What film manufacturers can do to bring back film

FWIW, I use a Coolscan V ED, Vuescan, and a G5 iMac with a gig and a half of memory. They all talk with each other over a USB 2.0 line.

Scans usually run about 5 minutes, slides or negatives.

The easiest and usually cheapest way to speed up any digitizing process is to throw memory at it.
 
amateriat said:
Hold up a sec...(you might call this a technical time-out) :)

We both use the same film scanner (Minolta 5400...mine's the original version; is yours the original or the 5400 II?). My full-on color neg scans (5400dpi, 16-bit, dICE on), at most, would take about 15 minutes a crack, more often a little under ten. This was with a "slow" Power Mac G4 (466Mhz/1.5GB RAM and a few 7200RPM internal HDs). This Mac was just replaced by a new(er) G4 (1.25Ghz DP/2GB RAM, same HDs as before, plus one) and the scan times are a little faster still. One difference might be the scanning software: I'm using VueScan most of the time, and only use Minolta's SW occasionally. VS offers me more control, faster throughput, and at least somewhat less overhead.

I'm also using FireWire to connect the scanner. Might you possibly be using USB 1.1 on that PC?

Just askin'.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

Barrett,
I am using a USB connection on my PC. Very fast PC with 4 GB of memory. Even PS runs fast on it. I think my Minolta 5400 is the original model. It says "Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400" on the front. I use Minolta's own software which to my surprise I liked much better than VueScan. But I also use the USB port to connect my Epson R1800 printer and it sucks down a 50MB file faster than I can measure.

/T
 
T: Yep, you have the same (first) version of the 5400. And, even though you didn't mention it specifically, you likely have the faster USB 2.0 (the specs on the 5400 state "Hi-Speed USB", but I'm not altogether sure if that means USB 2.0). which might also explain why your PC may spit out a 50mb file to your printer lickety-spit, but might be taking its time with the scanner. It might be educational, if not beneficial, to put a FW card in the PC to see if that wouldn't speed things up. (Besides speed, FireWire doesn't eat up overhead the way USB does; and, in the case that the 5400's USB ain't really 2.0, you could expect a serious kick in throughout.).

Just a few thoughts to throw out.

(Edit: According to a quick online check, the original 5400 does, indeed utilize USB 2.0; wasn't sure that was what the "Hi-Speed" moniker indicated, but it does.)

- Barrett
 
Last edited:
My set up using the original model 5400 and Minolta SW is to run it through a P4 3.0 GHz PC with 2 gigs of RAM. It is connected by a USB 2.0 cable. It seems to give scan times similar to Barrett's Mac setup. Could the exposure of the actual negative effect scan times? Say a denser than normal neg being harder for the scanner to chew through? Not an expert, that is why I am asking.

Bob
 
Tuolumne said:
It seems to me that the biggest problem most film photographers face today is getting their images digitized. I know there are still people who have an all analogue work flow, but they are fewer and fewer. Most film users still digitize their output to share it, print it, or whatever. And therein lies the rub. I just got 10 rolls of processed film back and now I have to deal with all this "stuff". Plus, I will have to digitize it to do anything useful, a long and painful process. I think that if the digitization of film were easier more people woul use it.

Why is it that I can shoot a fully detailed, correctly exposed, correclty colored photo of reality in a millisecond, but to get a similar image digitized takes many painful minutes or more? Why can't I take a picture of a picture just as fast and just as accurately as I can take a picture of reality? The only reason I can think of is that digitizing images has always been and continues to be an afterthought, not considered a mainstream picture taking activity. If I were a film manufactureer I would be investing some of my money in making a film scanner as good as the cameras out there. I, and perhaps many others, would start shooting alot more film if such a device were available.

/T
Click to expand...

I did not read the other posts so I don't know where this thread is going. I can only scratch my head and wonder why you want a digitized image of a film original? If that is really what you want, why not just use a digital camera? There are reasons to use film and there are reasons to use digital but to start with film when what you want is a digital result is a waste of time.

I mostly use film and I print it in my own chemical darkroom. I have scanned film in the past, found it to be a PIA and never liked the results. I also shoot digital and feel it's a better way to go if you want a final digital image.
 
Bob: You just reminded me of something: make certain you don't have multi-sampling on unless you feel you need it. This will slow things way-the-heck down (naturally). This might sound elementary, but I've inadvertently left this switched on a few times, and now remember to do a thorough "flight-check" before each and every scanning session (as one should do anyway). Playing with various setting to find the acceptable speed/quality nexus can be useful as well. I just have this gut feeling that T's scan times should be a good deal faster than they are.


- Barrett
 
Dogman said:
I did not read the other posts so I don't know where this thread is going. I can only scratch my head and wonder why you want a digitized image of a film original? If that is really what you want, why not just use a digital camera? There are reasons to use film and there are reasons to use digital but to start with film when what you want is a digital result is a waste of time.

I mostly use film and I print it in my own chemical darkroom. I have scanned film in the past, found it to be a PIA and never liked the results. I also shoot digital and feel it's a better way to go if you want a final digital image.
Click to expand...
Well, here's where it comes down to the workflow one either prefers or is most used to. I'm not crazy about SLRs or the typical digital camera's workflow, so I avoid most digcams now (with the exception of my Casio p/s). I don't have the wherewithal for a "proper" wet darkroom, so a post-shoot digital studio setup is the setup for me. There's more than one way to skin a cat (ailurophiles, sit down: I love cats, too): all-chemical, all-digital, and Something In Between, which I prefer.

(Whoa...is this really post #100?)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Barrett

I never use multi pass scanning but a pre flight check to make sure it is not on is definitely a good idea. I tried it out and could not see it making enough of a difference to warrant the even slower scan time with it on. Your gut and mine say the same thing about T's scan times, they really should be a good deal faster. I have talked to others using the 5400 and their scan times are about what I have been getting. It is a puzzle for sure.

Bob
 
amateriat said:
(Whoa...is this really post #100?)

- Barrett
Click to expand...

Some thread just take a life of its own :)

T, just shoot film for your special occasions, not more than you're comfortable/discipline enough to scan, for the snapshots, or work, use digital, it's what they're for :D
 
I am coming to the conclusion that I should only shoot film when film makes a difference to the final image. So, for example, I do shoot alot more medium format than I used to because I like the image quality better than even what my digital cameras give me. Also, as noted above when you shoot medium format, you tend to have alot fewer negatives/slides to handle. It's just a slower more deliberate process. I also shoot 120/220 in my Noblex panoramic. An even slower process with even fewer negatives on a roll. These are super-high quality negs with a unique image format that no digital camera I can afford will provide. Then, I also have some unusual 35mm film, Fuji Fortia SP which gives very deep saturation. It's expensive and comes from Japan, so that is another reason where the film makes a difference. What's getting harder for me to justify is shooting regular old color or B&W 35mm film. It seems that one or another of my digicams can do that better. But then I have to give up all of the cameras that I really like, the Leica M bodies, and I miss not shooting them. So, I shoot them to shoot them and then have to deal with the hybrid workflow result. Now I've come full circle to using more film, even straight C-41 35mm. Oh well, vive la difference and chaqun a son gout!

/T
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
I was noticing this morning at Wal-Mart that they had removed the dozens of single-use cameras that used to adorn the front of the the counter and replaced them with memory cards. The guy behind the counter said they were giving the single-use cameras half of the 2'x2' space that the film used to own back by the file folders.

I usually get a CD of the film when I get it processed there. I'm concerned that, at least the Wal-Mart here, is going to stop offering the CD's. It really seems like they want to eventually have everyone using digital and just sticking the memory cards into those print kiosks that litter that area, now. Guess it would save them money of staffing.
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm sure that's the plan.
 
Tuolumne
Unless you shoot something really posterized like Neopan1600 or Delta 3200, there is no digital sensor on this planet yet, capable of making a B&W image that can challenge the tonality of traditional silver film. As far as I am concerned, digital is a colour only game for now.
 
I've been wondering about this myself lately, but then I realised that I'm looking at it the wrong way;

Time it takes to scan and make print digitally: X
Time it takes to print in wet darkroom: X

I bet that most of the times X is the same, if not more in the wet darkroom. I don't see how the digital process is any slower.

If you're talking about sorting/selecting images; then if you shoot film; get out your light table and your loupe and do it. If you shoot digital, then fire up your PC and do it.

Don't try to apply digital thinking to an analog process.

You also have to ask; what am I doing with all these images I scan? How many of the images you scan become prints or go online? I'm willing to bet that the problem is not the time it takes to scan, I bet the problem is that people have never learnt to edit their own images...
 
csaunders said:
I'm willing to bet that the problem is not the time it takes to scan, I bet the problem is that people have never learnt to edit their own images...
Click to expand...

very true..
 
I find it difficult to judge the quality of a negative by inspecting it, and my near-sightedness makes using a loupe impossible. Nothing comes to focus with them anymore. Chromes, on the other hand, are easier, but since I can no longer magnify them, they remain something of a problem. I suppose I could use one of those little hand-held projectors for the chromes, though.

/T
 
Last edited:
The unpleasant truth is that hybrid workflows will never be as instantaneous as all digital. ever. I shoot and develop my own film, and scan. When I print, it is usually from a digital file. The single largest time investment for me is in the darkroom, developing. The second largest chunk of time is at the scanner. The post-processing? At worst, a matter of minutes, and I do each image individually, no presets. It usually takes more time to spot the dust out, but again, a matter of minutes only if it's spectacularly dirty.

If your images take hours of post processing, you might want to take a step back and look at your image capture technique. As with wet printing, the better your starting negative, the less time the whole process should take.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom