Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

APS film
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Adapters and other accessories
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:18 am    Post subject: APS film Reply with quote
Hello! I remember that in the '90es there were some fancy cameras issued with a new cartridge type . Does somebody still uses them ? The cameras are still available and some film also Where can the films be processed in Europe ? The main format is an interesting 16/9


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
its just like developing 35mm. everyone should be able to do it with notice beforehand. also, i have a canon IX i believe, a fully functioning APS cam using normal EF mount. i also have film and maybe even the owners manual. if you want i can dig them up for you.
tony


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Processing available at some labs, I did try already three of them , Canon IXUS, Konica 24-48 zoom and Contax Tix.
result was disappointing due small frame scan require much better equipment what is usually available.
Contax Tix was nice other too was handy, but result was crap.
Film is available on Ebay.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/filmcamera/german/contax/contax_tix/?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The results I got, when I was shooting on APS, were disappointing.
But at that time I did not have a decent cam. Perhaps that's why. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scanning on a dedicated film scanner is compulsory , I'm shure , because of the small frame. Your samples don't look bad at all, Attila !


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I decided to take a chance , just for fun and experiment .
I received a EOS IX wich is a GORGEOUS camera , all stainless steel body . For 25 $ with 5 films ! I'll shoot and report ,going to post here if I'll get useable results .


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yinyangbt wrote:
I decided to take a chance , just for fun and experiment .
I received a EOS IX wich is a GORGEOUS camera , all stainless steel body . For 25 $ with 5 films ! I'll shoot and report ,going to post here if I'll get useable results .

Look forward it! That camera is good to shoot even if not develop any film just use it Smile

My samples made with 'top' camera from Contax it is excellent indeed, Canon, Konica 24-48mm result was so crap I did not publish them just throw it out Embarassed


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
yinyangbt wrote:
I decided to take a chance , just for fun and experiment .
I received a EOS IX wich is a GORGEOUS camera , all stainless steel body . For 25 $ with 5 films ! I'll shoot and report ,going to post here if I'll get useable results .

Look forward it! That camera is good to shoot even if not develop any film just use it Smile

My samples made with 'top' camera from Contax it is excellent indeed, Canon, Konica 24-48mm result was so crap I did not publish them just throw it out Embarassed

I belive the system died too soon ,so the maturisation wasn't touched by the most part of the cameras (lens Quality wise) . The IX took advantage ( I hope) of the mature EOS Canon sistem of lenses .One can shoot it even with the best L glass !!! Laughing( Not me, I don't have any) Laughing And Contax Tix took advantage of ...Contax and CZ Sonnar T lenses! Never , but never heard of crap Contax Wink

Last edited by yinyangbt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I still have a very nice IXUS, the steel bodied version, that we used for many years and got many decent pictures from. I'll scan some if I remember.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
I still have a very nice IXUS, the steel bodied version, that we used for many years and got many decent pictures from. I'll scan some if I remember.

I've seen somewhere some promising scans from a L1 Canon 26mmf2.8


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've just dragged out a whole drawfull of APS pictures and had a very quick rummage through a few, and I have to say that I'm astonished at the quality of this tiny little Canon IXUS.

I've scanned a few from the prints, not the neg's, and haven't touched them at all except to resize. The panoramas, Death Valley, Monument Valley and Paris, are obviously a normal frame masked off in the camera, so they are going to be lower quality, but it still isn't bad. The 'Why go bald' picture I blew up to 200% and couldn't find any CA on the railings against the sky. The inside shot of the Kilmainham Gaol in Dublin was shot without flash, and shows excellent detail. The archway shot at Collins Barracks Military Museum in Dublin has massive contrast in the harsh sun, but again the detail is good and it handles the contrast well.
The three guys are my wifes Irish side of the family, her dad's the middle one and my major role model , all sadly gone now but it's a picture I didn't know I'd got, and so happy to find.













Different processors also printed at different sizes, as the two pano's from the USA show. Somewhere in the pile of APS pictures are several films my old took on a 4 week he and my mum went on, and every one of them is a pano'. He was never any good with a camera, he managed to get at least one finger in most of those shots. Laughing
We obviously took our IXUS on most of our trips for many years, I'd forgot how good it was.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok , here is a first sample from the first APS film I shot . Developed at fotostore , Nexia 200 expired from 2006 . Canon EOS IX EF 50/1.8



PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Better to forget it and shoot full frame, it is okay for family albums, but just acceptable.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Better to forget it and shoot full frame, it is okay for family albums, but just acceptable.

yes, grainier than 35mm


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was given a Canon Ixus. I've not tried it yet, but looking at the results, I don't think I'll bother.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I was given a Canon Ixus. I've not tried it yet, but looking at the results, I don't think I'll bother.

I 'd think that the postprocessing is very important for reasonably results on this format . I have not yet a very good workflow for this , and the exposure was rather crap (rough on camera flash , bad environamental lighting) . I reprocessed the image , with the new Capture one & trial version , I think it's better .Of course , don't beat 35 mm , but who said it would ? I didn't expect to be close to 35mm Anyhow , it's more acceptable . I'll try again with a fresh film to see what I can get .

