Filmtoaster - a device that works with your camera to digitize negatives (only 2400$)

[mani]

The price certainly seems like gouging - but in itself this shows the gap that exists in the market right now: 'experts' on this forum may be able to knock up a cheap version with a copying stand, the right sort of light-source, and some homemade film-holders, but most people need a readymade solution.
The film-toaster people are possibly taking advantage of this need - but until someone (with more integrity) supplies a solution that works off-the-shelf at a more reasonable price, then they are the only game in town, and can charge whatever they like.
I've often said there's space for a Kickstarter that produces a barebones and economical version of something like this - I genuinely wish I had the engineering expertise to make it happen myself.

 

[calebarchie]

You really don't need to be an engineer nor have engineering expertise to do something like this. So much engineer this, engineer that these days.

 

[ian_watts]

I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing the attraction of a unit like this versus the cobbled together copy stand, light table, etc. solution. Not everyone has the space for a permanent set-up like the latter and being able to store something in a cupboard and get it out and use at a moment's notice is a benefit that shouldn't be underestimated. I'm also slightly surprised by the reaction to the price being asked (even being RFF): $1700 does sound high but I imagine these are manufactured one at a time in a workshop somewhere in the USA rather than assembled on a production line in China? Personally, I wouldn't rule out buying such a product myself (even at this price) but I'm unsure about this particular one. For one thing, I'm not sure about marrying a well engineered metal box (and the cost involved with that) with a run-of-the-mill LED light panel designed for a different (if allied) purpose. For another, I'm not sure about the wisdom of holding the camera in position by the lens filter thread. Not only does this seem a little bit fragile (the filter threads are plastic on many modern macro lenses) but I'm not sure how accurate (in terms of keeping the camera sensor plane parallel to the film in the holders) the set-up would be.

 

[sanmich]

Not even talking about the price.
How is it better than, say, an epson V800?

 

[mcfingon]

This is comically overpriced.



What's specifically bad about LEDs regarding digitising negatives? I've not heard this before (and I'm about to endeavor making my own DSLR "scanner" setup) so I'm very interested in knowing about the issues.

I swapped the normal globe in my enlarger/digitizer rig a while ago for an LED globe to see if it made a difference. It runs cooler which stops slide-popping and is brighter and more even than the globe I had before. Dust is no worse that I have noticed. Here's my setup (maybe I should sell an assemble-your-own kit? 🙂
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/howto/making_digitizer_mark_three/

 

[PhotoMat]

Aside from the multi-format capability, how would this differ from using my old Bowens Illumitran slide copier?

 

[mdarnton]

Not even talking about the price.
How is it better than, say, an epson V800?

Oh, that one's easy, especially since this is a 35mm-based forum: more than twice the actual* resolution on 35mm negs, with the right camera and lens.

*actual: real as opposed to the V800s imaginary and unobtainable supposed specs.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I think there's something wrong with your statement. You don't mention what the "more than twice" resolution actually is.

Off the top of my head i thought the V700/V750 to resolve about 1600-2000 dpi. I did end up seeing some tests a friend did with a DSLR or M4/3 camera taking pictures of negatives. It did resolve more than the V500 he was using. Side by side against a Nikon Coolscan image at 4000dpi it had around the same image resolution. However Dmax was sacrificed.

I suppose this could be overcome by bracketing and HDR. But I would put the image resolution somewhere around 3000-4000 dpi.

Now if you want to talk about "film resolution" between emulsions that changes the game as well. However I'm not quite sure even at 4000 dpi we're getting to the level where it matters. Especially when posting to web.

is it overkill? You betcha. If you post to web or intend to print 11x14's a V800 or equivalent should be just fine. Get a better scanning holder and set your holder height as well. This is a common overlooked aspect of flatbed scanning that makes people think its inferior to applications like this.

Scanned with V700

 

[charjohncarter]

Here is my $40.00 version. It worked great, even better than a scanner. I quit using it because I got tired of running from one room to another and connecting down loading cords. I also had it set-up to do 120.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[sevo]

This is comically overpriced.



What's specifically bad about LEDs regarding digitising negatives? I've not heard this before (and I'm about to endeavor making my own DSLR "scanner" setup) so I'm very interested in knowing about the issues.

LED point light has the same issues as every other point light - on the positive side they increase the resolution by providing a very narrow aperture, on the negative they do so by amplifying structural details, regardless whether grain, dirt or scratches.

 

[zauhar]

I have been using a Wolverine 'scanner' with built in 24 mp sensor which stores images on an SD card. Only does 135 and smaller, but for what it is, it's fabulous. You can scan a whole roll in minutes (has LCD preview so you can skip the frames you don't want). Only caveat - it crops slightly in the long direction. I do not use my flatbed scanner any more.

And it cost around $100. All they need do is make a similar model for medium format (yes, I do understand that for MF this approach is less 'competitive')

Randy

 

[Dante_Stella]

LED point light has the same issues as every other point light - on the positive side they increase the resolution by providing a very narrow aperture, on the negative they do so by amplifying structural details, regardless whether grain, dirt or scratches.

