Kodak Releases NEW Film Scanner
Old 11-23-2018   #1
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 802
Kodak Releases NEW Film Scanner

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/rev...but-overpriced
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2018   #2
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
It is a piece of junk Kodak licensed its name for that has been out since CEDIA if not before.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2018   #3
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,521
At least they are supporting film.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2018   #4
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
Yes, but who is "they"? According to the article, this scanner has no affiliation with Kodak Alaris. So it's just a third party, low end scanner that has a Kodak name slapped on it. Sorta like those budget cheap P&S cameras that say Leica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2018   #5
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
For what it's worth, most if not all of these 'scanners' are not scanners; they take a photo of the film with a digital sensor. I reviewed one the other day, got crickets. Don't pretend it's suddenly interesting because it says "Kodak" on it. A, it's not really Kodak, and B, all these units are essentially the samend literal thing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam...57700503367472
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #6
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Yes, but who is "they"? According to the article, this scanner has no affiliation with Kodak Alaris. So it's just a third party, low end scanner that has a Kodak name slapped on it. Sorta like those budget cheap P&S cameras that say Leica.
This is an Eastman Kodak scanner, not Kodak Alaris.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #7
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 41
Posts: 756
They are selling "Kodak" branded light bulbs at the 1€ store over here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #8
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,678
Once they have their own chewing tobacco, I'm out.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #9
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,606
For someone who has a few negatives of family pics etc that they'd like to share on social media it's fine and I see no problem with it. It doesn't deserve the Kodak name on it though in my opinion.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #10
Pentode
Registered User
 
Pentode's Avatar
 
Pentode is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
For someone who has a few negatives of family pics etc that they'd like to share on social media it's fine and I see no problem with it. It doesn't deserve the Kodak name on it though in my opinion.
Kodak put themselves on the map over 100 years ago by selling to the masses. How does this differ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #11
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,386
Weird, I read about this "Kodak" scanner at APUG and find cheap analog on BH. Months ago.

Kodak only supporting film then they manufacture and sell film. Re-selling 50$ scanners at 170$ isn't really supporting, IMO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #12
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentode View Post
Kodak put themselves on the map over 100 years ago by selling to the masses. How does this differ?

I really don't see how you can make that comparison actually!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2018   #13
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I really don't see how you can make that comparison actually!
Possibly not an exact comparison, but Kodak did sell a cardboard box for making photographs, with a known but unrelated brand (Brownie) attached for marketing purposes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-25-2018   #14
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentode View Post
Kodak put themselves on the map over 100 years ago by selling to the masses. How does this differ?
It differs in that there are no masses.

The general public are not going to suddenly spend time scanning film because someone licensed the Kodak brand for a scanner.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-25-2018   #15
joe bosak
Registered User
 
joe bosak is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 103
The profit they do or don't make from sales they make will prove them right or wrong on that point. That's business.

Personally i find the whole area of branding over time a bit annoying. A brand dies and gets resurrected, sometimes with no link to the original company. Or a company gets bought out by another and the brand continues whether or not there's any DNA from the old firm in the products. Or a company just evolves to produce something that isn't really descended from what made them great.

Glad there's been some discussion of this scanner, i was wondering whether it was any good.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-25-2018   #16
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bosak View Post
The profit they do or don't make from sales they make will prove them right or wrong on that point. That's business.

Personally i find the whole area of branding over time a bit annoying. A brand dies and gets resurrected, sometimes with no link to the original company. Or a company gets bought out by another and the brand continues whether or not there's any DNA from the old firm in the products. Or a company just evolves to produce something that isn't really descended from what made them great.

Glad there's been some discussion of this scanner, i was wondering whether it was any good.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It is fine for some use cases, not best for others. Again, it's not a scanner. It's a camera that takes a photo of a backlit film frame. Very much like the old slide copiers of days gone by. The concept is identical to the DSLR copy method currently touted here.

It's just scaled down using less powerful gear to a price point. Apparently some don't like to hear that but oh well.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-26-2018   #17
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
It is fine for some use cases, not best for others. Again, it's not a scanner. It's a camera that takes a photo of a backlit film frame. Very much like the old slide copiers of days gone by. The concept is identical to the DSLR copy method currently touted here.

It's just scaled down using less powerful gear to a price point. Apparently some don't like to hear that but oh well.

For those of us who dont know (me), what is the difference between a digital photograph of a negative made with a very high quality camera, and a scanner that images the negative line by line?


I am guessing that this Kodak scanner uses a very low quality camera. Would this concept be acceptable if Kodak used a high quality camera? Or are scanners still better?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-26-2018   #18
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
For those of us who dont know (me), what is the difference between a digital photograph of a negative made with a very high quality camera, and a scanner that images the negative line by line?
The line-by-line method is also in very close proximity to the film. Typically this results in much higher 'dmax' which is a fancy way of saying it gets more dynamic range out of the scan than does a photograph made by a typical tiny camera sensor.

Dynamic range for anyone who doesn't know, is basically the ability to capture the darkest to the lightest detail present in scene. Not the sensitivity (ISO) but the overall dark-to-light ability to capture and retain detail. An image sensor with low dmax will tend to block up dark bits and blow out light bits rather than capture the detail present in the original.

Quote:
I am guessing that this Kodak scanner uses a very low quality camera. Would this concept be acceptable if Kodak used a high quality camera? Or are scanners still better?
It's not a terrible image sensor, based on my eval of a Wolverine brand, which I would bet is very much similar if not identical (it seems all these units are based on the same internals, just look at the specs). A 14 mp digital camera type sensor - very small as most point-and-shoot digicams are.

