edge100
Well-known
I've done that. Ad nauseum.
In order of importance, you need:
1. A solid copy stand
2. An evenly-illuminated light source
3. A solid set of film holders
4. A reasonably high MP DSLR or mirrorless camera that supports live view.
5. A good quality macro lens (AF is nice, but not essential)
I use a Kaiser RS-2, an Artograph Lightpad, Omega enlarger film carriers (35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5), a D800, and a Tokina 100/2.8. All of that was purchased for less than the cost of the FilmToaster (which doesn't include the camera or lens).
As I've repeated several times, the results are better than the 9000ED (res and DR), about the same as an X1 (res more, DR a bit less), and a bit worse than a Heidelberg drum scanner (both res and DR). The convenience and cost is orders of magnitude better than the X1 or drum scanner, and over the 9000ED, my setup has the advantage of being under warranty and the ability to be used as a camera.
I agree that this forum (and others) tends to be a bunch of complainers when anything new comes out. And with respect to the FilmToaster, it's a good idea. But it's at least $1000 too expensive (or should include a camera/lens for the current price).
Ronald M
Veteran
Back in the day we would turn the enlarger head over and use a copy stand.
Contrast can be controlled by leaving unmasked space around the slide. I could copy Kodachrome to Kodachrome and have it look decent.
About a year ago, I suspended a cardboard with a hole for slide , used a focus lamp and electronic flash plus some old color printing filters. It was a proof of concept for a neighbor to make copies of his childrens childhood slides.
This thing looks a lot like Heiland slide copier without the camera track, bellows, and camera. That worked on flash.
Contrast can be controlled by leaving unmasked space around the slide. I could copy Kodachrome to Kodachrome and have it look decent.
About a year ago, I suspended a cardboard with a hole for slide , used a focus lamp and electronic flash plus some old color printing filters. It was a proof of concept for a neighbor to make copies of his childrens childhood slides.
This thing looks a lot like Heiland slide copier without the camera track, bellows, and camera. That worked on flash.
roscoetuff
Well-known
FWIW, I called the folks to find out about this. The first thing is that the price of $2400 (in the thread title) is about double the actual price. The second is that it is aimed primarily at archivists, and it is selling pretty well (acording to the builder/designer). Yes, you can put together a copy stand and bellows, the designer has done that and thought about that in one of his prototypes, but anyone looking at prices for new units (Novoflex) will see they run a pretty penny. And the Espon 850 scanner is just a tad under the price of this unit. Deisgner claims that if you use your DSLR, you'll have better scans than the Epson, and increasing evidence suggests he's right that DSLR scans are better. Nikon Coolscans are very good as the designer mentions, but he's designed this for high volume with equal or better technology. Price remains an obstacle, but if this is the way you want to do it, the repeatability of having a foolproof standardized set-up will appeal to some. Is it worth the money to you is the full question... and I'd expect that to most here, no. We're not the target audience... which is libraries, schools, magazines and the like with extensive film libraries of 1 million or more photographs where speed is a real requirement, and that's speed in terms of 36 "scans" in under 6 minutes. Given the still higher costs of a Nikon scanner and its relative age vs. this unit, and given the cost of bellows-based copy stands - new, you're looking at a macro copy stand. Add in the cost of a macro lens if you don't have one, and THEN you might get to the $2,400 price - or not.
So that's what I found out and thought some might be curious to know more than they did when the first comments were posted here over a year ago.
So that's what I found out and thought some might be curious to know more than they did when the first comments were posted here over a year ago.
mani
Well-known
Thanks for highlighting this project again - I'd forgotten about it. It seems like the cost for a standard, 'consumer' setup is around $999 which, though less than the original $2400 featured in the thread, is still a lot of money for a metal box and a light-source and film-holder.
I still see a place for this sort of equipment, but I wish it was both cheaper and more flexible to setup: looking at the FAQ, it seems the user still has to find extension tubes and lenses with the correct thread (or step-up filters).
Maybe the whole thing would be more convincing if the website didn't spend so much space defending the price, instead of explaining the equipment itself.
Still think there's a Kickstarter opportunity for people building something similar, with more options but less over-specced and over-priced for the general consumer market.
I still see a place for this sort of equipment, but I wish it was both cheaper and more flexible to setup: looking at the FAQ, it seems the user still has to find extension tubes and lenses with the correct thread (or step-up filters).
Maybe the whole thing would be more convincing if the website didn't spend so much space defending the price, instead of explaining the equipment itself.
Still think there's a Kickstarter opportunity for people building something similar, with more options but less over-specced and over-priced for the general consumer market.
frank-grumman
Well-known
A thread illustrating the commentary cued by this device:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161295
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161295
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It isn't, if you like do it quick and looking at the image, not pixels, but apparently loads of people like to do it slow and awkward.
