Where can I get a 110 film scanner at a price range betweeen $200.00
to $400.00 brand new to tranfer my old 110 negatives to my computer?

On 13 Nov 2003 15:20:48 -0800, imustberich7@wmconnect.com (Chris)
wrote:

Well, for that price range you're SOL. Look into having someone with a
4000 ppi film scanner scan them for you.
Charlie Hoffpauir
[STOP THE GRAND PARKWAY]
http://members.manvel.net/charlieh/

Charlie wrote:
Instamatic, right? Don't sweat the quality. Get a flatbed scanner with a
transparency option.

You can buy these very inexpensively on eBay - under $!00 for example for
the Microtek 5900 (which will do 4x5's).
--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 05:29:16 GMT, "Mike Russell"
<geigyREMOVE@pacbell.net> wrote:

He would do better having prints made and scanning the prints. cheaper
too, unless there is a lot of them to do.
Charlie Hoffpauir
[STOP THE GRAND PARKWAY]
http://members.manvel.net/charlieh/

Chris:

I don't know if there's such a thing as a 110 sized film scanner. I,
too, had a bunch of 110 negatives that I wanted to scan and searched
and searched for a holder for 110-sized film - and had no luck
whatsoever. I have an Epson Perfection 2400 that has the lid-mounted
transparency scanning light and the film holder for 35mm film and
slides. What I ended up doing - which is quite tedious but worked out
rather well - was constructing a mounting frame for the 110 strips
from manila folder paper. I cut the mounting frame to be the same
size as a 35mm film strip; once I mounted the 110 negative, it was
quite easy and routine to slip it into the film holder, resize the
scanning range, and scan as usual. I scanned at 2400, but probably
should have used a higher dpi. The manila folder paper stock worked
out as the best thickness for mounting the film and using the holder.

Bill

P.S. if you or anyone else knows where I could find a 110 sized
holder, I would still like to get one! :-)

imustberich7@wmconnect.com (Chris) wrote in message news:<122c716d.0311131520.fc95f6@posting.google.co m>...

This may not help in your situation with negatives, but I found some
110-to-35mm 'slide' adapters which would work great for adapting
individual frames to a standard film scanner. (The adapter presumes that
you have your 110 film already mounted in 110-sized slide mounts - about
1" square. Those mounts then snap into the 2"x2" adapter.)

You might not want to cut up those tiny negatives, but this might be an
option. Of course, if you already don't have slides to scan you'd also
need to find the 110 slide mounts.

Scott


Chris wrote:

There has to be a lot of people out there like us who have a zillion 110
negs to scan. Why can't someone make a negative adaptor for film scanners?

DB

CuppaCappa wrote:

db777@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net wrote:
110 film is the same width as 35mm, just with sprockets along only one edge,
as I'm sure you know. So it will fit in a 35mm holder perfectly, but with
some clipping of the image where the holes would be for 35mm.

If you want the whole thing, a flatbed with transparency adapter will do
justice to the rather humble quality these fixed focus cameras were designed
to capture. Here are some scans of my own negatives from the Instamatic
era, done at 2400 ppi on a Microtek 5900 that cost $75 on ebay.

http://www.geigy.2y.net/Gallery/Experimental/index.html

Although IMHO 1200 ppi would be enough, there can be a surprising amount of
detail in some of these images. For example, check out the brickwork in
scan number 2. Keep on clicking to get to the max rez of 2600x2600.

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

"Mike Russell" <geigyREMOVE@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:lD_ub.13518$mx3.8881@newssvr29.news.prodigy.c om...
No, 110 film is NOT the same width as 35mm.
110 film is 13mm X 17mm, 35mm is 24mm X 36mm.

You are probably thinking of 126 film, which is the same width as 35mm and
has a frame of 28mm X 28mm. 126 film does have sprocket holes on one side.
126 film can be scanned in a 35mm scanner. Not well, but can be done.

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

CSM1 wrote:

Whoops. Right you are. There was a camera called the "Pocket Instamatic"
that used 110 film, and I made the error of thinking this thread was
therefore referring to instamatic negatives. I actually still have a couple
of nice minolta 110 cameras - sans film at this point.

There were, of course, a number of high quality cameras that used 110
format, and I would not recommend using a flatbed to scan any of them. It
would be relatively easy, however, to make your own mask to allow 110 film
to be held in a 35mm carrier.
--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net