I'm making my own film scanner and will attempt to sell it

[MattKing]

Priorities for me would be:
1) easy film handling;
2) film flatness!;
3) auto-focus, and/or a robust manual focus alternative;
4) a film path that minimizes dust and is self cleaning;
5) a continuous spectrum CRI 100 light source - electronic flash preferably;
6) a desk footprint that is relatively small;
7) capacity to scan strips as well as rolls;
8) must, must, must be usable with transparency materials. If you can't scan slides, I wouldn't want it. I have no problem with it being optimized for handling negative roll films.

The power source should be easy to replace or repair - proprietary cords are a pain. And there needs to be an on/off switch.

General purpose "macro" lenses designed for DSLRs would be a poor option. A good scanner needs a special purpose optic, with performance optimized for its intended use.

A scanner in the suggested price range would be of interest to only a very small minority of individual photographers. For small labs though, this would make a lot of sense.

 

[Richard Man]

Priorities for me would be:
1) easy film handling;
2) film flatness!;
...

I'd concur with what Matt says. Lots of people will give you suggestions that will bog down the project to non-starting, but nonetheless, it should satisfy some basic requirements and what Matt says sound about right. In addition, don't use FPGA, only standard components, and I'm not even sure why we are debating USB3 and USB2. In 5 years, most USB2 only laptops / desktops would be gone. Just go with USB3. It will cost a dedicated chip rather than an MCU, but USB2 only will kill it.

I still think you way underestimate the software, but that's OK. In fact, I think you should concentrate on hardware and work with the Vuescan guy to have him support it. Make sure you define a firmware API that supports Vuescan and you won't have to worry about high level software.

 

[PhilBurton]

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?

+1

 

[_T_]

I just wanted to add that if you can get the IR data out of the scanner it’s not a very complex process to use it to remove dust and scratches.

I use the ir channel to remove them myself in photoshop and it’s only a matter of adjusting the contrast of the channel to exclude any retained silver in the film and using the result as a mask to apply a relatively simple filter.

You could make your implementation way better than any of the current implementations just by giving a preview of the ir channel during adjustment and providing decent UI.

 

[albireo]

As another 'dedicated film scanner' user, this is of great interest.

You mention you will focus on 35mm. For black and white 35mm specifically, I like to use my Minolta Scan Dual IV: autofocus, 6-strip negative scanning, 4-strip slide scanning, extremely fast, and 3200 real dpi. I use other scanners for C41 and 120 but they're MF dedicated film scanners so out of scope here.

The Minolta is pretty awesome but one day it'll fail. I might buy another one (they're really cheap used, and I've gotten good at cleaning them up) or I might invest in your product.

To lure me in, I'd like the following (I agree with Matt on many things)

• >=4000 real dpi
• autofocus
• nice film holder design (magnetic? See excellent Stephen Scharf's 3D printer film holders for the Nikon Coolscans) to maximise planarity across the frame
• fast preview mode*
• @Richard Man's suggestion to liaise with Ed Hamrick is a great one. For me, the scanner needs to work flawlessly with Vuescan and allow me to produce the raw linear 16bit/channel images I need for my workflow
• CRUCIAL - quiet operation. My Minolta makes an absolute racket. Please investigate motor noise dampening opportunities
• No interpolating Bayer/X-trans sensor
• Good quality dedicated scanning lens - get a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 lens design white-paper for ideas on an excellent design
• Need to echo Matt's important comment again - it has to be SMALL. Again, look at the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 form factor. A thin standing brick. That's all I want on my desk.

*I only scan at full resolution the 'keepers' in a roll. To know what the keepers are, I'll do a 'preview' scan at the lowest resolution allowed by Vuescan. These 'keepers' are usually amounting to 1-8 images per 36 frame roll if I'm lucky. Therefore, I don't care much if the full-res scan is fast or slow. I will never scan 36 frames full res. All I want is a super fast preview mode to get rid of as many bad compositions, poorly exposed images etc. as possible that I won't scan and I definitely won't archive - before concentrating on those I will push to the next stage of the workflow. My Minolta Scan Dual completes a fast preview of all the 6 frames in a strip in a few seconds.

Good luck with what seems to be a great project- there is strong need for a well designed dedicated film scanner option.

 

[wiltw]

Please, oh please...since operating system software is forever changing, do NOT leave driver software abandoned so that it is not supported on current versions of O/S. Vendors release a scanner in 2000 compatible with the current O/S, and they release later scanners compatible with then-current O/S in later yeras, but users of the scanner from 2000 cannot get updated drivers which are officielly supported in the future, forcing purchase of new hardware simply to get current drivers supported on current O/S.

And please, make the scanner line work with Micro 4/3 format film thru 4x5 film, with lower res preview of images, to filter out the non-keeprs, and identify the keepers for high res final scan.

 

[brbo]

I just wanted to add that if you can get the IR data out of the scanner it’s not a very complex process to use it to remove dust and scratches.

Can you publish or point us to the code that implements ICE-like (possibly content aware) healing routines? I've read a bit on the subject (and I use IR channel data with great success in PS), but after all I've read implementing such functionality in a standalone one-man-band software seems like a non-trivial endeavour.

And please, make the scanner line work with Micro 4/3 format film thru 4x5 film

3.000dpi, up to 4x5", insanely fast, $1k scanner? Let's keep it real, please. Btw, which film camera shoots m4/3 format?

 

[wiltw]

Can you publish or point us to the code that implements ICE-like (possibly content aware) healing routines? I've read a bit on the subject (and I use IR channel data with great success in PS), but after all I've read implementing such functionality in a standalone one-man-band software seems like a non-trivial endeavour.



3.000dpi, up to 4x5", insanely fast, $1k scanner? Let's keep it real, please. Btw, which film camera shoots m4/3 format?

No micro 4/3 film, but there are film formats smaller than 135 that folks might wish to scan, inherenting old films from deceased relatives, or even ones that they shot themselves with formats that went out of use after 35mm...and, of course, there are APS format negs and slides.
Canon offered a scanner supporting 135 thru 4x5 and it was only 129 € or abut $200, so a faster unit for $1000 does not seem like an impossible request...or simply offer two models, and charge a higher price for the one with more flexible format support.

 

[koraks]

do NOT leave driver software abandoned so that it is not supported on current versions of O/S

I hear what you're saying, but it boils down to asking for a 15 year commitment on a $1k device. That sounds like a challenging proposition.

 

[wiltw]

I hear what you're saying, but it boils down to asking for a 15 year commitment on a $1k device. That sounds like a challenging proposition.

In these days of software as a service, selling driver updates (rather than obsoleting hardware which a user is happy with) can produce recurring revenue! And it need not be for 15 years...just the reassurance that one's investment is not blown away with the next update to new O/S!

 

[koraks]

And it need not be for 15 years...just the reassurance that one's investment is not blown away with the next update to new O/S!

If you look at the timescale at which scanner drivers became an issue, it really is the 10-20 year timeframe. For instance, it was only when Win7 came around that the Minolta Scan Dual driver stack started to become problematic (which can be fixed with a very simple workaround). By that time, Minolta's camera/scanner business had ceased to exist. I mean, I get what you say, I sure do, but we're talking about a one man enterprise here.

 

[xkaes]

Please, oh please...since operating system software is forever changing, do NOT leave driver software abandoned so that it is not supported on current versions of O/S. Vendors release a scanner in 2000 compatible with the current O/S, and they release later scanners compatible with then-current O/S in later yeras, but users of the scanner from 2000 cannot get updated drivers which are officielly supported in the future, forcing purchase of new hardware simply to get current drivers supported on current O/S.

You left out one point. Lots of time, the new OS never gets new drivers for the older gear. So you have to buy new gear and new drivers for the new OS. I've been through this so many times with Windows. That's why I have different computers with different operating systems attached to different hardware. A real PITA, but if it ain't broke, I'm not going to "fix it." EBAY, etc. is full of great old gear that people are "dumping" because it does not work with Windows' latest and "greatest".

 

[wiltw]

If you look at the timescale at which scanner drivers became an issue, it really is the 10-20 year timeframe. For instance, it was only when Win7 came around that the Minolta Scan Dual driver stack started to become problematic (which can be fixed with a very simple workaround). By that time, Minolta's camera/scanner business had ceased to exist. I mean, I get what you say, I sure do, but we're talking about a one man enterprise here.

Yet we have PCs sold in fairly recent times with microprocessors that Windows 11 does not support, so folks are forced into buying a new PC with Windows 11 yet if they also want a program or device which they wish to use on the new Windows 11 PC-- (yet Windows 11 is not officially supported by your existing scanner manufacturer), they are stuck with useless hardware that is relatively recent. There does not have to be a scanner evolution...other events have obsoleted their device!

 

[koraks]

Lots of time, the new OS never gets new drivers for the older gear.

I think the only time I had to decomission a piece of hardware due to lack of Windows support was with a $10 webcam from the 1990s that ceased to be supported by the time XP came around if memory serves. My 20 year old Epson 4990 and Minolta Scan Dual still work today under Win10, as does my early 1990s HP Laserjet.

there does not have to be a scanner hardware evolution...other events have obsolted their device!

So the problem you're highlighting isn't really related to peripheral driver support.

 

[brbo]

No micro 4/3 film, but there are film formats smaller than 135 that folks might wish to scan, inherenting old films from deceased relatives, or even ones that they shot themselves with formats that went out of use after 35mm...and, of course, there are APS format negs and slides.

If you are thinking of all the formats (16mm, 110, 126, APS, HF, 135, 35mm panos, 120 formats and 4x5") I think you are grossly underestimating the challenges of running all those formats past the lens and sensor at the base parameters OP set out with.

 

[xkaes]

No micro 4/3 film, but there are film formats smaller than 135 that folks might wish to scan, inherenting old films from deceased relatives, or even ones that they shot themselves with formats that went out of use after 35mm...and, of course, there are APS format negs and slides.

And none of this stuff is on rolls -- except maybe APS.

 

[xkaes]

Btw, which film camera shoots m4/3 format?

Panasonic, Olympus, and others -- but M4/3 (AKA, MFT) is digital.

 

[brbo]

Panasonic, Olympus, and others -- but M4/3 (AKA, MFT) is digital.

Yeah, but how often do you need to scan your m4/3 files.

 

[xkaes]

I think the only time I had to decomission a piece of hardware due to lack of Windows support was with a $10 webcam from the 1990s

You're lucky. I've got lots of great, not very old, hardware and software that won't work with Windows 10 -- even in "Compatibility Mode". Searching the WEB shows lots of other people in the same boat.

I've also got lots of great hardware and software that won't work with Windows XP -- even in "Compatibility Mode".

The list goes on.

 

[Wallendo]

If this scanner can give me the same or better quality than my Plustek, and scan a whole roll without my intervention, it may be worthwhile to me of the price Can be kept under $1000.

 

[xkaes]

FYI, Christmas is over!

 

[wiltw]

I think the only time I had to decomission a piece of hardware due to lack of Windows support was with a $10 webcam from the 1990s that ceased to be supported by the time XP came around if memory serves. My 20 year old Epson 4990 and Minolta Scan Dual still work today under Win10, as does my early 1990s HP Laserjet.



So the problem you're highlighting isn't really related to peripheral driver support.

I do not recall the circumstances, but I had to replace a Canon 8000F, which supported 135 and MF and 4x5, with the Canon 8800F which dropped the 4x5 support...not willingly!

 

[wiltw]

Yeah, but how often do you need to scan your m4/3 files.

And none of this stuff is on rolls -- except maybe APS.

So what about half-frame 135 format...I sold an Olympus Pen F to someone wanting that very camera, just within the past year or two?!

I do not understand all this initial resistance being expressedy by folks other than the developer!...why not leave it to the product developer to consider requests and decide whether or not they are feasible to offer?! It broadens appeal of his product to a wider range of users, not just limiting it to 135 conventional frame size. And with fewer and fewer scanners on the market, a broader appeal scanner might fill an unfilled niche!

 

[gswdh]

Priorities for me would be:
1) easy film handling;
2) film flatness!;
3) auto-focus, and/or a robust manual focus alternative;
4) a film path that minimizes dust and is self cleaning;
5) a continuous spectrum CRI 100 light source - electronic flash preferably;
6) a desk footprint that is relatively small;
7) capacity to scan strips as well as rolls;
8) must, must, must be usable with transparency materials. If you can't scan slides, I wouldn't want it. I have no problem with it being optimized for handling negative roll films.

The power source should be easy to replace or repair - proprietary cords are a pain. And there needs to be an on/off switch.

General purpose "macro" lenses designed for DSLRs would be a poor option. A good scanner needs a special purpose optic, with performance optimized for its intended use.

A scanner in the suggested price range would be of interest to only a very small minority of individual photographers. For small labs though, this would make a lot of sense.

All of these should be possible or not as important as you think - can be dealt with with an engineering solution.

I just wanted to add that if you can get the IR data out of the scanner it’s not a very complex process to use it to remove dust and scratches.

I use the ir channel to remove them myself in photoshop and it’s only a matter of adjusting the contrast of the channel to exclude any retained silver in the film and using the result as a mask to apply a relatively simple filter.

You could make your implementation way better than any of the current implementations just by giving a preview of the ir channel during adjustment and providing decent UI.

This is very useful and will be a part of my development for sure.

As another 'dedicated film scanner' user, this is of great interest.

You mention you will focus on 35mm. For black and white 35mm specifically, I like to use my Minolta Scan Dual IV: autofocus, 6-strip negative scanning, 4-strip slide scanning, extremely fast, and 3200 real dpi. I use other scanners for C41 and 120 but they're MF dedicated film scanners so out of scope here.

The Minolta is pretty awesome but one day it'll fail. I might buy another one (they're really cheap used, and I've gotten good at cleaning them up) or I might invest in your product.

To lure me in, I'd like the following (I agree with Matt on many things)

• >=4000 real dpi
• autofocus
• nice film holder design (magnetic? See excellent Stephen Scharf's 3D printer film holders for the Nikon Coolscans) to maximise planarity across the frame
• fast preview mode*
• @Richard Man's suggestion to liaise with Ed Hamrick is a great one. For me, the scanner needs to work flawlessly with Vuescan and allow me to produce the raw linear 16bit/channel images I need for my workflow
• CRUCIAL - quiet operation. My Minolta makes an absolute racket. Please investigate motor noise dampening opportunities
• No interpolating Bayer/X-trans sensor
• Good quality dedicated scanning lens - get a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 lens design white-paper for ideas on an excellent design
• Need to echo Matt's important comment again - it has to be SMALL. Again, look at the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 form factor. A thin standing brick. That's all I want on my desk.

*I only scan at full resolution the 'keepers' in a roll. To know what the keepers are, I'll do a 'preview' scan at the lowest resolution allowed by Vuescan. These 'keepers' are usually amounting to 1-8 images per 36 frame roll if I'm lucky. Therefore, I don't care much if the full-res scan is fast or slow. I will never scan 36 frames full res. All I want is a super fast preview mode to get rid of as many bad compositions, poorly exposed images etc. as possible that I won't scan and I definitely won't archive - before concentrating on those I will push to the next stage of the workflow. My Minolta Scan Dual completes a fast preview of all the 6 frames in a strip in a few seconds.

Good luck with what seems to be a great project- there is strong need for a well designed dedicated film scanner option.

I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I really don't understand the need for a fast scan mode if the full scan only takes a few minutes for 36 frames? I think it would take longer to do a 'fast' scan, select what you want to scan again. It's completely redundant and adds complexity to the software that's then completely unnecessary. I think this way of thinking is caused by the such long scan times people currently experience but this scanner will be very different in this regard.

