Old 05-03-2012   #161
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 638
Well if the price is too high ($3,000 is too high) then they won't sell but a handful and it will have been all for nothing. Better to price it at $1,000 and sell tens of thousands.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #162
varjag
Eugene Zaikonnikov
 
varjag's Avatar
 
varjag is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 39
Posts: 2,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandermarijn View Post
Plustek, can you please give us a 35mm scanner as good as a Nikon but priced like a Plustek? Please? (Dreaming never hurts.)
Have you actually used plustek 35mm scanners?
__________________
Eugene

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #163
rawhead
Registered User
 
rawhead is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
If they can't build a scanner that is better than the 9000ED, introduced to the market *eight* years ago, and not price it below $2,000, which I think is what the 9000ED retailed for back then, then methinks that's a problem.

If they can truly deliver something on par with the 9000ED, I'd personally be willing to shell out something close to $1500, but that would be it... much more than that, I'm sticking with my V700.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #164
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,263
I love 120 film because even scanned on my V700 it blows every other imaging system I have out of the water ... except possibly my Crown Graphic!

At $3000.00 I'd be staying with my Epson I think. They'd sell at $3000.00 but not in any serious quantity ... and don't forget that 120 film seems to have had a few options reduced over the last year or so and may continue down that path.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #165
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawhead View Post
If they can't build a scanner that is better than the 9000ED, introduced to the market *eight* years ago, and not price it below $2,000, which I think is what the 9000ED retailed for back then, then methinks that's a problem.

If they can truly deliver something on par with the 9000ED, I'd personally be willing to shell out something close to $1500, but that would be it... much more than that, I'm sticking with my V700.
THey aren't going to do that, though. We know what's going to happen. They're going to get greedy and price themselves out of the market. They'll see that every once in a while, someone sells one of the old Nikons for $4000 on eBay, and they'll think their scanner is worth the same. Problem is, it won't be a Nikon. It'll be plastic, not metal. It won't have the ED glass lens, but mark my words, it will cost at least $3500.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #166
rawhead
Registered User
 
rawhead is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I love 120 film because even scanned on my V700 it blows every other imaging system I have out of the water ... except possibly my Crown Graphic!

At $3000.00 I'd be staying with my Epson I think. They'd sell at $3000.00 but not in any serious quantity ... and don't forget that 120 film seems to have had a few options reduced over the last year or so and may continue down that path.

Good point. And if the availability of high-quality (i.e., higher than the Epson lineup) remains out of the hands of the masses, then that will only push more people out of MF film photography, meaning Plustek will be dealing with an ever dwindling market.

It really should be in their best interest to be aggressive with regards to pricing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #167
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 638
It doesn't have to be better than a Nikon 9000, only better than an Epson v750.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2012   #168
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
It doesn't have to be better than a Nikon 9000, only better than an Epson v750.

I scanned some HP5+ recently with my V700 that I shot with my Pentax 67ii on a tripod and I was amazed at the detail. I wouldn't know how much better the Nikon is because I've never used one and I'm not about to pay the money to find out. I would love to see Plustek come up with an MF scanner that was better than my Epson and closer to the Nikon ... I'd be prepared to pay $2000.00 but that would be my limit.

There's a place in Oz that still has a couple of the Nikons in stock last time I checked ... close to $5000.00 though!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-04-2012   #169
sandermarijn
Registered User
 
sandermarijn is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Leiden, NL
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by varjag View Post
Have you actually used plustek 35mm scanners?
No I haven't. I've only read the reviews. The Plusteks may be better than I think they are.

I own a Minolta Scan Dual III. Even with Vuescan and doing all the usual trickery (scan as positive, etc.), I don't seem to get results close to the Nikons.

Sorry for going off-topic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #170
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 686
A lot of the people who can afford the niche market of MF film these days will also both be able to afford, and also want a high-performing dedicated film scanner, priced accordingly. The market is already skewed towards low-end scanners, and now there's virtually nothing available between $700 and $16,000. That's an absurd situation.