It really works for Minox negatives. I think because Minox photography and film developing is also wierd and awkward. Perfect match.
mani
Well-known
A thread illustrating the commentary cued by this device:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161295
Haha yeah thanks Frank for that entertaining exchange of views on the Filmtoaster - that discussion really did escalate rather quickly.
Setting aside that this piece of equipment is definitely over-priced even at $999, one thing that some of the more experienced members on the forum might tend to forget is that newcomers to film won't know how to get hold of film-holders for 35mm and 120 film; they might not know which copy-stands work for this sort of task, nor how much they should reasonably pay; they don't necessarily know how to mount the camera and lens so it's guaranteed to be parallel to the film, nor what distance and magnification is needed; they might have trouble finding the right light-source, and how to position it relative to the negative or slide; and so on...
Searching on the forum will definitely help to get an overview of a myriad of different options, but I'd certainly appreciate an off-the-shelf, and quality solution to the problem, if I ever decide to go this route instead of scanning.
The Filmtoaster looks like an overpriced option, but putting together all the pieces that are needed from scratch can also be an expensive process - especially for those of us without bits and pieces of old enlargers and film-holders lying around at home.
roscoetuff
Well-known
Yeah. The builder makes no bones about the price being higher in production than he'd like if he were going into large scale production. But again, relative to Epson V850, it ain't all that bad - especially if you already have a digital camera of 24MP or better, and view it as a very rigid stand that makes repeating your set-up easy. The last qualifier is important. And the speed thing is more important to the design process than you think. Doing 36 exposures off a roll is one thing. Trying to digitize an entire film library another, and that's been the real market.
I'm not surprised no one here has gone this route. If you already have a scanner, if you already have your negs scanned, if you already.... then this is redundant and certainly unknown. Proven remains a good verifier, and side-by-side comparisons are something I haven't seen for the reason (I'm guessing) that the variable of cameras and lenses used would be an issue.
The other aspect is that I'm surprised as I look around, the numbers of folks who are using Hasseblad scanners, drum scanners, and especially the prices for Coolscan Nikons that are 10 plus years out of production surprise me. Costs aren't the only are even necessarily the material issue here. And Film Toaster is perhaps an oddball machine for an oddball hybrid market. Not for everyone... definitely. But like I posted, a good bellows/slide copy piece of equipment on ebay can run $300 to $500, and that ain't cheap either. Fellow claims he's sold it mostly to libraries and to some film labs, too. I'm not pushing this by any means, just thought it tends to be unfairly misunderstood and some things merit a closer look. Heck, that's how I got back into film, so why not?
So the bottom line question is will someone make a mid-market dedicated film scanner that fills the bill for new hardware? Most seem to suggest my Plustek is pretty easy to surpass. Okay. And I can't do MF either. Got that. Other options? That will depend on whether or not the hybrid film to digital market is growing from it's pretty doggone small level (my guess). If not, then high prices aren't going to be a surprise any more than rising prices of film and antique cameras will be as we move forward. Maybe Film Toaster is simply a prototype for what will come in a more reasonable price point? Dunno.
I'm not surprised no one here has gone this route. If you already have a scanner, if you already have your negs scanned, if you already.... then this is redundant and certainly unknown. Proven remains a good verifier, and side-by-side comparisons are something I haven't seen for the reason (I'm guessing) that the variable of cameras and lenses used would be an issue.
The other aspect is that I'm surprised as I look around, the numbers of folks who are using Hasseblad scanners, drum scanners, and especially the prices for Coolscan Nikons that are 10 plus years out of production surprise me. Costs aren't the only are even necessarily the material issue here. And Film Toaster is perhaps an oddball machine for an oddball hybrid market. Not for everyone... definitely. But like I posted, a good bellows/slide copy piece of equipment on ebay can run $300 to $500, and that ain't cheap either. Fellow claims he's sold it mostly to libraries and to some film labs, too. I'm not pushing this by any means, just thought it tends to be unfairly misunderstood and some things merit a closer look. Heck, that's how I got back into film, so why not?
So the bottom line question is will someone make a mid-market dedicated film scanner that fills the bill for new hardware? Most seem to suggest my Plustek is pretty easy to surpass. Okay. And I can't do MF either. Got that. Other options? That will depend on whether or not the hybrid film to digital market is growing from it's pretty doggone small level (my guess). If not, then high prices aren't going to be a surprise any more than rising prices of film and antique cameras will be as we move forward. Maybe Film Toaster is simply a prototype for what will come in a more reasonable price point? Dunno.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I willing to help you on this one. Key words are Digital ICE and multi-exposure.
roscoetuff
Well-known
KO FE: Thanks again.
KO FE: Thanks again.
Just googled them and it looks like it may be worth a shot to see what I can pull out using this on the few images that are worth it off a roll. Plustek 8200i is decent for 35mm, but not great. Be curious whether this will make the step ahead. Worth a try. Thanks!
There's a part of me that thinks there's something nice in a flatbed's ability to generate a "proof sheet" that the dedicated-only approach doesn't have. My old flatbed is a V300 series... waaaaay old. But might be "good enough" for that purpose.
End of the day? If I ever give MF a whirl, the step-up in ancillary infrastructure seems a tad daunting. MF cameras are also a tad clunky in size, but wow... the images sure are great.
KO FE: Thanks again.
Just googled them and it looks like it may be worth a shot to see what I can pull out using this on the few images that are worth it off a roll. Plustek 8200i is decent for 35mm, but not great. Be curious whether this will make the step ahead. Worth a try. Thanks!
There's a part of me that thinks there's something nice in a flatbed's ability to generate a "proof sheet" that the dedicated-only approach doesn't have. My old flatbed is a V300 series... waaaaay old. But might be "good enough" for that purpose.
End of the day? If I ever give MF a whirl, the step-up in ancillary infrastructure seems a tad daunting. MF cameras are also a tad clunky in size, but wow... the images sure are great.
roscoetuff
Well-known
Chirs Crawford seems to have particular disdain for the Toaster approach and maybe as well DSLR scanning? The good news is that through his posts I think I've seen the first recommendation (is it?) of the Plustek 120. Curious as well about the Braun 120... as I think they were both about the same price.
Real world? There is no "quick". Assuming you can work the bugs out of a repeatable at-the-ready piece of hardware either home built, or pruchased, you still have to take the DSLR scans and convert them. You can use Photoshop or similar, but I've read Mar Segal's approach using Silverfast's HDR 8 software for the negative conversion before going into post-processing. Makes sense to me. What I didn't like about DSLR scans were the reversal of all (most?) of the controls for fixing images in Capture One (and I'd assume the same in Photoshop/Lightroom). Kind of felt like I was training myself into doing things "wrong". So for me, that'd be two software runs instead of one, but if the speed can be pumped, maybe it gets the equivalent "proof sheet" stage quickly enough to justify. I may revisit this down the pipe.
Real world? There is no "quick". Assuming you can work the bugs out of a repeatable at-the-ready piece of hardware either home built, or pruchased, you still have to take the DSLR scans and convert them. You can use Photoshop or similar, but I've read Mar Segal's approach using Silverfast's HDR 8 software for the negative conversion before going into post-processing. Makes sense to me. What I didn't like about DSLR scans were the reversal of all (most?) of the controls for fixing images in Capture One (and I'd assume the same in Photoshop/Lightroom). Kind of felt like I was training myself into doing things "wrong". So for me, that'd be two software runs instead of one, but if the speed can be pumped, maybe it gets the equivalent "proof sheet" stage quickly enough to justify. I may revisit this down the pipe.
Huss
Veteran
Could not agree more. I'm going to post your link to the DSLR scanning thread.
roscoetuff
Well-known
Huss and Edge100: I'm tending to agree. Fairly a Kaiser RS-2 ain't $1,000, but you can find copy stands in that range if you want. Used looks to run $350 to $600 depending on the source, new/used, etc. And if the equipment ain't on hand, it has a price. My guess is the mark-up is 3X ($30 for Kaiser's same neg holder vs. $99). Standard retail. More power to him if he can get it. But for his intended institutional audience, this is chump change.
I think more material matter is the time involved. Set-up, use and take down ain't chump change - especially if you do it all the time. Neither is post process time. If you can dedicate the space, the camera and all the other hardware permanently, then whether you roll your own or buy this, or a dedicated scanner, the set-up time problem goes away. I think this is the only potential defect with DSLR scanning. Otherwise, I'd agree that the quality and time equation is much better with DSLR's if you can work it.
These days my DSLR is getting less and less use, so some sort of set-up might be a good way to make sure it doesn't atrophy. Question is how to make the set-up both quick to release and quick to align and use. My earlier roll-my-own effort didn't lick that problem, thus an enlarger/copy stand + light source + negative holder alignment + camera presented a lot moving variables, and I wasn't satisfied. Plustek did allow me to eliminate that and get some decent output. Decent isn't amazing. But if I go further in this direction, then I'd be inclined to want some sort of jig you can really use to minimize the fussing with these variables. I think that's his strong point. I'm not a fan of the price even at the actual price of $1200. But then again, I'm not a fan of a lot of photography gear prices.
I think more material matter is the time involved. Set-up, use and take down ain't chump change - especially if you do it all the time. Neither is post process time. If you can dedicate the space, the camera and all the other hardware permanently, then whether you roll your own or buy this, or a dedicated scanner, the set-up time problem goes away. I think this is the only potential defect with DSLR scanning. Otherwise, I'd agree that the quality and time equation is much better with DSLR's if you can work it.
These days my DSLR is getting less and less use, so some sort of set-up might be a good way to make sure it doesn't atrophy. Question is how to make the set-up both quick to release and quick to align and use. My earlier roll-my-own effort didn't lick that problem, thus an enlarger/copy stand + light source + negative holder alignment + camera presented a lot moving variables, and I wasn't satisfied. Plustek did allow me to eliminate that and get some decent output. Decent isn't amazing. But if I go further in this direction, then I'd be inclined to want some sort of jig you can really use to minimize the fussing with these variables. I think that's his strong point. I'm not a fan of the price even at the actual price of $1200. But then again, I'm not a fan of a lot of photography gear prices.
Last edited:
frank-grumman
Well-known
I really appreciate the commentary you all are providing, especially for me since I'm so on the fence about DSLR on the one hand, scanning on the other. I don't hold any fond notions of my being a photographer of any caliber at all, though I do enjoy the process of shooting film for whatever reason. I have seven rolls on my desktop at this point from my newly acquired Nikon F6 and a 28-300VR that my son has let me use and a 135/2 Zeiss Milvus I rented from LensRentals. My DSLR is an Olympus E-M1.1. I have no macro lens, although BH and others have the 60macro for $400. When I add that price to the stand or tripod, add the light table, camera connector to the stand/tripod, level ruler, and card stock, and other stuff I don't know I need, etc., I'm right at the cost of a V850 +/- So, at this point, since I just enjoy the process of taking film but don't enjoy the cost associated with having my local lab produce 4mb files on a CD, I'm gonna give the Plustek a whirl I think. thanks for all your constructive input
michaelwj
----------------
I'm gonna give the Plustek a whirl I think. thanks for all your constructive input
So you're going to do what Chris said?
He knows a lot about scanning, and is well worth listening to. But hey, you make your own choices I suppose.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The current price is $1299, or $1699 with film holders. Since the film holders are integral to the functioning of the unit, I'm not sure why they are not included in the base price. Marketing I suppose.
Huss
Veteran
I really appreciate the commentary you all are providing, especially for me since I'm so on the fence about DSLR on the one hand, scanning on the other. I don't hold any fond notions of my being a photographer of any caliber at all, though I do enjoy the process of shooting film for whatever reason. I have seven rolls on my desktop at this point from my newly acquired Nikon F6 and a 28-300VR that my son has let me use and a 135/2 Zeiss Milvus I rented from LensRentals. My DSLR is an Olympus E-M1.1. I have no macro lens, although BH and others have the 60macro for $400. When I add that price to the stand or tripod, add the light table, camera connector to the stand/tripod, level ruler, and card stock, and other stuff I don't know I need, etc., I'm right at the cost of a V850 +/- So, at this point, since I just enjoy the process of taking film but don't enjoy the cost associated with having my local lab produce 4mb files on a CD, I'm gonna give the Plustek a whirl I think. thanks for all your constructive input
I bought the copy stand new off ebay for $170-ish (all the info is on my thread). I bought my Nikon macro lens used for $200-ish. There is one on fredmiranda for about that price. Most probably others too..
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1491361/0?keyword=60mm#14044030
I bought my lightpad used off ebay for $20. New it would be $90.
etc etc
Set up of the apparatus is maybe, maybe 5 minutes for 120 film. Take out copy stand. Take out light pad. Attach lens to camera. Attach camera to copy stand. Put film in film holder. That's it.
With 35mm film it is take out camera. Attach lens. Attach slide copier to lens. Insert film into film holder and put into slide copier. Point at light source. Take photo. So maybe 2 minutes to set up.
Anyway you have options.
mani
Well-known
Just for the record - because this thread is already full of misinformation - the price for the basic unit plus ONE film holder (either 120 or 35mm) is $999. So for a person just doing 35mm you can buy the setup you need for $999.
I'm not defending that price - which I still think is too much - but there's no need to make stuff up just to attack it.
http://www.filmtoaster.photography/filmtoaster-personal
ptpdprinter
Veteran
[duplicate]
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The website explicitly states that the Film Toaster is "$1299 (without holders)". It must be attacking itself.