Medium Format Slide Projection Quality

[randall_pukalo]

Im thinking about getting a medium format slide projector, but would

like to know if it is really worth the extra $$$. Does anyone have

experience with one of these? How is it compared to 35mm? I found an

earlier post in which the poster was unimpressed with the quality

difference. What experience have others had? Is it woth the extra

cost? Thanks in advance.

[gary_woodard]

A well shot Medium Format slide projected is awesome, you feel like to can

walk into it, its something the digital world cannot touch with a ten-foot poll.

[gary_woodard]

poll should read pole.

[pok_hon_wally_yu]

The difference is actually very obvious. You will be stunned when you see your MF slides projected.

[mag_miksch]

what is MF?<br>

there is a lot of 6x6 projectors, but larger its difficult^^

[shaughn_robinson]

Hi Randall, I have an old Kindermann that works well and compares favorably to a Rollei,

at least to my poor eyes. I have shot the same scene with the same film on both formats

and prefer the larger for projection. I think it is definitely worth finding a good used one.

I also prefer it to a 35mm as I can get a larger image in the same space for less money. I

would say the screen you use has a large impact on how you percieve the image. I have a

small house so the minimum focusing distance of the projector lens is a factor. I

frequently use mine to judge how an enlargement will look, especially if I'm cropping a

6x6 slide. I find it's a decent approximation of whether an image will make the transition

to a reflective format vs the slide on a light box.

[simonpg]

While I do not own one, the days I have seen a 6x6 Hassy trannie projected onto a 10' x10' (or there abouts) screen simply blew me away. I was confused.... "am I in heaven or in that rainforest?".

 

Like a 6x6 trannie blows you away on a light box compared to the nice 135 format trannie beside it; magnify that experience many many times over and you'll find the imapct is exponential.

 

Only you can determine if the cost is "worth it".

 

One day, if I have the money to splurge on a total indulgence, I plan to get a Rollei MF projector and a good screen to do the images justice. It is a truly wonderful experience.

[cd_k]

I have a Hasselblad PCP80 and it is worth every penny I spent. I really enjoy every single time I use it. The quality is better than 35mm.

[erik scanhancer]

When I need to impress my clients, well.. IMPRESS my clients, I give them the MF projection

treatment. After such a show they generally follow me like puppies. So far I never lost a

bidding against a 35mm photog or an MF digital competitor, even though my prices were

higher. Is it worth the extra costs? My income would probably be a lot smaller without the

ability to project 6x6.

[markusglueck]

"Only you can determine if the cost is "worth it".

 

One day, if I have the money to splurge on a total indulgence, I plan to get a Rollei MF projector and a good screen to do the images justice. It is a truly wonderful experience."

 

Simon,

do you know the prices for P66's on ebay? I bought a wonderful P66S with lens for 180Euro and Rolleicords start at ~50Euro. Not that much money!

 

Best regards, Markus

[ben conover]

Hi, I have shot 69 slides and I look forward to the day I can prject them, perhaps onto a huge wall.

[anand_raghavan1]

A word of warning here. I buy into the argument that a 6x6 projected slide will yield a better image than a 35mm projected slide, all other factors being equal. But the point that we may sometimes fail to see is that all the other factors are hard to make equal.

 

For example, my projection setup allows a very small projector-screen distance. I have a normal angle projection lens for my 35mm projector. This gives me a huge image on screen. I have to place my 6x6 projector at the same place, but the lens is a short tele (as most MF projection lenses seem to be). This gives me a much smaller image on screen. Therefore I'm looking at a comparison of a small (relatively) MF image and a large 35mm image. I don't see a difference. Had I been looking at equal sized images, the MF quality would probably show. But as of now, the 35mm image sometimes seems more impressive by the sheer size.

 

The difficulty lies in getting a normal (or wide) MF projection lens. While MF projection seems to be available at small costs now (via the Kindermanns, Rolleis and so on), if you try to get a 90mm MF projection lens (of good quality) you wouldn't find it cheap at all.

 

I'm not discouraging MF projection. I like it very much and would do it again if I had to start over, but there's just that one thing you ought to keep in mind.

[tarashnat]

There are 3 lenses that were made for the PCP80 (Hasselblad) a 75mm, a 150mm, and a

250mm, so you have a range from which to choose.

 

Taras

[christian_kloumann]

AR: No!

The projected image will not be smaller using a medium format projector with 150mm, compared with a 35mm-projector with a 90mm lens. 150mm is the normal lens on a medium format projector and will give apprx. the same size at a given distance.

 

To examples:

 

1) Take to 35mm slides. Put one in a 35mm-projector, and the other in a medium format projector, both with (for example) a 150mm lens.

Then the projected images will be exactly (!) the same size at at a given distance!

