quejai
Established
Hey everyone
I'm a keen film photographer and also a mechatronic engineering student. I'm working on a project to design, build and sell film scanners. I'm planning to host a kickstarter in a couple of months to make the first batch, but before I do that I'd like some of your advice.
Could you please make a list, ranked in order of importance down, of features you value in a film scanner? Feel free to include features that haven't been mentioned yet.
There's also a poll, where you can vote on how much a good scanner is worth to you.
More details:
I've spent an obscene ammount of effort on this. I started just over two years ago, have gone through several kilograms of paper sketches, and spent hundreds of dollars on parts for an underwhelming prototype.
Fortunately for you, that prototype inspired several more months of drastic redesigns; and my current design is more affordable, has sharper optics, is lighter, has unprecedented color fidelity and is pretty darn fast, compared to other scanners out there at the moment. I'm pretty confident that this will be the biggest development in film scanners for over a decade.
Before I commit to building a second prototype based on the evolved design, I'd like to hear from you (my target market!
) about what you value in film scanners.
Just to clarify: For each time the scanner is loaded, it will be able to scan anything from several strips of six exposure 135 rollfilm up to (hopefully) 8x10 sheetfilm.
So thanks for the help.
I'm a keen film photographer and also a mechatronic engineering student. I'm working on a project to design, build and sell film scanners. I'm planning to host a kickstarter in a couple of months to make the first batch, but before I do that I'd like some of your advice.
Could you please make a list, ranked in order of importance down, of features you value in a film scanner? Feel free to include features that haven't been mentioned yet.
There's also a poll, where you can vote on how much a good scanner is worth to you.
More details:
I've spent an obscene ammount of effort on this. I started just over two years ago, have gone through several kilograms of paper sketches, and spent hundreds of dollars on parts for an underwhelming prototype.
Fortunately for you, that prototype inspired several more months of drastic redesigns; and my current design is more affordable, has sharper optics, is lighter, has unprecedented color fidelity and is pretty darn fast, compared to other scanners out there at the moment. I'm pretty confident that this will be the biggest development in film scanners for over a decade.
Before I commit to building a second prototype based on the evolved design, I'd like to hear from you (my target market!
) about what you value in film scanners.Just to clarify: For each time the scanner is loaded, it will be able to scan anything from several strips of six exposure 135 rollfilm up to (hopefully) 8x10 sheetfilm.
So thanks for the help.
quejai
Established
For example, If I were in the market for a scanner (which I am! I'm so keen to scan my film properly), I would prioritise features in this order:
color
resolution
speed
adjustable resolution:speed ratio
reliability
software experience
ease / ergonomics of use
clear documentation of operational methods
cost
aesthetics
weight
If you have any other ideas, I'd really appreciate them.
color
resolution
speed
adjustable resolution:speed ratio
reliability
software experience
ease / ergonomics of use
clear documentation of operational methods
cost
aesthetics
weight
If you have any other ideas, I'd really appreciate them.
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
I think
color
dmax
software experience
resolution
etc
Use LUT profiles for the scanner and output profiles rather than matrix profiles, imo. Good luck!
color
dmax
software experience
resolution
etc
Use LUT profiles for the scanner and output profiles rather than matrix profiles, imo. Good luck!
aizan
Veteran
cooooool! what kind of scanner are you designing? is it like a flatbed but without the glass platen? or a drum scanner? something like the imacon, or leafscan?
here's a list of features, with ideas from ctein's articles on TOP:
dynamic range (enough to deal with slides, where density range goes past 4.0, or 10-13 stops)
film flatness, negative holders for all formats up to 8x10
adjustable alignment of camera, lens, and film
resolution
color
non-reflective interior, easy to clean (for better contrast)
software (gives manual control of exposure, aperture, focus, etc. allows batch scanning of an entire roll of 135 or 120 in one go. dng raw files. open source.)
repairability (key for long-term usage), reliability, and durability (design must be simple and overbuilt)
here's a list of features, with ideas from ctein's articles on TOP:
dynamic range (enough to deal with slides, where density range goes past 4.0, or 10-13 stops)
film flatness, negative holders for all formats up to 8x10
adjustable alignment of camera, lens, and film
resolution
color
non-reflective interior, easy to clean (for better contrast)
software (gives manual control of exposure, aperture, focus, etc. allows batch scanning of an entire roll of 135 or 120 in one go. dng raw files. open source.)
repairability (key for long-term usage), reliability, and durability (design must be simple and overbuilt)
mfogiel
Veteran
In my opinion, we are getting close to the point, where a sensor with enough resolution will become available for a one shot ( single photo) scanning. This is already the case if you think about 35mm and will soon be the case for MF. To put this in perspective: I am using a Nikon CS 9000, one of the best scanners still available second hand. It has a 4000DPI claimed resolution and around 3800DPI effective resolution. In 35mm you find scanners with higher resolution, although it is debatable if current films can benefit from more than 6000DPI resolution, but in MF, excluding drum scanners, the Nikon is king.
