I bought a beautiful Nikon Coolscan V for 89 dollars, VueScan for $100. Works great. A friend abandoned a Nikon Coolscan 9000 at my place, all the holders and software, it has the damn Firewire so that means no easy solution for computer.
If I want digital files I shoot digital. If I need to scan film I use my little Coolscan, bigger films mean DSLR.
I would build a negative transport, except that's been done too.
I can use the firewire scanner. If I can get your friend scanner cheap it would be great.
I suppose there are lots of circumstances where all (or most of all) the images on a roll of film would want/need to be scanned, but I doubt I'm in the minority that gets maybe 3-6 worthwhile shots on a roll -- or 8-15 if I'm very lucky. An entire roll scanned? Not in my universe.
Nikon Coolscan 9000 at my place, all the holders and software, it has the damn Firewire so that means no easy solution for computer
USB 2.0? Why not 3.x?
You can get FireWire PCI card.
Slides?
Is it possible to write software that doesn't crash?
I bought a beautiful Nikon Coolscan V for 89 dollars, VueScan for $100. Works great. A friend abandoned a Nikon Coolscan 9000 at my place, all the holders and software, it has the damn Firewire so that means no easy solution for computer.
If I want digital files I shoot digital. If I need to scan film I use my little Coolscan, bigger films mean DSLR.
I would build a negative transport, except that's been done too.
Actually, I think a scanner that can scan an entire roll is a must. Too many less expensive alternatives for scan a single strip of film. As to not all the frames being worth scanning, every computer I've worked with has a delete key.
But I think not many people will invest in a €1-1.5k in a scanner with no credible warranty or after sales support.
USB 2.0? Why not 3.x?
It could be very interesting to have a new high-grade film scanner available. I think there is enough use of 35mm film that a 35mm-only scanner could be viable. I can understand the idea of scanning the whole roll of film, because if you are using negative film, then unless you are printing darkroom contact sheets, it is kind of hard to know what you have without scans. It would be nice, though, to have the option also of scanning shorter strips of film and also mounted slides. I would aim for 12 bit to 16 bit if possible. 3,000dpi is probably enough, but some people might want 3600dpi to 4000dpi. I think what limits the resolving power in many scanners is the lens, so hopefully you could use a high-quality lens--maybe a lens from Rodenstock. And something you didn't mention, but I would hope for a CCD sensor instead of CMOS. I like the idea of the open-source software and hope that it could be cross-platform, including Linux and maybe BSD. Hopefully, the software will also have the option of color management, so that if desired you can scan with custom scanner profiles and then either assign the scanner profile or convert to any particular working space profile on the scan file.
@bfilm mentioned lens and sensor. Yes, those are critical components in a scanner. Can you tell us which lens and sensor you plan to use? Also, you will need autofocus, unless your mechanics can hold each frame in exactly the same place. How about ICE?
Scanning an entire roll would save me much time! I would start the scan, and do something else for an hour. When done, I would go through the photos and wear out my Delete key. The result would be the keepers, consuming very little of my time.
ICE is something I need to look into, I'm not sure if it's possible which isn't good of course.
If you shoot a 36 exp roll, isn't it easier to scan the entire roll in one go, instead of scanning strips of 4 or 6?
I also agree that in this day and age dumbing down connection to USB 2.0 is a bad design/business decision, regardless of throughput requirements.
Because it is typically a waste of time, resources and post scan dumping requiring that extra time. I only see full roll capability for labs where they do it, obviously, and that is all they care about for mass scanning.
I also agree that in this day and age dumbing down connection to USB 2.0 is a bad design/business decision, regardless of throughput requirements. It simply will kill a lot of potential customers, simply because some things need to go with times. Digital has never been about nostalgia, it's all about next best, fastest etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?