 

2) Take a 35mm side in a 35mm-projector with 150mm. Then take a medium format slide in a medium format projector, also with a 150mm.

Then, at a given distance, the image from the medium format projector will be much larger! The two picures will have the same proportions projected, as the two slides themselves!

 

150mm is considered a "normal" lens for medium format projection, as 90 mm is for 35mm.

In photograpy, 50 mm is normal lens for 35mm-cameras, as 80mm for medium format cameras.

 

In projection, at for example 4 meters, a 90mm lens for 35mm gives apprx. the same picture size as for a 150mm lens with medium format, both apprx 1,5 meters horisontally.

[anand_raghavan1]

I understand your point Christian. But that wasn't what I was saying at all. I guess I assumed that 50mm and 80-90mm were still the normals for 35mm and MF in projection too. So when I said I was using a normal projection lens with the 35mm projector, I meant either a 50mm or a 60mm lens (those are what I have). I was comparing this with the 150mm lens on the MF projector. The image from the former is definitely bigger, very much so.

 

I understand that if I were to use a 90mm on the 35mm projector, it might be the same image size. Sorry if I'm not familiar with the normals for projection. My point, however, is that my observations are valid from a practical perspective. This is because you can easily lay your hands on a quality 50mm or 60mm projection lens for a 35mm projector at a very low price (at least on the used market). However, obtaining an equivalent lens for a MF projector (I guess that would be 90mm or so) is neither easy nor cheap. Not by a long way. So if you are looking to get into MF projection encouraged by the low prices of said equipment, and if projection distance is a concern, you are likely to encounter this hurdle without previously realizing it. You may end up in a situation where you get a larger projected image from a smaller slide, for practical/economic reasons. Of course, size is not everything and some of my 6x4.5 slides jump out better than most of my 35mm slides. Still size is one of the big merits of projection.

 

I hope I'm making myself clearer now.

[doug_foster]

Eight years ago, after many years of shooting 35mm, I bought a Hasselblad - and shortly thereafter a Kindermann projector new at $1100. Used MF projectors can surely be bought used at reduced prices. The Kindermann is a solid, no frills projector that does a great job. Other projectors such as Rollei and Hasselblad have more features including automatic bulb change when the first bulb burns out. A really great option if this happens in the middle of a show. In the case of my Kindermann, there is no automatic bulb change and the burnt out bulb is too hot to handle. Even if you had some way to do it by hand, your show would be disrupted. Incidentally, the Hasselblad projector is no longer made but should be available in the second hand market. A word of caution - and that is the matter of slide preparation. There are different schools of thought about framing the transparencies. Some say just put the tranny in a glass-less frame (such as the Gepe brand). I and others believe they should be put into frames with glass on both sides. This keeps the tranny from moving and warping from the projector"s heat. The Haselblad Manual (Ernst Wildi, author) recommends this. The problem with this technique is that it's quite labor intensive - getting the glass surfaces clean and free of dust,etc, before clamping the glass pieces together. I can speak with experience as I've mounted many hundreds of transparencies in this manner. A positive aspect to this is that it forces you to very carefully choose only you best images to mount. Finally, after doing 35mm shows for years, I'm convinced MF projection is greatly superior in terms of visual results.

[christian_kloumann]

Hi, AR: I'm with you now! A 50/60mm lens on a 35-mm projector will for sure give a larger image than a 150mm on a medium format projector, yes. But it is 85/90mm that is considered as standard/normal lens in 35mm slide-projection, and that was the reason for my answer.

 

My first medium format projector was a Liesegang Fantax 600A.

The Liesegang Fantax 600A is a really good choise, because it is a fully automatic projector, with 250W lamp, remote control with focus and not so expensive now. It oftens comes with a 150/3.0, but if one are "lucky" sometimes with the 150/2.8. In Ebay/Europe the 600A-projector often sells for around $130 or so.

(There is also a manual model, Liesegang Fantax 600M)

 

Today I am lucky to have 2 Hasselblad PCP80's with all lenses 75mm, 150mm and 250mm. I use a Dataton setup for disolve setup.

But wide-angle lenses for medium format projectors are hard to find in general, yes.

 

Sunshine from Norway :-)

[christian_kloumann]

One more thing from me, a declaration of love for the medium format.

 

When it is cold, rainy or dark outside (lots of that in Norway) it is a good time to turn your attention of the large slides into quality time.

 

Get a (large) light table.

 

Let the slides dry for many weeks before mounting.

Then you can safely mount the slides into glass frames, the only alternative that exculpate/justify a medium format slide.

 

Be critical: Don't mount poor or wrong exposed sides.

 

Use a lot of smooth, clean fabric to clean the surface of the glass-

frames. Even if they are new of course!

