Why so few dedicated film scanners?

The Pakon is pretty interesting for pretty good scans in volume. I'm using it to scan boxes and boxes of old films.

For really precious images, I'll use something different.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
The Pakon is pretty interesting for pretty good scans in volume. I'm using it to scan boxes and boxes of old films.

For really precious images, I'll use something different.
Click to expand...

That's what I love about the Coolscan, though I want to get a bulk mounted-slide feeder, but theyre more than I paid for the scanner itself these days. My grandfather was a prolific and accomplished photographer and my mother has a literal footlocker full of his work, though a good number are mounted 6x6 slides.

And then there's my own (admittedly crappy, but nostalgically interesting) stuff from high school and college, much of which I left in uncut rolls. Yesterday, with the SA-30 I developed and scanned 15 rolls; scanning one while developing others.

I suppose that's why I'm perplexed; Kodak and ADOX are sinking money into new film lines and production plants and what we average joes (ie, those who don't have the cash for an Imacon) have are flatbeds with clunky batch film holders. As bob described, the basic function isn't particularly complex. But on the other hand, it's also plausible that with good and affordable lab scans now available and the format versatility of flatbeds, the market is a bit diluted.


As an update to my original post: A new FW400-to-800 cable, connected through my external drive, did the trick and all is well in the world.
 
I just checked in the app store and found quite a number of apps available to download and scan film with a device.

Could it be that not many scanners are available as the demand for the hardware is low?
 
If you go to B&H, there are any number of 35mm film scanners for not much money that will give you significantly better resolution than flatbed scanners. If you are waiting for a Nikon Coolscan for $99, it ain't going to happen.
 
I use my old 5000 ED Nikon, so far it's ok specially for B&W.
I'm only afraid one day it will stop to work and none where I live can repair it.
The link provided in onde of the first post could be useful but ship a scanner from Europe to USA and back doesn't seem an option because of cost, fragility and probably custom problems...

Now about no or very few new scanners on the market I'm afraid the answer is in the numbers...not enough request to justify the R&D, engineering, developing ...cost.
robert
 
You would really think that Kodak would be all over this...

For film to survive in the digital era you need to be able to get it into a computer and then onto the net.

Kodak should design a direct replacement for the discontinued Nikon 5000/9000ED and price them similarly. Maybe even something like the Pakon 135+, which was a Kodak product to begin with. They would sell like hot cakes.

Right now it's Plustek or flatbed scanners that are not as good as the old Nikon scanners or a Hasselblad the costs as much as a new car.
 
Harry Lime said:
You would really think that Kodak would be all over this...

For film to survive in the digital era you need to be able to get it into a computer and then onto the net.
Click to expand...

I was thinking FujiFilm - but the film part of their brand name is on the decline.
 
DanskDynamit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Plus one on that. I bought my plustek about 3 years ago and havent update it.

As for medium format scanner, there is a lot less demand for them to warrant the development/design investment.

Sad, but this is what it is.

Best regards.
 
DanskDynamit said:
................ and also because once you have a scanner you will probably wont change it as often as the rest of your gear.
Click to expand...


I have been using my Minolta Multi Pro about 15 years now. But then I am still using the same MF camera (Mamiya 7) I used back then although I did switch from my ContaxG 35mm camera to a Zeiss Ikon.
 
robert blu said:
Now about no or very few new scanners on the market I'm afraid the answer is in the numbers...not enough request to justify the R&D, engineering, developing ...cost.
Click to expand...

Very similar to film cameras, so many quality units available on the used market for low prices that they have decimated the market for newly manufactured units.

I just took a quick peek on E-Bay at Nikon film scanners. With the price they seem to be going for, who would consider buying new?
 
Huss said:
Got the email from them. Fantastic tool to preview images.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. FilmLab 1.0 isn't a substitute for a scanner--and isn't meant to be. But I did some playing with it last night, and I think it will be wonderful to use as a 'digital loupe.' I could also imagine using it to quickly share images on Facebook (if I were interested in using Facebook), but mainly I see this as a useful tool in the darkroom. Well worth the $6. I hope future versions add a slider to adjust contrast. By adjusting the exposure, I can see that even my old iPhone 5 is doing a good job of picking up details in the highlights and the shadows, but the default contrast setting seems a little too high to me.
 
Takkun said:
...I got wondering that, with all the resurgent interest in film, why aren't there more mid-range options for scanning?
...
Click to expand...

There is a global resurgence but it is dominated by INSTAX film.

Negative and transparency scanning remains a niche market.

Using a dedicated DSLR with a macro-lens is a viable alternative to traditional scanners.

If people thought they could make money by entering the mid-ramge market, they would.
 
stevierose said:
Which lens do you use, Dan?
Click to expand...


I am using the Olympus 60mm macro lens on the E-P5. Nice lens, sharp, haven't noticed any distortion leading to strange overlaps as the software tries to correct, etc.


The biggest problem I have in using a camera for scanning is getting the camera mounted at a true parallel position. But once that is set, it's pretty simple. Boring but simple, pretty standard for scanning all in all.


I had access to a Flextight a few years ago, and the camera scanning matches it. And with the $15,000 I saved I can buy a lot of film....
 
Solinar said:
I was thinking FujiFilm - but the film part of their brand name is on the decline.
Click to expand...

No, it is not on the decline.

This is from FUJIFILM Holding's most recent quarterly financial report.

"In the photo imaging business, sales were strong, particularly in Europe and the U.S., for instant photo systems such as the instax series and instax films. The sales volume of the instax series totaled 7.7 million units, exceeding the previous target of 7.5 million units. The newly released instax SHARE SP-3, a smartphone printer that employs a square format, offers a new photo printing method that will boost demand among smartphone users. Wall Decor, Photobook and other value-added printing businesses also enjoyed solid sales."

Of course very few people who buy INSTAX film are interested in scanning their prints. If they want digital images they use their smart phones.
 
kiemchacsu said:
Iphone camera is never good enough for a good scan I am afraid. ...
Click to expand...

Why not?

When lots of light is present the disadvantages of a small sensor area are minimized.

There are several Apps that will produce raw files or flat TIFFs from iPhone cameras. Surely even a 3:2 format crop from a 4:3 format 3024 x 4032 pixel raw file is sufficient for 135 format film media.

When lots of light is present the disadvantages of a small sensor area are minimized.
 
Dan Daniel said:
I had access to a Flextight a few years ago, and the camera scanning matches it. And with the $15,000 I saved I can buy a lot of film....
Click to expand...

willie_901 said:
Why not?
When lots of light is present the disadvantages of a small sensor area are minimized.
.
Click to expand...
This thread gets ridiculous :bang:

And just to remember, the TO misses a batch scanning solution, means the whole roll at best, and there's currently nothing new on the market which is usable.

Juergen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom