The Future of Film Scanners

[bwcolor]

I love film and haven't room for a wet darkroom. Nikon is almost, or fully out of the film scanner business and other available film scanners are either $10K+, or low end. When my 9000ED gives up the ghost, what are we going to be left with under $3K? Are we talking flatbed scanners? I know that high end flatbeds produce great images, but I also know that my Epson V750 Pro doesn't equal the Nikon. Is flatbed quality under $3K going to keep us going? I was hoping that someone here has sufficient industry background to be able to provide an educated guess.

 

[amateriat]

The future, as I see it, comes from two directions:

- The specialized high end, as in the occasional drum scanner release, Imacons, and certain high-end flatbeds.

- The semi-pro/"fine-art"/hobbyist realm largely being served by beefed-up flatbeds on the level of Epson's V-700 series, with the occasional 35mm film scanner from Plustek/Pacific Image/etc., which, IMO, aren't as refined as the stuff from Nikon and Minolta, but seem to be improving, which is always good news.

I bougtht my Minolta 5400 shortly after it was released, based on (1) its fantastic specs for a desktop, dedicated 35mm film scanner, (2) a frankly amazing price for what was being offered (I paid about $900 at the time), (3) this would serve my needs for the foreseeable future, and (3) things weren't going to get any better than this in the film world. For me at this point, it's 4 for 4.

There's too much exposed film in the world not to be some product for digitizing it to remain on the market for some time yet, but the choices clearly won't be as broad or sophisticated as in the recent past. Somehow, we'll deal.

(And, the hills are alive with good, used scanners...but the good ones are holding their value.)


- Barrett

 

[stupid leica]

good, quality scans require two things that i don't have:

1) patience/time (that in itself is kinda two things lol)

2) expensive scanners.

No affordable (<$1000) flatbed is worth a damn, really, for 35mm. A $600 Coolscan V will outperform any of them without a problem, when it comes to sheer scan quality. I sold my Coolscan V because it was simply too time consuming, considering i wasn't even using the scanner to its full potential.

You may ask "then why isn't a flatbed good enough for you?"

I can get better scans from a proper minilab (fuji frontier, etc) than what i've ever produced out of a flatbed, and it only takes them an hour to develop and scan my film.
If i want even better quality, i send it to NCPS. Developing and scanning is roughly $10 a roll. Sure, i've sent enough in by now that i probably could have bought another CSV and a 5400, but i haven't wasted any of my time scanning.

I hate scanning. I'd rather shoot.

If i wanted to sit at my computer for hours on a saturday processing digital images, i would still shoot much more digital than i currently do, which is almost none (well, almost no DSLR).




that is, of course, my very strong opinion.

 

[MartinP]

Errrrm, may I suggest the obvious solution ???

Make the best wet print you can, maximum size of A4, then scan that. I know it's not film-scanning - but if there are no film-scanners what else can you do ? Plus it's fun and cheaper too, and you don't really need a special darkroom either.

 

[amateriat]

stupid leica: I hear you about the time issue, but I find it almost as time-consuming to deal with straight digital-capture files, although I have a relatively streamlined workflow for both. Good photography simply takes a bit of time.

MartinP: That's not my preferred method, but that's how Ralph Gibson works, so who am I to question? 🙂


- Barrett

 

[stupid leica]

Barrett, i will not disagree with you on a normal digital workflow being just as time-consuming. This is why i shoot straight JPG now (and have been for the past year), and do little to no editing. I even have a ".jpg" tattoo. That is how strongly i feel about the matter 🙂

I hate editing, i hate scanning, i just want to shoot. 🙂

 

[bwcolor]

How about keeping the topic as posted. No help from someone who hates scanning, who takes film to a lab, nor someone shooting digital, nor going wet darkroom.

The topic involves the future of film scanners.

 

[stupid leica]

I apologize, bwcolor, but i thought that discussing likely and reasonable alternatives to an inconvenient workflow in the future would be welcome here.

 

[bwcolor]

We have all tried the other workflows. I have many digital cameras, including some very expensive ones. I have used various labs for C-41, E-6 and scanning, but I'm a bit (prematurely) concerned for the time when I can't get my 9000ED serviced. I suspect by that time labs will be few and very expensive. Of course, by that time digital will also be much further down the road, so maybe the solution is to just go all digital... but for now.. are there any new scanners on the horizon to fill the 9000ED slot?

 

[stupid leica]

no, not on the horizon

 

[vincentbenoit]

Could the future of film scanners lie with Cosina-Voigtlander?

Vincent

 

[bwcolor]

Based on my knowledge I would say the same, 'not on the horizon' and this brings up the fear that they also won't be available over the horizon. I'm guessing that flat bed quality will continue to improve in the under 3K price range..adjusted for inflation. Hopefully, vendors will continue to provide trans-illumination in these flatbeds.

 

[aizan]

35mm: no more consumer film scanners, only high end scanners at pro labs.
medium format and large format: epson flatbeds for consumers (they might be good at 35mm someday), and high end scanners at pro labs.

discontinued film scanners and drum scanners will circulate among hobbyists who don't want to pay for scans or don't live in major metropolitan areas. scanners that are still repairable will become classics and highly sought after.

i packed up my leafscan 45 because i don't print digitally or need to upload images to the internet. if i did, i'd rather let the lab deal with it.

