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 40 25.64%
$800 30 19.23%
$1000 34 21.79%
$1500 26 16.67%
$2000 16 10.26%
$3000 or more 10 6.41%
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-13-2015   #41
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by quejai View Post
Ranchu: Basing the profiles on LUT (i.e. tables instead of formulas) is a good idea that I'll experiment with.
I think a good way would be to build a LUT profile of the scanner with something known, one of those calibrated slides or whatever, and use that to convert everything to the output space, and then have a curves and then to the output space again. Make the profile for the negatives with the came calibration slide, but through a piece of blank developed portra 400. The second color space in the chain a LUT color space. I would lean toward inverting negatives while it's linear but I don't know... Adobe98 is a terrible color space, you might try colormatch...but what do I know.

edit: you could probably just do the first conversion, and leave out the curves etc. as long as it kicked it out in 16 bit and the negatives were inverted, an accurate (LUT) conversion is all you would need. There are other programs for curves, and you wouldn't have to have any user interface with that, just a go button and sizes. It'd be cool, though, to be able to adjust the light intensity.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #42
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,558
Prophoto is probably the desired color space to work in. Lightroom works in Prophoto only which is to my knowledge has the widest color gammut. Beyond color space it should scan in a raw format for example like DNG and give Tif 16 bit and jpg as an option. I often scan to 3F format with my Imacon. For editing it gives the most flexibility vs Tif or Jpg.
  Reply With Quote

Don't make it too limited in what it can do.. that will decrease sales
Old 09-13-2015   #43
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,955
Don't make it too limited in what it can do.. that will decrease sales

I own a V700, I got it after my Dad left me over 10k in slides, negatives from 35mm to 4x5.

Before that I had a Plustek 7200 for my personal 35mm B&W, 6 at a time, and very time consuming between each negative. About 4 minutes per negative from prescan to Adj to final scan. That is 24 minutes for 6 scanned negs..
The V700 does 24 negatives in the same time!!

I got the V700 over other flatbeds because it automatically framed strip film it the OEM film holders, This allowed me to prescan 24 negs in about 2 minutes and then about 10m minutes to make any small adjustments in Epson Scan, then scan them (all 24 as tiffs) in about 10 minutes at 3500dpi (Computer CPU and Memory dependent)

I have heard a lot "make it for me" features.... like B&W only, or up to 4x5 only, and the like... not a good business model.
You want to sell this to a "W I D E" audience right away so your 1st Q is in the Black.

I use a scanner for scanning my stuff, and my Dad's stuff from 1940s on. You just don't know if one day you will have a need for more features.

Some only need it for their stuff... great, so having a scanner that can meet "everyone's" needs will have more buyers on a world market.
  • 35mm to 8x10 Film (neg or pos) (though document would also be nice for scanning old prints from family inheritance etc).
  • Auto Framing Holders with your software (similar to Epson)
  • RGB Adj,Levels Adj, Curves Adj, WB dropper, Exposure Adj, Contrast Adj etc
  • Color Recovery for old positives that have tinted over time
  • 16bit grayscale option
  • Sharpening, Dust Control, etc
  • TRUE 3500dpi minimum
  • Adjustable Focus Plane with verification (Glass top to 5mm above)

I am sure they're more that may be needed (wanted).......

A scanner has to be able to get any media (if faded or tinted over time, or just A BAD exposure) to a place to make a decent scan as a base for editing later.

I chose $800, I feel that though many RFF's may have better resources than most here, and chose over $1500 and suggested even higher (that is the minority of buyers) it should be priced to a more financially diverse market to sell more units. But, $1000 would be a good price point also.

If it is too expensive, you will price out a lot of folks who can afford $1000, but not much more. I assume you want a long haul company, so, sales is a big deal in the beginning, but so is quality and longevity. If, this is successful, you can always offer a more specialized unit for the those that can afford it. And offer less featured units for a limited film selection for those that can't afford $1000 (maybe 35mm to 4x5)
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Nikon: F2, FM2n, EM, Konica FS-1, Fuji X100T
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-13-2015   #44
bence8810
Registered User
 
bence8810's Avatar
 
bence8810 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 36
Posts: 740
Very exiting project, wish you the best of luck.

