Takkun
Ian M.
Between seeing the Ektachrome announcement and searching out some parts to keep my Coolscan alive, I got wondering that, with all the resurgent interest in film, why aren't there more mid-range options for scanning? Are most going the develop+scan route from labs?
I've used the V700 and Plusteks, and owned a DiMAGE and Coolscan. Never really got a hang of the workflow or satisfactory results from the former two. The two i've owned were 35mm only, but more than made up for it with automation.
I know I'm daydreaming, but I'd love to have another batch-scanning option that wasn't a flatbed these days.
I've used the V700 and Plusteks, and owned a DiMAGE and Coolscan. Never really got a hang of the workflow or satisfactory results from the former two. The two i've owned were 35mm only, but more than made up for it with automation.
I know I'm daydreaming, but I'd love to have another batch-scanning option that wasn't a flatbed these days.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
@Takkun I highly recommend sending your Coolscan to this eBay seller: nikon_coolscan
He does cleaning, refurb, and has parts. He's a great guy, quite quick turnaround, and ships back at reasonable cost. He's in Maryland.
He does cleaning, refurb, and has parts. He's a great guy, quite quick turnaround, and ships back at reasonable cost. He's in Maryland.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I have an Epson 700 for 'contact sheets.'. And then I use a digital camera to photograph the negative, stitch, and process if I need grain-level detail. Simple enough and I don't have to live in fear of a $1000 plus machine breaking down and not be fixable.
jeroenp
Newbie
Good question. Besides Plustek there's just Noritsu and Pacific Image. I've wondered why the quality flatbeds (Cézanne) and Pakon's never even survived their original manufacturer/company. The demand seems stable, and global, albeit low. There are more than enough companies around with all the required skills, manufacturing and a global sales channel to warrant a few more scanners on the market (Canon, Ricoh, Kyocera, Brother, Seiko/Epson, ...). My guess is that all these companies assumed fifteen years ago that it would be highly unlikely that anyone would be asking this very question in 2018.
And there's the perennial "I want all slides/negatives from my parents' collection scanned" question. What if that would actually be feasible, instead of "have you got any idea how much time that will take?".
I treasure my nearly twenty year old Dimage; I might even try the recent Plustek 120, since I don't have a digital camera capable enough for doing justice to 120 film. My local labs only have poor flatbed scans or worse. My guess is that all their somewhat serious clients immediately buy their own flatbed or something better.
And there's the perennial "I want all slides/negatives from my parents' collection scanned" question. What if that would actually be feasible, instead of "have you got any idea how much time that will take?".
I treasure my nearly twenty year old Dimage; I might even try the recent Plustek 120, since I don't have a digital camera capable enough for doing justice to 120 film. My local labs only have poor flatbed scans or worse. My guess is that all their somewhat serious clients immediately buy their own flatbed or something better.
Corran
Well-known
I have two Cezannes. For one they were extremely expensive new. I believe in the realm of "cost of a new car" kind of expensive. I think new, high-end flatbeds would be phenomenal at the 3-6k price-point but at the old prices charged to high-end pre-press houses, no one could afford them.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I am using an Olympus E-P5, 16 mp. I shot at about 1:2, do a series of shots, and stitch in Photoshop. Photoshop has a simple setting for stitching- no attempt to correct for lens error, nodal points, etc. 'Reposition.'
mod2001
Old school modernist
Amazing logic, didn't know that more than 2 brands in a specific market are a bad thing for the consumer :bang: Not to forget that there's only one 'new' scanner on the markrt which scans a whole roll at once, but sadly, extremely slow and unreliable, I had 2 of them, both send back.
Many don't have a digital camera, besides, also kind of slow process and not suitable if you shoot a lot of film.
Good joke
Market is saturated
No, its not, or why do you think people are paying over 1K for old Pakons despite all the software hassle and only 2400 dpi, if you can get a working one (nearly impossible in Europe for example)?
Juergen
Takkun
Ian M.
ColSebastianMoran—Thanks for the link! I don't think/hope there's anything physically wrong with the scanner but I'll keep in mind. It kept disappearing from my device list and I think the 99¢ FW600/800 adapter from Goodwill was the cause. A trip to Frys to get a new one and we'll see tonight what's up.
jeroenp—it's an interesting market that doesn't seem to be keeping up with the current trends in film. From perusing here and visiting my local camera shop, it certainly looks like more and more are shooting film but not necessarily wet printing at home, so one would think there's more of a market for film scanning.
