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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Filmtoaster - a device that works with your camera to digitize negatives (only 2400$)
Old 02-08-2016   #1
Tijmendal
Young photog
 
Tijmendal is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Age: 26
Posts: 494
Filmtoaster - a device that works with your camera to digitize negatives (only 2400$)

http://www.filmtoaster.photography/filmtoaster

What do we think of this? Price is 'only' 2400$ (introductory price is 1700$)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #2
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,661
Looks interesting - obviously it would be necessary to check how good these sliders are for holding the negs flat , plus the parallelism issues that could result from the lens mount directly on the box. I suggest the proposed price should also include a 40mp full frame camera...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #3
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,562
It is, as the criticism has been (they in fact recite it), a monstrously expensive copy stand. It might gain traction with people who don't understand that PITA that LED light sources are with dust and scratches - or don't understand that the claimed process times de-emphasize the fact that a film scanner can run unattended (as opposed to requiring human intervention every thirty seconds) or that the resolution they generate from 6x9 negatives is astronomically higher than the 24mp you would get out of a typical DSLR.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #4
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is online now
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,351
A pretty impressive price for a medium format enlarger head...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #5
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
a monstrously expensive copy stand
That's my take! Handy but insanely priced for what it is. If you consistently shoot one format, like most people, and have a DSLR, it's easy to set up something that works well for next to nothing, ie., copy stand, negative carrier, light pad.
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #6
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,455
They have to be kidding? That's a lot of money considering what else you need to get up and running. I wish them luck!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #7
Chromacomaphoto
Registered User
 
Chromacomaphoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 281
One assumes aimed at rich hipsters who are new to film and don't know about copystands and a macro lens?
__________________
http://www.chromacomaphoto.com
Photos of Thailand and Thai people. Bangkok street and candids, urban landscapes, and lots of film work plus a blog on all of this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #8
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
 
bsdunek's Avatar
 
bsdunek is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 773
Seems like a lot of money for a light box with a camera mount. I have a 35mm slide/film copier that goes right on my Nikon like a lens. Seems to work fine. It's probably 45 years old. Kind of like these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Opteka-Digit...AAAOSwG-1Wtp21
http://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-Slide-D...oAAOSwwbdWN6M8
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Albinar-Digi...EAAOSwgQ9V6F50
__________________
BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

My Gallery
Bruce
Don't take my Kodachrome away!
OOOPS! Kodak did!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #9
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromacomaphoto View Post
One assumes aimed at rich hipsters who are new to film and don't know about copystands and a macro lens?
Because we all know that hipsters are the only dumb people in the world right?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #10
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Because we all know that hipsters are the only dumb people in the world right?
"This is path-breaking."
"You don't understand our super special product."
"You feel threatened by it."
"You're insecure about change."
"This is disruptive."

So says every 25-year-old man-child marketer who wants to play on other people's insecurities (or is too unaware of the world to realize his claims aren't in the least true).

The beauty of being older is that your prefrontal cortex is fully formed, and you know that shiny unicorns don't exist.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #11
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
Looks interesting - obviously it would be necessary to check how good these sliders are for holding the negs flat ...
No matter how good they are, they won't be a good as they could be. This style carrier is OK for "batch" work where you load a strip of several negs and dupe them in sequence. For the best results, though, you need carriers that hold the film on all 4 sides, like those made for the Imacon scanners, particularly with 120 negs.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #12
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tijmendal View Post
http://www.filmtoaster.photography/filmtoaster

What do we think of this? Price is 'only' 2400$ (introductory price is 1700$)
That price is for the box, a light source and film holder?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #13
Tijmendal
Young photog
 
Tijmendal is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Age: 26
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromacomaphoto View Post
One assumes aimed at rich hipsters who are new to film and don't know about copystands and a macro lens?
Normally good marketing is necessary for those folks to take the bait. That site looks so bad.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #14
harpofreely
Registered User
 
harpofreely is offline
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 202
Going to call it like I see it: a good old-fashioned rip-off.
__________________
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at...