As for me - perhaps a minority here - I only care for the speed and ease of scanning therefore I use a Pakon 135+ which is perfect. Single roll uncut fed into the machine and 36 frames are scanned in 3 minutes. The only problem is that it isn't being made anymore and if fails you are in a lot of pain as no one can fix it.
If anything new came around that would be similar, I'd be in for one!

Reason I am not too interested about resolution etc is that I only scan to archive and when I like something, I wet-print it and scan the print itself.

Ben
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #45
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
It sounds like this is quite a specialist piece of equipment. I imagine that there would be uses for such a scanner outside of film scanning also (digitising of art and, small museum artefacts etc.) so I think it a worthwhile project, but unless the price is very low I would be skeptical as to how worthwhile such a scanner would be to the general (and let's remember - very small) film shooting community.

For me personally - and I know this is the case for a number of people here; I scan using a macro reproduction set up. The one I have is one I cobbled together myself for under $100 including lens and gives me up to 32MP files from 35mm film which in general far exceeds the actual resolution of the emulsion, so I don't have any great desire for anything that produces higher resolution results. Personally I would love to buy a macro reproduction setup that is better made than my current one, but I have no interest in scanners. The only instance where I could see myself using this is if I were making enormous digital prints with extreme grain clarity from 35mm film, which I wouldn't rule out but don't have any particular interest in doing at the moment.

To echo what some others have said, make sure you use glass rather than acrylic, and be sure that it's anti-newton ring glass otherwise things will get very frustrating!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #46
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
There's no reason to make a non-specialist piece of equiptment, there's already a v500. Or V600. If it's cost effective high quality people will buy it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #47
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 157
What surprises me in this discussion, is that quite a lot of people seem to think you can have a good quality filmscanner for around $1000. Let's be realistic! For $1000 you can have an Epson. A Plustek 120 costs $2000. Imacon starts at $15000 and people are happy to pay $3000 for a used, 10 year old Nikon.
So what can you expect for $1000?
Frank
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #48
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlijn53 View Post
What surprises me in this discussion, is that quite a lot of people seem to think you can have a good quality filmscanner for around $1000. Let's be realistic! For $1000 you can have an Epson. A Plustek 120 costs $2000. Imacon starts at $15000 and people are happy to pay $3000 for a used, 10 year old Nikon.
So what can you expect for $1000?
Frank
For $1000 you can buy a decent digital camera with a macro lens that will blow away any flatbed, with the added benefit of getting a digital camera and a macro lens. There are a few online comparisons of drum scans compared to stitched macro scans where the macro scans beat the drum scanner by a noticeable margin. Taking multiple overlapping shots can be tedious, but the stitching is easily automated.

IMO the only situation where a flatbed makes sense anymore is if you're scanning medium or large format film and don't want to put the effort into stitching. For the most part if puzzles me why anyone uses flatbeds for film scanning at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #49
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
How do you do C41? How's the color? If a dslr is not as good and easy at C41 color as a v500 I lack interest.

"Is it too much fuss to capture color negatives? I don't think so at all. Post-processing of digital images can have just as many steps. (Either way, it's work, which is a good reason not to give your photography away for free.)

At the same time, "macro scanning" of negatives is not so much work that it would be unrealistic to do it in the first place. And, as I said, you may find it becomes a new opportunity for creativity. "

http://120studio.com/mcap-c41.htm
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #50
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
How do you do C41? How's the color?
I've only done tests since I normally shoot BW. I've found it hard to get the colours correct as is usually the case, but no more difficult than with a scanner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #51
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 899
Question is: is this going to be a performance or convenience optimized scanner?
I paid 1000€ for a Nikon 8000 and I do not plan to move to LF in the moment. I'm happy with the output, but I guess when this machine dies on me I'd be in the market of something like the Plustek 120 which is a ~1700€ machine. I think the Nikon is great but scanning MF could be easier with the plustek.
So if your scanner is in the performance and convenience zone of these both I'd argue that a similar price is fair. If your scanner has a higher optical performance but no automated scanning I'm not your customer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #52
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
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.
There isn't. I'm a native English speaker and I've written for the photo press for decades. Calling mounted transparencies "slides" and unmounted slides "transparencies" might conceivably be a useful distinction but it doesn't exist.

Cheers,

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

Old 09-14-2015   #53
WJJ3
Registered User
 
WJJ3's Avatar
 
WJJ3 is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kagoshima City
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by quejai View Post
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.
I was just scanning through this thread and have a couple comments to add.

quejai, keep up the good work. Those samples you posted are VERY interesting. My biggest gripe with all the scanners ive used is introduction of noise. The film structure revealed in your samples is simply next level. So for my list of requests in order of priority: lowest noise possible please.

I definitely support the idea of a monochome dedicated scanner. I have messed around with scanning color film quite a bit and trying to get the results I want quickly leads to less fun and more work and frustration. You could also interperet this comment as: wonderful color results out of the box or please dont bother.

Acceptibly convenient film handling that will keep up to 6x9 frames flat without the need for wet mounting. Option to wetmount would be lovely.

Film holders and scan software capable of scanning the whole frame including a margin of its unexposed border. This is not a hipster fad request. I have been going to great lengths to include frame borders in the darkroom and in my scans when I want them for some time and I value this capability.

As far as price, you should charge what is reasonable for you. If it turns out as good as it sounds people who need it will find a way to afford it (within reason:〕)

Also, one request if I may: If you are inclined to post more high-mag samples, would it be possible to include film type info, and perhaps a comparison? Say Ilford FP4 and Delta 100?

Thank you




Tapatalk を使用して私の ME173X から送信
__________________
Happy Shooting!
~Will

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #54
anerjee
Registered User
 
anerjee is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 254
Isn't it better to design a high precision x-y movement rig which can mount a camera and macro lens and take multiple pictures to stitch them together?

Plus software that would process the resulting images and create "scans" out of them.

Please excuse me if this sounds naive, I'm just curious, and not technologically sophisticated.

I use a Pakon scanner today, and the software's ability to nail white balance in any lighting situation more than makes up for the lower resolution scans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quejai View Post
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 09-14-2015   #55
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
There isn't. I'm a native English speaker and I've written for the photo press for decades. Calling mounted transparencies "slides" and unmounted slides "transparencies" might conceivably be a useful distinction but it doesn't exist.

Cheers,

R.
The distinction was one that was very consistently enforced in all of Kodak's publications and product descriptions. They even rejected "slide film" in favor of the more proper "film for slides" for their 35mm reversal films as the film itself didn't produce "slide", only "transparencies", though it would typically be mounted as slides.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #56
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by anerjee View Post
Isn't it better to design a high precision x-y movement rig which can mount a camera and macro lens and take multiple pictures to stitch them together?

Plus software that would process the resulting images and create "scans" out of them.
I think that is an interesting idea. And it shouldn't be that high precision as the software can correct for the last bit. Now with a fovean sensor it would also mean that colour information is gathered at the same place at the same time. And with controlled lighting the WB problems of fovean don't matter much.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #57
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny scarecrow View Post
I also question that statistic. I'd like to know where you got those numbers from, f16sunshine. I would have thought most film users use film most of the time, black and white or colour. Also, agree with Roger above that slides and transparencies, at least to my knowledge, have always meant the same thing.
I pulled the figures out of my time on threads here.
It's not scientific. This is not a think tank or board meeting simply a conversation.
In many threads over the years rff members have stated they use film for b&w and digital for color.
The which film for travel thread pulled up as an example is biased by a condition.... One film for travel... Of course color is the most versatile choice.