I was lucky to get a 9000ED just before Nikon stopped production, and when that breaks, I don't want to have to buy an Imacon (for the price of a car) to replace it. People moaning about the price of the Plustek before it's even announced should go buy themselves an M9 instead.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #171
karlori
Digital Refugee
 
karlori is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Croatia
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
People moaning about the price of the Plustek before it's even announced should go buy themselves an M9 instead.
Best answer to the last page or two... Let plustek do the pricing and production, and let the customers worry if the price is acceptable to them or not... As you said, if you can afford a high end MF with accompanying glass and accessories and high quality film and development you can afford the scanner.
__________________
M3 DS with CZJ Sonnar 50 1.5 T (wartime LTM lens)
M3 SS with Canon 50 1.2 LTM
IIIc "stepper" with Elmar and Summar

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #172
david.elliott
Registered User
 
david.elliott is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,568
The notion that because somebody does medium format photography, they must also be able to afford and desire a scanner in the $3000 range is absurd.

All those holga users out there and the people using any of the various inexpensive medium format systems available at keh must have thousands in discretionary cash lying around.

One can put together a medium format system for thousands less than a 35mm system. The reverse also holds true. Either system is as (in)expensive as one makes it.
__________________
My Website - Rendered In Silver

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #173
karlori
Digital Refugee
 
karlori is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Croatia
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by david.elliott View Post
The notion that because somebody does medium format photography, they must also be able to afford and desire a scanner in the $3000 range is absurd.

All those holga users out there and the people using any of the various inexpensive medium format systems available at keh must have thousands in discretionary cash lying around.

One can put together a medium format system for thousands less than a 35mm system. The reverse also holds true. Either system is as (in)expensive as one makes it.
I was aiming at the crowd that does not want something low end but won't spend 1/5th of yearly income for an Imacon. Didn't want to put anyone down or exclude gear and people using them.
__________________
M3 DS with CZJ Sonnar 50 1.5 T (wartime LTM lens)
M3 SS with Canon 50 1.2 LTM
IIIc "stepper" with Elmar and Summar

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #174
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by karlori View Post
I was aiming at the crowd that does not want something low end but won't spend 1/5th of yearly income for an Imacon. Didn't want to put anyone down or exclude gear and people using them.
David wasn't responding to you, he was responding to mani, who said that it is 'absurd' that there are not many scanners costing more than $700, and that people who are complaining about the price of the Plustek should shut up and buy an M9. As David pointed out, that is absurd. I can't afford an M9, probably never will be able to buy a $7000 camera, but I have a Nikon scanner. I think guys like mani who think photographers are made of money should put their money where their big mouths are and buy M9s for us 'complainers'. Or shut up.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #175
rawhead
Registered User
 
rawhead is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
If the new scanner turns out to be leaps and bounds better than a 9000ED and were priced accordingly, there would be nothing to complain about (though I may not be able to afford it). However, if the best that they can do is match the quality, and then price gauge it so that it's just below the current, heavily inflated going prices of the 9000ED, then I don't care what anyone says, Imma gonna complain
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #176
david.elliott
Registered User
 
david.elliott is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by karlori View Post
I was aiming at the crowd that does not want something low end but won't spend 1/5th of yearly income for an Imacon. Didn't want to put anyone down or exclude gear and people using them.
As Chris said, I was responding to Mani, not you.
__________________
My Website - Rendered In Silver

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #177
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 638
Mamiya M645 kit with lens and prism finders... $200

Minolta TLR in exc+ condition... $85

Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash... $1

Diana F+ with flash .. thrift shop for $2

120 Film... $3-5 per roll (self developed add about $1 for processing)

Now, do you really think I'm interested in a $7,000 digital crap camera or a $3,000 scanner?




Be real. I am not alone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #178
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Not bundling with any scanning software may help lower the cost.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2012   #179
david.elliott
Registered User
 
david.elliott is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Not bundling with any scanning software may help lower the cost.
The option to have the software bundled would be nice. I'm sure some people like it.

I just use vuescan.
__________________
My Website - Rendered In Silver

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #180
XFer
-
 
XFer is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 47
Posts: 142
I still have heavy doubts it can match (or exceed!) 9000ED's scanning quality without adjustable focus, with real-world film.

Some quick&dirty math:

- Assume a 50mm lens (scanner lenses are usually 30mm-100mm)
- Assume 100mm focus distance (reasonable optical path)
- Assume a target resolving power of "true" 5000 points per inch, leading to a circle of confusion of 5 um for DOF calculation
- Assume the need of +/- 0.2 mm DOF because of varying film thickness, residual curling, mechanical play, assembling tolerance (I'm not even counting gears wearing, but it's important too). That's 0.4 mm of total DOF. Not really much.

Using adequate formulae (not online calculators: their math is not precise enough at this level) we find that an aperture of F/20 is needed to get the desided DOF.
But such a narrow aperture would KILL resolving power because of diffraction: diffraction disc would be about 30 um, or 6x the target CoC!

Actually, to get a diffraction disc of around 5 um (5000 dpi) we should stick to a F/3.5 aperture (in fact, Nikon scanner are believed to adopt a F/4.5 lens, OK for 4000 dpi); but this way we would only get about +/- 0.035 mm of DOF, not nearly enough for any practical application even with adjustable focus, let alone fixed focus.

You can sacrifice MTF by allowing for a more relaxed CoC (say 6-7 um instead of 5) and then counting on some sharpening, but we're still far from getting enough DOF.

Of course Plustek may have adopted a longer optical path (longer focus distance -> more DOF with same aperture), but anyway there are phisycal restraints as to how long an optical path you can design (your projected image size must exactly cover the sensor with the desired reproduction ratio; so if the focus distance is too long your focal length must be longer and again your DOF shrinkes).

So, I still hope Plustek would think again about designing a fixed-focus scanner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #181
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 686
I'm gonna work with an analogy, just to clarify my position a bit.

Let's say that tomorrow every car manufacturer in the world decided to discontinue their models, except for the Smart FourTwo Pure and Ferrari Enzo. Now as most of us can't afford a Ferrari, the only option would be the Smart. You may want more space than that, or something faster - a BMW 6 Series, maybe, or even just a Volvo V60 - but the way things would be, you'd have to settle for the Smart, just like pretty much everyone else.

The sort of scanner market I'm hoping for, is one that includes both the Smart FourTwo AND the chance to buy a BMW Z4 - if that's what you want or need.

I think it's sad that not everyone can afford the Z4 (I can't), but if I really needed to I could scrape together the money to buy one. I can't ever see myself affording the Enzo - but that doesn't mean I want to settle for a Nissan Versa.

The M9 thing was obviously a joke
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #182
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
I'm gonna work with an analogy, just to clarify my position a bit.

Let's say that tomorrow every car manufacturer in the world decided to discontinue their models, except for the Smart FourTwo Pure and Ferrari Enzo. Now as most of us can't afford a Ferrari, the only option would be the Smart. You may want more space than that, or something faster - a BMW 6 Series, maybe, or even just a Volvo V60 - but the way things would be, you'd have to settle for the Smart, just like pretty much everyone else.

The sort of scanner market I'm hoping for, is one that includes both the Smart FourTwo AND the chance to buy a BMW Z4 - if that's what you want or need.

I think it's sad that not everyone can afford the Z4 (I can't), but if I really needed to I could scrape together the money to buy one. I can't ever see myself affording the Enzo - but that doesn't mean I want to settle for a Nissan Versa.

The M9 thing was obviously a joke
Some of us set our sights a little higher. Its nicer to have a market where you can buy a tin-can like the Smart car, nice midpriced car like a Camry or Taurus, and higher end but still not horridly expensive cars like Lincolns or Luxus and then really expensive ones like Ferraris. Having the choice between "crap" and "extreme cost for the rich only" sucks and has no appeal to anyone but those rich enough for the expensive stuff and disdainful enough of the rest of humanity to want to deny them access to anything but the low-end crap.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #183
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Some of us set our sights a little higher. Its nicer to have a market where you can buy a tin-can like the Smart car, nice midpriced car like a Camry or Taurus, and higher end but still not horridly expensive cars like Lincolns or Luxus and then really expensive ones like Ferraris. Having the choice between "crap" and "extreme cost for the rich only" sucks and has no appeal to anyone but those rich enough for the expensive stuff and disdainful enough of the rest of humanity to want to deny them access to anything but the low-end crap.

I don't understand your point?? That's exactly what I'm saying. Seems like you're too angry about the issue to understand what people are actually saying.

Right now there are plenty of Nissan Versas and Smart FourTwos in the scanner market, and then there's the Ferrari Enzo (the Imacon Flextights).

I'd like there to be something in the middle that aspires to better quality rather than just cheaper price. If the price does turn out to be lower, then great. But sacrificing quality for mass-market sales would just give us more of what's already available.

