Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Scanners / Scanner Software

View Poll Results: How much is this scanner worth to you? (USD)
$600 or less 44 26.99%
$800 30 18.40%
$1000 34 20.86%
$1500 28 17.18%
$2000 17 10.43%
$3000 or more 10 6.13%
Voters: 163. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Designing a new film scanner; need your help
Old 09-12-2015   #1
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Designing a new film scanner; need your help

Hey everyone

I'm a keen film photographer and also a mechatronic engineering student. I'm working on a project to design, build and sell film scanners. I'm planning to host a kickstarter in a couple of months to make the first batch, but before I do that I'd like some of your advice.

Could you please make a list, ranked in order of importance down, of features you value in a film scanner? Feel free to include features that haven't been mentioned yet.

There's also a poll, where you can vote on how much a good scanner is worth to you.




More details:
I've spent an obscene ammount of effort on this. I started just over two years ago, have gone through several kilograms of paper sketches, and spent hundreds of dollars on parts for an underwhelming prototype.

Fortunately for you, that prototype inspired several more months of drastic redesigns; and my current design is more affordable, has sharper optics, is lighter, has unprecedented color fidelity and is pretty darn fast, compared to other scanners out there at the moment. I'm pretty confident that this will be the biggest development in film scanners for over a decade.

Before I commit to building a second prototype based on the evolved design, I'd like to hear from you (my target market! ) about what you value in film scanners.

Just to clarify: For each time the scanner is loaded, it will be able to scan anything from several strips of six exposure 135 rollfilm up to (hopefully) 8x10 sheetfilm.

So thanks for the help.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2015   #2
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 98
For example, If I were in the market for a scanner (which I am! I'm so keen to scan my film properly), I would prioritise features in this order:

color
resolution
speed
adjustable resolution:speed ratio
reliability
software experience
ease / ergonomics of use
clear documentation of operational methods
cost
aesthetics
weight


If you have any other ideas, I'd really appreciate them.

Last edited by quejai : 09-12-2015 at 23:12. Reason: clarity
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2015   #3
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
I think

color
dmax
software experience
resolution
etc

Use LUT profiles for the scanner and output profiles rather than matrix profiles, imo. Good luck!

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2015   #4
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 35
Posts: 3,862
cooooool! what kind of scanner are you designing? is it like a flatbed but without the glass platen? or a drum scanner? something like the imacon, or leafscan?

here's a list of features, with ideas from ctein's articles on TOP:

dynamic range (enough to deal with slides, where density range goes past 4.0, or 10-13 stops)
film flatness, negative holders for all formats up to 8x10
adjustable alignment of camera, lens, and film
resolution
color
non-reflective interior, easy to clean (for better contrast)
software (gives manual control of exposure, aperture, focus, etc. allows batch scanning of an entire roll of 135 or 120 in one go. dng raw files. open source.)
repairability (key for long-term usage), reliability, and durability (design must be simple and overbuilt)
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #5
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,666
In my opinion, we are getting close to the point, where a sensor with enough resolution will become available for a one shot ( single photo) scanning. This is already the case if you think about 35mm and will soon be the case for MF. To put this in perspective: I am using a Nikon CS 9000, one of the best scanners still available second hand. It has a 4000DPI claimed resolution and around 3800DPI effective resolution. In 35mm you find scanners with higher resolution, although it is debatable if current films can benefit from more than 6000DPI resolution, but in MF, excluding drum scanners, the Nikon is king.
Let's do some math: my 35mm b&w scans come out in files of about 40MP, while my 6x9 b&w scans come close to 300mb. In reality, most MF cameras are between 6x4.5 and 6x7, so that would peak at 250MB. Canon has just announced they are about to release a sensor with 250MB resolution, so we could be done.
The second part is the lens: is it possible to make a lens that would deliver the effective sensor resolution of 250MB on a sub full frame area? I am not sure, but perhaps highly corrected repro lenses would do that.
The third part - film flatness and keeping everything parallel. In my opinion, there is no alternative to a glass carrier with two glass layers and it needs to be anti Newton ring glass, like in the Nikon CS 9000 holders.
Next would be the capacity to focus correctly - this should be easy using the autofocus or focus peaking function of the camera.
Finally, some thought should be given to the design of the reproduction space, to make it solid, foolproof and possibly fitted with some anti dust feature ( fan blowing in filtered air like in hospital surgery rooms).
As to the image quality, it would be necessary to aim for as high bit depth as possible, so 16 bit is a must - I think the current digital cameras fail short of that, but perhaps the reason is in the necessity to keep the computing chip small, this would not be necessary in the scanner.
With current scanners' Dmax peaking around 4.4, I believe this would not be an issue for a photographic sensor, where we are accustomed to several stops of DR - the DR compression has already been done on film.
-----
If you design a scanner that has a capacity to cover from 35mm to 8x10 with one shot scanning and at least a 100MB sensor, you would put out of the market all the existing competition at once, including Imacon $20.000 scanners. As to your question about value: if your scanner delivers at least Nikon 9000CS quality and is faster, it could easily be worth USD 5.000.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #6
majid
Fazal Majid
 
majid's Avatar
 
majid is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 555
A modernized version of X-Y flatbed prepress scanners like the Fuji Lanovia would be optimal. They scan as well as a Coolscan, but way more convenient, and can deal with pesky large formats like 6x17.
The two biggest challenges you will face are keeping film flat and focusing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #7
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 877
Image quality, repairability, ease of use (I swear to god I'd rather kill myself than EVER loading a 9000f holder with Kodak 120 film again), large format compatibility, ebony chassis with fine silver inlays.

I voted $1000, which I'd see as a long term cost. If the support for the unit is dropped in ten years, subtract ~$200. If glass carriers are included and the IQ is really high, add ~$200.
A good idea would be to let the customers choose which carriers they need, personally I don't do MF, and a lot of people don't do LF.
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #8
JChrome
Street Worker
 
JChrome's Avatar
 
JChrome is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 795
Really interesting topic. Would love to see your designs and what you've made.

I'd like the ability to easily clean the inside of every glass component. Opening up flatbeds to clean the other side can be frustrating.

You could design all of the hardware and leave the software to others to build (SilverFast comes to mind). This may reduce the complexity of the project drastically.

Have a programmable button on the outside where it automatically loads a saved scanning profile of some sort and begins scanning (so I don't have to muck with the software). It would be great if I could simply plop in the film, hit a button and then wait for it to finish. Of course it might not be able to crop photos correctly but I think I could do that afterwards. Couple that with a quick warm up period and fast scanning and you could get through a lot of negatives quickly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
www.stillthrill.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #9
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by quejai View Post
Fortunately for you, that prototype inspired several more months of drastic redesigns; and my current design is more affordable, has sharper optics, is lighter, has unprecedented color fidelity and is pretty darn fast, compared to other scanners out there at the moment.
Scan from a prototype or it didn't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quejai View Post
I'm pretty confident that this will be the biggest development in film scanners for over a decade.
I'm pretty confident it won't be (this was released just a few months ago), but if you make a budget version of something like this for $2.000 it will be a hit.

I'd buy a small, fast and affordable desktop LF scanner with true 4000dpi, hi DRange and no CCD flare in a heartbeat.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #10
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Ranchu:
Color profiles are going to be a huge part of the software. The plan is to include a set of standard profiles (based on experiment and also, where available, film datasheets), and also the capability to create your own or install others' profiles. Basing the profiles on LUT (i.e. tables instead of formulas) is a good idea that I'll experiment with.