- Henry David Thoreau
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #15
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 51
Posts: 4,844
Pricing is out of reasonable range. All they offer is lightbox/camera stand with frame holders. Which is nothing new, nor expensive DIY solution existing for years.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #16
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,151
I've been using a Leitz BEOON ($100) with digital camera mount adapter ($25) (for the camera I already had) and light box ($75). I'd be happy to sell my unit for $850, half off their price, if anyone is interested!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #17
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 56
Posts: 10,460
Lomo says you can do it with your cell phone.

http://www.amazon.com/Lomography-Sma.../dp/B00BZSZL64

Seems legit.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #18
Scapevision
90% Film
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 346
Looks like not only Leica can sell overpriced simple things
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #19
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,454
I could see it being an attachment for Leica SL.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #20
Scapevision
90% Film
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 346
They forgot to attach the hasselblad logo
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #21
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 761
The price certainly seems like gouging - but in itself this shows the gap that exists in the market right now: 'experts' on this forum may be able to knock up a cheap version with a copying stand, the right sort of light-source, and some homemade film-holders, but most people need a readymade solution.
The film-toaster people are possibly taking advantage of this need - but until someone (with more integrity) supplies a solution that works off-the-shelf at a more reasonable price, then they are the only game in town, and can charge whatever they like.
I've often said there's space for a Kickstarter that produces a barebones and economical version of something like this - I genuinely wish I had the engineering expertise to make it happen myself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #22
ian_watts
Ian Watts
 
ian_watts is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 438
I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing the attraction of a unit like this versus the cobbled together copy stand, light table, etc. solution. Not everyone has the space for a permanent set-up like the latter and being able to store something in a cupboard and get it out and use at a moment's notice is a benefit that shouldn't be underestimated. I'm also slightly surprised by the reaction to the price being asked (even being RFF): $1700 does sound high but I imagine these are manufactured one at a time in a workshop somewhere in the USA rather than assembled on a production line in China? Personally, I wouldn't rule out buying such a product myself (even at this price) but I'm unsure about this particular one. For one thing, I'm not sure about marrying a well engineered metal box (and the cost involved with that) with a run-of-the-mill LED light panel designed for a different (if allied) purpose. For another, I'm not sure about the wisdom of holding the camera in position by the lens filter thread. Not only does this seem a little bit fragile (the filter threads are plastic on many modern macro lenses) but I'm not sure how accurate (in terms of keeping the camera sensor plane parallel to the film in the holders) the set-up would be.
__________________
Tumblr // Flickr // Instagram // ianwatts.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #23
DrMcCoy
Registered User
 
DrMcCoy is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 375
This is comically overpriced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
It might gain traction with people who don't understand that PITA that LED light sources are with dust and scratches
What's specifically bad about LEDs regarding digitising negatives? I've not heard this before (and I'm about to endeavor making my own DSLR "scanner" setup) so I'm very interested in knowing about the issues.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #24
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is online now
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,297
Not even talking about the price.
How is it better than, say, an epson V800?
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #25
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMcCoy View Post
This is comically overpriced.



What's specifically bad about LEDs regarding digitising negatives? I've not heard this before (and I'm about to endeavor making my own DSLR "scanner" setup) so I'm very interested in knowing about the issues.
I swapped the normal globe in my enlarger/digitizer rig a while ago for an LED globe to see if it made a difference. It runs cooler which stops slide-popping and is brighter and more even than the globe I had before. Dust is no worse that I have noticed. Here's my setup (maybe I should sell an assemble-your-own kit?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/...er_mark_three/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #26
PhotoMat
Registered User
 
PhotoMat's Avatar
 
PhotoMat is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 502
Aside from the multi-format capability, how would this differ from using my old Bowens Illumitran slide copier?
__________________
www.natural-light.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #27
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Not even talking about the price.
How is it better than, say, an epson V800?
Oh, that one's easy, especially since this is a 35mm-based forum: more than twice the actual* resolution on 35mm negs, with the right camera and lens.

*actual: real as opposed to the V800s imaginary and unobtainable supposed specs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #28
DrMcCoy
Registered User
 
DrMcCoy is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfingon View Post
I swapped the normal globe in my enlarger/digitizer rig a while ago for an LED globe to see if it made a difference. It runs cooler which stops slide-popping and is brighter and more even than the globe I had before. Dust is no worse that I have noticed. Here's my setup (maybe I should sell an assemble-your-own kit?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/...er_mark_three/

Haha, I love that contraption. Do you find the results to be good?

Also, what does "slide-popping" mean?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #29
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,454
I think there's something wrong with your statement. You don't mention what the "more than twice" resolution actually is.

Off the top of my head i thought the V700/V750 to resolve about 1600-2000 dpi. I did end up seeing some tests a friend did with a DSLR or M4/3 camera taking pictures of negatives. It did resolve more than the V500 he was using. Side by side against a Nikon Coolscan image at 4000dpi it had around the same image resolution. However Dmax was sacrificed.

I suppose this could be overcome by bracketing and HDR. But I would put the image resolution somewhere around 3000-4000 dpi.

Now if you want to talk about "film resolution" between emulsions that changes the game as well. However I'm not quite sure even at 4000 dpi we're getting to the level where it matters. Especially when posting to web.

is it overkill? You betcha. If you post to web or intend to print 11x14's a V800 or equivalent should be just fine. Get a better scanning holder and set your holder height as well. This is a common overlooked aspect of flatbed scanning that makes people think its inferior to applications like this.

Scanned with V700

__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #30
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,697
Here is my $40.00 version. It worked great, even better than a scanner. I quit using it because I got tired of running from one room to another and connecting down loading cords. I also had it set-up to do 120.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #31
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is online now
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMcCoy View Post
This is comically overpriced.



What's specifically bad about LEDs regarding digitising negatives? I've not heard this before (and I'm about to endeavor making my own DSLR "scanner" setup) so I'm very interested in knowing about the issues.
LED point light has the same issues as every other point light - on the positive side they increase the resolution by providing a very narrow aperture, on the negative they do so by amplifying structural details, regardless whether grain, dirt or scratches.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #32
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,097
I have been using a Wolverine 'scanner' with built in 24 mp sensor which stores images on an SD card. Only does 135 and smaller, but for what it is, it's fabulous. You can scan a whole roll in minutes (has LCD preview so you can skip the frames you don't want). Only caveat - it crops slightly in the long direction. I do not use my flatbed scanner any more.

And it cost around $100. All they need do is make a similar model for medium format (yes, I do understand that for MF this approach is less 'competitive')

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #33
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
LED point light has the same issues as every other point light - on the positive side they increase the resolution by providing a very narrow aperture, on the negative they do so by amplifying structural details, regardless whether grain, dirt or scratches.
Exactly. If you have used a Sprintscan 120 (fluoro tube) and a Nikon LS-8000 (LED), it is a world of difference. I still miss my Sprintscan for its more, ahem, forgiving nature on film that was not handled very well.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #34
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
I use an LED light source, but none of my film has scratches. Why are you having problems with scratches? How are you storing your chromes and negatives?
It's just 135 film - it has a lot less to do with storage (which is meticulous and dustproof) than roller-transport labs brutalizing C41 color film. 35mm cameras are also good at scratching the film back with the cartridge felt (both advancing and rewinding), less than perfect pressure plates, and various occult means that are difficult to identify.

I have also seen not-so-straight marks on the emulsion side of 120 b/w that has gone through a lab, but that's pretty clearly a squeegee thing - since with 120, nothing but backing paper touches the back of the film.

Developing film by hand at home, the only thing that gets on my nerves is the occasional tiny crystalline water marks that somehow form even with distilled water. And of course, you don't see them until you have cut the negs.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #35
edge100
Registered User
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Not even talking about the price.
How is it better than, say, an epson V800?
I've been 'scanning' with a D800 and a Tokina 100/2.8 macro (and a Kaiser RS-2 copy stand) for about 2 years.

