Could the current film camera manufacturers help their cause by developing a scanner?

JoeV said:
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
Click to expand...

of course Joe. i have a dedicated scanner that does a bloody good job of 35mm, 120, 4x5 etc. and will scan to tiff and a few other options. however when the response is held in context (in regards to Greg's post {one up from mine}) it is very difficult to visualize the advantages of a high end scanner on Flickr, or elsewhere on the web, due to the compression needed.
 
OK, now I'm scared.
I didn't know everyone had exited the scanning market. I've been using a Minolta Dual Scan IV and have been very happy with it, and had no thoughts about upgrading. Or at least until my computer crapped out a few weeks ago. So I went and bought a new computer that has Vista 64 installed and it won't let me install the Minolta drivers. I have a Windows 7 upgrade coming, will I be able to install the Dual Scan drivers with Windows 7? Or do I need to built a Pentium 4 machine and install Windows XP?
 
I tried not to read this thread untill now. Why: because as happy user of a Coolscan 5000 since month I'm thinking what could I do in case it should no more work and could not be repaired ! This thread confirm it is, ok it will be (in a not too long time I'm afraid) a serious problem. I choice the hybrid workflow (for various reasons) and after two years work I'm now satisfied with it. Unfotunately it is not realistic other companies will make a film scanner, IMHO the only which could benefit of it iis Leica. But as Keith already said price would be ...not really affordable. So what's now? Cross fingers !
robert
 
IMHO this is the business cycle at work. Management consultants are currently running around to current suppliers calculating how little margin and growth there is in this business, convincing them to get out of it to cut costs (especially during a recession). Eventually there will be two or three left occupying different tiers, and the same calculations will show that this market is a profitable niche for them. Chances are Plustek is in this profitable niche category. I look to my other hobby of road bicycling and the example of Michelin and Continental tires (or tyres depending on your side of the pond), where did all of the others go? Who cares, we have great tires/tyres and always will. As long as there are people interesting in buying scanners (for example, that's why I read this post) there will be someone willing to sell it to them. There may be some uncomfortable adjustments in between though, so maybe now is not the time to buy a Nikon scanner.
 
A really good thread. We all ramble all the time about the super nice glass of our summicrons, but there is just no really decent scanner around which will really be up to the standard. I just worked with an (older model) Hasselblad Imacon. and I was blown by the ease of use, quality and pro feel. Funny thing is that this machine works like an enlarger, it even has got a Schneider Rodagon (migt be a Componon, don't know for sure) enlarging lens built in. So: a regular enlarging lens is the heart of that scanner. Shouldn't it be fairly easy to build one 'prosumer' modell with that technology for less then the 10.000 euros the imacons sell?
I bet there would be a market.
 
Fujitsu said:
Kodak does not invest in film anymore.
Click to expand...

Ive posted about this before.

If it werent kodak's investment into and dependence upon film, the company wouldnt exist, period. Every time this comes up, none of the still photographers out there want to understand the amount of film the motion picture industry pulls through the gate of a motion picture camera on a minute to minute basis. You can have a long debate over how many more decades this will continue, but thats a whole other discussion. The amount of film that is shot in a day on the show I work on I couldnt shoot in a year if I shot 8 rolls a day, 5 days a week. Think about that. One day. Every photographer could never load another roll of film into a 35mm still camera and kodak would probably never notice. Kodak is not ilford. Its business is the motion picture industry, providing emulsion for still photographers is fabulous, but largely, in 2009, its a token. But to suggest kodak is out of the film business is simply not understanding the reality of the situation. Any r&d that gets done on a scanner sadly is going to be, I would think, developed for online work. I still shoot film exclusively and would spend any amount of money on a real good scanner than can scan silver emulsions so I would love this more than anyone, but its a sad outlook...
 
Roger Vadim said:
A really good thread. We all ramble all the time about the super nice glass of our summicrons, but there is just no really decent scanner around which will really be up to the standard. I just worked with an (older model) Hasselblad Imacon. and I was blown by the ease of use, quality and pro feel. Funny thing is that this machine works like an enlarger, it even has got a Schneider Rodagon (migt be a Componon, don't know for sure) enlarging lens built in. So: a regular enlarging lens is the heart of that scanner. Shouldn't it be fairly easy to build one 'prosumer' modell with that technology for less then the 10.000 euros the imacons sell?
I bet there would be a market.
Click to expand...

I think the price vs quality trade off lies on the sensor implementation. I'm not a scanner designer, but thinking about it, I see two implementations:

- line-by-line scan, which requires only a small, high-quality sensor, but has to be coupled with high-quality step-motor assembly to ensure precise and uniform movements, which is not cheap to produce.

- one-shot scan, as in digital cameras, no mechanical parts needed but the sensor area is way larger, thus the cost to produce it raises along with the quality of the sensor.

Maybe someone will come up with a way to build a scanner using a hybrid of these two implementations (or something else completely different).
 
THis was an issue on my mind for almost a year now and at times stopped my re-entry into film. I'm ignoring it ...but it is very worrisome. I used to have no space until I moved to have a darkroom but even now where I could have one ... I know that I no longer want to make prints that way. I want to scan and while most of my scans wind up as internet posts, I do want the ability to make decent prints too.

The nikons have gone up in price and only today have I found that the 5000 (which I used to have) has been discontinued. In truth if it were not for Plustec being the last company to still make new models of dedicated scanners, I might have simply called up my dealer and told him to cancel my order for the new Ikon which I placed yesterday. I do want to do film however ... so I'm turning a blind eye and crossing my fingers, and with that .... does anyone have any experience with and comments on the Plustek OpticFilm 7500i Ai?
 
Benjamin said:
Hire a Flextight out for a day once a month, once a week, whatever/whenever.

Why have something bulky and expensive at home that you have to service and look after when you can go to a studio that has one? @ £75 Per Day, why not? It's going to be cheaper than buying and maintaining a scanner that offers similar quality yourself.
Click to expand...
Had I the funds at the time, I probably would've bought a Flextight, but could only stretch to the Minolta 5400, whose principal limitation in comparison is format (35mm only...an earlier scan comparo revealed that the cheaper Flextight had a surprisingly small improvement in quality over the 5400 scanning 35mm). One reason I'm glad I bought over just renting time on a scanner is that, like a pianist with a baby grand shoehorned into her apartment, I have full-time access whenever the need or desire strikes. Another reason is that I've frequently scanned film for various clients...frequently enough, in fact, to have largely paid for the thing, which was a few clicks short of $1k when I bought it new in 2004.


- Barrett
 
shadowfox said:
I think the price vs quality trade off lies on the sensor implementation. I'm not a scanner designer, but thinking about it, I see two implementations:

- line-by-line scan, which requires only a small, high-quality sensor, but has to be coupled with high-quality step-motor assembly to ensure precise and uniform movements, which is not cheap to produce.

- one-shot scan, as in digital cameras, no mechanical parts needed but the sensor area is way larger, thus the cost to produce it raises along with the quality of the sensor.

Maybe someone will come up with a way to build a scanner using a hybrid of these two implementations (or something else completely different).
Click to expand...

Scanning is digitizing the film original.

The line-by-line method requires not only high-quality linear sensor (Kodak has a 8000@9u RGB one), but also stepping motors and most important of all, linear encoder [for error feed back]...also a high quality reprographics lens. [I have some experience in managing the development of a 9.5" wide roll film unit for the aerial imaging industry.]

The one-shot method requires a superb flat-field close focusing lens [for example: Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon, commonly used in enlargers] and a large sensor...but not necessarily FF. Slight reduction of 24x36mm onto 16x24mm APS size sensor is OK. The engineering is the equivalent of building a fixed-ratio miniature repro-camera [I also have experience using/modifying a 25' long mono-rail Acti-V process camera.]

However, most important of all is holding the film flat...see http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1199729&postcount=42

Before anyone panics about no more scanners, try a cheap Epson with modifications as suggested. You will be surprised.
 
Im not sure that I understand what Im about to say but I believe it any way........by shining light through a negative and onto a sheet of paper every single ounce of quality is shining on that paper and hence is included in the final print.Now if you take the digital route to get that same degree of transmission is impossible but it can be approached by more pixels.
 
taxi38 said:
Im not sure that I understand what Im about to say but I believe it any way........by shining light through a negative and onto a sheet of paper every single ounce of quality is shining on that paper and hence is included in the final print.Now if you take the digital route to get that same degree of transmission is impossible but it can be approached by more pixels.
Click to expand...
Wow...you should meet Ralph Gibson. :)


- Barrett
 
Beemermark said:
OK, now I'm scared.
I didn't know everyone had exited the scanning market. I've been using a Minolta Dual Scan IV and have been very happy with it, and had no thoughts about upgrading. Or at least until my computer crapped out a few weeks ago. So I went and bought a new computer that has Vista 64 installed and it won't let me install the Minolta drivers. I have a Windows 7 upgrade coming, will I be able to install the Dual Scan drivers with Windows 7? Or do I need to built a Pentium 4 machine and install Windows XP?
Click to expand...


One word: MAC PRO
 
I'm not quite so disheartened yet. There's still a bit of activity at both the low end and the high end, and whilst we'll never have the same choice - something will exist for a long time to come. I think it's fairly clear that we'll see a new Epson at some point and you can always buy an X1 or X5 new ;-) If you've REALLY got money there's even 'real' drum scanners still being made. I would also bet we'll see someone come out of the woodwork and step up after Nikon... it's not because there is no demand - just not enough for Nikon to keep making 5000's and 9000's.
 
There's still a bit of activity at both the low end and the high end
This is what worries me: nothing in the middle. Or low quality or very high price ! Medium high quality at the price let say of a camera body would be the need IMHO
regards
rober
 
The Plusteks seem to be pretty good, but their dynamic range in the neighborhood of 3.5 is hard for me to swallow. Blown highlights and black shadows are not something that I aspire to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom