Re: Hassleblad XPAN camera and related scanning question

["Richard N. Moyer" <dickmoyer@earthlink.net>]

<x-flowed>IMO you are much better off stitching frames together, since the way 
35mm cameras take a panorama is to take only the center stripe of a 
frame, masking off the top and bottom areas. This only fools you into 
thinking it is a panorama, when you could have gotten that from any 
"normally" exposed frame. Plus, you will have lost detail resolution.

I have made many panoramas via the stitching method. It works fine. 
Can even make 360 degree panoramas for web QuickTime VR viewing.

If you have a true 35mm camera made for panorama exposure, the above 
argument is void, since these cameras expose 65mm and higher (120mm) 
of film, usually by a scanning method. Great cameras, but dedicated 
and expensive. These negatives must be scanned into digital format by 
a large format film scanner. Minalta might make one, but not certain. 
Possibly current issues of flatbed scanner, high-end may do a good 
job.


>At 08:42 AM 2/22/2000 -0500, Raphael Bustin wrote:
>>
>>To me, about the only thing going for XPAN is that
>>it uses 35 mm film, which will make it easier to
>>get the film itself processed.  Of course, what
>>happens after that (prints? slides?) is anybody's guess.
>
>I had the same thought (question?)  Does anyone
>know if any of the common 35mm film scanners
>can be make to scan a 65mm long image from a
>strip of 35mm film?  I'm pretty sure neither of mine
>will.  (I suppose you could scan the pieces and
>stitch them together in Photoshop for printing, but
>that would sort of negate the convenience of making
>panoramic images with the camera.
>
>Gary Hunt <glh@srv.net>
>
>-
>Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
>accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.

-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.

</x-flowed>