Anyway, I stand by my request. A scanner and software to run it that is optimized for traditional b&w film.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #58
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,955
But f16, his market is MUCH bigger than this forum membership.

someone else mentioned if this scanner will be for "Professionals" IE: Commercial grade high quality, high durability, or for "Advanced Consumers" who don't want to pay for heavier materials (Medal in lieu of plastic for example),
but want a long lasting, easily repairable unit that won't cost 1/2 the price to fix it. enough features that will allow a mix of formats and film types with very good resolution and noise control.

I agree that many MF dedicated scanners are in the $1500-2500 or more.... But, this a multipurpose flatbed, not a dedicated scanner for one or two film sizes.
Which are always close to double the price of a high end flatbed or more. I don't think making an industrial strength flatbed with the most expensive parts is where the OP'r is headed.
I think he wants to put a "Hurt" on Epson with a better product using newer technology. And with that said... I hope he does, and I will line to buy one myself.
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Nikon: F2, FM2n, EM, Konica FS-1, Fuji X100T
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #59
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 718
Adjustable focus or autofocus
Flat scans (glass if needed to get them flat)
Scan area large enough to include film perforation
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #60
jkjod
Registered User
 
jkjod's Avatar
 
jkjod is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Age: 31
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete B View Post
Pakon 135+ with bigger files and 120 capability.
I agree with this - speed is pretty important to me. If there was a newer Pakon 135+ that allowed for slightly larger files and continued service, I'd happily buy one.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #61
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwig View Post
The distinction was one that was very consistently enforced in all of Kodak's publications and product descriptions. They even rejected "slide film" in favor of the more proper "film for slides" for their 35mm reversal films as the film itself didn't produce "slide", only "transparencies", though it would typically be mounted as slides.
One manufacturer's house style is worthless. "Native English speaker" is not the same as "native Kodak speaker" or even "native American speaker".

Cheers,

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

Old 09-14-2015   #62
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
There's a big conflict here between speed and convenience on the one hand, and quality on the other. My own vote is for maximum quality from the few trannies I choose to scan, rather than maximum speed: there are already plenty of ways of getting quick'n'dirty low-res scans from flatbeds, magazine-fed scanners, etc.

To the OP: decide whether you want the low-res market or printable pics.

Cheers,

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

Old 09-14-2015   #63
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by anerjee View Post
Isn't it better to design a high precision x-y movement rig which can mount a camera and macro lens and take multiple pictures to stitch them together?

Plus software that would process the resulting images and create "scans" out of them.

Please excuse me if this sounds naive, I'm just curious, and not technologically sophisticated.

I use a Pakon scanner today, and the software's ability to nail white balance in any lighting situation more than makes up for the lower resolution scans.
I think I suggested something like this several posts back.

I'm with you, why reinvent the wheel. For $1000-3000 you're not going to get anything close to what a medium priced or even intro level DSLR will do in resolution, dynamic range and optical quality.

I owned and regularly used a Fuji Lanovia Quattro pre press scanner and currently own an Imacon 848. Both are comparable in output quality. The Fuji was a much more sophisticated scanner and designed to scan film or reflective up to 13x18 inches and the 848 will do both up to 5x7.

Professional scanners that deliver top quality are super expensive for a reason. The fuji weighed 150 pounds for a reason. It was to reduce detail killing vibration. the Imacon weighs about 50 - 60 pounds. The earlier version of the Fuji scanner I had weighed nearly 350 pounds and had a cast iron frame inside. Optics on both the Fuji and Imagon are top notch. Imacon I believe uses an apo Rodenstocl lens and the Fuji had 4 of Fuji's finest apo process lenses unlike consumer grade scanners like the v750 with plastic lenses. The Fuji auto focused up to 10mm depth on the fly and the Imacon pre focuses on every image. Epsons don't focus. Image noise levels are very low with both machines compared to the Epson.

The Fuji was over $30,000 with no accessories and the new Imacon I believe is $16,000 up depending on model and accessories. There's a reason for this price. For $1000-2000 you can't get good lenses and can't get an image system even close to what your medium level DSLR will do. I copied B&W negs with my Hasselblad digital and Macro Planar for several years with results comparable to the Fuji scanner.

Spend your time on developing a system to use existing cameras and lenses. This way when technology changes it's easy to update. You aren't redesigning imaging hardware only a mechanical transport and alignment system.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #64
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Spend your time on developing a system to use existing cameras and lenses.
You mean a light table and a repro stand?

__________________
Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #65
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,558
That's basically it. Simple enough. When I've done this I use black tape or paper to mask out stray light around the film.

The one change that might be incorporated is to make a jig where the light table could be moved into different positions to allow stitching of segments. Easy enough to do and would be cheap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #66
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
So how do you do C41 with this kind of setup, X ray? Do you get good skintones?

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #67
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 91
Thanks for all the ideas, everyone - lots of things to think about.

Although I'd like to respond to each question/suggestion individually, I just haven't got enough time. But there are some more popular questions that should be clarified:
- This scanner prioritises results to convenience, but honestly this doesn't mean that it will be slow or hard to use.
- XY rig: That was actually the setup for the first prototype. To save on space, and to experiment with an autoload feature, the X-dimension was actually a conveyor belt made of transparrent plastic, with the film in a wet-mounted sandwich between. Even with continual focusing, it just didn't work out. Since that idea has been tested and crossed off, I'm comfortable mentioning it - but the same doesn't go for the current design. You'll see how that works when the kickstarter begins.

So long story short: The current design will have a prototype, and there are exciting times ahead.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #68
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
So how do you do C41 with this kind of setup, X ray? Do you get good skintones?

I rarely shoot C-41 and when I have it's usually in my Holga. Most of what I've done this way is B&W large format.

I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to create a photoshop action to invert and neutralize the mask in color neg. A plugin for lightroom or stand alone app seems easier than designing an entire system including software.

I use a software to create profiles from a Macbeth chart for each of my cameras. When I edit in Lightroom I apply that profile. It seems reasonable that such a program could be written to analyze one frame of a roll with a Macbeth chart and create a profile to neutralize the Orange mask and set a relative color balance. Sound reasonable? Each emulsion type would be different but you can do it once and pretty much forget it. Of course different lighting will require adjustments for correct color balance just as it does on a scanner. That's basically what's been done with scanner profiles.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #69
kiemchacsu
Registered User
 
kiemchacsu is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Age: 35
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
That's basically it. Simple enough. When I've done this I use black tape or paper to mask out stray light around the film.

The one change that might be incorporated is to make a jig where the light table could be moved into different positions to allow stitching of segments. Easy enough to do and would be cheap.
Would you mind to share your DSLR scanning set up in this thread

I am still struggling between the ideas to build a DSLR scanning system or buy a Flatbed scanner to digitalise 120 films.
__________________
Cheers,
Trung Nguyen

RFF photo essays: Hanoi | Hoi An | Ha Giang | The railway neighbour | Fish Market
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #70
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
I use a software to create profiles from a Macbeth chart for each of my cameras. When I edit in Lightroom I apply that profile. It seems reasonable that such a program could be written to analyze one frame of a roll with a Macbeth chart and create a profile to neutralize the Orange mask and set a relative color balance. Sound reasonable? Each emulsion type would be different but you can do it once and pretty much forget it. Of course different lighting will require adjustments for correct color balance just as it does on a scanner. That's basically what's been done with scanner profiles.

Sounds reasonable, except Adobe ony uses matrix profiles in their converters, the 'profiling' they do with that macbeth chart is some hsl edits rather than a proper LUT profile. Adobe sells their theory, but they don't really hold up their part of the deal imo. Your point about other stand alone software is good though, but even then won't the software be more accurate, and easier to use if it's made for a specific device? Of course it doesn't really matter with b+w 8x10s, does it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #71
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiemchacsu View Post
Would you mind to share your DSLR scanning set up in this thread