PS: I object quite strongly to this sort of low-blow, populist type of personal attack: "disdainful enough of the rest of humanity". Spare me the self-righteous bullsh.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #184
varjag
Eugene Zaikonnikov
 
varjag's Avatar
 
varjag is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 39
Posts: 2,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
Mamiya M645 kit with lens and prism finders... $200

Minolta TLR in exc+ condition... $85

Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash... $1

Diana F+ with flash .. thrift shop for $2

120 Film... $3-5 per roll (self developed add about $1 for processing)

Now, do you really think I'm interested in a $7,000 digital crap camera or a $3,000 scanner?




Be real. I am not alone.
You can wait until the scanners start popping up in thrift shops, too.
__________________
Eugene

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #185
XFer
-
 
XFer is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 47
Posts: 142
We already have cheap scanners for 120.
The V700/750 at about 2300x3000 dpi actual resolution is quite cheap.
The MF5000 at about 3000x3200 dpi actual resolution is still somehow affordable.
Now we need a scanner in the $2000-2500 ballpark with really good image quality; say 4500-5000 dpi actual resolution, good uniformity etc. And reliable too.
Let's hope the Plustek 120 will cut the cake.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #186
mdruziak
Registered User
 
mdruziak is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 167
Let's not get too hung up on the $3000 price. The question was will the price be less than $3000. The answer is YES.
__________________
________________________________________
My Photo A Day Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #187
david.elliott
Registered User
 
david.elliott is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,568
Here's hoping it is dramatically lower.
__________________
My Website - Rendered In Silver

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #188
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,741
What people seem to forget is how much the market for film scanners has changed in the last couple of decades. (Mind you, what follows is hearsay as I am too young to speak from experience on this)

Neither the regular consumer nor the enthusiast amateur used to scan their own negs. The consumer got prints at the minilab (or scans later on) and the enthusiast amateur printed in the darkroom. Nobody needed their images on the computer. The only ones who needed scans were pros, magazines and agencies. Professional drum scanners were the domain of pro labs and some of them cost around $100k. There were all sorts of drum scanners, both large and relatively small, aswell as high-end flatbeds. There probably was something in every price range between $10k and $100k. In that kind of market environment an Imacon wasn't terribly expensive. It actually was at the affordable level and I imagine if you were a pro it made some sense to buy one instead of paying top dollar for scans at the lab.

Only in the last 10 years with the rise of 'Web 2.0'/social media did the desire arise in most regular people to get their images onto the computer and the internet. And it's exactly at that time (early 00's) that most of the good consumer scanners like the Nikon Coolscans and the Minoltas (and Canon made some 35mm scanners, too) started appearing. But the time period where both the use of film and the desire to digitize was quite big didn't last too long and soon most of the computer savvy consumers (those that would bother with a scanner) switched to digital cameras. So it is no surprise that the large companies like Nikon, Canon etc., i.e. those who could produce high-end products in vast numbers at affordable prices, abandoned the project of developing better and cheaper scanners and focused on digital instead.

So what we're left with now is the lower priced end of pro filmscanners (Flextight) and a whole bunch of consumer scanners that have film scanning as an added capability. No one really wants to use drum scans at home. They're large, incredibly time-consuming and somewhat messy. What used to be the low-end in price is now the high end because the Imacons/Flextights are made so that anyone can use them at home. To stay with the car analogy, the Imacons/Flextights aren't the Ferraris of scanners, they are the small compact car. But now we're all wondering why nobody makes a compact car for the price of a cheap bicycle.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #189
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 638
Well it should be less than $1,500

If I can buy the 7600 35mm scanner for less than $700 how can a slightly bigger one cost 4 or 5 times more?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #190
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
 
rayfoxlee is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Sussex, England
Age: 71
Posts: 225
It seems a bit strange to me to have to pay the sort of money quoted on a MF scanner, but then I only go to A4. I have an aged Epson Perfection 2450 and the scans from my Rollei and Fuji GS 645 negs are terrific. I would expect that an A3 print would be just as good - provided that I was not tempted to view with my nose 6 inches from the print! Larger print, greater viewing distance, surely?

There seem to be some really decent flatbeds, such as the V600/700/750 that offer plenty of performance without breaking the bank. Unless the Plustek can sell thousands, the price will be relatively high. Surely better to go with the flatbed??

Have I got this completely wrong?

Ray
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #191
XFer
-
 
XFer is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 47
Posts: 142
I really don't understand your post.

If you are OK with the prints you get by scanning 120 with an Epson 2450, more power to you.
It has very low dynamic range, can't resolve more than 25 line pairs/mm (I know, I also have a 2450: I use it to scan prints) and it's not really capable of delivering good micro-contrast; that's why people opt to pay $2500+ for 2nd-hand dedicated 120 filmscanner.

But hey, to each his own.
I drive a lowly Ford Fusion (EU model) and am quite satisfied; but, I am very much aware of its limits; and I know many people here would not touch it with a pole!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #192
david.elliott
Registered User
 
david.elliott is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,568
I hope, one day, for a scanner that has built in ANR glass. I'd love to have a (removable?) glass insert which was lowered onto the film to hold it in place. Or the film could be raised up to the glass to hold it in place and eliminate curling. I like the results I get using the better scanning holders with my v500, but sometimes it doesnt get rid of all the curling and the solution is kind of fiddly due to the nature of flatbed setup.

Not that this comment has any particular relevance to the more recent posts, but I thought I would post it anyway.
__________________
My Website - Rendered In Silver

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #193
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
I would want a roll film feeder that automates the scanning process
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #194
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
I would want a roll film feeder that automates the scanning process
According to Plustek Facebook it is not being developed (I have asked about that). However - the scanner would become much more interesting for smaller labs that offer reasonable quality for reasonable price scans (like they do today with the Coolscan 5000) as the roll feeder makes the process faster and cheaper.

Or did you mean roll fill feeder for 120/220 films?
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #195
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matus View Post
According to Plustek Facebook it is not being developed (I have asked about that). However - the scanner would become much more interesting for smaller labs that offer reasonable quality for reasonable price scans (like they do today with the Coolscan 5000) as the roll feeder makes the process faster and cheaper.

Or did you mean roll fill feeder for 120/220 films?
Roll feeding 120/220 without sprocket holes would be challenging.
Scanning an entire roll of 135 is quite time consuming, if it can be automated, that would be quite nice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #196
JayM
Registered User
 
JayM is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tucson, AZ
Age: 32
Posts: 297
I like car analogies. Which scanner should I buy if I drive a rotary engine truck?
__________________
Show me your film leaders and I will tell you what you are.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #197
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by david.elliott View Post
I hope, one day, for a scanner that has built in ANR glass. I'd love to have a (removable?) glass insert which was lowered onto the film to hold it in place. Or the film could be raised up to the glass to hold it in place and eliminate curling. I like the results I get using the better scanning holders with my v500, but sometimes it doesnt get rid of all the curling and the solution is kind of fiddly due to the nature of flatbed setup.
Doesn't sound very practical. That built in ANR glass would probably gather quite a lot of dust. Even if it was removable (how?) you'd have to take it out to clean every time you scan to eliminate dust.

The Flextight system of bending the film to avoid curling still seems like a good idea to me. I wonder why more manufacturers haven't gone that way. Does Hasselblad have a patent on it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #198
david.elliott
Registered User
 
david.elliott is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
Doesn't sound very practical. That built in ANR glass would probably gather quite a lot of dust. Even if it was removable (how?) you'd have to take it out to clean every time you scan to eliminate dust.

The Flextight system of bending the film to avoid curling still seems like a good idea to me. I wonder why more manufacturers haven't gone that way. Does Hasselblad have a patent on it?
How? Just slide it in a slot that sits above the flim holder. Remove from same slot. Or any number of other ways. Would be easier to sketch, but I don't have the time for that. Not that it would matter anyway since I am not a plustek designer / engineer. :P
__________________
My Website - Rendered In Silver

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #199
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by david.elliott View Post
How? Just slide it in a slot that sits above the flim holder. Remove from same slot. Or any number of other ways. Would be easier to sketch, but I don't have the time for that. Not that it would matter anyway since I am not a plustek designer / engineer. :P
So you'd need a seperate slot and a seperate mechanism and motor to get the glass into position? And then another mechanism to lower the glass onto the film holder?

I know you're just spitballing here and I'm no engineer either but that sounds like the kind of thing that would significantly drive up the price, size and weight of a scanner. And for what? To save you the trouble of lowering the glass onto the holder yourself? On my Nikon 9000 glass holder it takes me all of half a second to do this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2012   #200
XFer
-
 
XFer is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 47
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
Does Hasselblad have a patent on it?
Yes.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6081352
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:42.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.