Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The problem is not whether scanners will be made, they will...people needs to scan hard copies for emailing because fax machines are no longer much used.
My office uses a $99 Epson unit for such purpose, which actually is very, very good in imaging quality. 1000 dpi is already 25 microns...2000 dpi is 12.5u...
The problem in most scanners is: the supplied plastic film holders do not hold the emulsion flat, AND somewhat off-set from from the focal plane of the scanner optics.
[I have long proven that by scanning a 4 x 5 glass plate and the image quality is superb. I am also speaking from a decade of experience building 9" x 9" (23cm x 23cm) format film scanner for digital photogrammetry applications, where native pixel size is in the 5 micron range (5000dpi), and X/Y scanning error must be under 1/3 pixel size. Such scanners use vacuum film hold-down and cost ~$100k++. $200k++ if you buy a Zeiss unit.]
What I would do if I want to practise a hybrid work-flow now is to build a glass film strip holder: use an open-ended heavy paper mask (250 x 35mm) for locating the film strip on the scanner bed, place a sheet of anti-newton glass on top...buy from the likes of Edmonds, http://www.edmundoptics.com/
If your favourate scanner accepts slides only: use a glassless slide mount half for the emulsion side and anti-newton glass mount for the back. The natural film curl acted on by the glass top will hold it flat. Gepe makes a whole line of that stuff http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Slide-Mounts/ci/854/N/4294545978. File off the plastic mount pins and use gaffer tape to make a hinge is child's play. [Don't forget to use the same thickness of tape to shim the opposite side.]
Such a holder would be reusable form scanner to scanner: build it once and use it for many years to come.
My office uses a $99 Epson unit for such purpose, which actually is very, very good in imaging quality. 1000 dpi is already 25 microns...2000 dpi is 12.5u...
The problem in most scanners is: the supplied plastic film holders do not hold the emulsion flat, AND somewhat off-set from from the focal plane of the scanner optics.
[I have long proven that by scanning a 4 x 5 glass plate and the image quality is superb. I am also speaking from a decade of experience building 9" x 9" (23cm x 23cm) format film scanner for digital photogrammetry applications, where native pixel size is in the 5 micron range (5000dpi), and X/Y scanning error must be under 1/3 pixel size. Such scanners use vacuum film hold-down and cost ~$100k++. $200k++ if you buy a Zeiss unit.]
What I would do if I want to practise a hybrid work-flow now is to build a glass film strip holder: use an open-ended heavy paper mask (250 x 35mm) for locating the film strip on the scanner bed, place a sheet of anti-newton glass on top...buy from the likes of Edmonds, http://www.edmundoptics.com/
If your favourate scanner accepts slides only: use a glassless slide mount half for the emulsion side and anti-newton glass mount for the back. The natural film curl acted on by the glass top will hold it flat. Gepe makes a whole line of that stuff http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Slide-Mounts/ci/854/N/4294545978. File off the plastic mount pins and use gaffer tape to make a hinge is child's play. [Don't forget to use the same thickness of tape to shim the opposite side.]
Such a holder would be reusable form scanner to scanner: build it once and use it for many years to come.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Okay, never thought about them but seems they are the last man standing and that could be a little bit troubling. When your choice of manufacturer shrinks to only one that should tell you something about the size of the market they play in.
Bob
robklurfield
eclipse
One way for this to happen would be a one of three remaining film camera makers to completely skip the R&D step by purchasing someone else's existing technology and rebadging it, perhaps with some proprietary upgrades (firmware, software, etc.). This served Leica pretty well in partnering with Panasonic on digital cameras and CV with Epson on the RDs. Why not do the same with scanners? No need to totally reinvent the wheel; simply make an exist wheel better and give it a longer useful life in the marketplace. Someone with deep pockets (well, relatively deep) ought to buy Nikon's technology and reuse it under their own name.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree. I only meant to say that 2nd tier has stepped in to provide whatever demand remains. I would expect that to dwindle as well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rob.
Well, yes. See post 13. (Konica/Minolta not Nikon but the same principle).
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
ZeissFan
Veteran
I'd like to see Epson develop a high-quality film scanner for 35mm through 120 and market it worldwide.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
I have a mk1 minolta 5400 which is just fine.My future looks to an imacon,same cold cathode lightsource,at the moment way out of my price range...or the hope that someone will set up shop with all the minolta spares that are left in the universe to keep me going for the next 30 years.
Also I think if someone was to make a new scanner to the quality of the minolta theyd be asking in the region of 2-3000 euros for it.
Also I think if someone was to make a new scanner to the quality of the minolta theyd be asking in the region of 2-3000 euros for it.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I once had Epsons only attempt at a film scanner, and it was nothing to write home about - it got dumped rather soon, when their flatbeds surpassed it in resolution and quality.
Sevo
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Tuolumne
Veteran
Were they even serious about the business when they were in it? Considering how many people felt compelled to use third party negative/slide holders and third party software, it seems not. If digital cameras were as hard and unpredictable to use as scanners, they would never have taken over. The film industry definitely shot itself in the foot on this one.
/T
/T
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I don't think so - as far as holders are concerned, much of it is pimping for no discernible effect, or users upgrading outside the regular model line. Few scanners really need a third party holder to be up to spec.
