertical positions.

    The holder, however, only allows a 35mm area to be exposed to
    the scanner.

    I doubt that 126 or 127 slides will fit into the scanner.
    Sorry, I don't have any that size so that I can't test it
    for sure.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Dec 13, 2004
    #6
  7. "Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
    news:cpitm5$9iu$...

    > I have a Dualscan IV. The only way I know to scan slides
    > is to put them into the special holder supplied with the
    > scanner. These hold a 35mm mounted slide in either the
    > horizontal or vertical positions.

    ....
    > I doubt that 126 or 127 slides will fit into the scanner.
    > Sorry, I don't have any that size so that I can't test it
    > for sure.


    They are in 2x2-inch cardboard mounts; that is also one of the options for
    mounting 110 slides.

    That's why I think there's no danger, although the scanner will not be able
    to see the whole frame of the 126 or 127 slide. In fact, the holder will
    guarantee that the slide or film doesn't bump into anything.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike Koperskinospam

    Mike King Guest

    35mm slides, image measures 24x36mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    127 super slides, image is 38mmx38mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    126 slides, image measures 26x26mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    828 slides, image is 28x40mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.

    You should be able to scan a 24x36mm maximum area from any of these formats
    on a 35mm scanner. A medium format scanner could scan the whole image.

    --
    darkroommike

    ----------
    "Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
    news:cpitm5$9iu$...
    > In rec.photo.digital Michael A. Covington

    <> wrote:
    > >I haven't actually used this scanner but I can't imagine 126 slides or

    127
    > >"super slides" damaging it as long as they aren't badly bent. If the

    slide
    > >fits into the same physical space as a 35-mm slide, it should go in and

    out
    > >just fine. This is based on my experience with other Minolta and Nikon
    > >scanners; I haven't actually used the one you mention.

    >
    > >I rather wish 127 hadn't died out... I never got to use it.

    >
    > I have a Dualscan IV. The only way I know to scan slides
    > is to put them into the special holder supplied with the
    > scanner. These hold a 35mm mounted slide in either the
    > horizontal or vertical positions.
    >
    > The holder, however, only allows a 35mm area to be exposed to
    > the scanner.
    >
    > I doubt that 126 or 127 slides will fit into the scanner.
    > Sorry, I don't have any that size so that I can't test it
    > for sure.
    >
    > ---- Paul J. Gans
    >
    >
     
    Mike King, Dec 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike Koperskinospam

    Frank ess Guest

    Mike King wrote:
    > 35mm slides, image measures 24x36mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > 127 super slides, image is 38mmx38mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > 126 slides, image measures 26x26mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > 828 slides, image is 28x40mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >
    > You should be able to scan a 24x36mm maximum area from any of these
    > formats on a 35mm scanner. A medium format scanner could scan the
    > whole image.
    >


    I think you may get more than 24x36mm on some scanners: my primitive but
    effective HP PhotoSmart (second version) scanned the full image area of
    127 film (if that is what Instamatics used), much to my delight.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Dec 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Koperskinospam

    CSM1 Guest

    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mike King wrote:
    >> 35mm slides, image measures 24x36mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >> 127 super slides, image is 38mmx38mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >> 126 slides, image measures 26x26mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >> 828 slides, image is 28x40mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >>
    >> You should be able to scan a 24x36mm maximum area from any of these
    >> formats on a 35mm scanner. A medium format scanner could scan the
    >> whole image.
    >>

    >
    > I think you may get more than 24x36mm on some scanners: my primitive but
    > effective HP PhotoSmart (second version) scanned the full image area of
    > 127 film (if that is what Instamatics used), much to my delight.
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess
    >


    127 Film size varies with the number of frames on the roll.
    16 frames 1 13/16 x 1 9/16 inches
    12 frames 1 5/8 x 1 5/8 inches
    8 frames 1 5/8 x 2 1/2 inches.
    127 Super Slide, 2 x 2 mount. Aperture is 38 mm x 38 mm.