Nikon long got out of their non camera/medical optical/outdoors industries (I recall seeing a Nikon Hi8 camcorder at Goodwill years ago), KonicaMinolta is effectively dead, and Canon's sticking to document and low-end general purpose scanners. Other than the Nikon F6, none (or the Sony successor) are doing anything with film, so it's probably not in their best interest for core business. With the decline of casual film photography and the minilab market, it seems like Noritsu could make something out of a desktop-sized scanner.
My guess is that the same people who have hundreds of Grandma's slides that need digitizing also have a lot of silver prints and the like, hence the focus on flatbed/transparency combos, and the high end goes the Imacon/Hasselblad route. (I'm finding myself quickly in the former camp, with my parents discovering their parents, and their own, 6x6 slides and wet prints and asking me for help going through them)
Still, that leaves out the middle of the road. I know it's anecdotal but I think I speak for a lot of photographers when I say I shoot a lot of film, develop at home but don't have adequate wet printing facilities, nor do I have the desk space for a flatbed nor time/patience for a DSLR copying rig with the volume I shoot. I love having a bulk setup for the Coolscan and getting thumbnails of a whole roll before going back to scan my picks at high resolution, or just keeping favorite snapshots.
Flatbeds, at least in stock form, aren't ideal in sharpness and resolution, and drum scanners are beautiful but a hassle and cost beyond my budget. There's a handful of low-res (ie, the Kodak models) and smartphone scanners, but these definitely cater to the aforementioned 'grandma's slides' and Lomography crowd than serious film enthusiasts.
There's a relatively inexpensive 8mm telecine by a brand called Wolverine—maybe bulk film scanners are not entirely dead?
Maybe I'd be more convinced if someone made a copying jig with a controllable backlight and automated transport—but then I'd need to buy another new digital body.
jeroenp—it's an interesting market that doesn't seem to be keeping up with the current trends in film. From perusing here and visiting my local camera shop, it certainly looks like more and more are shooting film but not necessarily wet printing at home, so one would think there's more of a market for film scanning.
Nikon long got out of their non camera/medical optical/outdoors industries (I recall seeing a Nikon Hi8 camcorder at Goodwill years ago), KonicaMinolta is effectively dead, and Canon's sticking to document and low-end general purpose scanners. Other than the Nikon F6, none (or the Sony successor) are doing anything with film, so it's probably not in their best interest for core business. With the decline of casual film photography and the minilab market, it seems like Noritsu could make something out of a desktop-sized scanner.
My guess is that the same people who have hundreds of Grandma's slides that need digitizing also have a lot of silver prints and the like, hence the focus on flatbed/transparency combos, and the high end goes the Imacon/Hasselblad route. (I'm finding myself quickly in the former camp, with my parents discovering their parents, and their own, 6x6 slides and wet prints and asking me for help going through them)
Still, that leaves out the middle of the road. I know it's anecdotal but I think I speak for a lot of photographers when I say I shoot a lot of film, develop at home but don't have adequate wet printing facilities, nor do I have the desk space for a flatbed nor time/patience for a DSLR copying rig with the volume I shoot. I love having a bulk setup for the Coolscan and getting thumbnails of a whole roll before going back to scan my picks at high resolution, or just keeping favorite snapshots.
Flatbeds, at least in stock form, aren't ideal in sharpness and resolution, and drum scanners are beautiful but a hassle and cost beyond my budget. There's a handful of low-res (ie, the Kodak models) and smartphone scanners, but these definitely cater to the aforementioned 'grandma's slides' and Lomography crowd than serious film enthusiasts.
There's a relatively inexpensive 8mm telecine by a brand called Wolverine—maybe bulk film scanners are not entirely dead?
Maybe I'd be more convinced if someone made a copying jig with a controllable backlight and automated transport—but then I'd need to buy another new digital body.
Archlich
Well-known
Because there're not enough people paying over 1K for old Pakons for any potential manufacturer to make the commitment. It's always that simple.
Takkun
Ian M.
That's what it really likely comes down to. We're all buying old Pakons, Coolscans, and the like and keeping them alive and running, much the same with 35mm cameras, if Nikon and Leica are really the only two still selling new film setups.
I've been debating selling my DiMAGE 5400 that's sitting in storage, but I think I'll sit on it for a while...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is as much as it could sustain. You can't have many manufacturers for tiny market.
Many have digital cameras, only few have and using film.
Why Pakon? Just because. For just because on same market some are scanning with digital M and old Leica copy stand.
gavinlg
Veteran
I would kill for an updated pakon for under $1.5k usd. I make do with a chintzy little plustek 8100 but it's so bloody finnicky and getting colors right on negative film is such an eternal struggle.
