A modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film

[Helge]

Something is very wrong in manufacturing and economically, when you can scrape a much better “scanner” together by buying off the shelf products made for some different purpose , than by buying a professionally produced scanner for at least 10x the price.

One minute of macro taking and five minutes of stitching and tweaking, kills OpticFilm 120s almost two hour scan time for a 6x6 for a measly 5300 dpi, in every possible way.
Resolution, tonality and dynamics.

 

[Auer]

Something is very wrong in manufacturing and economically, when you can scrape a much better “scanner” together by buying off the shelf products made for some different purpose , than by buying a professionally produced scanner for at least 10x the price.

One minute of macro taking and five minutes of stitching and tweaking, kills OpticFilm 120s almost two hour scan time for a 6x6 for a measly 5300 dpi, in every possible way.
Resolution, tonality and dynamics.

There's nothing wrong at all as it fills a need and makes a profit.

Obvbiously we have several options available here commercially, from simple cheap flatbeds to using expensive camera's and lenses.
So each can skin their cat in a way that suits them best.

As long as the end result pleases the user it's all good.

 

[fs999]

One minute of macro taking and five minutes of stitching and tweaking, kills OpticFilm 120s almost two hour scan time for a 6x6 for a measly 5300 dpi, in every possible way.
Resolution, tonality and dynamics.

At 5300 dpi you need a 112 MPixel camera to beat the resolution...

 

[Helge]

There's nothing wrong at all as it fills a need and makes a profit.

Obvbiously we have several options available here commercially, from simple cheap flatbeds to using expensive camera's and lenses.
So each can skin their cat in a way that suits them best.

As long as the end result pleases the user it's all good.

I doubt they are even making them anymore. They could just be selling out of an end of production run.
The few people buying them are the ones who are too narrow minded/naive/lacking in knowledge to know about and understand camera scanning.
Thinking “a real scanner is better” or “it doesn’t make sense to digitally photograph film”.

They are dwindling fast in number though.
A $2500 price tag vs. a few hundred with much better value for the money, is real convincing to most people.

 

[Helge]

At 5300 dpi you need a 112 MPixel camera to beat the resolution...

All you need is a good APS sensor camera. Four snaps of a 6x6 with some overlap and you are there.

 

[Auer]

I doubt they are even making them anymore. They could just be selling out of an end of production run.
The few people buying them are the ones who are too narrow minded/naive/lacking in knowledge to know about and understand camera scanning.
Thinking “a real scanner is better” or “it doesn’t make sense to digitally photograph film”.

They are dwindling fast in number though.
A $2500 price tag vs. a few hundred with much better value for the money, is real convincing to most people.

Pretty narrow minded viewpoint.
But you do what makes you happy.

I have no illusions about how my scans will be viewed by the majority who sees them, anything from lousy monitors to cellphones.
So I let my scanner hum away and do 12 images per batch while I do something more interesting. Works for me.

Interesting how some camera scanner folks come across as both a bit militant and arrogant at the same time tho.
That's a lot of negative energy inserted in to a largely positive hobby.

 

[Helge]

Pretty narrow minded viewpoint.
But you do what makes you happy.

I have no illusions about how my scans will be viewed by the majority who sees them, anything from lousy monitors to cellphones.
So I let my scanner hum away and do 12 images per batch while I do something more interesting. Works for me.

Interesting how some camera scanner folks come across as both a bit militant and arrogant at the same time tho.
That's a lot of negative energy inserted in to a largely positive hobby.

Amateur straw man building is getting old real fast. You’re a quarter to twelve, invoking Godwin's law in the above.

When you see people proudly driving three wheelers they bought for more money than a very good racing bike would cost them, you have to at least say something.
It’s a basic humanitarian act.

And the set it and forget it argument is moot when the scanner takes two hours to do a scan it would take minutes to do with a camera.

If you are happy with a simple 24 MP scan, you can do that in literally a second with a camera scan setup.

 

[Auer]

Amateur straw man building is getting old real fast. You’re a quarter to twelve, invoking Godwin's law in the above.

When you see people proudly driving three wheelers they bought for more money than a very good racing bike would cost them. You have to at least say something.
It’s a basic humanitarian act.

And the set it and forget it argument is moot when the scanner takes two hours to do a scan it would take minutes to do with a camera.