Click to see better an bigger version :



[/url]

Last edited by yinyangbt on Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And another one , same workflow : Capture one 7 ( Clarity 0 , structure 57 , curves , highlight 27 ) + denoised in NeatImage (auto profile) + sharpened (slightly ) and healed ( scratch removal cloned dust ) in Helicon Filter free edition (best healing software I've used) .
a little too much ? Laughing
Tamron 17-35mm(around 30mm) flash of the camera .
Click on it to see large :

Last edited by yinyangbt on Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:22 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And a third one :
Tamron 17-35 .I think it was 17 0r 20mm set . Pp in LR 4 trial vers( slight sharpening at 21 ) + denoised in NeatImage + cloned/erase scratches/sharpened(weery slightly) in Helicon filter




After all I think that It works , and the APS can be used ,at least for WEB posting , with very much care at processing the image : scanning on dedicated film scanner , in TIFF files and enough inconvenience (much more than the files I get from 35mm film) at PP to get the final JPEG s . It seems to me that the emulsion is a little more delicate and scratches easier than the 35mm , but maybe it's just an first impression .
I think that I have to look more for better PP solutions ( if there are any ) I'll try to experiment more . Maybe better denoising /sharpening algoritms with dedicated softwares could push up a little the IQ .

Last edited by yinyangbt on Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They've turned out not bad at all considering the small neg area.
I wonder if 110 format could ever have reached the same level.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
They've turned out not bad at all considering the small neg area.
I wonder if 110 format could ever have reached the same level.

The frame area is 17mm x 13mm for 110 format , 30,2 mm x 16,7mm for APS , so a little under 1/2 of surface .
according to this site : http://cacreeks.com/films.htm Nexia Fujifilm (APS) shares the same emulsion with Superia . The grainier aspect of the APS files comes from the enlargement ( APS frame is around 56% from 35mm surface) . So , basically , those who say that APS film has a limited enlargement (print) potential are right (probably around 60 %). But , if we don't want to blow big prints for exposition , these first results make me think that the results are acceptable for screen viewing.
Why wasting time with it? I don't know if it's time wasting , maybe just for the fun of discovering a new toy? Smile Maybe dusty , maybe not last tech , but still useable... as long the film is available and can be developed . As for the 110 , I've never used , but I know there are guys that still do .I am expecting that the grain/frame area ratio to be bigger than in APS ( roughly 2x factor ) thus lower enlargement potential and perceived sharpness . Probably still acceptable for small area up to 700 px /500px images ?
I calculated that my APS scans on Dimage III are 6.3 MP files . 110 would produce probably 3mp files .
In digital world they solved the sharpness problem using smaller pixels ( wich isn't possible in film , the lp/mm is the same regardless the format) , and in this way the small format digital samples look sharp(er) . But , as sharpness isn't all , I'd give a try on the APS film against the small digital P&S when I think about dynamic range , for example .
Of course , we can hang on the 35mm and go on without complications ,concentrating on image Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
See my new results here : http://forum.mflenses.com/fuji-nexia-200-t54540.html


PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now I am curious... I just bought a Minolta APS S-100 SLR. It came with a roll already in, so half of the roll are pics from somebody else.... And there's an extra roll of film too.
I have 2 lenses with it: 28-56mm and APO tele 80-240mm. The set was extremely cheap, so I could not resist!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
Now I am curious... I just bought a Minolta APS S-100 SLR. It came with a roll already in, so half of the roll are pics from somebody else.... And there's an extra roll of film too.
I have 2 lenses with it: 28-56mm and APO tele 80-240mm. The set was extremely cheap, so I could not resist!

I know the feeling ! Laughing
Be careful , you have to get it scanned on a dedicated film scanner : Nikon Coolscan ,Konica Minolta Dimage ,Plustek or Reflecta , at 2800 or 3300 dpi . ,to get 6-8MP file .
Flatbeds generally are no good for scanning them (35mm either :Epson V700 or 750 are OK , they give 7MP from 35mm ,my Minolta Dimage III gives 6.3 MP from APS file )
Grain and sharpness can be managed with careful PP to get more than decent results .
I my modest experience the format suits better for normal , tele focal lenghts and slight wide ( 28mm see : http://forum.mflenses.com/old-sigma-28-200mm-f3-8-5-6-eos-mount-t54590.html ) . at superwide (17mm) the grain interfere too much with the fine detail .


PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That should not be a problem.... I use a Minolta Scan Dual myself, but i do not have the APS film holder that you need.....


PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
That should not be a problem.... I use a Minolta Scan Dual myself, but i do not have the APS film holder that you need.....

It depends . If you have a lab wich has the special devices to develop APS they'll give it back in the original cartridge. So, an Konica Minolta APS adapter should be one that you'll have to search ( they are rather rare on the bay ) . Those made by Nikon are more easy to find , but obviously don't fit.
If your lab doesn't have the devices , it's simpler : they have to get out the film from the cartrige and develop without getting it back in to the original one . Then scan it in the 35 mm holder ( of course ,more tome consuming , because you'll have to reajust the position of the film to match the frames ). This is what I do. If you develop yourself , it can be done in the tank , but the spool has to be modified to take the APs film

PS http://www.manualslib.com/manual/104173/Minolta-Dimage-Scan-Dual-Ii-Af-2820u.html?page=28
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Adapters and other accessories
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2