DanskDynamit
Well-known
because we are not as many as we think (film shooters) and also because once you have a scanner you will probably wont change it as often as the rest of your gear.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
There are so few dedicated film scanners on the market today because there isn't enough consumer market audience to make manufacturing and selling them profitable any longer. The good ones still available are targeted at much higher end, commercial uses, and are generally out of reach of consumer spending budgets.
Photog9000
Well-known
Thanks for the info!
Thanks for the info!
! As I look into the possibility of going back to film, my one concern was my Nikon 5000 scanner and getting it repaired. Cleaning I have done but if something fails electronically, I would be out of luck. Got nikon_coolscan bookmarked in my eBay sellers now for future reference!
Thanks for the info!
Thanks for this info
! As I look into the possibility of going back to film, my one concern was my Nikon 5000 scanner and getting it repaired. Cleaning I have done but if something fails electronically, I would be out of luck. Got nikon_coolscan bookmarked in my eBay sellers now for future reference!
Solinar
Analog Preferred
That is my theory, as well. Dedicated film scanners aren't flying off the supplier's shelves in record numbers.
Face it, film scanning and post processing are not very consumer friendly.
Also, to build a new film scanner with the optical quality and life expectancy of the old Nikon 5000 would place it at a price level well over $1K in USD. I wonder how many Plustek OpticFilm 120 film scanners are sold each year.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
When discussing film scanners it is important to not think of "black box wizardry" and break things down into the hardware with its very limited but fixed functions and the software functions which can be upgraded in many cases.
The scanner hardware performs only the basic functions of positioning the film, shining a non variable light source through it, and reading the R, G, B, and black values on a sensor, then transmitting that unprocessed pixel data back to the CPU. The quality of this resolution and dynamic range data is dependent only on the mechanical precision of positioning the film and the quality of the optics and electronic components. These and the surface area scanned are the cost factors. There have been no major technological breakthroughs in the modern era.
Software in the CPU takes that unprocessed stream of X's and O's from the scanner that represent those R, G, B, and black values from the sensor pixels and convert it into a usable file. This software can be from Nikon, Epson, Pakon, Plustek, Imacon. Additionally, 3rd party software such as Vuescan or Silverfast can be substituted totally for scanners using a USB interface from the scanner to the CPU.
This scanner software, typically replaceable, is what makes your output a negative or positive, if it is greyscale or a color file, sets all those various color values, determines if it is a JPEG, TIF or other file type, what size it is, and a multitude of other variables.
Always keep in mind that what comes out of the scanner software is not your finished product, just a file capturing the maximum amount of detail that can later be made into your actual final output in an image processing program such as Lightroom or Photoshop. Assign no significance to how the image coming from the scanner looks. It is not your final output. In fact, most of us find a dull flat looking scanner file produces the best looking final output.
So if you think the output from your scanner could be better, try a replacement for the scanner software to see if that does the trick. Vuescan has a free trial version that works exactly like the paid version.
The scanner hardware performs only the basic functions of positioning the film, shining a non variable light source through it, and reading the R, G, B, and black values on a sensor, then transmitting that unprocessed pixel data back to the CPU. The quality of this resolution and dynamic range data is dependent only on the mechanical precision of positioning the film and the quality of the optics and electronic components. These and the surface area scanned are the cost factors. There have been no major technological breakthroughs in the modern era.
Software in the CPU takes that unprocessed stream of X's and O's from the scanner that represent those R, G, B, and black values from the sensor pixels and convert it into a usable file. This software can be from Nikon, Epson, Pakon, Plustek, Imacon. Additionally, 3rd party software such as Vuescan or Silverfast can be substituted totally for scanners using a USB interface from the scanner to the CPU.
This scanner software, typically replaceable, is what makes your output a negative or positive, if it is greyscale or a color file, sets all those various color values, determines if it is a JPEG, TIF or other file type, what size it is, and a multitude of other variables.
Always keep in mind that what comes out of the scanner software is not your finished product, just a file capturing the maximum amount of detail that can later be made into your actual final output in an image processing program such as Lightroom or Photoshop. Assign no significance to how the image coming from the scanner looks. It is not your final output. In fact, most of us find a dull flat looking scanner file produces the best looking final output.
So if you think the output from your scanner could be better, try a replacement for the scanner software to see if that does the trick. Vuescan has a free trial version that works exactly like the paid version.
Veggies
-
Thanks for that info. I have a 5000 I need cleaned. It works great but definitely needs a tune-up.
stevierose
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Which lens do you use, Dan?