    126 (the Instamatic Cartridge)
    12 or 20 frames.
    Frame size is 28 mm x 28 mm. Negatives.
    When mounted in a 2 x 2 slide mount the Aperture is 26.5 mm x 26.5 mm.

    All of the above from Kodak photographic products 1977-1978. A catalog.

    If you have postive film mounted in a 2 x 2 slide mount, some film scanners
    will have no problem with whatever film that fits in a 2 x 2 mount.

    However my Minolta Scandual IV Slide holder has a 1 1/2 x 1 inch window for
    the image.

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
     
    CSM1, Dec 13, 2004
    #10
  11. Mike Koperskinospam

    Frank ess Guest

    CSM1 wrote:
    > "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Mike King wrote:
    >>> 35mm slides, image measures 24x36mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >>> 127 super slides, image is 38mmx38mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >>> 126 slides, image measures 26x26mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >>> 828 slides, image is 28x40mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    >>>
    >>> You should be able to scan a 24x36mm maximum area from any of these
    >>> formats on a 35mm scanner. A medium format scanner could scan the
    >>> whole image.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I think you may get more than 24x36mm on some scanners: my primitive
    >> but effective HP PhotoSmart (second version) scanned the full image
    >> area of 127 film (if that is what Instamatics used), much to my
    >> delight. --
    >> Frank ess
    >>

    >
    > 127 Film size varies with the number of frames on the roll.
    > 16 frames 1 13/16 x 1 9/16 inches
    > 12 frames 1 5/8 x 1 5/8 inches
    > 8 frames 1 5/8 x 2 1/2 inches.
    > 127 Super Slide, 2 x 2 mount. Aperture is 38 mm x 38 mm.
    >
    > 126 (the Instamatic Cartridge)
    > 12 or 20 frames.
    > Frame size is 28 mm x 28 mm. Negatives.
    > When mounted in a 2 x 2 slide mount the Aperture is 26.5 mm x 26.5 mm.
    >
    > All of the above from Kodak photographic products 1977-1978. A
    > catalog.
    > If you have postive film mounted in a 2 x 2 slide mount, some film
    > scanners will have no problem with whatever film that fits in a 2 x 2
    > mount.
    > However my Minolta Scandual IV Slide holder has a 1 1/2 x 1 inch
    > window for the image.
    >


    Thank you.

    I have a few more film strips of equal width, that take up very nearly
    the entire width of the film, square frames. They are out of reach right
    now. The fellow who sold them to me via eBay didn't remember what kind
    of camera he used. Here's a couple:
    http://www.fototime.com/BEF369D6F3A3264/orig.jpg

    http://www.fototime.com/F6E45CE734FC74A/orig.jpg



    Now that I look at the images, it seems to me they are not different
    from the (known) Instamatics I mentioned.



    --

    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Dec 13, 2004
    #11
  12. To everyone that responded to this thread a big THANK YOU is in order. I
    have learned the hard way when you buy something it is good idea to go to
    the Products web site and read the FAQ's. Now for the bad news, So I
    installed the scanner Software first and did everything by the book and then
    guess what the scanner was DOA Dead On Arrival Or also Known as Out Of Box
    Failure the scanner would never see or feed the slide tray in. regardless
    how far I pushed it in. I tried both Slide and the Negative holder with no
    Luck. I purchased the scanner from a Super Store called MICRO-CENTER and
    as fate would Have it. I had purchased the last film scanner they had and I
    need to get all 436 slides Scanned, printed, and put on CD's before
    Christmas. So I traded it in for the most expensive flat bed scanner they
    had. An Epson 4870 Photo that has Digital ICE but as all most all the
    slides I have are 50 to 30 years old Kodachome I understand that ICE is
    worthless on them. I am sure that a Flat bed scanner is not as good as a
    true film scanner but as my grandparents took these slides, they were Far
    from Professional quality anyhow.

    Thanks for everyone's help

    P.S.