I am still struggling between the ideas to build a DSLR scanning system or buy a Flatbed scanner to digitalise 120 films.
It's pretty simple shat I've used. I have a 10' studio stand in my studio and position a Fuji light box on a table or the floor. I simply koi t the camera with a macro lens and use levels to insure the sensor of the camera is parallel to the plane of the film. Most of what Ive done was with my Hasselblad and digital back with a 120 micro planar but have done it with my D800 and other DSLRs. This could be done with a tripod as well. I do use black masking tape and black paper to mask off stray light that can cause flare. You'll also probably want to do this in a darkened room or one with subdued light to insure the ambient light doesn't influence the image. You may even need a black card like black foamcore above the camera to keep reflections down if there are any lights on in the room. It depends on your setup.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2015   #72
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Sounds reasonable, except Adobe ony uses matrix profiles in their converters, the 'profiling' they do with that macbeth chart is some hsl edits rather than a proper LUT profile. Adobe sells their theory, but they don't really hold up their part of the deal imo. Your point about other stand alone software is good though, but even then won't the software be more accurate, and easier to use if it's made for a specific device? Of course it doesn't really matter with b+w 8x10s, does it?
I'm just speculating here because I'm not a software writer. I use it but couldn't bdgin to write an app.

It may be that I simply don't know enough but would imagine a single program could work for generating profiles for most any capture device. It really an analytical program comparing data from standard colors and tonal values against what you capture with your device. I just don't see it as being that difficult.

I guess in reality this could be done by doing measurementsxfrom the film with a densatometer too and entering that I go I to the program. Basically the application I use does that from a digital capture of the Macbeth chart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2015   #73
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is online now
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
I use a software to create profiles from a Macbeth chart for each of my cameras. When I edit in Lightroom I apply that profile. It seems reasonable that such a program could be written to analyze one frame of a roll with a Macbeth chart and create a profile to neutralize the Orange mask and set a relative color balance. Sound reasonable? Each emulsion type would be different but you can do it once and pretty much forget it. Of course different lighting will require adjustments for correct color balance just as it does on a scanner. That's basically what's been done with scanner profiles.
If only it was that simple. We would have such a system in place 50 years ago. Unfortunately...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2015   #74
tsiklonaut
Registered User
 
tsiklonaut's Avatar
 
tsiklonaut is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Estonia
Posts: 896
Just some random thoughts:

Interestingly, the ugliest scans I've ever seen are done through single-shot sensors, i.e. dSLR scanning. I've been to this route myself as well.

The demosaicing, noise shaping, LUTs etc etc a row of built-in manipulations happening make it look rather artificial - pixelized, over-edgy, lifeless or just sterile.

If you want speed and quantity you should bin analog and shoot digital anway.

In scanning IMHO every pixel deserves a full RGB info from a sample-spot on the film, not a combined info or a manipulated info. Personally I don't care about the speed, I care about the result. For me analog photography has always been a quality over quantity. I'm fine with half-an-hour per frame or even more really, as long as I know it's not some hype job manipulating scanner.

Market is full of über-fast scanners, cheated-up resolutions, demosaiced and microcontrast-enhanced scans that marketers brag about how incredibly sharp or good their scans look, but to me their sesults all tend to look like another digital photo from a digital camera making all this analog-shooting a very questionable pursuit if you end up like 99.99% of those digital photographers.

A non-interpolating, non-cheating scanner to "see" film as it is - now this is very hard or expensive to build and automate, something that also keeps film perfectly flat and has a working AF (mighty important I might add!). Ideally a drum scanner with proper PhotoMultiplier Tubes as sensors and variable scanning aperture to optically alter the image rendering, or go a grade lower compromise, i.e. virtual-drum holder like Imacon/Hasselblad scanners or even cheaper, such as a line- or row-sensor, i.e. Nikon 9000ED-ish.

Or alternatively to fill a spot between drum scanner and dedicated prosumer scanner: a stiching X-Y flatbed scanner with high end mechanics and sensor. I.e. Creo IQsmart as a platform to improve on. This platform also lets easily you to wet-mount, a feature that many dedicated prosumers scanners lack, i.e. Nikon 9K or Imacon/Hasselblad.

If you really want to go the cut-corners route and build a camera-type scanner, well there are non-interpolating CCDs available, i.e. Foveon X3 or Hasselblad shifting-sensor, but they still mess with microcontrast and noise shaping. I guess then you're still back to square one on this post.

Just me 2c.

Good luck with the project!
__________________
..:: 4nalog ::..
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2015   #75
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,408
A LUT profile just allows you to build color correction into the characterization of the scanner, so neutral can be 'maintained' from 0 to 255 at the beginning. It's a good thing. I don't think scanners even have demosaicing (??), just one of each rg and b.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2015   #76
lrochfort
Registered User
 
lrochfort is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsiklonaut View Post
Just some random thoughts:

Interestingly, the ugliest scans I've ever seen are done through single-shot sensors, i.e. dSLR scanning. I've been to this route myself as well.

The demosaicing, noise shaping, LUTs etc etc a row of built-in manipulations happening make it look rather artificial - pixelized, over-edgy, lifeless or just sterile.

If you want speed and quantity you should bin analog and shoot digital anway.

In scanning IMHO every pixel deserves a full RGB info from a sample-spot on the film, not a combined info or a manipulated info. Personally I don't care about the speed, I care about the result. For me analog photography has always been a quality over quantity. I'm fine with half-an-hour per frame or even more really, as long as I know it's not some hype job manipulating scanner.

Market is full of über-fast scanners, cheated-up resolutions, demosaiced and microcontrast-enhanced scans that marketers brag about how incredibly sharp or good their scans look, but to me their sesults all tend to look like another digital photo from a digital camera making all this analog-shooting a very questionable pursuit if you end up like 99.99% of those digital photographers.

A non-interpolating, non-cheating scanner to "see" film as it is - now this is very hard or expensive to build and automate, something that also keeps film perfectly flat and has a working AF (mighty important I might add!). Ideally a drum scanner with proper PhotoMultiplier Tubes as sensors and variable scanning aperture to optically alter the image rendering, or go a grade lower compromise, i.e. virtual-drum holder like Imacon/Hasselblad scanners or even cheaper, such as a line- or row-sensor, i.e. Nikon 9000ED-ish.

Or alternatively to fill a spot between drum scanner and dedicated prosumer scanner: a stiching X-Y flatbed scanner with high end mechanics and sensor. I.e. Creo IQsmart as a platform to improve on. This platform also lets easily you to wet-mount, a feature that many dedicated prosumers scanners lack, i.e. Nikon 9K or Imacon/Hasselblad.

If you really want to go the cut-corners route and build a camera-type scanner, well there are non-interpolating CCDs available, i.e. Foveon X3 or Hasselblad shifting-sensor, but they still mess with microcontrast and noise shaping. I guess then you're still back to square one on this post.

Just me 2c.

Good luck with the project!
I couldn't have put it better myself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2015   #77
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 55
Posts: 2,239
At $600 or more (perhaps far more) only very serious hobbyists will be interested.
At higher cost only institutions or professionals still using film might be customers.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2015   #78
Scapevision
90% Film
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 290
Wink

Why haven't I already bought the readily available multiformat dedicated film scanner? Because they cost around 2,000 and higher. That should answer your question.
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2015   #79
jzagaja
My website www.horns.pl
 
jzagaja is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 260
Try make something like Kinograph with monochrome sensor and XY for higher res for stills and without for telecine. You will be haveing cinematographers and photographers. Even a drum scanners (mine) has troubles with Super8 format. For example Ochoypico gets nice results.
__________________
Jack

www.horns.pl
www.horns-diy.pl
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-16-2015   #80
jzagaja
My website www.horns.pl
 
jzagaja is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 260
BTW - is it possible make something like Imacon but with PMT? For example you use single line DLP and turn on every pixel side by side with high rate. Probably too complicated compared to Kinograph.
__________________
Jack

www.horns.pl
www.horns-diy.pl
  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 09:16.


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.