Another camera scanner start-up ...

i dont believe in crowd funding.
just release product and we will decide if we want to buy it (or not)
just a few seconds of product video and convincing us to buy is totally BS
 
It's cute, but why not buy a Monolta Scan Dual for $100-$200 and get results that are essentially as good as my old Nikon film scanners? Those Minoltas give you 2850 PPI vs 4000 for the Nikon, and 2850 will give you a nice 12x18 print.

Besides, as mentioned in the articles comments, who stores their uncut 35mm negs whole on a roll?
 
I looked at that yesterday, I don’t need it as I am pretty well outfitted for scanning already, but I continue to be glad that there are some people out there trying to do things for the film community. This device, which appears well made and thought out, could be useful for someone just starting out, even if I don’t need it. It doesn’t look like an inherently bad product to me, unless I am missing something. Keeps fingerprints off negs, helps with dust control and film flatness, all good things. There are other ways to do those things, but so what. For someone who shoots film, but is never going to print in a traditional darkroom (those people are out there) it would aid a slightly different workflow than most of us use. No need to ever spend time cutting negs into 6 frame strips and messing with sheets of film holders kept in binders. Just scan the uncut roll, and stick it back into a labeled and indexed film canister when you are done. Not a bad idea, and it would be time saving for some.

As far as cost is concerned, it was more than I wanted to spend for the added utility it would provide me, personally, but it certainly was not out of line with what the development and manufacturing cost would be for a low volume production item which would allow them to sell these at enough profit to stay in business.

Sometimes I think there should just be a separate forum here at RFF called “It’s Too Expensive!”, where people consistently disposed to post that thought about any and everything, lenses, cameras, software, etc. could make their inevitable feelings known without everyone else having to wade through them in every single new thread. Just a thought🙂
 
Larry Cloetta said:
I looked at that yesterday, I don’t need it as I am pretty well outfitted for scanning already, but I continue to be glad that there are some people out there trying to do things for the film community. This device, which appears well made and thought out, could be useful for someone just starting out, even if I don’t need it. It doesn’t look like an inherently bad product to me, unless I am missing something. Keeps fingerprints off negs, helps with dust control and film flatness, all good things. There are other ways to do those things, but so what. For someone who shoots film, but is never going to print in a traditional darkroom (those people are out there) it would aid a slightly different workflow than most of us use. No need to ever spend time cutting negs into 6 frame strips and messing with sheets of film holders kept in binders. Just scan the uncut roll, and stick it back into a labeled and indexed film canister when you are done. Not a bad idea, and it would be time saving for some.

As far as cost is concerned, it was more than I wanted to spend for the added utility it would provide me, personally, but it certainly was not out of line with what the development and manufacturing cost would be for a low volume production item which would allow them to sell these at enough profit to stay in business.

Sometimes I think there should just be a separate forum here at RFF called “It’s Too Expensive!”, where people consistently disposed to post that thought about any and everything, lenses, cameras, software, etc. could make their inevitable feelings known without everyone else having to wade through them in every single new thread. Just a thought🙂
Click to expand...

I'd second that. Maybe call the forum "Old People Yelling at Clouds"
 
Nikon's new system is easier to use. 😱😱😱
and it costs less 🙄

i just modified the original one, that saves me money
 
Larry Cloetta said:
...

Sometimes I think there should just be a separate forum here at RFF called “It’s Too Expensive!”, where people consistently disposed to post that thought about any and everything, lenses, cameras, software, etc. could make their inevitable feelings known without everyone else having to wade through them in every single new thread. Just a thought🙂
Click to expand...

Veggies said:
I'd second that. Maybe call the forum "Old People Yelling at Clouds"
Click to expand...

Or... maybe those complaining about the price are right.

Weird thing is I have this device in front of me right now made by this little company that everyone loves called Lomography.
It is their film scanner that feeds film through it that is meant to be used with your cell phone. BUT, and it's big butt, you can use it with your DSLR!!! Just take off the pieces that allow you to connect your cell phone.
And it also has it's own built in light source!

So Lomo already makes this - that you can modify in any sweet way you like. And it costs $40. $40. Wait did I mention it costs $40?

https://shop.lomography.com/en/accessories/film-scanners/smartphone-scanner

So bless you yellers at clouds. Curmudgeons on lawn chairs. Because you know what you speak of!
 
Huss said:
BUT, and it's big butt...
Click to expand...

I like big BUTs and I cannot lie
You other prepositions can't deny...
...
Baby got back(light) 😎

Seriously though, I agree with Larry. I wouldn't buy one because it doesn't solve some of my needs, but we need more people like this for our film enthusiast community, not fewer.
 
I see it as an updated version of the Beseler Negatrans film carrier, purpose-designed for a new generation of hybrid film shooters like me who digitize film using a digital camera. Speaking of which, I tried the Negatrans, but couldn't get it to work well (i.e., maintain planarity) with my Leica BEOON rig. So now the Negatrans sits in my closet unused for the time being.
 
I do find the complaining about the price funny, considering this is a forum replete with people ready to plonk down 8k on a leica m10p when they already have a leica m10.

The cost is ok with some because they are willing to pay it, just as your leica q2 to complement your SL and m10 are costs you are ok with. Or your third canon p or 4th olympus OM

There are other options, many other options, and this just an addition to that lineup. I backed it because I don't want to make my own, I don't want to use nikon's scanning rig, my bellows attachment hasn't worked as I expected, flatbed scans don't work for me with 35mm, a minolta scanner is old and not what I want to use.

This all boils down to value. If someone sees a value in it and they want to spend their money on it, good. Next time one of you decides to post that you bought a thambar or a summilux, i'll remind you that lomo also makes M mount lenses or 7artisans does.
 
Hogarth Ferguson said:
This all boils down to value. If someone sees a value in it and they want to spend their money on it, good. Next time one of you decides to post that you bought a thambaror a summilux, i'll remind you that lomo also makes M mount lenses or 7artisans does.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference here. Those lenses give a different look to the image so you could argue why u need a Summilux vs 7A.

These film holders do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Epson v800 banding/staircase effect
Replies
0
Views
78
Jan makowski
J
J
Intrepid enlarger?
Replies
1
Views
934
mdarnton
M
A
Fujifilm GFX100RF - fixed lens RF style medium format camera!
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Godfrey
Godfrey
ped
Batch scanner in 2025 - PrimeFilm 3600pro
2
Replies
20
Views
723
Godfrey
Godfrey
lynnb
Phase One multi spectral film scanner
Replies
1
Views
309
boojum
boojum
Back
Top Bottom