    If you were I and giving copies of slides to your family on CD what
    resolution, would you scan them at and would you keep the output at the
    original size or like 4x6 inch

    Again Thanks

    Mike


    "CSM1" <> wrote in message
    news:I5kvd.39570$...
    >
    > "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Mike King wrote:
    > >> 35mm slides, image measures 24x36mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > >> 127 super slides, image is 38mmx38mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > >> 126 slides, image measures 26x26mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > >> 828 slides, image is 28x40mm, slide mount is 2x2 inches.
    > >>
    > >> You should be able to scan a 24x36mm maximum area from any of these
    > >> formats on a 35mm scanner. A medium format scanner could scan the
    > >> whole image.
    > >>

    > >
    > > I think you may get more than 24x36mm on some scanners: my primitive but
    > > effective HP PhotoSmart (second version) scanned the full image area of
    > > 127 film (if that is what Instamatics used), much to my delight.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Frank ess
    > >

    >
    > 127 Film size varies with the number of frames on the roll.
    > 16 frames 1 13/16 x 1 9/16 inches
    > 12 frames 1 5/8 x 1 5/8 inches
    > 8 frames 1 5/8 x 2 1/2 inches.
    > 127 Super Slide, 2 x 2 mount. Aperture is 38 mm x 38 mm.
    >
    > 126 (the Instamatic Cartridge)
    > 12 or 20 frames.
    > Frame size is 28 mm x 28 mm. Negatives.
    > When mounted in a 2 x 2 slide mount the Aperture is 26.5 mm x 26.5 mm.
    >
    > All of the above from Kodak photographic products 1977-1978. A catalog.
    >
    > If you have postive film mounted in a 2 x 2 slide mount, some film

    scanners
    > will have no problem with whatever film that fits in a 2 x 2 mount.
    >
    > However my Minolta Scandual IV Slide holder has a 1 1/2 x 1 inch window

    for
    > the image.
    >
    > --
    > CSM1
    > http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    > --
    >
    >
     
    Mike Koperskinospam, Dec 15, 2004
    #12
  13. To everyone that responded to this thread a big THANK YOU is in order. I
    have learned the hard way when you buy something it is good idea to go to
    the Products web site and read the FAQ's. Now for the bad news, So I
    installed the scanner Software first and did everything by the book and then
    guess what the scanner was DOA Dead On Arrival Or also Known as Out Of Box
    Failure the scanner would never see or feed the slide tray in. regardless
    how far I pushed it in. I tried both Slide and the Negative holder with no
    Luck. I purchased the scanner from a Super Store called MICRO-CENTER and
    as fate would Have it. I had purchased the last film scanner they had and I
    need to get all 436 slides Scanned, printed, and put on CD's before
    Christmas. So I traded it in for the most expensive flat bed scanner they
    had. An Epson 4870 Photo that has Digital ICE but as all most all the
    slides I have are 50 to 30 years old Kodachome I understand that ICE is
    worthless on them. I am sure that a Flat bed scanner is not as good as a
    true film scanner but as my grandparents took these slides, they were Far
    from Professional quality anyhow.

    Thanks for everyone's help

    P.S.

    If you were I and giving copies of slides to your family on CD what
    resolution, would you scan them at and would you keep the output at the
    original size or like 4x6 inch

    Again Thanks

    Mike
    "Mike Koperskinospam" <> wrote in message
    news:SsPud.133245$-kc.rr.com...
    > Help
    > I have just purchased a Minolta Dualscan IV and have not even installed it
    > yet. Most of my slides are 35mm but a few are 40 years old and came from

    a
    > Kodak Instamatic camera that used 126 Film and some I think are 120 square
    > Slides from an old twin reflex camera that take up all most all of the

    slide
    > save for about 3/8 inch. I know that the scanner was not made for this
    > older film and may not be able to scan the full slide and that is OK but
    > will putting this slide in the scanner damage the optics or the scanner
    > Physically?
    > Thank you in advance for anyone's thought and guidance on this issue.
    > Mike
    >
    >
     