Good suggestion about maximising DMAX; it's going to be pretty high. To reduce DMIN, the sensor is going to be peltier-cooled, just like astrophotographic equipment. Check out what this can do to digital noise. With such a low noise floor, and with some careful programming, I'm actually quite excited to see what Drange this thing is capable of.

asizan:
Similarly, thanks for the DMAX suggestion, and your other good points.
What's the design like? Not quite flatbed, not quite drum. Wet mount is standard. Kind of like a combination of a microscope and a 3D printer, and about the same size as a shoebox but with much better aesthetics. [to another user] Ebony and silver highlights? I like it.

chikne:
I had designed focus adjustment to be mechanical, but due to popularity I'll think about how to set up software-based manual focus.
Regarding glass carrier: I was planning acrylic, primarily due to safety. If I can find optical quality shatter-resistant glass, then that would be ideal. For all formats? Of course.



Gee, just refreshed and there's quite a few replies. I'll be a bit more brief:



Glass-film-glass mounting: Good idea, main issue is air bubbles. Sorting that out is possible, but makes loading several times harder - regardless, I'll ensure the scanner will be able to take it.

Release the designs: I'd love to, but I'm really torn between open-source awesomeness and loosing exclusive access to my IP for this project, which could be worth serious dough. In any case, you'll see how it all works when the kickstarter begins. But I'll keep it in mind.

Easy to clean glass: That's a convenient side effect of the new design. It just is.

Outsource software: It really is a different beast compared to most scanners, I honestly doubt that silverfast will be able to run it. But it's worth trying to integrate, especially if it means that some users don't need to learn to use another piece of software.

Another new scanner recently released: I'm familiar with this, and thanks for the link. Honestly, that's just a macro lens on a sideways tripod - The perfect setup for a one-shot scanner, and although I definitely see this as capable of providing acceptable results, I use a different approach that I think is better. Just a heads up, my scanner will only work with transparencies, not prints. Here's another design feature of my scanner: it's using standard microscope objectives as the scanning lenses, which can be upgraded to better brands or higher magnifications.

If ~$2000 defines 'budget' (which it is, relatively), then yes - imagine a smaller, more affordable, better version of that link in your hands by next year, with LF capability.

Thanks everyone so far, good stuff.

Last edited by quejai : 09-13-2015 at 01:57. Reason: adding detail
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #11
Addy101
Registered User
 
Addy101 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,518
After you developed this big one, you should consider smaller MF and 35mm versions if possible - I think there is a market for those. Cheaper is always better.

What do I rate important:
Colour
Resolution (if there is resolution, sharpness can be added)
Dynamic range (Dmax)
Price
Ease of operation (just keep the software simple and/or make deal with a specialized software maker)

Price? Well, I have no use for a 8x10 sheetfilm scanner, that influences my price point. The Reflecta MF5000, Plustek Opticfilm 120 and Braun FS120 with Silverfast 8 AI Studio is doing around €1700,-, without Silverfast 8 AI Studio the Reflecta MF5000 is under €1400,-. This means €1500,- would be a fair price - however, I will never buy a scanner that is over €1000,-.

Bringing it to the American prices, detracting 20% VAT, you get the following:
Fair price: €1500-(20%)= €1200,- = US$1350,-
My price: €1000-(20%)= €800,- = US$900,-
I'll vote US$800,- as you don't have US$900,-.
__________________
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #12
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,555
Ability to scan medium format up to 6 x 7 or maybe 6 x 9.
Ability to scan 35mm in strips of 5 frames.
easy and convenient use--not "fiddly."
small size. (Mini flatbed?)
Great for black & white and Color.
Lay the film on the glass, or scan glass mounted transparencies.
Choice of JPEG or DNG output.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #13
Dralowid
Michael
 
Dralowid's Avatar
 
Dralowid is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,164
I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are regarding the size of the potential market.