If you are happy with a simple 24 MP scan, you can do that in literally a second with a camera scan setup.

Actually I'm just happy.

It's not hard at all.

 

[moshin]

Asking another question: Given that Noritsu, Fuji and Nikon seems to be the best scanners and they are already very old with many issues for sourcing parts and repair them, what would be required for the Japanese to make new hardware with compatible drivers for current oses? How much money will be required for them to restart making them? What can we do to bring them back? (peition.org, fund raising, something like kickstarter?). Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

We have received reports about some of the lack of civility in this thread.
It is fine to advocate for a position, but rude and dismissive comments about other people will get the thread shut down.

 

[Helge]

[1] I want a scanner simply because quality camera scans are expensive, the copy stand takes half of my desk, and it just... "feels wrong".

Look at it this way, an enlarger is basically this thing. You’re only projecting on a sensor.
Or, it’s basically the same as duping slide or cine film.
A monochrome sensor with RGB+ backlight would be the best (Leica Monochrome is still only double the price of the aforementioned scanner). But for now even a Bayer sensor is a huge improvement.

 

[MattKing]

I'd be very interested in a scanner that:
1) uses a CMOS or other high quality full frame (rather than line) sensor;
2) employs optics that are truly optimized for flat field performance at the magnifications required for the variety of different magnifications mandated by by a variety of different film formats;
3) includes a reliable, consistent output light source (like electronic flash) that provides continuous spectrum light of appropriate colour temperature;
4) includes filtration for the light source to match the light to the design specifications of the mask in C-41 negative materials;
5) provides useful, flexible and efficient provisions for handling sheet film, complete rolls, and short strips of roll film and mounted slides, in a manner that ensures film flatness;
6) includes provisions that prevent interference from ambient light, and help remove/minimize/eliminate dust;
6) includes software protocols that are exactly matched to the sensor and light sources employed - both for positive and negative films - and provides file output that suits commonly used image editing software - not just Adobe products; and
7) is small and attractive enough to have out in open view.
In order for the optics to be of high enough quality, I accept the fact that it may be necessary to have multiple lenses on a turret or sliding mount.
In order to maintain the consistency of light output and sensor response, it may be necessary to include calibration hardware and software.
Do you think it would bee more than $300.00 ?

 

[MattKing]

You want three "peaks" that align with peak sensitivity of each emulsion layer

Which would be fine, if both positive and negative materials matched in how the colours are put together, and if all the different brands and types of colour materials behaved exactly the same.
The continuous spectrum source permits you to work (relatively) easily with multiple materials.
You don't want a light source that works great with Kodak film, but is just a bit off with Fuji.
And by the way, I forgot one important criteria - the "scanner" needs to have a really accurate system that ensures focus, if only to be able to deal with mounted slides.
One of the reasons that this whole subject arises is because the optical requirements of the traditional line type scanners are so much less demanding than of a scanner that images to a large sensor.
A lens designed for use both at close distances and everything out to infinity - no matter how good - is always going to involve more compromises than a lens designed for repro work - which is essentially what film digitization is.

 

[Helge]

We have received reports about some of the lack of civility in this thread.
It is fine to advocate for a position, but rude and dismissive comments about other people will get the thread shut down.

I'd love to hear what those reports say and pertaining which post(s).
Matt, in my book you're a good guy, and (of course) I'll follow your directions and I'll do whatever you deem right and just, but:
If it is what I think it is, I think you'd be wise in hypothetically reversing the claim for a moment, and have a real hard look at whether someone is abusing the fine art of offence taking, and is pulling the martyr card over at most trifle, petty words. At worst wilfully misconstruing details in posts he simply doesn't like the message of, in a case of stealth/reverse bullying.
In other words wasting your precious time.

 

[grat]

What can we do to bring them back? (peition.org, fund raising, something like kickstarter?). Thank you.

Make it profitable.

 

[Les Sarile]

Asking another question: Given that Noritsu, Fuji and Nikon seems to be the best scanners and they are already very old with many issues for sourcing parts and repair them, what would be required for the Japanese to make new hardware with compatible drivers for current oses? How much money will be required for them to restart making them? What can we do to bring them back? (peition.org, fund raising, something like kickstarter?). Thank you.