The quality is FAR better than a V800, especially given the ability to stitch from 6 or more images of a 6x7 or 4x5 negative.

I've compared with a 9000ED, an X1, and a Heidelberg drum scanner. The DR and resolution are better than the 9000ED. The X1 is lower res (on MF), but a bit better DR. The Heidelberg is (as expected) better in all respects.

But for less than the cost of this 'toaster', I'm producing the best scans I've ever made, in less time, and for far less money than I would otherwise have to pay.

DSLR/mirrorless scanning is the real deal.
__________________
Former street photographer
The Definitive Guide to Scanning Film with a Digital Camera
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #36
edge100
Registered User
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
LED point light has the same issues as every other point light - on the positive side they increase the resolution by providing a very narrow aperture, on the negative they do so by amplifying structural details, regardless whether grain, dirt or scratches.
This may be so.

And yet, I'm scanning film (colour and B&W neg and reversal), in 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5, with an LED light source (Artograph LightPad), every single day and producing better results than anything short of an Imacon. It's not even close, TBH.

I owned a SprintScan 120 for many years. The D800/macro approach is vastly better (and much, much quieter).

And FWIW, I don't have issues with dust. Bulb blower to remove the bulk, cotton cloves to avoid fingerprints, and content-aware fill to get any residual.
__________________
Former street photographer
The Definitive Guide to Scanning Film with a Digital Camera
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #37
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is online now
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by edge100 View Post
This may be so.

And yet, I'm scanning film (colour and B&W neg and reversal), in 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5, with an LED light source (Artograph LightPad),
That is a LED rear illuminated panel, not a point source like in most LED lit film scanners.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #38
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
That is a LED rear illuminated panel, not a point source like in most LED lit film scanners.
But the light-source in the film toaster is also a rear illuminated panel(?)

Feels like the discussions on this forum around gadgets like this are always pretty much the same: knee-jerk rejection, 'I can make it myself in half an hour', 'anyone who pays more than $20 is an idiot', and so on.

I don't see much constructive criticism.

Right now I'm using a Coolscan 9000, but I'm intrigued by the possibility of replacing it with a simpler copy-stand setup (say, one of the Olympus cameras that sensor-shifts for a higher megapixel image). But I have no idea about all the issues involved: film-plane parallelism, how to ensure there's no stray light, how to illuminate the film, whether image-stitching would introduce artifacts, and so on...

Maybe instead of simply mocking everything that comes along to help newer film enthusiasts that don't have decades of experience behind them, some of the 'experts' could share their knowledge about how to actually achieve the best results without spending thousands of dollars?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #39
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
Feels like the discussions on this forum around gadgets like this are always pretty much the same: knee-jerk rejection, 'I can make it myself in half an hour', 'anyone who pays more than $20 is an idiot', and so on.

I don't see much constructive criticism.
I think the statements on price are constructive criticism. Or at least constructive in helping folks think before wasting their money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
Right now I'm using a Coolscan 9000, but I'm intrigued by the possibility of replacing it with a simpler copy-stand setup (say, one of the Olympus cameras that sensor-shifts for a higher megapixel image). But I have no idea about all the issues involved: film-plane parallelism, how to ensure there's no stray light, how to illuminate the film, whether image-stitching would introduce artifacts, and so on...

Maybe instead of simply mocking everything that comes along to help newer film enthusiasts that don't have decades of experience behind them, some of the 'experts' could share their knowledge about how to actually achieve the best results without spending thousands of dollars?
That's not the point of the thread. This one is about the Filmtoaster.

If you want folks to share with you tips on using copy-stands just start your own thread.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-10-2016   #40
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
Maybe instead of simply mocking everything that comes along to help newer film enthusiasts that don't have decades of experience behind them, some of the 'experts' could share their knowledge about how to actually achieve the best results without spending thousands of dollars?
This entire forum is that exact thing
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  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 01:18.


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.