Cameradactyl Mongoose - Automated 35mm Scanning

[trick]

Just noticed that Cameradactly have a new Kickstarter campaign for an automated 35mm scanning machine that links to any digital camera mounted above a light box. - https://www.kickstarter.com/project...yl-mongoose-fast-automated-35mm-film-scanning



It's essentially a box that pulls your roll along and then triggers a photo once a new shot is in place. I don't currently have a scanning set-up and was going to go the typical V600 route but this seem like an interesting alternative.

Has anyone had good results taking digital photos of negatives in this way (without the automation)?

 

[shutterfinger]

I wouldn't use a cell phone camera for anything I wanted a larger than 4x6 snapshot pirnt from.

 

[PhilBurton]

Just noticed that Cameradactly have a new Kickstarter campaign for an automated 35mm scanning machine that links to any digital camera mounted above a light box. - https://www.kickstarter.com/project...yl-mongoose-fast-automated-35mm-film-scanning



It's essentially a box that pulls your roll along and then triggers a photo once a new shot is in place. I don't currently have a scanning set-up and was going to go the typical V600 route but this seem like an interesting alternative.

Has anyone had good results taking digital photos of negatives in this way (without the automation)?

So once this product goes commercial, how much will it cost?

 

[Steve@f8]

It’s not going to be cheap... don’t see the point, all this automation to align a negative (and trigger the camera I guess?) when it’s so easy to do using hands and what’s more you would probably want to blow the dust anyway; more hand work.
I use a Plustek for colour 135 and a BEOON for B&W.

 

[radiant]

This is a classical example of a product that tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

The real problem is mounting and focusing the camera, not moving the film. This claim is based on my experiences with DSLR scanning using railed bellows; it reduces 90% of the hassle when the film is aligned during the whole process.

I personally have done "fast scans" with Slide duplicator + bellows (for Canon FD) which I have fitted to DSLR with an adapter. Transferring film is not an issue at all, it is really fast operation.

So I think this is a gimmick where people invest their money thinking this solves a problem they didn't have.

 

[grat]

Has anyone had good results taking digital photos of negatives in this way (without the automation)?

It's a fairly popular method, and for 35mm in particular, seems to return as good, or better, results than most scanner options.

I wouldn't use a cell phone camera for anything I wanted a larger than 4x6 snapshot pirnt from.

Well, no, most people wouldn't... but the video plainly shows a DSLR / mirrorless camera in use.

 

[MattKing]

This makes a certain amount of sense for anyone digitizing lots of film - a small custom lab for instance.
But short of that, not so much.

 

[trick]

So once this product goes commercial, how much will it cost?

Judging by the kickstarter levels, it could end up costing a few hundred dollars! Much more than I anticipated.

Filing this one under: Cool Stuff I Definitely Don't Need

 

[Steve@f8]

Judging by the kickstarter levels, it could end up costing a few hundred dollars! Much more than I anticipated.

Filing this one under: Cool Stuff I Definitely Don't Need

+1

 

[Helge]

This would make sense for a camera store or lab wanting to scan fast and easy. And in much higher quality than any lab scanner will.
Pity that there isn’t accommodated for 120 film.

 

[punkzter]

I'm probably just a sucker. I'm really excited by this. I don't have a Pakon and am not at all happy with my Epson scanning process. Yes, it is expensive. But so is a Pakon. And I really don't want to run an xp machine or spend that much money on 30 year old scanning equipment. It's entirely possible that I'll hate the process. Especially if dust is a big issue or if the post-processing is to much of a hassle. But scanning a roll in under 2 minutes sounds fantastic to me.

 

[Wallendo]

It is a neat device, but not worth $500 to me. A lot of electronics are used, but a device with a manual advancement wheel would probably work almost as fast and be a lot cheaper.

 

[Bormental]

I admire people who start projects like these, and wish him the best. However, I just don't see myself using something like this

If you have a few hundred dollars to blow on a negative holder, Negative Supply makes a marvelous device. I scan at the same speed as shown in the video, but without the cables and annoying sounds. Turning the knob with your fingers and using your eyes for edge detection is reliable and fast. I haven't timed myself but I am pretty sure I digitize a 36exp roll in under 3 minutes.

I highly recommend tethering for this too. You're more comfortable sitting in a chair, you can have a much more precise focus and preview, the images from each roll go into a designated folder, etc.

 

[punkzter]

One advantage over the automated process is that your batch process can include cropping. I don't know. We'll see just how neat this is in the end

 

[Bormental]

One advantage over the automated process is that your batch process can include cropping. I don't know. We'll see just how neat this is in the end

Agreed! I was kind of hoping that his box does that, plus automatic color inversion!

 

[punkzter]

You probably know this, but the box won't do that. However, and please bear in mind that I'm am absolute novice at Lightroom, it's my understanding that lightroom can include cropping as part of the batch process. So, if all of the negatives are captured exactly the same (as they would be with this box), then you could include the crop in your batch process.

 

[albireo]

It's a fairly popular method, and for 35mm in particular, seems to return as good, or better, results than most scanner options.

Not sure of the above. Based on what I see on forums/facebook/flickr, DSLR scanning is very easily bettered by a simple and cheap dedicated film scanner. If properly used, a Coolscan 5000 or a Minolta Scan Dual or Scan Elite is miles better than a DSLR scan. Even a Plustek 7500/7600/8100/8200 if properly used gives better results than a DSLR scan at 1/10th of the setup cost (though I can see the convenience if one already owns a DSLR of course, as well as the other paraphernalia needed).