Exactly. If you have used a Sprintscan 120 (fluoro tube) and a Nikon LS-8000 (LED), it is a world of difference. I still miss my Sprintscan for its more, ahem, forgiving nature on film that was not handled very well.

Dante

 

[Dante_Stella]

I use an LED light source, but none of my film has scratches. Why are you having problems with scratches? How are you storing your chromes and negatives?

It's just 135 film - it has a lot less to do with storage (which is meticulous and dustproof) than roller-transport labs brutalizing C41 color film. 35mm cameras are also good at scratching the film back with the cartridge felt (both advancing and rewinding), less than perfect pressure plates, and various occult means that are difficult to identify.

I have also seen not-so-straight marks on the emulsion side of 120 b/w that has gone through a lab, but that's pretty clearly a squeegee thing - since with 120, nothing but backing paper touches the back of the film.

Developing film by hand at home, the only thing that gets on my nerves is the occasional tiny crystalline water marks that somehow form even with distilled water. And of course, you don't see them until you have cut the negs.

Dante

 

[edge100]

Not even talking about the price.
How is it better than, say, an epson V800?

I've been 'scanning' with a D800 and a Tokina 100/2.8 macro (and a Kaiser RS-2 copy stand) for about 2 years.

The quality is FAR better than a V800, especially given the ability to stitch from 6 or more images of a 6x7 or 4x5 negative.

I've compared with a 9000ED, an X1, and a Heidelberg drum scanner. The DR and resolution are better than the 9000ED. The X1 is lower res (on MF), but a bit better DR. The Heidelberg is (as expected) better in all respects.

But for less than the cost of this 'toaster', I'm producing the best scans I've ever made, in less time, and for far less money than I would otherwise have to pay.

DSLR/mirrorless scanning is the real deal.

 

[edge100]

LED point light has the same issues as every other point light - on the positive side they increase the resolution by providing a very narrow aperture, on the negative they do so by amplifying structural details, regardless whether grain, dirt or scratches.

This may be so.

And yet, I'm scanning film (colour and B&W neg and reversal), in 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5, with an LED light source (Artograph LightPad), every single day and producing better results than anything short of an Imacon. It's not even close, TBH.

I owned a SprintScan 120 for many years. The D800/macro approach is vastly better (and much, much quieter).

And FWIW, I don't have issues with dust. Bulb blower to remove the bulk, cotton cloves to avoid fingerprints, and content-aware fill to get any residual.

 

[sevo]

This may be so.

And yet, I'm scanning film (colour and B&W neg and reversal), in 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5, with an LED light source (Artograph LightPad),

That is a LED rear illuminated panel, not a point source like in most LED lit film scanners.

 

[mani]

That is a LED rear illuminated panel, not a point source like in most LED lit film scanners.

But the light-source in the film toaster is also a rear illuminated panel(?)

Feels like the discussions on this forum around gadgets like this are always pretty much the same: knee-jerk rejection, 'I can make it myself in half an hour', 'anyone who pays more than $20 is an idiot', and so on.

I don't see much constructive criticism.

Right now I'm using a Coolscan 9000, but I'm intrigued by the possibility of replacing it with a simpler copy-stand setup (say, one of the Olympus cameras that sensor-shifts for a higher megapixel image). But I have no idea about all the issues involved: film-plane parallelism, how to ensure there's no stray light, how to illuminate the film, whether image-stitching would introduce artifacts, and so on...

Maybe instead of simply mocking everything that comes along to help newer film enthusiasts that don't have decades of experience behind them, some of the 'experts' could share their knowledge about how to actually achieve the best results without spending thousands of dollars?

 

[MikeL]

Feels like the discussions on this forum around gadgets like this are always pretty much the same: knee-jerk rejection, 'I can make it myself in half an hour', 'anyone who pays more than $20 is an idiot', and so on.

I don't see much constructive criticism.

I think the statements on price are constructive criticism. Or at least constructive in helping folks think before wasting their money.

Right now I'm using a Coolscan 9000, but I'm intrigued by the possibility of replacing it with a simpler copy-stand setup (say, one of the Olympus cameras that sensor-shifts for a higher megapixel image). But I have no idea about all the issues involved: film-plane parallelism, how to ensure there's no stray light, how to illuminate the film, whether image-stitching would introduce artifacts, and so on...

Maybe instead of simply mocking everything that comes along to help newer film enthusiasts that don't have decades of experience behind them, some of the 'experts' could share their knowledge about how to actually achieve the best results without spending thousands of dollars?

That's not the point of the thread. This one is about the Filmtoaster.

If you want folks to share with you tips on using copy-stands just start your own thread.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Maybe instead of simply mocking everything that comes along to help newer film enthusiasts that don't have decades of experience behind them, some of the 'experts' could share their knowledge about how to actually achieve the best results without spending thousands of dollars?

This entire forum is that exact thing

 

[mcfingon]

Haha, I love that contraption. Do you find the results to be good?

Also, what does "slide-popping" mean?

Yes, Doc (I hope I can call you Doc), the results are good. See the slide below shot on an M4-P/Summilux 50 at f1.4 in 1993. By slide-popping I mean when the heating from a hot light source causes the slide to move in its mount and go out of focus, sometimes with an audible pop as the film moves.