Hi,
I understand the medium format negative holder will do only two 6x6
negatives on a strip. I was wondering if longer strips (3 times 6x6) won't
get damaged this way? Also, if it doesn't do 3 negatives, I guess it won't
do 6x17 either.
Are there solutions for this, either from Epson, or from third parties?
TIA

Steven

"steven" <stevenPANTSvh@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:6BBqe.116750$kx2.6708347@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
The following is the specs on the Epson 4990 Photo:
Transparency Unit

8" x 10" Transparency Adapter built-in lid with four film holders: 35mm
slides (8 frames), 35mm film strips (24 frames), medium format strips
2-1/4", 120/220mm, 6x12cm (3-6 frames) and 4" x 5" film (2 frames); 8" x 10"
film area guide

Is says that you can do 3 to 6 frames of 120 film strips. I interpret that
to mean two 2 1/4" strips of three frames each in a holder side by side.
After all the scanning width on that scanner is 8".

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

The OEM Epson holder has three windows and each one is approx. 122 mm long
if I remember right. Measure your actual film frame sizes as well as the
length of spacing between each frame to see how many frames from a single
strip will fit into theis 122 mm spacing.

Doug

--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfishe...mainintro.html

"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3IDqe.2527$I14.226@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com ...
Found the manual at
http://files.support.epson.com/htmld...phrf/set_1.htm.
It seems Doug is right: it does only two 6x6 negatives per strip, to a
maximum of three. I don't understand why they didn't design the holder to
take a wider strip, because, as you say, the scanning width is 216mm. This
means the negative holder won't scan two 6x7s on one strip, let alone a
6x17.
The MF Film Holder Doug linked to may be a solution, but I can't say I find
it cheap (if I count shipping and VAT). Does anyone have any experience with
this dingus, or other alternatives?

--
Steven

"steven" <stevenPANTSvh@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:kBGqe.117462$HO3.6835272@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
three frames. However it is only one strip.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lbHqe.3606$%j7.574@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...
Seems it will, and a lot cheaper than the Epson too. Major drawback for me:
DMax of 3.3 where the Epson has a DMax of 4. Not all that important for
negatives, but it is for slide film.

steven wrote:
My Canon 9950F does two strips of roll film. For the 6x4.5 I usually
scan it does 4 frames per strip, so I guess that will be 3 per strip for
the square format. According to a recent test in a German photo
magazine, the measured Dmax of the 9950F is (IIRC) 3.8, whereas that of
the Epson 4990 was 3.3 - even though Epson claims more.
The 9950F is also cheaper than the 4990.

--

Wilfred van der Vegte.
e-mail: first five letters of my first name at gmx dot net

"Wilfred" <invalid@vandervegte.com> wrote in message
news:8affd$42ac1b29$82a1af6e$3320@news1.tudelft.nl ...
3.8 is also the value Canon claims, though the small print says "Canon
internal measurement".
Epson doesn't mention any measurement details at all, but I guess it will be
"internal measurement" as well. Which should be read as "we invented a way
to make the figures look good, but we can't tell you, 'cause otherwise you'd
know it's a fraud".

I'm a bit surprised by the differences: 3.8/3.8 for the Canon, 4.0/3.3 for
the Epson. Can anyone confirm these numbers?
I'm prepared to have a look at the Canon (with some reluctance, though. We
have a small Canon scanner at work at I think the software sucks).

steven wrote:

The software isn't perfect but the scanner also works well with VueScan.

--

Wilfred van der Vegte.
e-mail: first five letters of my first name at gmx dot net

"Wilfred" <invalid@vandervegte.com> wrote in message
news:8affd$42ac1b29$82a1af6e$3320@news1.tudelft.nl ...
OK, I fell for the 4990. It does 3 strips of two 6x6 frames, where I'd liked
2 strips of 3 frames better. The current arrangement of the negative holder
allows for uncut film, but I'll have to look for another film holder if I
ever will go to 6x17 :-(
As for DMax, I'm quite happy with the first results, whatever the numbers
may be. I can see details in both blacks and hilights which I missed when
printing in the darkroom.

--
Steven

In article <YF7ze.139192$xo.7298142@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
stevenPANTSvh@pandora.be says...
the film the the long dimension. Do a search on his name to find the
site.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com

"Robert Feinman" <robert.feinman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d36fa52fda4ca72989945@news.acedsl.com...
I'm aware of this product. It's not exactly what I want either (why can't it
handle 2 strips?) and I'd also need the ANR insert to do 6x17s. And as I
would be ordering from Europe, which means import tax and VAT, it ain't
cheap either.
I made the suggestion to Epson to make a 2 x 3 holder as an alternative for
the 3 x 2 holder. If you don't ask...
Thanks for the reply anyway.
Steven