The DSLR method of copying negatives that others have discussed here (and which I am keen to try) is essentially the same thing on a larger scale. The idea is simple - you mount your negative behind a sufficiently bright and diffuse light source, you focus on it with a DSLR using a tripod or other stable platform and a macro-type flat-field lens stopped way down to increase focus accuracy, and Bob's your uncle.

Why would the DSLR method work better than the Kodak scan-in-a-box method? Primarily, I think, due to the lens quality of the DSLR (potentially) and the sensor size and dynamic range.

When I tested my recently-purchased used Wolverine, I noted that it does an "OK" job on some things - mostly low-contrast images that just did not contain that much dynamic range.

To have a high-quality unit like the Kodak (or its many clones), one would have to make use of a higher-quality sensor, which would probably be larger. Not necessarily larger, but with a higher ability to capture dynamic range. This could also entail a higher-quality integral lens, although with a sufficiently bright light source and very small aperture, this might be overcome to some extent.

There is such a product on the market, I forget the name of it, which is basically a framework for your negatives/slide and your own DSLR to do just what we're discussing. It's quite expensive as I recall. I am planning on trying a lower-budget DIY test myself. I am using an old enlarger with one of my DSLR cameras mounted where the enlarger head was, and the enlarger head turned upside down where the old photo paper base was located. We'll see how it goes.

I will also note that it appears from my own results as well as some published tests that these units seem to crop the 'scans' they make, which might be objectionable to some.

My plan for the moment with my Wolverine is to use it for quick scans of B&W negatives as I go through my archives, to see which of them I might like to do a higher-quality scan on with my Konica-Minolta ScanDual IV.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-26-2018   #19
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,456
"2D" sensors have been used in scanners for ages. And with great success, too. There are benefits and drawbacks to "1D" (line) sensors, but today, with massive pixel density sensors, mature sensor shifting technology and extremely fast image processing chips, a new (from ground up) scanner would most probably NOT use a line sensor.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-26-2018   #20
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
"2D" sensors have been used in scanners for ages. And with great success, too. There are benefits and drawbacks to "1D" (line) sensors, but today, with massive pixel density sensors, mature sensor shifting technology and extremely fast image processing chips, a new (from ground up) scanner would most probably NOT use a line sensor.
Yes, that's true. But the concept is still the same as compared to the Kodak and similar brand 'copiers' that rather than scan, make a photograph of the entire image at once.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #21
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 802
Thanks for the great explanation. Another question: What is the reason scanners still use CCD's while cameras have moved over to CMOS sensors?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #22
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Thanks for the great explanation. Another question: What is the reason scanners still use CCD's while cameras have moved over to CMOS sensors?
I can't say that I have any particular knowledge of the technical reasons, but my thoughts are that one of the virtues of CCD over CMOS is that the resulting scan is less noisy and requires less processing. Camera makers typically put a lot of time and investment into the processors in the cameras, which deal with the complexities of removing noise from signal. Scanners tend to be lower complexity, with minimal to no real computing power; they're more industrial in that sense, and a CCD works well for that, needing much less processing power.

CMOS uses less power than CCD, which makes them more suitable for a portable environment like a camera, where battery life is important, and less useful to a scanner, which is typically drawing power from local current sources.

I am told that CCD sensors also have individual lenses, and have relatively higher depth-of-field and less focus type issues; again, this favors CMOS for cameras and CCD for scanners.

Just some thoughts - I do not claim any kind of expertise here. I could well be quite wrong and welcome correction.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #23
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
I can't say that I have any particular knowledge of the technical reasons, but my thoughts are that one of the virtues of CCD over CMOS is that the resulting scan is less noisy and requires less processing. Camera makers typically put a lot of time and investment into the processors in the cameras, which deal with the complexities of removing noise from signal. Scanners tend to be lower complexity, with minimal to no real computing power; they're more industrial in that sense, and a CCD works well for that, needing much less processing power.

CMOS uses less power than CCD, which makes them more suitable for a portable environment like a camera, where battery life is important, and less useful to a scanner, which is typically drawing power from local current sources.

I am told that CCD sensors also have individual lenses, and have relatively higher depth-of-field and less focus type issues; again, this favors CMOS for cameras and CCD for scanners.

Just some thoughts - I do not claim any kind of expertise here. I could well be quite wrong and welcome correction.



Well, your answer sure seems logical. Thanks for the thoughts. Very helpful. Now if you could only teach me SilverFast!!! I am so bad at that software.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #24
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
but the overall dark-to-light ability to capture and retain detail. An image sensor with low dmax will tend to block up dark bits and blow out light bits rather than capture the detail present in the original.
In this case, would it help to do a bracket-hdr type scan, or set of scans with the DSLR?
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #25
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
In this case, would it help to do a bracket-hdr type scan, or set of scans with the DSLR?
I could imagine that this could work - with the caveat that you'd want a rock-solid base to avoid vibration, maybe even a mirrorless camera.

Just a guess on my part - I have not yet tried a single frame of DSLR scanning, I'm well behind the adoption curve on this.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #26
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
In this case, would it help to do a bracket-hdr type scan, or set of scans with the DSLR?

My Plustek scanner has a multi exposure mode that does two scans of a negative at different exposures in order to boost dynamic range. I'm not sure how good it works though since I am so bad at SilverFast.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #27
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
My Plustek scanner has a multi exposure mode that does two scans of a negative at different exposures in order to boost dynamic range. I'm not sure how good it works though since I am so bad at SilverFast.
Vuescan has a multi-exposure mode and I've played with it, but never seen any improvement in the resulting scans. I'm not sure if it plays with the exposure settings or not.
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2018   #28
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock View Post
Vuescan has a multi-exposure mode and I've played with it, but never seen any improvement in the resulting scans. I'm not sure if it plays with the exposure settings or not.
IIAC it just re-scans at the same exposure.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  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 19:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.