The Future of Film Scanners

dshfoto said:
I have been using a digital SLR (Leica DMR) and an enlarging lens. For the last 3 years.
I am thinking about trying a Hasselblad, with a digital back, and macro bellows. Has anyone tried to copy negatives with a medium format digital back?
Scanners were developed when the sensors were expensive. As sensors get better, it seems logical that a one shot copy using a flash should be just as good as most film scanners.
Click to expand...

Digitizing negs with a Hasselblad, macro bellows and digital back sounds like a bit overkill to me. At this price range you can get a Flextight X1 or X5.
 
Mark Wood said:
Not that long ago, Epson had a multi-format dedicated film scanner on the market, the F-3200. It looked rather good but seemed to disappear without trace rather quickly. Given the range of formats it could scan and the price, it would be nice to see an updated version on the market. A vain hope I suspect.
Click to expand...

If this link is any indication it's no surprise that it's disappeared. The review shows that the F3200 is just marginally better than the 4870 flatbed so I suppose the V750 should be worlds above the F3200.
 
dshfoto said:
Scanners were developed when the sensors were expensive. As sensors get better,
it seems logical that a one shot copy using a flash should be just as good as most film scanners.
Click to expand...

This seems like the only way forward to me.
Though I don't think medium format sensors will be required.

In the future there are avenues of exploration such as super-resolution capture through sub-pixel dithering,
dynamic range and SNR extension through multiple exposure techniques.

The rolls of film from Capa's Mexican suitcase were 'scanned' with a DSLR
http://museum.icp.org/mexican_suitcase/conservation.html

mexicase_conservation_pfd2.jpg


I've been doing so, on a more modest trial level with a E-420, 50mm macro, a Novoflex repro stand and metal masks from an old Devere enlarger.
B&W is easier and quicker than scanning with my Nikon 4000 and I don't have any of the film flatness issues I had with the scanner.
I can make scans of everything from 8x11 minox to 6x6 negs.

But I've not yet mastered color negative scanning.
This is probably going to require a dichroic filtered or RGB LED light source to counter the orange mask
and careful profiling of the camera sensor response.

If anyone's succeeded with color negs, I would be really interested to read about it.

Donald.
 
Last edited:
I see the DSLR scanning as inferior method to film scanner for s simple reason - Bayer interpolation. Simply - you need to scale DOWN your "scan" to get actually a sharp results what means you are getting 15 Mpix at most for one shot (using 20 - 24 Mpix DSLR). While this is probably fine for 35mm, for medium format it is nothing to write home about. Sure - one can stitch but that kind of work also starts to become a PITA. And you need a good quality camera and lens ($$$) for that (not that good scanners were cheap)

If at least scanners for labs that allow good quality with reasonable expense (a la Imacon X5) would remain in production (they do as of now)

Wet prints are nice but just can not substitute a scanner for many purposes and reasons.
 
FrozenInTime said:
But I've not yet mastered color negative scanning.
This is probably going to require a dichroic filtered or RGB LED light source to counter the orange mask
and careful profiling of the camera sensor response.

If anyone's succeeded with color negs, I would be really interested to read about it.

Donald.
Click to expand...

I sometimes use my computer screen as a lightbox and do real quick and dirty 'contact' sheets from my neg sleeve pages by taking a photo with my Canon 5DII and converting it on the computer. Even with this very uncontrolled light source I haven't had much trouble getting pretty decent colors with neg film.

What I do is I open the file in Adobe Camera Raw, select a point on the edge of the film (unexposed part) to set white balance, then open with Photoshop and invert. From this point on I usually have to mess a bit with levels to get the contrast right and tweak the color balance a little. Since I'm only using it for a quick preview I haven't invested too much time in it but I suppose it should be fairly easy to get a proper workflow going for more critical work.
 
Last edited:
If I will loose FS4000US I currently use, I'll probably get flatbed for proofing and web, and make wet prints myself. As for color...maybe I'll just bring film strips to lab, us we used in old days.
 
I think that the use of my Epson V-750 as my main scanner and the Nikon 9000ED as my scanner of choice for more critical work sounds like a good interim solution. I haven't been using the Epson in that it arrived with lots of junk on the back side of the glass..top and bottom and I've been lazy and not sent it in. Will do so now. This was actually my original intent upon buying two scanners at the same time.

Clearly, flatbed technology will improve. I'm hoping that Epson and others continue to produce transparency illumination. I think that third parties will always step up to the challenge of negative holders. So, if the illumination is available, we should have scanners available for the next ten years or more.

Wet printing is an option for those with the space and wanting a print as the final product, but the digital age has expanded those requirements.