My requirements? Simply keep it simple!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #14
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralowid View Post
I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are regarding the size of the potential market.
Interesting question!
I've often thought about it, but I'm honestly not sure. I'm just going to do the first batch of somewhere between 50 and 200 units, and then see how that goes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #15
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,320
For me the priorities would be:

- absolute film flatness: no messing with holders, aftermarket holders, height adjustments etc Something like a vacuum holder and the right glass would be nice
- all kinds of formats: from 4x6 to minox without a mountain of holders
- easy to clean and keep dustfree
- for slides and negatives
- (auto)focus or at least a simple, easy way to adjust (and verify!!) it
- rigidity! No use to keep film flat if the scanner itself bends
- speed and resolution

As for any software, I'd like it to be usable with linux. At least inclusion in Vuescan.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #17
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
Scan from a prototype or it didn't happen.
Alright, fine, here is one. It's a tiny crop of a distant building from a Mamiya 6 50mm lens. I haven't got access to the original filmstrip at the moment, so I can't tell you what kind of emulsion it was on, or how large the crop is relative to the full frame - but the longer dimension is probably on the order of 5mm.

This image confirms that the grain is easily resolved. Imagine if you swap out the 4x microscope objective used here to something like 10x or, gasp, something closer to 40x.

Please pardon the damaged film surface, the lack of color, the use of diffused backlighting, the clipping/contrast and the fatiguing grain and tones. It was always meant to be an image for internal use to confirm focus.

But at least this proves that this scanner is not vaporware.

By the way, have a read on Kohler illumination, commonly used in microscopes. That's how the new design is illuminated, and should result in better natural contrast.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg sample.jpg (33.3 KB, 189 views)
File Type: jpg sample2.jpg (58.0 KB, 166 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #18
cpc
Registered User
 
cpc is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 126
If it is indeed "the biggest development" in film scanners in the last decade, you can surely charge $3000 and you'll probably have no big trouble selling your first batch at this price. But this will need to be verified and proven in tests. And the image quality/operational advantage over the alternatives should be clearly visible, i. e. not marginal.

My personal priorities:
1) MF and 135 film; don't care about LF, hence won't want to overpay for it.
2) Obviously image quality: dynamic range, color fidelity, decent sharpness, minimum/no aberrations introduced in scanning.
3) Ease of operation and speed, I'm plenty spoiled by my Minolta Elite (autofocus, autoadvance).

How do you plan to go about profiling and characterizing different films? How about negative film?
__________________
some shots on flickr
Shutter Angle
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #19
struene
Registered User
 
struene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 64
Wow, i ll save some money for it, if it comes closed to what you promise and stays around ~1000€.

I scan 35mm & 120 "raw" on a Epson v700 and convert through Coloperfect (also BW) and do the rest in LR. I like, that i can prepare several filmstrips and then let it go for the time scanning. Unlike most filmscanners, where one has to foreward each frame manually and scan one-by-one...

But then not everything with the Epson is prefect...:

The most "timekillers" for me are:
- Framing before scanning in EpsonScan and after scanning in PS
- stamping/cloning out the dust/scratches in PS
- editing Camera/Lens/ISo EXIFs with again another tool (the super slow EXIF-TOOL-GUI)
- fiddling around with many tools, as theres is no perfect scaning and editing tool: EpsonScan, Colourperfect, PS, EXIF-TOOL-GUI, LR.... as there is no tool, that gives a good preview and "darkroom-like" control over: exposure/gradation/colourfilters + some dodge&burn with good and consistent results.

The most "qualitykillers" for me are:
- Bad filmflatness and alignment
- The notorious Fog on the Glas/Lens and the Flare
- the limited resolution of~2200dpi

The most "funkillers" for me are:
- as mentioned above: having no counterpart to the Darkroom: simple "digital wetprinting" on a nicely courved paper through exposure/gradation (and the colourfilters for colournegatives). Ergo repeatable and predictible results.

Basicly a forummember already wrote it: Perfect would be a Pakon 135+ that also takes 120 (so a 120+) and with higher resolution (so a Pakon 120+++). (and maybe less aggressive sharpening) Because of:

- simple & fast scanning (no "time-killing")
- Good resolution & no dust (no "quality-killing")
- consistent results (gradation and colour) (no "fun-killing")
- possibility to manually modificate results in a simple "darkroom-manner": exposure/gradation/colourfilters + dodge/burn

hope we hear more from your project.

schöne Grüße,

Johann
__________________
28 35 50
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,792
What's important?

Maximum true resolution off 35mm

Excellent resolution off rollfilm up to 58mm wide; stitching if necessary for very long formats (over 85mm, say).

Wet-mounting option if possible.

Don't bother with anything bigger: there are plenty of excellent flatbeds already available for 4x5 inch and above.

High Dmax, ease of use, etc. taken for granted.

Although I voted for $1500, that isn't an absolute. At $1000 I'd buy it like a shot; at $2000 it would take a bit longer to get the money together and I'd want to see reviews first. At the moment I can't afford to gamble even $1000 on Kickstarter but I wish you every success with it.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #21
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,959
good focus

flat image plane, i.e. glass

good RGB color

software that is MAC compatible and updatable by manufacturer. I already have a $1000 that will not run on current mac os. Silverfish is nice, but all I have to do is blow a bulb and $300 in software is down the drain. Vue scan
underwhelms me.

I really don`t need or want much except a flat scan, exposure adjust, and color adjust. SIMPLE. Photoshop does the rest
My original MK 1000 software worked great. Most hated it, but it did way more than I needed.
Silverfast is a money pit. Scanner specific the problem along with OS matching.

Would not spend much on anything that does not have a service dept and parts store. A little guy probably not up to task.

I have moved on to digital. If I replaced the MK 1500, it would be a plustek that comes with Silverfast can consider it disposable. $500 risk

Darkroom still open.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #22
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,074
Most votes are for $1000 and $1500 per scanner. I suggest to try to keep it at $1000, with a market asking price of $950 plus $50 for shipping. More buyers will be lining up to buy your planned product. Add some neat features that exisiting scanners lack. Have an app for iPhones maybe?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #23
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is online now
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by majid View Post
A modernized version of X-Y flatbed prepress scanners like the Fuji Lanovia would be optimal. They scan as well as a Coolscan, but way more convenient, and can deal with pesky large formats like 6x17.
The two biggest challenges you will face are keeping film flat and focusing.

I owned a Lanovia Quattro and 5000 Finescan Fuji and agree. I'd love to see a scaled down version of the LQ Fuji, Cezanne or Creo Scitex Eversmart. I personally feel the Fuji is the better machine but both are excellent.

Film sizes up to 8x10 would be enough. No reflective function would be less expensive as there are plenty of good print scanners. Scaling down would help in cost, size and weight.

The Fuji software was basically two applications independant of each other. The main app only ran the scanner and acquired the image. It allowed applying film profiles for input and output. Sharpening which I kept turned off, film type like color net, transparency etc. and cropping. Cor corrections and levels etc. were done in a totally different app.

wet mounting would be desirable too and premium optics

Simply study the features of these scanners and you have the perfect machine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #24
littleearth
Registered User
 
littleearth is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 145
What I care about is tonality and colors. If it scans like a Frontier, Noritsu, pakon etc sure, if it gives those horrible flatbed results no thank you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #25
Mudman
Registered User
 
Mudman's Avatar
 
Mudman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs
Posts: 1,082
Keep it at $1000 and you have a buyer right here for anything up to 4x5.
__________________
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
~Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #26
vitaly66
Registered User
 
vitaly66 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 71
Whatever you eventually come up with, please make the api for your firmware open source.

That way we will not have to depend on proprietary drivers, or be limited to certain (and certain to become obsolete) platforms and operating systems.

Thank you!
__________________
Vitaly
incidence: a journal of light falling
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #27
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is online now
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,592
Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel why not make a flatbed device that you could use with your DSLR. Most folks have one so use that as the I capture device then the film support, lighting, alignment and optics are all you need to deal with.

A lot of people already use their DSLR to copy transparencies and negs. I can't think of any current dedicated scanner that will perform up to the quality of something like a Nikon D810 or similar. I'm not even sure the Kodak IQ Smart3 will match it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #28
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,165
I think I can see exactly where you're headed with this, and I think it's a great idea. I don't doubt that all of the proper bases will be covered, from the way you're talking, so my only concern is cost. I sure would like one of these, and I suspect the cost is going to be WAY over my affordability, and worth every cent. If it came in under $1000 I would be delighted, but I don't see how it could.

For the record, along with 35mm, I shoot a lot of 8x10 B&W, so any new scanner I get will need to do that. I'm quite happy with camera scanning for 35mm and 6x6, but would welcome a better small film scanner IF it handled large film, too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #29
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,505
I think if you focus on a Monochromoatic scanner you win!

Sure you may miss a bit of the market but,... if you get it right, you will win over many photographers who would otherwise stay with their existing scanners.

I know probably 75-90% of photographers here at RFF that use film at all, use Digital for color and film only for B+W.

My color usage is some e6 for my Holga which I happily scan on a "cheap" epson V700 ($400 in 2008). Otherwise I only use film for B+W.

35mm and 120 will be fine. No need to muck things up with larger formats. Again, flatbeads are fine there for pre-viewing 4x5 and larger frames.
Most serious large format work will need to go to a drum. Even if you get to the $3000 range you will not be able to compete there so why bother.

In other words,... build a specialized tool good at one thing rather than the jack of all trades so common in scanners. That one thing in this case is B+W roll film.



Cheers!
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #30
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
In other words,... build a specialized tool good at one thing rather than the jack of all trades so common in scanners. That one thing in this case is B+W roll film.
LOL!

And don't forget to charge MORE for giving a user B-W only.

BTW, all existing desktop scanners are monochrome only (with a "trick" to enable colour scanning). What's more, scanning BW film in colour mode gives you a slightly better BW scan.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #31
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 35
Posts: 3,862
what brbo said.

the nice thing about scanning color film is that you can do post-processing on the computer and then print it digitally.

a b&w only scanner makes no sense...you'd hardly sell any of them.

if the scanner can accommodate 8x10 film and still be around the size of a shoe box, i don't see much of a reason to limit its capabilities. many large format photographers live outside major metropolitan areas, and i'm sure they'd prefer excellent scans over decent ones.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #32
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
For me the priorities would be:

...
- for slides and negatives
....
I see absolutely no reason for a high resolution orientated scanner to ever support scanning slides. Scanning transparencies, yes. But scanning slides (mounted transparencies) is foolish except in low resolution high speed situations.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #33
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 35
Posts: 3,862
many institutions have archives of slides that they want to digitize with high res. so that's one reason.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #34
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
LOL! And don't forget to charge MORE for giving a user B-W only. BTW, all existing desktop scanners are monochrome only (with a "trick" to enable colour scanning). What's more, scanning BW film in colour mode gives you a slightly better BW scan.
You're making my point.
If you getting a better B&W scan in color mode, the machine is obviously not built around B&W performance.
I'm asking for a better B&W scanner instead of the same old consumer re-heated compromise.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #35
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,165
I want it to do everything, I want it done well, and I want it cheap. I'm not being cynical here: a real breakthrough technology would do exactly that. Old technology would not, but why repeat old technology yet again?

There's an advantage to coming into a market late. I'm sure we all remember our first digital camera, what it cost, and what it did. Mine cost a whole lot, and in today's terms did nothing. The last decade has brought just about nothing new to us in the way of scanners, so it's definitely time to throw some different thinking at the problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #36
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,426
1 / Cost: under $1000, or i'd just send out for drum scans
2 / 120 + 35mm. If i get around to shooting 4x5 or 8x10, with that original size, i wouldn't mind just using a flatbed, or since it would be with such low volume, outsourced scans.
3 / FLAT, FLAT, FLAT holder system.
4 / The software. Simplicity, but with options.
5 / Size and design of the device. Not more bulky than an Epson flatbed, and it needs to look nice enough to have 'out' in the home/office environment. Elegant and clean, and not an industrial-looking thing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #37
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwig View Post
I see absolutely no reason for a high resolution orientated scanner to ever support scanning slides. Scanning transparencies, yes. But scanning slides (mounted transparencies) is foolish except in low resolution high speed situations.
Sorry, I'm not a native speaker. If there is a distinction between slides and transparancies, then I mean the ones not mounted in those plastic holders for projection. But it should scan them up to 4x5 and 6x17. I never found those mountings for anything larger than 6x6 anyway, neither do I have a projector for any larger ones.

As said, there is use for scanning the mounted ones (I got thousends of them) but I agree that this might be an option.
  Reply With Quote

Designing a new film scanner; need your help
Old 09-13-2015   #38
JChrome
Street Worker
 
JChrome's Avatar
 
JChrome is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 795
Designing a new film scanner; need your help

Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post

I know probably 75-90% of photographers here at RFF that use film at all, use Digital for color and film only for B+W.

I'm surprised by this statistic.

I tried looking for a poll for this and found this one:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...ad.php?t=78502

Or was there another poll?

But back to the OP, I would prefer to have both color and BnW in the scanner and I would assume the market would as well.

Does it also always have to be wet mounted? It's an interesting proposition but it decreases the convenience by a lot.

My philosophy about scanning is that I don't care about the quality of a scan until I print. And I make less than 5 prints a year.

So I guess I'm saying that I'm mostly motivated by convenience for 95% of my work. Obviously if you can beat a high quality drum scanner in performance and still make the workflow quick (like with a flatbed), then you've got the golden goose. But generally scanners are in two camps:

1) lower quality but fast workflow
2) higher quality but slow workflow

So are you trying to split the middle? Or beat #1 in convenience/speed of workflow and approach the quality of #2?

Also, on the Kickstarter, I'd be very conservative with your timeframes. The TravelWide was promised at the end of 2013 but that didn't happen (I personally don't mind but a lot of people did).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
www.stillthrill.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #39
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
many institutions have archives of slides that they want to digitize with high res. so that's one reason.
No, it is not! If you want high resolution scans from slides, you need to unmount them for cleaning and then scanning as transparencies. They can then be remounted as desired. Scanning mounted slides is only a viable option when you need to scan a volume of slides quickly and can accept less than the best scans.

At the gallery I work for, getting sharp high resolution scans from the artist's old film images is critical to getting files good enough for our typical 30x45" and larger prints. Even though we have a 2x2 slide carrier for our Imacon scanner, I never use it. I always unmount the slides and scan the unmounted film. It is the only way to get the film flat enough for a good hi resolution scan.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #40
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 35
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwig View Post
No, it is not! If you want high resolution scans from slides, you need to unmount them for cleaning and then scanning as transparencies. They can then be remounted as desired. Scanning mounted slides is only a viable option when you need to scan a volume of slides quickly and can accept less than the best scans.

At the gallery I work for, getting sharp high resolution scans from the artist's old film images is critical to getting files good enough for our typical 30x45" and larger prints. Even though we have a 2x2 slide carrier for our Imacon scanner, I never use it. I always unmount the slides and scan the unmounted film. It is the only way to get the film flat enough for a good hi resolution scan.
yes, it is...unmounting slides is completely impractical. we're talking thousands of slides, most of them in cardboard kodachrome and ektachrome mounts. it's obviously different in a gallery setting, with lower volume and less interest in preserving the archive in its original state.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  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 21:31.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.