Thank you on the pointer for that lens but I can't find the white paper for it.

Please, oh please...since operating system software is forever changing, do NOT leave driver software abandoned so that it is not supported on current versions of O/S. Vendors release a scanner in 2000 compatible with the current O/S, and they release later scanners compatible with then-current O/S in later yeras, but users of the scanner from 2000 cannot get updated drivers which are officielly supported in the future, forcing purchase of new hardware simply to get current drivers supported on current O/S.

And please, make the scanner line work with Micro 4/3 format film thru 4x5 film, with lower res preview of images, to filter out the non-keeprs, and identify the keepers for high res final scan.

Well I think it will need compatibility with VueScan for some extra future proofing but the software should be reasonably easy to maintain and it will be open source which will hopefully help things.

I hear what you're saying, but it boils down to asking for a 15 year commitment on a $1k device. That sounds like a challenging proposition.

I think that is doable with VueScan compatibility and open source SW. I might even maintain the SW out of my own curiosity and passion for the project, I love working on projects especially on products that people are actually using!

In these days of software as a service, selling driver updates (rather than obsoleting hardware which a user is happy with) can produce recurring revenue! And it need not be for 15 years...just the reassurance that one's investment is not blown away with the next update to new O/S!

I'm in big opposition to this, I have commented on this thread regarding my feelings towards this. I do believe if efficient software was written these days, the vast majority of users would be running a PC consuming under a few watts.

If this scanner can give me the same or better quality than my Plustek, and scan a whole roll without my intervention, it may be worthwhile to me of the price Can be kept under $1000.

I'll see what I can do!

I do not recall the circumstances, but I had to replace a Canon 8000F, which supported 135 and MF and 4x5, with the Canon 8800F which dropped the 4x5 support...not willingly!

This is a flatbed scanner that has a lot of it's own problems.

So what about half-frame 135 format...I sold an Olympus Pen F to someone wanting that very camera, just within the past year or two?!

I do not understand all this initial resistance being expressedy by folks other than the developer!...why not leave it to the product developer to consider requests and decide whether or not they are feasible to offer?! It broadens appeal of his product to a wider range of users, not just limiting it to 135 conventional frame size. And with fewer and fewer scanners on the market, a broader appeal scanner might fill an unfilled niche!

So I can tell you categorically this first scanner will be 135 only. It seems there's a lot of consensus on here regarding the price tag of €1k being on the limit and even that's going to be a real challenge. Supporting multiple formats would require some very complex mechanics for the film feed and the adjustment of the lens / sensor position to take images of the different format sizes making it completely unfeasible to manufacture for €1k not considering selling it for €1k! Depending on the success of this scanner, I'd consider doing a 120 version but so few people shoot 4x5 that it's completely not worth it, also 4x5 is perfectly scannable on a flatbed as it's large and there's only one frame per film!

I'll need to do my research but I think I read somewhere that 90% of all film shot is 135.

 

[koraks]

I think I read somewhere that 90% of all film shot is 135.

This must be pretty close to the truth, if it's not actually more than that. Focusing on 135 at least initially is a very reasonable choice.

One comment about the continuous light source that @MattKing mentioned: please, look into this without relying on what "some guy said", even if that guy happens to be Matt whom I certainly respect and appreciate. It's doubtful if a continuous light source is necessary or even the best solution. In fact, especially with an eye on long-term performance, I doubt it is as it would involve durability issues that you don't have with discontinuous R, G and B illumination. Also in terms of color reproduction/fidelity, it's absolutely not evident that continuous light would be better. Just look at the crossover between spectral density curves of the dyes in color film as well as crossover between the sensing elements in your sensor array. I think in practice you would find yourself having to solve much less problems if you acquire as clean as possible an input signal in the first place. Otherwise you'll be confronted with the situation dSLR manufacturers had (and still do) to face in cleaning up an inherently very compromised signal.