    Mike Koperskinospam, Dec 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Mike Koperskinospam

    Frank ess Guest

    Mike Koperskinospam wrote:
    > To everyone that responded to this thread a big THANK YOU is in
    > order. I have learned the hard way when you buy something it is good
    > idea to go to the Products web site and read the FAQ's. Now for the
    > bad news, So I installed the scanner Software first and did
    > everything by the book and then guess what the scanner was DOA Dead
    > On Arrival Or also Known as Out Of Box Failure the scanner would
    > never see or feed the slide tray in. regardless how far I pushed it
    > in. I tried both Slide and the Negative holder with no Luck. I
    > purchased the scanner from a Super Store called MICRO-CENTER and as
    > fate would Have it. I had purchased the last film scanner they had
    > and I need to get all 436 slides Scanned, printed, and put on CD's
    > before Christmas. So I traded it in for the most expensive flat bed
    > scanner they had. An Epson 4870 Photo that has Digital ICE but as
    > all most all the slides I have are 50 to 30 years old Kodachome I
    > understand that ICE is worthless on them. I am sure that a Flat bed
    > scanner is not as good as a true film scanner but as my grandparents
    > took these slides, they were Far from Professional quality anyhow.
    >


    Plenty of people have said here they get plenty good results on slides
    with that scanner.

    I seem to remember hearing the recent ICE versions do Old Kodachrome
    plenty good.

    Your family will love the results, I'm sure.


    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Dec 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Mike Koperskinospam

    Don Guest

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:26:59 -0800, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:

    >I seem to remember hearing the recent ICE versions do Old Kodachrome
    >plenty good.


    Unfortunately, not always... :-(

    LS-50 here, and 1980's Kodachromes still cause ICE to produce ugly
    artifacts around problem areas.

    On other film, ICE4 on the LS-50 has improved immensely when compared
    to ICE(1) on my old LS-30. ICE4 really is "magic".

    Don.
     
    Don, Dec 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Mike Koperskinospam

    David Chien Guest

    > as fate would Have it. I had purchased the last film scanner they had and I
    > need to get all 436 slides Scanned, printed, and put on CD's before
    > Christmas. So I traded it in for the most expensive flat bed scanner they


    Another easier way as a reminder to those that don't bother to search
    www.deja.com for past posts on this topic is to throw the entire lot of
    slides at any local photo print shop that has a digital printer (eg.
    Noritsu), and simply have them scan it all onto CDs. It'll probably
    cost you $0.50-1.00 per frame in bulk, but it's fast (they've got far
    faster scanners that do ICE than we do), convenient (you can sleep while
    the operator(s) works), and does the job well (they already have been
    trained to do color correction, etc. to get you a nice scan).

    All of this could have been done and finished by the time you spent
    buying one scanner, running back, then getting another and trying to
    figure it all out.

    --

    Another faster way?

    Slide adapter attached to the lens of a compatible digital camera.
    eg. Nikons often have slide adapters for many of their higher-end models.

    Simply feed in slide, push the shutter button, eject and repeat.

    This can get you images far faster than most other options by
    yourself, and if the top-notch quality (ie. Minolta 5400 ICE'd scans at
    top resolution + photoshop retouching & correction) isn't necessary,
    then this is the fastest way available for home consumers.

    ---

    Quite a few times this same thing has come up (eg. one guy was asking
    about scanning in WWII photos or something like that), so there's many
    good solutions that'll get you scans faster and better.
     
    David Chien, Dec 15, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jonathan
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    8,590
    Jonathan
    Jul 26, 2004
  2. Victor Cappuccio
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,120
    Victor Cappuccio
    Jul 27, 2004
  3. hoser
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,053
    hoser
    Apr 15, 2005
  4. jon chaikin
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    496
    Malcolm Stewart
    Jan 27, 2004
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,996
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page