Unless of course the DSLR scanning gurus are keeping their masterpieces hidden

 

[punkzter]

I have definitely seen comparisons where the dslr came out on top.

But, I think that part of the issue here is that many of the best dedicated scanners are no longer made. You mention the Coolscan 5000 or the minoltas. But they aren't produced or supported. So you could drop $1,000-$2,000 on a Nikon and then it breaks a month later. Or the software just doesn't seem to work on your computer. You are out of luck. And from what I've read about the Plustek scanners, they just aren't that great (now, I could be wrong about that).

But the other benefit of something like the Mongoose is that it's fast. You buy a Plustek and you are waiting around for each tray of 6 shots to scan. that is 6 at a time. At least with a flatbed you can scan 24 at a time.

I don't mean to evangelize this product. It's nowhere near a perfect solution. In my mind, a "perfect" scanner would be a modern Pakon with software that can easily handle B&W film and works on modern operating systems. My hope is that this solution will create an easier workflow than my Epson scanner and that the quality will be the same or better. We'll see. I think that all of the reasons against this method are well reasoned and worth considering

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Not sure of the above. Based on what I see on forums/facebook/flickr, DSLR scanning is very easily bettered by a simple and cheap dedicated film scanner. If properly used, a Coolscan 5000 or a Minolta Scan Dual or Scan Elite is miles better than a DSLR scan. Even a Plustek 7500/7600/8100/8200 if properly used gives better results than a DSLR scan at 1/10th of the setup cost (though I can see the convenience if one already owns a DSLR of course, as well as the other paraphernalia needed).

Unless of course the DSLR scanning gurus are keeping their masterpieces hidden

Better is relative. How long does it take to scan a full 36 exposure roll at maximum resolution on a Coolscan 5000? With a DSLR based scan, you can blast through a whole roll in less than 5 minutes, including initially framing up, focusing, and setting the exposure. Modern DSLR scans are easily in the 20-30+ Megapixel range, which is enough resolution for the vast majority of uses. If you need more the 20-30MP for your output, then the pool of scanner technology available to you is significantly reduced and you're far better off with shooting a much larger negative to begin with where lesser resolution scanners that can scan larger areas will provide more total system resolution.

 

[albireo]

Let's not confuse 'better' with 'faster'.

For me specifically, the 'faster' argument is of no relevance whatsoever. You see, my purpose is not to 'blast' through my negatives to quickly scan them and store them. In my workflow, I like to scan to full resolution those I believe to be my best shots.

As I am a poor photographer, or perhaps a very self-critical one, I rarely have more than 10% of my shots in a roll (be it 120 or 35mm) I feel really proud of and want to preserve.

Based on this, a "batch preview" style of scanning via any of my scanners in Vuescan is more than suitably fast. 1 second per preview -> decide if the image is worth following up > then, do a full scan or move on to the next.

If you have a great, working film scanner setup that's fast enough for you, as mine is for me, there are IMHO exactly zero reasons to move to an expensive DSLR-based scanning setup.

Unless of course what one is looking for is really another hobby, which is absolutely fine

Better is relative. How long does it take to scan a full 36 exposure roll at maximum resolution on a Coolscan 5000? With a DSLR based scan, you can blast through a whole roll in less than 5 minutes, including initially framing up, focusing, and setting the exposure. Modern DSLR scans are easily in the 20-30+ Megapixel range, which is enough resolution for the vast majority of uses. If you need more the 20-30MP for your output, then the pool of scanner technology available to you is significantly reduced and you're far better off with shooting a much larger negative to begin with where lesser resolution scanners that can scan larger areas will provide more total system resolution.

 

[radiant]

For some faster might be better. It is matter of needs.

I usually shoot the film strips cutted in clear film archival sheet with DSLR on light table. From that I can easily see what shots are worth processing. I can then scan either the single image from strip or make print in darkroom. I've written about it here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/super-easy-digital-contact-sheet-of-film.175532/

Digital contact sheet eliminates the need to scan each frame on full resolution. I typically have 5 keepers from 36 roll which I might process further. I might even see from digital negatives that I have maybe 1-2 frames that are worth printing. I don't see any reason to scan all 36 on my hit-miss ratio

As I previously wrote I have also a good DSLR macro/bellow system - but while setting up that is small job - I still usually prefer the digital contact sheet approach

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Let's not confuse 'better' with 'faster'.

For me specifically, the 'faster' argument is of no relevance whatsoever. You see, my purpose is not to 'blast' through my negatives to quickly scan them and store them. In my workflow, I like to scan to full resolution those I believe to be my best shots.

As I am a poor photographer, or perhaps a very self-critical one, I rarely have more than 10% of my shots in a roll (be it 120 or 35mm) I feel really proud of and want to preserve.

Based on this, a "batch preview" style of scanning via any of my scanners in Vuescan is more than suitably fast. 1 second per preview -> decide if the image is worth following up > then, do a full scan or move on to the next.

If you have a great, working film scanner setup that's fast enough for you, as mine is for me, there are IMHO exactly zero reasons to move to an expensive DSLR-based scanning setup.

Unless of course what one is looking for is really another hobby, which is absolutely fine

this is why I said better is relative. I own and operate a film processing lab. Scanning speed is one aspect of several things to take into account when evaluating scan quality.