 

Carefully cut your slide.

 

Now the critcal point: Do not tolerate any dust inside. Use a combination of blowing (dry) and a dust-brush until (using a lightsource in appropriate angle) in many "iterations"/steps until you finally can close the two glass-frames together.

 

Then clean ouside (again) for a final inspection. Still one dust particle? Open it again, and start all over!

 

Finally, when you are ready to show you pictures with the medium format projector, for your visitors, only the best of your slides deserves a place in the slide-tray/magazine!

 

;-)

[anand_raghavan1]

Quite interesting. I'm going to get myself some glass mounts, hunt for a wide angle lens to mount on the P66S and wait. For a good slide to mount of course!

[e_m3]

In 2001 I bought a brand new Rollei Dual 66P medium format projector and a Rollei 120mm lens. It was one of the best (and weirdest) purchases I've ever made. But a projected MF slide is, as others have said, breathtaking.

[doug_foster]

To continue what I advised earlier - and what Christian recommended on glass cleaning - I have found that glass mounts can have a kind of foggy film on the glass. Therefore, in addition to blowing and brushing, I apply a little eye glass cleaner with a soft paper towel to remove the foggyness where it occurs. And I wipe the glass clean several times using a different are of the towel each time. After much experience, I finally found this process to work the best. Yes, a lot of work but really worth it!

[doug_foster]

A further note on my last message regarding glass cleaning. I left an "a" out of the word "area". When cleaning off the foggy film that can occur on the glass, you want to use a different area of the soft paper towel when repeating the process several times. Also, I use a new paper towel for each of the slide mounts. This may seem like overkill, but the foggy film gets on the towel and can get back on the glass. What causes this film? I don't really know but it might have something to do with the plastic frames. Some years ago the owners manual for my new car noted that the plastic dashboard could leave a "film" on the windshield - and this could be removed by a mixture of vinegar and water. For glass slide mounts, however, I choose to use eyeglass cleaner. Different brands of slide mounts may or may not have this foggy film issue.

[christian_kloumann]

Hi Doug.

 

Also new glass mounts have a kind of foggy film on the glasses, yes. You write that use eyeglass cleaner to remove this. But even if you wipe the glass clean several times using towels, there is a chance that some liquid/fluid finds its way under the metal frame inside. Then a possible source for moisture inside. But if you just add a tiny bit on the towel first the chance is minimal of course.

 

My recipe is using a lot of clean fabrics or "handkerchiefs", in combination with breathing close to the glass, adding some humidity in cases of "obstinate" foggy film.

 

After the initially removing of the foggy film, the process of removing dust is the clue. Rubbing could create frictional electricity, in worst case as a small magnet for dust-particles.

 

A lot of work but really worth it, yes!

[doug_foster]

Greetings Christian,

 

I must say how rewarding it is to communicate with someone as concerned, as I am, about a good method for MF slide mounting! In these days of digital photography I wonder how much interest there is anymore for slide projection - especially MF slides that require so much labor.

 

Yes, I do have a concern about using eye glass cleaner and having some of the liquid get under the frame. As you note, it is important to use a small amount on the towel (or cloth). This is applied on the glass and a little away from the frame edges. Then, using different areas of the towel I carefully wipe the glass and move toward the edges, trying to make sure that no liquid is left to get under the frame. I go through three towel applications on each glass surface. Now, I have to admit that sometimes the liquid gets ahead of me and goes to the frame edges - so I try to absorb this up. So far I don't seem to have a problem. Incidentally, I have tried breathing on the glass first (instead of using glass cleaner) but this hasn't always "cut" the foggy film. If it works for you, great!

I should add here that I do blowing and brushing before and after the liquid application. Really enjoyed our exchange of ideas. Doug

[christian_kloumann]

Hi again, Doug

 

Thank you for kind words. It is a pleasure for me to share thoughts with you also. On Norwegian discussing-sites of photo, I now sometimes feel it is to much quarrels about advantage/disadvantage of PC's and Mac's respectively.

 

I bring my medium format camera to the summits on many high peaks and down close into the vegetation in Norwegian forests. The characteristic of the medium format camera makes me use more time thinking about placing and composition. And the result, the brilliant medium format slide, nearly calls out to be projected.

 

Shall we discuss more delicate details? Yes!

As you probably have noticed, the glasses themselves, in the two parts of the slide-frame, are not 100% fixed but have some slack. If you shake one part before mounting you hear the movement of the glass. In the process of cleaning the glass, this opens the possibility for 4x narrow rectangles to remain dirty. Before cleaning the main surface of the glass inside, I for this reason start cleaning these four areas. I use tapping to force the glass down. Then I put pressure on the glass to prevent it to move, and then wipes the opposite part. And then repeat for the remaining sides.