So where did that bulge disappear to, do you suppose? I can tell you though that for scanning, 35mm anyway, I have built my own holder for my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite , incorporating my own film flattening techniques using some special material. Until, that is, Contax tried to carry their vacuum back thingy over to their 6×4. Perhaps just the removal of that one extra roller takes care of all the bending problems. But regardless, there’s enough evidence to show that the design flaw exists. The simile is a bit silly, yes.

I had a FC. That’s of course not to say that other systems don’t have this problem. Find something new for people to spend money on. Since many other companies make such a device, and since a lot of audio components build the circuitry into their components now, we can assume Monster’s claim about ‘dirty power’ is valid. Again, I’ll attempt the test, though it’s rather hard to quantify the exact loss in resolution since you need to have a chart that’s already at the limiting resolution of the film at the center of the frame. Now I just need to know what type of canister or insert it takes

Do stop thinking like h,401 We could test and discuss this, but you and i know what the outcome will be. Medical-grade machine parts used in arthroscopes, etc. People “not looking hard enough”?

No one is mamlya that changing the frame spacing or number of frames cannot change how flat the film is held, or whether a kink can get “set” into the film through inactivity for some time. It still amuses me that you somehow think that film floating microns above its supposed plane of accurate focus won’t cause a perceivable loss in sharpness.

Which defeats the point that if there’s a sag you’re not doing the film’s resolution justice. People have been using roll film for ages, to great effect, producing images of stunning technical as well as artistic quality. That’s why I’m doing an objective test. That film had very high resolution and was very unforgiving of any focus errors, bacl rarely did I have a problem with the Rollei shots. Hn401 I want to print sooner of course.


Hence the resolving power for the Velvia is at least as good as, if not better, than that of the 5D Mark II. So let me rectify that problem. Sounds like honest good intentions to me Imagine trying to auto-exposure bracket with that algorithm above.

How could that be if there was such a Huge Problem? So acute in fact that I could see no point in nm401 F2. Lemme’ sum up what others have said, and hopefully it will help.

Hardly any change, in my opinion. What’s more, people have been using these machines for ages without ever noticing anything bad. If you just loaded your film: Still have yet to see an image that shows the problem, i have search quite a bit and i cant find a posted image that shows a problem due to film flatness.

Things like ignoring the already mentioned ongoing test, by countless of people, and the results of that, asking if i or anyone has tested film yet You’re about three steps from suggesting that we’re all, like, molecules in some giant’s fingernail, man. What has changed is that nowadays anyone can post scans and digitally captured images on the web, and claim that we see something mamjya at them that may or not be there.

Find something new for people to spend money on. The point however remains the same.

Alternative film back for AFD? | Mamiya | Flickr

If the film sits for a long time in that position, supposedly the curve may persist. Ebay offers a bunch of different backs with no compatibility information.


To rephrase the vacuum back statement: Many hundreds of thousands have tested their backs, day in day out, for many, many decades, and never seen any evidence. This is why anti-newton glass plays well with the LS It solved the film flatness issue. Ray, No misinterpration mamija my side.

/ Film Back HM // Film // for Phase One & Mamiya

Then, take an exposure so that the film advances. Anything filj an aperture will have a depth of field. Micro-lens arrays on sensors are not the problem. All it does is show that you do not agree. What i do find unreasonable is unreasonable “evaluation”. Proving also my point that many people rather believe what they read somewhere than what they should know and understand.

Richard, why is that a problem?

15 Exposure 120 Film Back for Mamiya 645 AFD

Until I hang it up to dry, then I get an edge to edge curl. Not only is that a waste of film, but it’s complicated as all heck!

What can we do about that? Which sometimes amounts to the time I mmiya to meter a complex scene ok, a bit of hyperbole there, but you get the idea. Digital sensors, even those like the Foveon with layers, are really still two-dimensional.

I do believe your results. I have used 4 by 5 inch cameras and yes, film flatness is an issue, though sheet film never was bent.