sooner
Well-known
Hi All,
I was talking to a photography pal the other day about the current state of the camera market, including all these DIY solutions out there for film processing and scanning. That got me wondering what people here would prefer to see and would potentially spend money buying if a new product were to emerge, if anything. For example, with all the dslr scanning going on, would people even buy a new dedicated film scanner, or is it critically about finding one for less than a grand? What about a new MF camera, or are people happy buying up the used classics out there? What about a film processor like the Filmomat if one were "affordable?" I'll try to post a poll but if it doesn't work, feel free to post a comment with your thoughts.
I was talking to a photography pal the other day about the current state of the camera market, including all these DIY solutions out there for film processing and scanning. That got me wondering what people here would prefer to see and would potentially spend money buying if a new product were to emerge, if anything. For example, with all the dslr scanning going on, would people even buy a new dedicated film scanner, or is it critically about finding one for less than a grand? What about a new MF camera, or are people happy buying up the used classics out there? What about a film processor like the Filmomat if one were "affordable?" I'll try to post a poll but if it doesn't work, feel free to post a comment with your thoughts.
KenR
Well-known
New 35mm
New 35mm
I would love to see new film cameras in all formats - 35mm as well as MF. The entry level 35mm (=cheap) used cameras from the 80’s and 90’s are getting a bit long in the tooth. While it may be easy for some to replace the back seals, most people aren’t going to do that. And when the plastic circuit boards fail, there are no replacements available. So I would like to see a basic 35mm SLR with a common mount as well as premier gear for more advanced hobbyists (and dare I say it) and pros.
New 35mm
I would love to see new film cameras in all formats - 35mm as well as MF. The entry level 35mm (=cheap) used cameras from the 80’s and 90’s are getting a bit long in the tooth. While it may be easy for some to replace the back seals, most people aren’t going to do that. And when the plastic circuit boards fail, there are no replacements available. So I would like to see a basic 35mm SLR with a common mount as well as premier gear for more advanced hobbyists (and dare I say it) and pros.
majid
Fazal Majid
It would be nice to have a new film scanner in the same class as my Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED, but the market has spoken and there is clearly no significant market for it just as there isn't for the recently discontinued F6 film SLR either.
das
Well-known
I would buy a high quality 35mm/120 dedicated scanner tomorrow.
CMur12
Veteran
This is what I, too, would dearly love to see.
I have accumulated way more film cameras than I can possibly use, so a new one holds little appeal for me. A quality 135/120 scanner, however, would give a big boost to film photography.
- Murray
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
I don’t think supply-and-demand can warrant a less expensive film processor. The film processor may appeal to those who use a lot of film, or perhaps a very small lab. For personal use, my under-$2 Yankee tank from 1972 is sufficient.
With cellphone cameras already hurting the digital camera market, I can’t imagine anyone introducing a well-specified film camera. There are just too many existing film cameras already available for film enthusiasts. My electronics-dependent cameras from the 1980s and 1990s might fail me (or outlive me), but for every camera I have with electronics, I have three or four which are 100% manual and will need only a CLA.
A new dedicated film scanner might be welcomed by the market. I have an Epson V800 and am frustrated by trying to keep dust off the top glass, the bottom glass, the top and bottom of the film holder glass, and the negative itself. Also: the film holders feel very fragile and imprecise. It’s amazing it works as well as it does.
With cellphone cameras already hurting the digital camera market, I can’t imagine anyone introducing a well-specified film camera. There are just too many existing film cameras already available for film enthusiasts. My electronics-dependent cameras from the 1980s and 1990s might fail me (or outlive me), but for every camera I have with electronics, I have three or four which are 100% manual and will need only a CLA.
A new dedicated film scanner might be welcomed by the market. I have an Epson V800 and am frustrated by trying to keep dust off the top glass, the bottom glass, the top and bottom of the film holder glass, and the negative itself. Also: the film holders feel very fragile and imprecise. It’s amazing it works as well as it does.
agentlossing
Well-known
I voted dedicated film scanner, as it's what I've jut got. 35mm only, unfortunately, but it (Pacific Image XAs) is worlds better than a flatbed, and I suspect every bit as good as the best DSLR setup, if not better. I'm really happy with the results.
das
Well-known
There has not been a high quality 120 film scanner (other than the Imacons) produced in almost 20 years. It is a real shame that the Pacific Image and Plustek 120 models do not seem to work well -- with mostly all reviews saying that they developed banding and other issues. Build a robust at least 4000 dpi 120/135 scanner for $1500 or less and people will buy it. Film manufacturers such as Ilford and Kodak should think long and hard about supporting such a project because it would only increase film sales in the longterm.
oldwino
Well-known
I've compared my XAs with a Nikon Z6/60micro/ES-2 combo. The XAs is pretty much there with sharpness, but the Z6 beats it ever so slightly with dynamic range. Slightly.
The camera method is faster though...
That's for black & white and color positives. For color negative, the XAs and Vuescan is the way to go, IMO.
Takkun
Ian M.
I made a post last year wondering something similar—why despite the current boon of film there isn't much beyond flatbeds and the Plustek/PI/Braun scanners that nobody seems to really love. I think what was surmised was that despite the film resurgence, it's a miniscule fraction of the market (and near nonexistent in commercial use beyond, say, minilabs) so there's no real impetus to invest in building new ones, and there's plenty old ones out there that still do work. Just going on other film photographers I know, they either shell out for scans with processing at labs, or DSLR scan.
I, for one, would love a new dedicated film scanner like the old Coolscans, with an automatic transport and multiple formats. (I'd also love a new MF camera that isn't a 3D-printed box camera, but the only option, the Rollei Hy6 II, is just a bit out of my price range!) But I don't really foresee any of the big manufacturers going for it at the moment. I would imagine for Epson and Canon, the flatbed market is small enough as it is, and they're happy building something double-duty for those of us that still scan at home.
I've been DSLR scanning for a little over a year now, with far better results than I got with my Coolscan, but it's been a massive time investment—I built a few prototype negative holders and light sources before waiting many months for the Negative Supply Kickstarter, which to date I think is the best setup for volume scanning. Then I ended up going through several different light pads/tables trying to find an adequate source, and finally ditching the tripod for a copy stand of my own design. Add to that the back-end kludge of running a script to flip the levels in C1 and trying to remember which adjustments work in reverse or not.
Phenomenal results in the end, and I have some sense of pride building my setup, but it would be so much nicer to have a single box to stick negatives into and spits out DNG positives. It's like rolling your own developer—some like the tinkering, but others don't want to bother, and that's okay.
I could see someone enterprising building a fully automated machine that one slots a user-supplied body like a Fuji into, with an accompanying control software suite and offering that on Kickstarter or something. Plenty of enterprising people have made little apps to do various component functions like automated capture, DNG conversion, etc, it would just take putting it all together.
But that, I would guess, would be massively expensive. See the Filmomat—I tinkered a bit with Arduino kits (before losing interest!) and my first thought was building an automated film processor. Someone did that, but it's not even close to cost effective, and doesn't have the wide range of accessories as, say, the old Jobo Autolabs.
Not being pessimistic, just thinking out loud. I do think DSLR scanning will be what takes off, with a cottage industry around accessories like NS is doing. The big advantage is most photogs already own the most expensive component, the sensor.
As a coda, in relation to new cameras—I suppose the irony of film photography these days is we have so much technology to build with, like 3D printing/CNC to build out a large format camera from scratch, and digital editing and printing that rivals darkroom prints, but without the heft of a giant multi-national company, we won't see something as electro-mechanically advanced as the F6.
I, for one, would love a new dedicated film scanner like the old Coolscans, with an automatic transport and multiple formats. (I'd also love a new MF camera that isn't a 3D-printed box camera, but the only option, the Rollei Hy6 II, is just a bit out of my price range!) But I don't really foresee any of the big manufacturers going for it at the moment. I would imagine for Epson and Canon, the flatbed market is small enough as it is, and they're happy building something double-duty for those of us that still scan at home.
I've been DSLR scanning for a little over a year now, with far better results than I got with my Coolscan, but it's been a massive time investment—I built a few prototype negative holders and light sources before waiting many months for the Negative Supply Kickstarter, which to date I think is the best setup for volume scanning. Then I ended up going through several different light pads/tables trying to find an adequate source, and finally ditching the tripod for a copy stand of my own design. Add to that the back-end kludge of running a script to flip the levels in C1 and trying to remember which adjustments work in reverse or not.
Phenomenal results in the end, and I have some sense of pride building my setup, but it would be so much nicer to have a single box to stick negatives into and spits out DNG positives. It's like rolling your own developer—some like the tinkering, but others don't want to bother, and that's okay.
I could see someone enterprising building a fully automated machine that one slots a user-supplied body like a Fuji into, with an accompanying control software suite and offering that on Kickstarter or something. Plenty of enterprising people have made little apps to do various component functions like automated capture, DNG conversion, etc, it would just take putting it all together.
But that, I would guess, would be massively expensive. See the Filmomat—I tinkered a bit with Arduino kits (before losing interest!) and my first thought was building an automated film processor. Someone did that, but it's not even close to cost effective, and doesn't have the wide range of accessories as, say, the old Jobo Autolabs.
Not being pessimistic, just thinking out loud. I do think DSLR scanning will be what takes off, with a cottage industry around accessories like NS is doing. The big advantage is most photogs already own the most expensive component, the sensor.
As a coda, in relation to new cameras—I suppose the irony of film photography these days is we have so much technology to build with, like 3D printing/CNC to build out a large format camera from scratch, and digital editing and printing that rivals darkroom prints, but without the heft of a giant multi-national company, we won't see something as electro-mechanically advanced as the F6.
Kai-san
Filmwaster
I voted for the scanner, but in fact my needs are pretty well covered for now. I use an Epson V750 for 120 films, which could be improved. Last year I purchased a Reflecta RPS 10M, I believe it's sold under the Pacific brand in the US. It can scan anything 35mm from 3 frame strips to a whole roll + single framed slides . It is said to have an effective resolution of 4300 ppi compared to 3900 ppi for the Nikon 5000ED. I scan 2 rolls of 35mm film per week on average, and it has been trouble free so far. I use Silverfast 8 as scanning software, the supplied software is pretty basic and not something I would consider using.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
That’s a good idea. There would be the basic fixture, to which could be added adaptors for various popular digital cameras. The fixture would provide mounting for the negatives (35mm, 120, whatever), and also a controllable light source and means for controllable even illumination. I would think the end cost for something like that could be less than $500.
jzagaja
Well-known
35mm you can scan on very best cinematography scanners for cheap. (16bit HDR). I've sent to Cine Lab and will show comparison with drum scanner.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've pretty have all the film cameras and film processing/scanning/etc gear that I'll ever need already, and that's after having sold off a ton of it a few years back. And despite that I continue to indulge in buying another thing or two every so often based on whim and caprice.
Producing NEW film gear of the quality and versatility of the stuff that used to be available is a dicey proposition due to the tiny audience, the enormous amount of effort it takes to do so, and the likely miniscule return on the investment it will make.
I'm happy enough that what's out there is out there used at reasonable prices that I can afford.
G
Producing NEW film gear of the quality and versatility of the stuff that used to be available is a dicey proposition due to the tiny audience, the enormous amount of effort it takes to do so, and the likely miniscule return on the investment it will make.
I'm happy enough that what's out there is out there used at reasonable prices that I can afford.
G
agentlossing
Well-known
Personally I want results immediately upon developing. If I were sending away for scans, I might as well have them do the development too and save myself the trouble. I like having an end-to-end process.
jzagaja
Well-known
Scanning at home with 24Mpix is pretty good. 5000dpi without problem. Large enlargements (high dpi) only needed for 35m and smaller (8mm). So your digital camera will be better than worn drum scanner (register error, low shadow detail). I used to see neg scans from RED camera (35mm frame) using RGB led and it's stunning.
sooner
Well-known
What does "cheap" mean? Funny you should write this because I saw a company advertise its cinematography scanner on its website, promising really high speed scanning, but the machine cost $30k. I assume you would have to know the company and it's not a regular service being offered for non-cinema/movie film shooters?
jzagaja
Well-known
Few years ago it was 15 cents per frame on Arriscanner. Cine scanner is just large cmos with high end lens like printing Nikkor. With multiple flash you get true 16 bit. Drum scanner may have less ghosting and better grain definition - I'm checking with Xena scanner since Lasergraphics has Super35mm gate only.
sooner
Well-known
So the consensus seems to be a scanner. I find it surprising that we only had about a 5 percent response rate to the poll; you'd think on a rather specialized site like RFF that every one of the 690 viewers of the thread would have had an opinion! My hope is that we see new offerings in all these categories in the next few years.