And poor software is the one point scanners and cameras share - all offerings there stink. The worse considering that over the past four or five years a policy of dropping software support right when the hardware is obsoleted has taken over - if you want to run a five year old Canikon with a new computer, third party software often is your only option.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I think the loss of good quality scanners at a reasonable prices is a very,very serious problem. If we can't get our images in to the digital realm it could be curtains for film.
No scanner means no internet distribution, no digital prints etc. It would be a disaster. Flatbed scanners are ok, but don't cut it for serious work.
I have a Nikon 9000ED and 5000ED. I may buy a used Imacon, because they will be serviced for a long time to come and are built to last (must stock up on lamps...). Maybe I'll grab another 9000ED, if one crosses my path for the right price.
But overall this is very worrying.
No scanner means no internet distribution, no digital prints etc. It would be a disaster. Flatbed scanners are ok, but don't cut it for serious work.
I have a Nikon 9000ED and 5000ED. I may buy a used Imacon, because they will be serviced for a long time to come and are built to last (must stock up on lamps...). Maybe I'll grab another 9000ED, if one crosses my path for the right price.
But overall this is very worrying.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
My Epson el-cheapo flatbed scanner with 35mm film scan attachment can scan to TIFF files, not just JPEGs.
However, I think a good macro closeup lens on an interchangeable lens camera (dSLR or u4/3), especially a lens with little off-axis distortion, would easily work on a light box, with a homemade black foamcore board light shield "pyramid" betwixt lens and light table. This will probably be the future of film scanning, such home-spun rigs.
~Joe
wgerrard
Veteran
OT:
Bill, which flavor of Linux do you run? I used Linux (mostly Slackware) for several years before having a hissy fit about wireless drivers and driving to the mall and buying a Mac. I still entertain thoughts of running Linux whenever Apple releases an OS upgrade that bogs this machine down.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have to accept the fact that realistically the chances of any manufacturer wanting to develop and market a decent scanner are remote. Far more practical to get the ok from Nikon or similar to reproduce their design ... but frankly I can't see that happening either!
With decent developing labs becoming fewer and fewer and home scanning options reducing as manufacturers lose interest in selling new or repairing old scanners the threat to film's future existence is being given a double whammy! Scanners are keeping film alive in many ways ... take away the scanners and you'll have a significant move away from film to digital by the currently content hybrid workflow enthusiasts. They made the decision not to involve themselves in wet printing when they bought their scanners and inkjet printers ... getting them into a darkroom is unlikely.
They'll just move on ... to digital!
With decent developing labs becoming fewer and fewer and home scanning options reducing as manufacturers lose interest in selling new or repairing old scanners the threat to film's future existence is being given a double whammy! Scanners are keeping film alive in many ways ... take away the scanners and you'll have a significant move away from film to digital by the currently content hybrid workflow enthusiasts. They made the decision not to involve themselves in wet printing when they bought their scanners and inkjet printers ... getting them into a darkroom is unlikely.
They'll just move on ... to digital!
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
"Could the current film camera manufacturers help their cause by developing a scanner?"
Shipping thousands of scanners is unlike shipping thousands of small cameras. Scanner technolgy is pretty basic with little barrier to entry by competitors. Film cameras are about 5% of the market today and corkscrewing down in flames. Its the proverbial throwing good money after bad money.
Shipping thousands of scanners is unlike shipping thousands of small cameras. Scanner technolgy is pretty basic with little barrier to entry by competitors. Film cameras are about 5% of the market today and corkscrewing down in flames. Its the proverbial throwing good money after bad money.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Good to hear this.
Maybe I ought to pick up one of these Plustek and use it for the bulk of "for proof only" scans (mostly web-browser size).
And save the Nikon coolscan for frames that I want to print.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
Perhaps if we bulk ordered 50 flextight x1 s,the cheaper of the 2 hasselblad scanners ,we might get them for half price...........wishful thinking...? doesnt matter ,still out of my league.
drew.saunders
Well-known
As mentioned elsewhere, Kodak does sell a scanner, which they got by buying the Creo company: http://graphics.kodak.com/US/en/Pro...ssional_Scanners/IQsmart_Scanners/default.htm
They're a "wee" bit expensive but, as long as people need to digitize flat art, high-end flatbeds like the iQsmart will have a market.
Microtek used to make some film scanners, but now only make flatbeds (I have one of their M1 scanners, which is great for large or medium format, and not too shabby for small). They also used to OEM for Polaroid. If a small company like Microtek can't make money on a dedicated film scanner, I doubt anyone else will. Nikon is probably just selling down existing stock, like they did with their large format lenses.
I have to agree with others: after the Coolscans are gone, all that's left at that can produce a quality scan will be flatbeds and drum scanners, and who knows how long the drum scanner market will last. Bummer.
They're a "wee" bit expensive but, as long as people need to digitize flat art, high-end flatbeds like the iQsmart will have a market.
Microtek used to make some film scanners, but now only make flatbeds (I have one of their M1 scanners, which is great for large or medium format, and not too shabby for small). They also used to OEM for Polaroid. If a small company like Microtek can't make money on a dedicated film scanner, I doubt anyone else will. Nikon is probably just selling down existing stock, like they did with their large format lenses.
I have to agree with others: after the Coolscans are gone, all that's left at that can produce a quality scan will be flatbeds and drum scanners, and who knows how long the drum scanner market will last. Bummer.