I'm not an IT guru, how does backward compatibility stack up to what you say? I use 3.0 devices on older 2.0 machines without any issues.I don't think so. At this point, opting for 3.0 only connectivity would incur a bigger penalty in terms of sales hurdles than opting for 2.0 will do for the foreseeable future. This is due to the hardware compatibility of both versions which will guarantee compatibility with 2.0 devices in the years to come, whereas the installed base of 2.0 machines won't be able to interface with 3.0-exclusive devices.
Furthermore, the 'regardless of throughput requirements' statement ignores the reality of the timing of the analog capture and A/D conversion and the resulting data streams, which is likely to be limited to well withing the capabilities of USB2.0.
Simply put, there's no compelling reason now to limit the design work to USB3.0. It seems @gswdh realizes this perfectly well and he's right in doing so.
Looks like at least the B&W array has some sensitivity around 900nm and probably the red array does so, too. This means you could at least theoretically sample in the near-IR band and then use that data for dust & scratch removal. How feasible it is to write (or borrow) the algorithms for that recombination of data, I don't know, and I imagine that's where the real challenge is.
Cool project overall and yes, it seems feasible. I can't judge how the quality would stack up against what's available on the second hand market especially, but as you pointed out, that's a finite and limited supply. I think there are plenty of small labs interested in purchasing a new scanner to replace aging and perhaps temperamental Pakons, scavenged Frontiers etc. And the amateur market will also be present.
I think your main challenge really will be to stay ahead of Chinese competition. As soon as they figure out what you're doing, they're going to do their own version and likely undercut your price point significantly. So from a business standpoint, I'd certainly consider the possibilities of doing a 'hit & run', i.e. make the product profitable right off the bat with the first production run, so that anything that comes after it is a bonus. The main concern here would be the after sales support, since it might represent a commitment that trails long after the profitable part of the product life cycle.
how does backward compatibility stack up to what you say?
my expertise is actually in signal processing.
The USB3 interface is designed to remain backward compatible with USB2 devices. It's highly likely that any interface that follows after USB3.0 will retain the same policy so that even USB1.1 devices will remain usable.
So in other words, if I plug a 3.0 device into a 2.0 port it will NOT work?
All I said was 3.0 is simply a "modern" interface found on pretty much every new device, hence anything less is NOT a good selling point, irrespective of data flow needs.
Great idea! I have a Pakon for fast scans and a Flextight for high quality scans but a good alternative is a great idea!
The Python code seems to be very basic. How do you detect the frame edges, or do you plan to post process a whole strip? How do you accommodate exposure variations? It would also be nice to be able to read the DX code if available.
Color is of course a huge problem. Besides color correction, make sure it works well with something like Negative Lab Pro is important. Also supporting some kind of dust removal would be nice.
Anyway, it would be trivial to convert the existing Python code to C++ code, but I suspect it's only about 10% of what is needed at best, not even counting the UI/UX part. If the HW works well though, it would be a wonderful platform.
It really needs to be able to scan medium format film, and preferably all formats including 617 in one pass. And nothing lower than 4000-5000 true optical resolution. And film holders that hold the film perfectly flat, with the option of fluid mounting.
It depends doesn't it? If it only takes a few minutes to scan the whole roll, why not?
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.
- Terrible software
- Are legacy hardware only working with legacy PCs
- Poor scan quality
- Poor user experience
- Extremely long and tedious scan times
...it takes less time to scan an entire roll then to scan 3 (or even 2) strips of film.
Why wouldn't there be warranty or after sales support?
USB 2 is plenty for a scanner, is cheaper and is much easier to implement.
You're obviously not using my scanners.
I can't understand that with a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED under VueScan. Stable software, manageable results, excellent quality with a quick scanning process. Other scanners may work slower, but if the situation were actually that bad, I would have heard about it.
With VueScan, which probably supports most scanners, the problem of outdated scanning software has long been solved.
Varies from person to person. Right now, it normally only takes me a few minutes to scan the few 35mm shots on a roll that I want to scan. (After processing, I cut my film into strips to save in protective sheets & produce a contact sheet) Why spend more time on the computer deleting the vast majority of shots I don't want to scan -- and paying a lot for the privilege to do it?
It’s one thing to design a great product, it’s another to manufacture it, and yet another to have an after sale support and repair. A startup is at a disadvantage as consumers will be uncertain about how long they’ll be around to honor a warranty. Yes, an established company can go under too, but the odds are better.
So I did say they have at least one of those issues, not necessarily all of them. I’d say your setup would fall into the legacy hardware category that can’t be bought new, or supported by a warranty or be officially supported. It’s also expensive for an old piece of equipment.
Edit: It seems that scanner is very slow, too.
It's simple: If you put something on the market that's better than what you can buy, and the price is right for your target audience, you'll be successful.
That would be new to me, because the 5000 is still one of the fastest 35mm scanners.
The Canoscan FS4000 came with SCSI and USB2. The USB2 interface is much slower than the SCSI interface. I'd want USB3 and at least 4000ppi 12bit for a 35mm scanner.USB 2 is plenty for a scanner, is cheaper and is much easier to implement.
How long does it take to scan? I read around 40 mins for a full roll which needs manually feeding unless you have the additional hardware?
Would you mind sharing your setup?
I can't understand that with a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED under VueScan. Stable software, manageable results, excellent quality with a quick scanning process. Other scanners may work slower, but if the situation were actually that bad, I would have heard about it.
With VueScan, which probably supports most scanners, the problem of outdated scanning software has long been solved.
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?