Strange edge bands in Nikon Coolscan V scans?

<p>I've recently noticed an issue while scanning, and I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced something similar? I will attempt to attach an example image to this post.</p>

<p>In the example image, notice that there are two semi-opaque bands that run along the long edges of the image. (These bands are between the dotted crop line and the very edge of the image.) If you look closely, these bands are semi-transparent such that you can see the image behind them. It is especially apparent in the lower left corner. </p>

<p>These artifacts appear when I use VueScan and Nikon Scan 4.0, so I'm assuming that it is software independent.</p>

<p>Has anyone else experienced something like this? </p>

<p>db</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Your image is too small for me to really see much. I'd encourage you to try NikonScan, too as Vuescan's got some issues at the moment with my Nikon LS-5000 (cropping bugs, broken IR cleaning for color negs, crashes if you tell it to scan "all" but your strip of film only has 4 frames).<br>

Two more possibilities- is IR cleaning off? If not there are often times odd artifacts along the border (just crop them out).<br>

The other is that you're seeing some scanner flare along the edges, too.</p>

<p>Roger,</p>

<p>Thanks for the response. Stupid question: when I hear the words 'scanner flare', it makes me think that the result should be light bands (brighter pixels, due to increased stray light) and not dark bands.</p>

<p>I'm posting a picture that shows closer detail of what I'm talking about. (This is the lower left corner.) You'll notice that the band is semi-transparent, and it also has a fairly straight edge that only deviates by a pixel or so.</p><div></div>

<p>Outside the crop box on the left I see what looks like flare- an area which should be pitch black looking lighter, presumably due to the adjacent white area.<br>

There is a dark "band" at the very bottom but it looks well outside the actual scan area.<br>

Can you tell me what I'm looking at? Is this a mounted slide? Unmounted slide? Color negative?</p>

<p>

<p>Roger,</p>

<p>It's an unmounted slide. </p>

<p>The very dark band along the bottom is the dark portion of the film that's in between this frame and the next. I'm not worried about that part.</p>

<p>I've attached a drawing. It illustrates what I think the problem is and what I would expect to see.</p>

</p>

<p>It appears to be a film-centering problem. Which film holder are you using? It may be faulty.</p>

<p> On the other hand, some 35mm cameras produce something other than 24x36, and some fail to center their own film. Have you measured the exposed area (in mm?).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Roger,</p>

<p>Very interesting.</p>

<p>So I just checked with the IR turned off, and the effect definitely decreases.</p>

<p>However, I just thought to compare the full frame scan with the actual piece of film, and the scanner is definitely cutting off the left and right portions of the image. For example, when I look at the film version of the attached scan, I can see the yellow car's right rear tire. </p>

<p>So, now I'm wondering: is this just the way that the scanner was designed to work, and this is the first time that I've noticed it?</p>

<p>I recently bought a Canon body with a full-frame (100%) viewfinder, so I've been paying attention to the full frame of late.</p><div></div>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Good idea. I checked the dims on the exposed frame, itself. They are correct. The exposed portion is also well-centered between the perforations. </p>

<p>The film feed situation is a little strange. You just insert the raw strip into the scanner, attached. </p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>The auto feeder crops - it does not (quite) cover a full 35mm filmstrip in the short dimension. This is one of several reasons why I almost never use mine. That, and the fact that it handles even minor film curl at the end of each strip very poorly. While the FH-3 film holder certainly has its share of detractors as well, it does solve these issues. I've found that once you get used to it, it works well.</p>

<p>I usually nod my head at the arguments suggesting the FH-3 could be, and perhaps should be, better, but I still prefer it to the autofeeder. I compose full frame, and expect to be able to scan full frame.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>The auto feeder crops! Thank you for confirming this.</p>

<p>I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I hadn't noticed before this week. (I've been using this scanner since Nov 2008.)</p>

<p>Thank you, again, for confirming that I'm not crazy.</p>

<p>db</p>

<p>I just wanted to add a endnote to this thread.</p>

<p>It turns out that the dark bands that I described earlier were caused by something within the Nikon SA-21 strip film adapter/holder. I have since bought a FH-3 film holder (about $22 from Adorama). It's a little flimsy and you have to reposition it for every 35mm frame, but it <em>does</em> provide 100% coverage over the 24x36 mm exposed area.</p>

<p>I also wanted to note that Roger was exactly right about the flare. When I use the FH-3 (and VueScan 8.5.17), I notice that there is a good amount of flare that appears along the frame edges when I turn on the 'infrared clean' feature. Without the IR clean, these flare artifacts disappear completely.</p>

<p>I'm adding this note because I had a hard time finding documentation about this problem anywhere else on the web. I've also been in an ongoing conversation with Nikon throughout the past week, and they have not been able to zero-in on the problem as we have in this thread. (The customer service rep that I've been speaking with apparently did not know that the SA-21 does not provide full-frame coverage.)</p><div></div>