 

[tammons]

I think you will see more Plusteks and Pacific Image 35mm scanners.
The PI 7250 pro is actually decent at 3600 dpi.

Consumer flatbeds, Epsons. Still waiting on them to upgrade the V700/750.
Maybe a new high end flatbed one day if they are smart. I would like to see a real 4000 dpi dmax 4 flatbed for 1G.

Maybe when 24mp CCD chips get cheap enough, you might see something like the current cheapo 5mp ion scanners only high rez.

I dont see any new drum scanners being made.

Too much development capitol and no big return like there used to be.
I have a howtek 4500 and nobody is refinishing drums and nobody is making new drums and nobody has any NOS drums. SOL.

Don't see any new dedicated medium format scanners at all.

There is probably enough tooling and parts left for the flextite scanners that they will be around for a while if you can afford one.

 

[Keith]

With Cosina's previous involvement with Epson via the RD-1 maybe they can convince Epson to up their game and give us something a little better than the V700/750?

Cosina manufactured Epson's digital rangefinder for them ... why shouldn't Epson return the favour and make a decent scanner for Cosina who are obviously invested in making film bodies for some time to come?

 

[jpberger]

It's a niche market, but I imagine it would be profitable for someone sooner or later.

I recall seeing a shot of an Epson v950 scanner that was supposed to be released before the world economy went down the crapper a couple years ago.


Kodak made a bunch of really nifty hight speed scanners for photo labs back in the day that no one was willing to buy for thousands of dollars each. If we can convince them to salvage the tooling to bring some of them back for a more reasonable price we might be set.


Personally I'm happy to be done with scanning for the time being since I've gained access to a darkroom with a 40" kreonite ra-4 machine. but it's not a realistic option for most people 🙂

 

[Keith]

I do worry about my V700 currently ... I calculate that it's probably scanned around fifteen thousand negatives and can't help but wonder what the life of such a device actually may be?

If it comes to the crunch I would consider wet printing but I'm loathe to go through another learning process with the associated mistakes and cost. That said I have seen a couple of darkroom prints from 35mm negatives lately that have made me re-thing my atitude to my current hybrid output ... there really is no comparison!

 

[Ronald_H]

Good point.

My previous scanner was a Minolta Dimage Dual II. Noisy and slow, but good scans. However, after a few years of hard use, it was mechanically completely worn out.

I replaced it with a Nikon Coolscan V and thought at the time that spending 600 euros on dedicated film scanner was a bit steep. I only just started to use film again for fun. But as it turns out, the Nikon, while much better built than the Minolta, will eventually suffer the same fate.

My Epson V500 flatbed is surprisingly good for 35mm, but not quite up to the level of the Nikon. Maybe I should be on the lookput for a spare Coolscan V...

 

[Frankie]

OP - The future of film scanners

OP - The future of film scanners

In the aerial mapping industry [where I have practised now for 35 years], 9" x 9" format roll-film cameras reigned supreme...until digital photogrammetry emerged in 1991.

Camera makers include Wild-Heerbrugg (renamed Leica in 1991, owner company also owned E. Leitz Camera since the passing of Ernst), Zeiss Oberkochen (West Germany) and Zeiss Jena (former East Germany). The last film camera cost $500k.

By 1992, Leica also had a scanner (acquired from Helava, a division of General Dynamics), Zeiss (absorbed Jena in the German reunification) had a single stage model. Other players include Vexcel and Wehrli. These scanners have native resolutions started at 7.5u, scanner models cost ~$100k and up.

9.5" wide roll negatives were never cut. Auto-dodged diapositive had to be contact reproduced before scanning. In 1993, I.S.M. introduced a roll-film-direct prototype and sent everyone back to the drawing board.

Since then, several newer roll-film scanner models emerged. The new Zeiss offering (now partnered with Intergraph) was the best. Not surprisingly, Leica is still beating the long dead Helava horse...to this day.

In 2000, digital cameras debuted. Leica offered an 12,000 pixel linear aerial scanner, Zeiss a 112Mp [composite] frame model, and by 2003 Vexcel also had a 86Mp [composite] model. Prices starts at $1 million...plus, plus.

By now a Zeiss 130Mp single monolithic chip model is available, and no new scanners is in the horizon. Most scanning service bureaus also went out of business.

There are plenty still practicing scanned-film digital photogrammetry. However, the future is all digital...from imaging to restitution to final map.

The same story line can be seen now in general photography. Scanning film is an interim solution until digital gets good. When DSLR and RF achieved full-frame, the competition is over.

Many had posted how-to [scan better] questions. I am always surprised that few understood that achieving film flatness is the first and fundamental step. No Nikon, Epson, or whatever favorite best-made scanner can be any good until that step is first accomplished...period.

[I had shared my experience and solutions a couple of times...little interest was evident.]

Photogrammetric scanners I know or have used achieved that via vacuum film hold-down; kinda explained the $100k plus price tag...doesn't it?

 

[tammons]

Deleted double post