Let's do some math: my 35mm b&w scans come out in files of about 40MP, while my 6x9 b&w scans come close to 300mb. In reality, most MF cameras are between 6x4.5 and 6x7, so that would peak at 250MB. Canon has just announced they are about to release a sensor with 250MB resolution, so we could be done.
The second part is the lens: is it possible to make a lens that would deliver the effective sensor resolution of 250MB on a sub full frame area? I am not sure, but perhaps highly corrected repro lenses would do that.
The third part - film flatness and keeping everything parallel. In my opinion, there is no alternative to a glass carrier with two glass layers and it needs to be anti Newton ring glass, like in the Nikon CS 9000 holders.
Next would be the capacity to focus correctly - this should be easy using the autofocus or focus peaking function of the camera.
Finally, some thought should be given to the design of the reproduction space, to make it solid, foolproof and possibly fitted with some anti dust feature ( fan blowing in filtered air like in hospital surgery rooms).
As to the image quality, it would be necessary to aim for as high bit depth as possible, so 16 bit is a must - I think the current digital cameras fail short of that, but perhaps the reason is in the necessity to keep the computing chip small, this would not be necessary in the scanner.
With current scanners' Dmax peaking around 4.4, I believe this would not be an issue for a photographic sensor, where we are accustomed to several stops of DR - the DR compression has already been done on film.
-----
If you design a scanner that has a capacity to cover from 35mm to 8x10 with one shot scanning and at least a 100MB sensor, you would put out of the market all the existing competition at once, including Imacon $20.000 scanners. As to your question about value: if your scanner delivers at least Nikon 9000CS quality and is faster, it could easily be worth USD 5.000.
Let's do some math: my 35mm b&w scans come out in files of about 40MP, while my 6x9 b&w scans come close to 300mb. In reality, most MF cameras are between 6x4.5 and 6x7, so that would peak at 250MB. Canon has just announced they are about to release a sensor with 250MB resolution, so we could be done.
The second part is the lens: is it possible to make a lens that would deliver the effective sensor resolution of 250MB on a sub full frame area? I am not sure, but perhaps highly corrected repro lenses would do that.
The third part - film flatness and keeping everything parallel. In my opinion, there is no alternative to a glass carrier with two glass layers and it needs to be anti Newton ring glass, like in the Nikon CS 9000 holders.
Next would be the capacity to focus correctly - this should be easy using the autofocus or focus peaking function of the camera.
Finally, some thought should be given to the design of the reproduction space, to make it solid, foolproof and possibly fitted with some anti dust feature ( fan blowing in filtered air like in hospital surgery rooms).
As to the image quality, it would be necessary to aim for as high bit depth as possible, so 16 bit is a must - I think the current digital cameras fail short of that, but perhaps the reason is in the necessity to keep the computing chip small, this would not be necessary in the scanner.
With current scanners' Dmax peaking around 4.4, I believe this would not be an issue for a photographic sensor, where we are accustomed to several stops of DR - the DR compression has already been done on film.
-----
If you design a scanner that has a capacity to cover from 35mm to 8x10 with one shot scanning and at least a 100MB sensor, you would put out of the market all the existing competition at once, including Imacon $20.000 scanners. As to your question about value: if your scanner delivers at least Nikon 9000CS quality and is faster, it could easily be worth USD 5.000.
majid
Fazal Majid
A modernized version of X-Y flatbed prepress scanners like the Fuji Lanovia would be optimal. They scan as well as a Coolscan, but way more convenient, and can deal with pesky large formats like 6x17.
The two biggest challenges you will face are keeping film flat and focusing.
The two biggest challenges you will face are keeping film flat and focusing.
Jockos
Well-known
Image quality, repairability, ease of use (I swear to god I'd rather kill myself than EVER loading a 9000f holder with Kodak 120 film again), large format compatibility, ebony chassis with fine silver inlays.
I voted $1000, which I'd see as a long term cost. If the support for the unit is dropped in ten years, subtract ~$200. If glass carriers are included and the IQ is really high, add ~$200.
A good idea would be to let the customers choose which carriers they need, personally I don't do MF, and a lot of people don't do LF.
I voted $1000, which I'd see as a long term cost. If the support for the unit is dropped in ten years, subtract ~$200. If glass carriers are included and the IQ is really high, add ~$200.
A good idea would be to let the customers choose which carriers they need, personally I don't do MF, and a lot of people don't do LF.
JChrome
Street Worker
Really interesting topic. Would love to see your designs and what you've made.
I'd like the ability to easily clean the inside of every glass component. Opening up flatbeds to clean the other side can be frustrating.
You could design all of the hardware and leave the software to others to build (SilverFast comes to mind). This may reduce the complexity of the project drastically.
Have a programmable button on the outside where it automatically loads a saved scanning profile of some sort and begins scanning (so I don't have to muck with the software). It would be great if I could simply plop in the film, hit a button and then wait for it to finish. Of course it might not be able to crop photos correctly but I think I could do that afterwards. Couple that with a quick warm up period and fast scanning and you could get through a lot of negatives quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd like the ability to easily clean the inside of every glass component. Opening up flatbeds to clean the other side can be frustrating.
You could design all of the hardware and leave the software to others to build (SilverFast comes to mind). This may reduce the complexity of the project drastically.
Have a programmable button on the outside where it automatically loads a saved scanning profile of some sort and begins scanning (so I don't have to muck with the software). It would be great if I could simply plop in the film, hit a button and then wait for it to finish. Of course it might not be able to crop photos correctly but I think I could do that afterwards. Couple that with a quick warm up period and fast scanning and you could get through a lot of negatives quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
brbo
Well-known
Scan from a prototype or it didn't happen.
I'm pretty confident it won't be (this was released just a few months ago), but if you make a budget version of something like this for $2.000 it will be a hit.
I'd buy a small, fast and affordable desktop LF scanner with true 4000dpi, hi DRange and no CCD flare in a heartbeat.
quejai
Established
Ranchu:
Color profiles are going to be a huge part of the software. The plan is to include a set of standard profiles (based on experiment and also, where available, film datasheets), and also the capability to create your own or install others' profiles. Basing the profiles on LUT (i.e. tables instead of formulas) is a good idea that I'll experiment with.
Good suggestion about maximising DMAX; it's going to be pretty high. To reduce DMIN, the sensor is going to be peltier-cooled, just like astrophotographic equipment. Check out what this can do to digital noise. With such a low noise floor, and with some careful programming, I'm actually quite excited to see what Drange this thing is capable of.
asizan:
Similarly, thanks for the DMAX suggestion, and your other good points.
What's the design like? Not quite flatbed, not quite drum. Wet mount is standard. Kind of like a combination of a microscope and a 3D printer, and about the same size as a shoebox but with much better aesthetics. [to another user] Ebony and silver highlights? I like it.
chikne:
I had designed focus adjustment to be mechanical, but due to popularity I'll think about how to set up software-based manual focus.
Regarding glass carrier: I was planning acrylic, primarily due to safety. If I can find optical quality shatter-resistant glass, then that would be ideal. For all formats? Of course.
Gee, just refreshed and there's quite a few replies. I'll be a bit more brief:
Glass-film-glass mounting: Good idea, main issue is air bubbles. Sorting that out is possible, but makes loading several times harder - regardless, I'll ensure the scanner will be able to take it.
Release the designs: I'd love to, but I'm really torn between open-source awesomeness and loosing exclusive access to my IP for this project, which could be worth serious dough. In any case, you'll see how it all works when the kickstarter begins. But I'll keep it in mind.
Easy to clean glass: That's a convenient side effect of the new design. It just is.
Outsource software: It really is a different beast compared to most scanners, I honestly doubt that silverfast will be able to run it. But it's worth trying to integrate, especially if it means that some users don't need to learn to use another piece of software.
Another new scanner recently released: I'm familiar with this, and thanks for the link. Honestly, that's just a macro lens on a sideways tripod - The perfect setup for a one-shot scanner, and although I definitely see this as capable of providing acceptable results, I use a different approach that I think is better. Just a heads up, my scanner will only work with transparencies, not prints. Here's another design feature of my scanner: it's using standard microscope objectives as the scanning lenses, which can be upgraded to better brands or higher magnifications.
If ~$2000 defines 'budget' (which it is, relatively), then yes - imagine a smaller, more affordable, better version of that link in your hands by next year, with LF capability.
Thanks everyone so far, good stuff.
Color profiles are going to be a huge part of the software. The plan is to include a set of standard profiles (based on experiment and also, where available, film datasheets), and also the capability to create your own or install others' profiles. Basing the profiles on LUT (i.e. tables instead of formulas) is a good idea that I'll experiment with.
Good suggestion about maximising DMAX; it's going to be pretty high. To reduce DMIN, the sensor is going to be peltier-cooled, just like astrophotographic equipment. Check out what this can do to digital noise. With such a low noise floor, and with some careful programming, I'm actually quite excited to see what Drange this thing is capable of.
asizan:
Similarly, thanks for the DMAX suggestion, and your other good points.
What's the design like? Not quite flatbed, not quite drum. Wet mount is standard. Kind of like a combination of a microscope and a 3D printer, and about the same size as a shoebox but with much better aesthetics. [to another user] Ebony and silver highlights? I like it.
chikne:
I had designed focus adjustment to be mechanical, but due to popularity I'll think about how to set up software-based manual focus.
Regarding glass carrier: I was planning acrylic, primarily due to safety. If I can find optical quality shatter-resistant glass, then that would be ideal. For all formats? Of course.
Gee, just refreshed and there's quite a few replies. I'll be a bit more brief:
Glass-film-glass mounting: Good idea, main issue is air bubbles. Sorting that out is possible, but makes loading several times harder - regardless, I'll ensure the scanner will be able to take it.
Release the designs: I'd love to, but I'm really torn between open-source awesomeness and loosing exclusive access to my IP for this project, which could be worth serious dough. In any case, you'll see how it all works when the kickstarter begins. But I'll keep it in mind.
Easy to clean glass: That's a convenient side effect of the new design. It just is.
Outsource software: It really is a different beast compared to most scanners, I honestly doubt that silverfast will be able to run it. But it's worth trying to integrate, especially if it means that some users don't need to learn to use another piece of software.
Another new scanner recently released: I'm familiar with this, and thanks for the link. Honestly, that's just a macro lens on a sideways tripod - The perfect setup for a one-shot scanner, and although I definitely see this as capable of providing acceptable results, I use a different approach that I think is better. Just a heads up, my scanner will only work with transparencies, not prints. Here's another design feature of my scanner: it's using standard microscope objectives as the scanning lenses, which can be upgraded to better brands or higher magnifications.
If ~$2000 defines 'budget' (which it is, relatively), then yes - imagine a smaller, more affordable, better version of that link in your hands by next year, with LF capability.
Thanks everyone so far, good stuff.
Last edited:
Addy101
Well-known
After you developed this big one, you should consider smaller MF and 35mm versions if possible - I think there is a market for those. Cheaper is always better.
What do I rate important:
Colour
Resolution (if there is resolution, sharpness can be added)
Dynamic range (Dmax)
Price
Ease of operation (just keep the software simple and/or make deal with a specialized software maker)
Price? Well, I have no use for a 8x10 sheetfilm scanner, that influences my price point. The Reflecta MF5000, Plustek Opticfilm 120 and Braun FS120 with Silverfast 8 AI Studio is doing around €1700,-, without Silverfast 8 AI Studio the Reflecta MF5000 is under €1400,-. This means €1500,- would be a fair price - however, I will never buy a scanner that is over €1000,-.
Bringing it to the American prices, detracting 20% VAT, you get the following:
Fair price: €1500-(20%)= €1200,- = US$1350,-
My price: €1000-(20%)= €800,- = US$900,-
I'll vote US$800,- as you don't have US$900,-.
What do I rate important:
Colour
Resolution (if there is resolution, sharpness can be added)
Dynamic range (Dmax)
Price
Ease of operation (just keep the software simple and/or make deal with a specialized software maker)
Price? Well, I have no use for a 8x10 sheetfilm scanner, that influences my price point. The Reflecta MF5000, Plustek Opticfilm 120 and Braun FS120 with Silverfast 8 AI Studio is doing around €1700,-, without Silverfast 8 AI Studio the Reflecta MF5000 is under €1400,-. This means €1500,- would be a fair price - however, I will never buy a scanner that is over €1000,-.
Bringing it to the American prices, detracting 20% VAT, you get the following:
Fair price: €1500-(20%)= €1200,- = US$1350,-
My price: €1000-(20%)= €800,- = US$900,-
I'll vote US$800,- as you don't have US$900,-.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Ability to scan medium format up to 6 x 7 or maybe 6 x 9.
Ability to scan 35mm in strips of 5 frames.
easy and convenient use--not "fiddly."
small size. (Mini flatbed?)
Great for black & white and Color.
Lay the film on the glass, or scan glass mounted transparencies.
Choice of JPEG or DNG output.
Ability to scan 35mm in strips of 5 frames.
easy and convenient use--not "fiddly."
small size. (Mini flatbed?)
Great for black & white and Color.
Lay the film on the glass, or scan glass mounted transparencies.
Choice of JPEG or DNG output.
Dralowid
Michael
I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are regarding the size of the potential market.
My requirements? Simply keep it simple!
My requirements? Simply keep it simple!
quejai
Established
Interesting question!
I've often thought about it, but I'm honestly not sure. I'm just going to do the first batch of somewhere between 50 and 200 units, and then see how that goes.
Spanik
Well-known
For me the priorities would be:
- absolute film flatness: no messing with holders, aftermarket holders, height adjustments etc Something like a vacuum holder and the right glass would be nice
- all kinds of formats: from 4x6 to minox without a mountain of holders
- easy to clean and keep dustfree
- for slides and negatives
- (auto)focus or at least a simple, easy way to adjust (and verify!!) it
- rigidity! No use to keep film flat if the scanner itself bends
- speed and resolution
As for any software, I'd like it to be usable with linux. At least inclusion in Vuescan.
- absolute film flatness: no messing with holders, aftermarket holders, height adjustments etc Something like a vacuum holder and the right glass would be nice
- all kinds of formats: from 4x6 to minox without a mountain of holders
- easy to clean and keep dustfree
- for slides and negatives
- (auto)focus or at least a simple, easy way to adjust (and verify!!) it
- rigidity! No use to keep film flat if the scanner itself bends
- speed and resolution
As for any software, I'd like it to be usable with linux. At least inclusion in Vuescan.
Pete B
Well-known
Pakon 135+ with bigger files and 120 capability.
Colour
Sharpness
Speed
Simplicity
Pete
Colour
Sharpness
Speed
Simplicity
Pete
quejai
Established
Scan from a prototype or it didn't happen.
Alright, fine, here is one. It's a tiny crop of a distant building from a Mamiya 6 50mm lens. I haven't got access to the original filmstrip at the moment, so I can't tell you what kind of emulsion it was on, or how large the crop is relative to the full frame - but the longer dimension is probably on the order of 5mm.
This image confirms that the grain is easily resolved. Imagine if you swap out the 4x microscope objective used here to something like 10x or, gasp, something closer to 40x.
Please pardon the damaged film surface, the lack of color, the use of diffused backlighting, the clipping/contrast and the fatiguing grain and tones. It was always meant to be an image for internal use to confirm focus.
But at least this proves that this scanner is not vaporware.
By the way, have a read on Kohler illumination, commonly used in microscopes. That's how the new design is illuminated, and should result in better natural contrast.
Attachments
cpc
Established
If it is indeed "the biggest development" in film scanners in the last decade, you can surely charge $3000 and you'll probably have no big trouble selling your first batch at this price. But this will need to be verified and proven in tests. And the image quality/operational advantage over the alternatives should be clearly visible, i. e. not marginal.
My personal priorities:
1) MF and 135 film; don't care about LF, hence won't want to overpay for it.
2) Obviously image quality: dynamic range, color fidelity, decent sharpness, minimum/no aberrations introduced in scanning.
3) Ease of operation and speed, I'm plenty spoiled by my Minolta Elite (autofocus, autoadvance).
How do you plan to go about profiling and characterizing different films? How about negative film?
My personal priorities:
1) MF and 135 film; don't care about LF, hence won't want to overpay for it.
2) Obviously image quality: dynamic range, color fidelity, decent sharpness, minimum/no aberrations introduced in scanning.
3) Ease of operation and speed, I'm plenty spoiled by my Minolta Elite (autofocus, autoadvance).
How do you plan to go about profiling and characterizing different films? How about negative film?
struene
Established
Wow, i ll save some money for it, if it comes closed to what you promise and stays around ~1000€.
I scan 35mm & 120 "raw" on a Epson v700 and convert through Coloperfect (also BW) and do the rest in LR. I like, that i can prepare several filmstrips and then let it go for the time scanning. Unlike most filmscanners, where one has to foreward each frame manually and scan one-by-one...
But then not everything with the Epson is prefect...:
The most "timekillers" for me are:
- Framing before scanning in EpsonScan and after scanning in PS
- stamping/cloning out the dust/scratches in PS
- editing Camera/Lens/ISo EXIFs with again another tool (the super slow EXIF-TOOL-GUI)
- fiddling around with many tools, as theres is no perfect scaning and editing tool: EpsonScan, Colourperfect, PS, EXIF-TOOL-GUI, LR.... as there is no tool, that gives a good preview and "darkroom-like" control over: exposure/gradation/colourfilters + some dodge&burn with good and consistent results.
The most "qualitykillers" for me are:
- Bad filmflatness and alignment
- The notorious Fog on the Glas/Lens and the Flare
- the limited resolution of~2200dpi
The most "funkillers" for me are:
- as mentioned above: having no counterpart to the Darkroom: simple "digital wetprinting" on a nicely courved paper through exposure/gradation (and the colourfilters for colournegatives). Ergo repeatable and predictible results.
Basicly a forummember already wrote it: Perfect would be a Pakon 135+ that also takes 120 (so a 120+) and with higher resolution (so a Pakon 120+++). (and maybe less aggressive sharpening) Because of:
- simple & fast scanning (no "time-killing")
- Good resolution & no dust (no "quality-killing")
- consistent results (gradation and colour) (no "fun-killing")
- possibility to manually modificate results in a simple "darkroom-manner": exposure/gradation/colourfilters + dodge/burn
hope we hear more from your project.
schöne Grüße,
Johann
I scan 35mm & 120 "raw" on a Epson v700 and convert through Coloperfect (also BW) and do the rest in LR. I like, that i can prepare several filmstrips and then let it go for the time scanning. Unlike most filmscanners, where one has to foreward each frame manually and scan one-by-one...
But then not everything with the Epson is prefect...:
The most "timekillers" for me are:
- Framing before scanning in EpsonScan and after scanning in PS
- stamping/cloning out the dust/scratches in PS
- editing Camera/Lens/ISo EXIFs with again another tool (the super slow EXIF-TOOL-GUI)
- fiddling around with many tools, as theres is no perfect scaning and editing tool: EpsonScan, Colourperfect, PS, EXIF-TOOL-GUI, LR.... as there is no tool, that gives a good preview and "darkroom-like" control over: exposure/gradation/colourfilters + some dodge&burn with good and consistent results.
The most "qualitykillers" for me are:
- Bad filmflatness and alignment
- The notorious Fog on the Glas/Lens and the Flare
- the limited resolution of~2200dpi
The most "funkillers" for me are:
- as mentioned above: having no counterpart to the Darkroom: simple "digital wetprinting" on a nicely courved paper through exposure/gradation (and the colourfilters for colournegatives). Ergo repeatable and predictible results.
Basicly a forummember already wrote it: Perfect would be a Pakon 135+ that also takes 120 (so a 120+) and with higher resolution (so a Pakon 120+++). (and maybe less aggressive sharpening) Because of:
- simple & fast scanning (no "time-killing")
- Good resolution & no dust (no "quality-killing")
- consistent results (gradation and colour) (no "fun-killing")
- possibility to manually modificate results in a simple "darkroom-manner": exposure/gradation/colourfilters + dodge/burn
hope we hear more from your project.
schöne Grüße,
Johann
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What's important?
Maximum true resolution off 35mm
Excellent resolution off rollfilm up to 58mm wide; stitching if necessary for very long formats (over 85mm, say).
Wet-mounting option if possible.
Don't bother with anything bigger: there are plenty of excellent flatbeds already available for 4x5 inch and above.
High Dmax, ease of use, etc. taken for granted.
Although I voted for $1500, that isn't an absolute. At $1000 I'd buy it like a shot; at $2000 it would take a bit longer to get the money together and I'd want to see reviews first. At the moment I can't afford to gamble even $1000 on Kickstarter but I wish you every success with it.
Cheers,
R.
Maximum true resolution off 35mm
Excellent resolution off rollfilm up to 58mm wide; stitching if necessary for very long formats (over 85mm, say).
Wet-mounting option if possible.
Don't bother with anything bigger: there are plenty of excellent flatbeds already available for 4x5 inch and above.
High Dmax, ease of use, etc. taken for granted.
Although I voted for $1500, that isn't an absolute. At $1000 I'd buy it like a shot; at $2000 it would take a bit longer to get the money together and I'd want to see reviews first. At the moment I can't afford to gamble even $1000 on Kickstarter but I wish you every success with it.
Cheers,
R.