Designing a new film scanner; need your help

[jzagaja]

BTW - is it possible make something like Imacon but with PMT? For example you use single line DLP and turn on every pixel side by side with high rate. Probably too complicated compared to Kinograph.

 

[Charles S]

You may want to have a chat with these folks:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/392837874210913/

 

[mdarnton]

You might also try the Large Format Photography Forum. They might less likely to trash any idea that goes beyond their own individual specific needs.

 

[x-ray]

Also this guy built an xy dslr film scanner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXy7RJwIBAo

I was thinking about something similar but the carriage could be manually moved.

 

[v3cron]

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.

THIS!!!! There is currently no way to get a great scan from a print without buying a very old scanner. Epson has lowered the bar so far, that people pay $2500 for a tabloid sized version of a $100 scanner just because they slapped the word "pro" on it. The scan quality is nothing compared to a Creo or Lanovia. The film scans from those two also beat out any dedicated CCD film scanner.

Basically a flatbed with transparency capability, up to 12x17", with amazing *OPTICS* would fill a gaping hole in the market. Another film-only scanner would not. Why not do both? You could then also grab the pre-press market which requires that kind of machine.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You might also try the Large Format Photography Forum. They might less likely to trash any idea that goes beyond their own individual specific needs.

Really? Large format IS an individual specific need.

Though to be fair I don't see many ideas being "trashed" on this thread.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rolfe]

Copy the Pakon 135+, updated to run on modern OS and with more resolution.

A version that could do 120 a la Kodak HR-500 would be a bonus.

 

[majid]

I owned a Lanovia Quattro and 5000 Finescan Fuji and agree

How large was the CCD sensor on the Fuji?

How was the film mounted and held flat against the platen?

How was illumination provided?

I wonder if we could get similar results using a Foveon sensor camera like the DP2 Merrill , an enlarger lens and some sort of X-Y stepper rig.

 

[Corran]

Hey, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I'm curious.

I currently own and use a Screen Cezanne, which when purchased new was over $40,000 I believe. It is a fantastic scanner. So I don't really need a new scanner, but there are a few things that would be nice, as an improvement, at which point I would be tempted to buy as a secondary scanner.

First and foremost, of equal importance to me would be:
Color, highlight/shadow retention (dynamic range or DMax), and resolution per sq. inch (at least 4,000 DPI or more for smaller formats, 2-3,000 for larger).

Secondly would be throughput. I shoot a lot of film so scanning one image at a time, for instance, is a non-starter for me, personally.

Third, intelligent and well-designed hardware and software, with good compatibility, and especially with Windows. My current Cezanne I have to use a Mac, which is a dreadfully stupid piece of junk (putting on my flame suit now ). As mentioned by others, an excellent film holder or other system for best scans.

Oh yeah, 135/120 film only is okay I guess, but up to 4x5 for me would be way better.

I think any new film scanner idea is an interesting one, and I am curious as to what you are doing specifically. I hope it is not another "use your DSLR" kind of thing, which I think is inefficient and time-consuming personally.

Finally, I don't think a poll for pricing is garnering you anything useful. When you have a product, get back to me (us), otherwise it's meaningless speculation.

 

[x-ray]

How large was the CCD sensor on the Fuji?

How was the film mounted and held flat against the platen?

How was illumination provided?

I wonder if we could get similar results using a Foveon sensor camera like the DP2 Merrill , an enlarger lens and some sort of X-Y stepper rig.

I never had occasion to go into the head that carried the CCD. My guess is it was several I ches across but really can't say. I think I still have the 500 page service manual in PDF form and will see if I can find it. The platen was -3x18 inch coated optical glass. The bottom was regular optical glass and coated and the top was coated anti Newton glass that was a pressure plate to hold the film flat. You could drymount are wet mount on the platen.

There were twin cold cathode tubes for reflective that traveled with the "camera as it was called" and optical system which consisted of 4 different very high quality Apo process lenses. These were coated with an almost metallic reddish Orange coating much mike used on scopes and binoculars now. Depending on the Repro size determined the specific lens. The transparency illuminated was a si fle cold cathode tube in the tom that also moved in sync with the "camera". The tubes were about 15" long and had a built in reflector on one side to improve efficiency.

The camera CCD assembly moved in the XY axis to make every spot on the platen a sweet spot optically.

With XY axis scanning there's no need to stitch like Creo/Scitex/Kodak do. I don't know if one is better but XY scanning was fast and worked perfect every time.

I forgot to mention that you could place film directly on the platen or there were special mounts that were coded and read by the scanner. You could fill up the mount with whatever size it was made for and lay it on the platen. When making the preview select in the software the film holder function and the svanner was pre programed to know exactly where each piece of film was. You didn't have to put a marque around each piece of film, the scanner automatically did it and scanned full frame. You could batch scan extremely fast. Also the scanner autofocuses on the fly and focused on each piece of film.

 

[x-ray]

I wonder if we could get similar results using a Foveon sensor camera like the DP2 Merrill , an enlarger lens and some sort of X-Y stepper rig.

I don't know why a Fovion wouldn't work. The CCD worked much like a Fovion reading pure RGB with no interpolation. It would be interesting to take a camera apart and substitute the Fovion for the CCD. I suspect it would take some serious modification though. I don't know what the advantage would be though.

Thinking back about the Fuji I think the CCD was a bar type like in a scanning camera back.

 

[quejai]

Hey again, all

Just a bit of an update of where the project is at:

The design is fundamentally complete. It's essentially an X-Y table digital microscope, and I forecast the base price to be around $1400 USD. It will receive film mounted to glass, whether wet or dry, in a slot that is as wide as a 6-exposure strip of 35mm film is long. i.e., it's similar to feeding a pakon scanner the film sideways. This means that a very fast rate of bulk scanning film of all sizes is plausible, I'm pretty sure that it will be faster to scan than load the next holder. Generally.

I've also realised that a dry feeding slot could be attached so that it works like a pakon for anything between 8mm cine to 4x5 sheet film. Thanks to this forum, I've realised how important this is in generating fast, easy-to-load medium-quality 'previews' that can then be wet-scanned as necessary. Because of the slot width, several uncut rolls of 35mm or 120mm film could theoretically be scanned at the same time, in parallel.
Some users won't use this feature at all, but I estimate that it will actually be the most common way this scanner is used. Be aware that this will have inferior resolution to wet-mounting on glass.
I'm still thinking about how to design a slide bulk-dry-loader, so you can preview your slides without having to dismount them and use the glass holder.



I have enough funding to order parts to make the prototype hardware, and so I'm in the process of ordering them now. That means that when uni winds down (in about a month), the parts should all be here, and I can spend a couple of weeks building and testing the unit, writing the manual, etc. I'm also working on the software in an iterative way; initially building something very basic that just scans/crops/saves and that works on windows/mac/linux. When that's done, I'll add more optional features over time, and of course I'll try to avoid the terrible standard of OEM scanning software.

Also, I have finally decided that yes, the software control/API for the scanner will be publicly documented. That means that people who use third-party programs will need to be extra careful of safety issues to themselves, their film and their scanner; but I think those are all able to be overcome.

A couple of parts are ordered and on the way, such as an image sensor. This sensor is essentially a 'placeholder' component that will let me build some other bits of the scanner around it before getting the final peltier-cooled CMOS sensor set up. This will still enable some very important tests involving color handling and mechanical rigidity / alignment / autofocus to be performed.



Long story short, there should be some sample images uploaded in late November.

 

[bence8810]

Thanks to this forum, I've realised how important this is in generating fast, easy-to-load medium-quality 'previews' that can then be wet-scanned as necessary.

This is fantastic news. If it will indeed scan MF like the Pakon does 135, you just sold a scanner.

Good luck!
Ben

 

[Corran]

Cool. I just hope the scanner will deliver usable files without necessarily wet-mounting - not just "previews."

I have no interest in wet-mounting anything, ever, myself. I think the gain over a good ANR glass mounting system is miniscule.

 

[quejai]

Cool. I just hope the scanner will deliver usable files without necessarily wet-mounting - not just "previews."

I have no interest in wet-mounting anything, ever, myself. I think the gain over a good ANR glass mounting system is miniscule.

While wet-mounting is the only way to truly get the best results, dry mounting (either with glass or by continuous glassless feed) will definitely produce very usable results, mainly differing in sharpness.

 

[Corran]

I guess what I mean to say is, if the scanner you build is quite inferior without wet-mounting (quantifiable by 15-20% or more, say) due to, perhaps, design or holder issues, then I personally wouldn't buy it. In a test someone I know did, he used the scanner I own and tried both wet and dry mounting, and the differences were pretty much nil (5% or less, I believe). This is because the way in which the film is put in the scanner results in a nice flat negative. Other scanners have issues with that part and may indeed get increased sharpness with wet-mounting.

I understand that it will be "better" no matter what, but how much better (or how much worse without) is the important part.

This is just my opinion, and only because I don't have time or inclination to wet-mount anything.

 

[btgc]

I'm now trying to rearrange my desk where good part is occupied by V550 and now I want it as small as 135 film scanner. Dedicated MF scanner costs more than square meter of flat in the town, but is easier to acquire and own than expand/swap flat.

 

[quejai]

I guess what I mean to say is, if the scanner you build is quite inferior without wet-mounting (quantifiable by 15-20% or more, say) due to, perhaps, design or holder issues, then I personally wouldn't buy it. In a test someone I know did, he used the scanner I own and tried both wet and dry mounting, and the differences were pretty much nil (5% or less, I believe). This is because the way in which the film is put in the scanner results in a nice flat negative. Other scanners have issues with that part and may indeed get increased sharpness with wet-mounting.

I understand that it will be "better" no matter what, but how much better (or how much worse without) is the important part.

This is just my opinion, and only because I don't have time or inclination to wet-mount anything.

Good points, once the prototype is built I'll be able to give quantified differences.

 

[Ranchu]

A couple guys on rff shared with us a way of holding the film with two magnetic sheets, with appropriate holes cut in them. It worked really well, from his samples. I thought I'd probably scratch my film eventually though.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97925

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124731

 

[majid]

I think Imacon had the right idea - putting the film in a cylindrical holder makes it completely straight in the axial direction.