No doubt minilab scanners are built for speed but unfortunately neither the Agfa, Frontier or Noritsu minilab scanners compare well to the Coolscan+Nikonscan when it comes to color/contrast accuracy.

This particular frame of a perfectly well exposed Kodak Gold 100 - a film that was not new to anyone at the time I took the shot, was not handled well at all by a Noritsu mini lab scanner. Granted these minilab machines run completely automated scans to meet the low cost mass production scale but I also scanned using fully automatic batch mode on the Coolscan as well and the results look like they came from two different frames of film . . .

Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on Flickr

I am sure this is the just worst possible result from a Noritsu scan that probably doesn't happen all the time but unfortunately most do not know how to judge a color negative by looking at it.

Another common scan problem with minilab scans is their ability to blowout scans and make people believe their meter is off and had they compensated by a miniscule amount that the shot would have turned out much better . . .

Kodak Ektar 100_10-14 Noritsu_Coolscan by Les DMess, on Flickr

Compared to digitals, most all color negatives have so much overexposure latitude that it is really impressive that you can blow it out in a scan. How about +10 overexposure and it is still recoverable . . .

Kodak Portra 400 overexposure by Les DMess, on Flickr

As I stated previously, b&w films are the best candidate for DSLR scanning, slides are a toss up but most certainly not color negatives.

 

[Les Sarile]

@Les Sarile why are you posting this again? IIRC people have told you several times that you're comparing two different operators clicking on different buttons in two different software packages. None of that has anything to do with scanners. You are simply not an expert in Noritsu EZ controller. You are clueless about camera scanning also. All of your posts should be simply re-written as "I have a Coolscan"s.

You have no idea.

Matt just stated, "we received reports about some of the lack of civility in this thread." and you come at me this way? Since you stated that you have tried the 5000 and all others then perhaps you can post examples and observations that provide a counterpoint so that the community can benefit from it?

Full disclosure I have the Coolscans V, 5000 & 9000 as well as have owned many other desktop scanners like the Canoscans, Epsons, Mikrotek, Minoltas and used the services of every minilab as well as Dusrt and Imacons. I've also compared my scans to poster size optical prints for color/contrast and detail comparisons.

 

[Auer]

Congratulations. You have wasted a lot of time and money. Should have tried reading manuals or books on image processing before you started "comparing" and sharing online.

You bombed this thread without helping the OP at all.

Congratulations.

 

[MattKing]

This thread is very close to being shut down.

 

[mshchem]

Deep breath. I was looking at using a digital camera for "scanning" my Beseler Negatrans looks like it would transport my medium format film ( sittingon top of a light source) . What's the best light source

 

[MattKing]

Deep breath. I was looking at using a digital camera for "scanning" my Beseler Negatrans looks like it would transport my medium format film ( sittingon top of a light source) . What's the best light source

Electronic flash.

 

[Moose22]

Electronic flash.

+1

You probably have one to work with if you're constructing your own setup. Good diffusion (could even be superwhite paper andor a reflector/flash diffuser) with the highest possible CRI light.

High CRI, bright lights are expensive otherwise. The bigger the light area the more expensive, so if you have a flash already...

 

[mshchem]

Electronic flash.

Yeah, that's about as good as it gets. I've got plenty of flash units. I could rig up a monolight. Are the fancy Negative Supply carriers worth the money? They look beautiful but I'm not sure if I would get much benefit.

 

[mshchem]

I have soft boxes for my studio flash. Biggest issue for me is alignment. I have a extra Beseler 4x5 enlarger that I could use as a copy stand.

 

[Moose22]

Are the fancy Negative Supply carriers worth the money

I have their carriers. They're nice. They work. They're overengieered by a lot. Milled metal will definitely never twist or crack, though.

The drawbacks are that they work best on a whole roll of film, if you have a single negative or even had them paged it's a bit harder to use them. It's easier of they have a bit of leader for the first (or only) frame, basically.

Also, if you're making your own light source you'll have to sort laying the holder flat on a diffuser of some variety, They are designed to sitting on a flat source akin to a tablet. This is not insurmountable -- a bit of float glass and diffuser of some variety on a box rigged to reflect the monolight would do it, so maybe that's not a drawback so much as a "be aware" since you're rigging a light anyway.

Also, my main drawback is that Negative Supply's customer service is a horrific nightmare of awfulness.