Regarding the 9000ED. I believe that Nikon is producing these in batches. They wait for the orders to reach a critical amount and then restart production. That is a very considerate nod to those of us using film, because I doubt that this product produces much of a profit. So, those wanting to scan.. place your orders and keep this spotty, but active process going.
 
Last edited:
Rethinking this now, there may be some hope for us in all in the end. Maybe with Nikon's exit it will push third parties companies to enter the market. Models like the plustek's seem to be the future. No bells, no whistles, no automation. Besides this makes for less moving parts and less to go wrong. It seems only time before a company like voigtlander puts out a scanner. Since they are so heavy invested in film, and film is still going strong in Asian markets, they may realize since Nikon is fading to make some money. Anyone who puts out a decent scanner can charge a bit for it, look at used coolscans going for $1500 used. People will pay quite a bit for a good new scanner, I think.
 
You can shoot a piece of film with a dslr and a copy or a macro lens.
I have done it quite a few times, but its tedious unless you have a slide copy setup.

I have even enlarged an image into a dslr body with no lens on the camera and that worked but that was an experiment. An open DSLR camera body sitting under an enlarger is asking for trouble.

In all there will some IQ loss, but its doable.

A pretty much perfect setup would be something like a besler slide duplicator and
a Sony A850 with a macro lens.

4000x6000 rez.

I would rather have a film scanner.
 
bwcolor said:
I think that the use of my Epson V-750 as my main scanner and the Nikon 9000ED as my scanner of choice for more critical work sounds like a good interim solution. I haven't been using the Epson in that it arrived with lots of junk on the back side of the glass..top and bottom and I've been lazy and not sent it in. Will do so now. This was actually my original intent upon buying two scanners at the same time.

Clearly, flatbed technology will improve. I'm hoping that Epson and others continue to produce transparency illumination. I think that third parties will always step up to the challenge of negative holders. So, if the illumination is available, we should have scanners available for the next ten years or more.

Wet printing is an option for those with the space and wanting a print as the final product, but the digital age has expanded those requirements.

Regarding the 9000ED. I believe that Nikon is producing these in batches. They wait for the orders to reach a critical amount and then restart production. That is a very considerate nod to those of us using film, because I doubt that this product produces much of a profit. So, those wanting to scan.. place your orders and keep this spotty, but active process going.
Click to expand...



This seems to be Nikon's atitude toward their flagship film camera ... the F6!

Now there's a combination from heaven ... an F6 and a 9000ED scanner!

I wish! 😀
 
No Future? Hardly!

No Future? Hardly!

1.) The world's library of exposed film will keeps scanners busy forever!
2.) Digital and analog must interface at some point, scanners are one of those DA converters,
3.) Currently digital cameras that approach the quality of fine grain film, and possibly some day may approach the quality of medium format, are already as large and heavy as the press cameras of the 1930's, 40's, and 50's. (In fact LARGER!)
4.) For the obsessive folks who shoot RAW and complain about how long the camera must take to store and ready itself for the next shot, go get an old motor drive film camera! It's more logical to mess with RAW from a scanned image!
5.) Post production is never going away, pick you poison. Getting comfortable with scanning is getting to know one's software and the quirks of the scanner one is using. Time spent with work flow is directly proportional to these skills. There is no arguing that digital imagery has immediate gratification and transmission possibilities that analog does not. Digital has become the tool of the masses, analog and scanning will become the tool of the professional.
 
If there's still a market perhaps some enterprising Korean or Chinese company will step in.
Failing that we can all go back to making wet prints. Perhaps we'd be better off... 😉

Chris
 
Oh Two said:
There is no arguing that digital imagery has immediate gratification and transmission possibilities that analog does not. Digital has become the tool of the masses, analog and scanning will become the tool of the professional.
Click to expand...

No.

Analog and scanning will be choices made by a tiny subset of artists, amateur and professional, who value the process for its own sake and for the results produced by that process. The distinction will not be between amateurs and professionals but between [eccentrics / obsessives / individualists / misfits / visionaries / nerds] and the mainstream.

The parallel is in classical printmaking. There are still many people who do woodcuts, stone litho, etchings, etc., but these are now niche processes. Certainly no one says: you make etchings, therefore you must be a professional artist. No one says it because the majority of people who make etchings are dedicated amateurs, and such a statement would be nonsense. The same is, and will be, true of silver emulsions.
 
Last edited:
*casting thread revival spell*

after 3 years we are still talking about the same makes and models...

sad

*end casting*
 
To the best of my knowledge the Nikon scanners have been gone for a number of years. Not sure what else is still being made and what quality film scans they produce.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom