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

[gswdh]

Hi all,

I mentioned in another thread I'm working on the development of a new film scanner. I started this project almost 8 years ago but put it on hold as I wasn't shooting much film at that time. Back then I developed the electronics and more recently the PC software. I've now ordered all the parts for the prototype mechanical design - let's see if it all works in the New Year!

My motivations for this scanner come from the frankly poor set of options on the market. All the scanners seem to have one or more of the following traits:

- Terrible software
- Are legacy hardware only working with legacy PCs
- Poor scan quality
- Poor user experience
- Extremely long and tedious scan times

I think this can all be fixed quite easily. I plan to make a sort of copy of the Pakon F 135 scanner, at least the style of it any way where it's capable of scanning a whole roll of film.

The electronics I have got working can scan a whole roll of film in just over a minute at 2000dpi, 14bit in black and white only. If I look to sell this, It would be upgraded to colour and at least 2700dpi.

So, some key criteria for my scanner are:

- Can scan a whole roll of film in one go without human intervention (loading strips of film)
- Scanning time less than 10 minutes
- 3000dpi ideally
- Really good software that doesn't crash or require some exotic HW configuration
- Simple USB 2.0, drivers come with the SW
- Good optical quality up to 3000dpi
- 10 bit digitisation or better
- Scans the 135 film format

My philosophy for this project is in offering a product that is reliable and customers can have faith in using for the next 20 years - which is entirely possible. The software will be fully open source and the communication protocol fully documented and public to allow for 3rd party software. The software is already publicly available on github (see below) and is current written in Python, it will be rewritten in C++ for the official release - binary size will be in the region of 10s of MB. Community contributions to the software will be actively encouraged.

Github repo for the PC software.

Github repo for the electronics.

I think it'd be possible to achieve a retail price of around €1-1.5k but I'm a long way off that yet.

I would love to hear everyone's opinion / feedback / suggestions!

But please, do not just tell me why it won't work unless you have some real justification.

 

[PhilBurton]

Slides?

 

[Chuck1]

Is it possible to write software that doesn't crash?

 

[Hassasin]

I figure you do know what offering a retail product entails in post-sale support alone.

Digital camer scanning will be something to beat and that is a task on its own.

Since you’re are limiting this to 35 mm, that is likely not a good selling point.

I do agree there is a market for a new film scanner, but I don’t see how your specs start accumulating a waiting list. There are still well working old scanners with higher spec sheet, many for a lot less.

Scanning whole roll at once is not something I would go for either. Given cost of film, few, if any, shoot rolls on end.

 

[mshchem]

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

 

[xkaes]

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.

 

[mshchem]

I can use the firewire scanner. If I can get your friend scanner cheap it would be great.

I'm keeping it

 

[PhilBurton]

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.

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?

 

[mgb74]

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?

 

[bfilm]

Nikon Coolscan 9000 at my place, all the holders and software, it has the damn Firewire so that means no easy solution for computer

You can get FireWire PCI card.

 

[bfilm]

USB 2.0? Why not 3.x?

I think USB 2.0 has enough capability for a 35mm film scanner and allows a larger range of computer hardware to be used.

 

[bfilm]

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.

 

[mshchem]

You can get FireWire PCI card.

All I have is a laptop and tablet. I'm going to try to figure it out in the coming year I want to get a tower like I had in the past.

 

[albada]

@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.

 

[gswdh]

Slides?

I don't think that represents a very small part of the market and would require a huge amount of cost to implement.

 

[gswdh]

Is it possible to write software that doesn't crash?

Yes It's a shame people even ask that and really shows where the state of the software in this space is at.

 

[gswdh]

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 think this is quite a unique circumstance and one that very few people would have offered to them or likely want to go with either.

 

[gswdh]

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?

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.

 

[gswdh]

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.

Yes, and why not scan the whole roll of film if it only takes a few minutes?

12 bit yes, anything above is pointless - the sensors simple cannot achieve that level of performance so you're just capturing noise.

You are right, at the moment finding a lens for this is tricky but it's viable I think. From what I understand at this point, a lens from a source like Rodenstock or Zeiss would itself cost in the region of €1k.

I'm looking at using a CCD but I'm not sure you'd be able to tell the difference in all honesty.

Yes, I forgot to mention one of the benefits of this software is that it's compatible with MacOS, Windows and Linux. I'm not sure about BSD.

Colour management is not a problem and it would be possible to make your own presets. The purpose of the scanner is to extract the most amount of information from the film as possible, then the raw data can be adjusted to get the correct colour balance without loss of quality. I already have a tutorial in mind for this for people to be able to create their own reference images to calibrate the scanner for their own use cases.

 

[gswdh]

@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.

In the prototype I have it's the TCD1209DG but for the production version I'm looking at the TCD2565BFG, both from Toshiba. However, I would like to source a smaller sensor of which I know there's one but it's likely to be very expensive.

I'm not sure on the lens, yet. This is still the biggest thing left to solve in the project. Either something custom from China or a DSLR lens with autofocus.

ICE is something I need to look into, I'm not sure if it's possible which isn't good of course.

Sure, I always scan the whole roll anyway to review, it's hard to assess in 35mm I think any other way. The scanning should only take a few minutes.

 

[koraks]

ICE is something I need to look into, I'm not sure if it's possible which isn't good of course.

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.

 

[Hassasin]

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?

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.

 

[koraks]

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.

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.

 

[gswdh]

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.

It depends doesn't it? If it only takes a few minutes to scan the whole roll, why not? The export time is trivial for modern computers and well written software. I know because my prototype already does so. Scanning the whole roll in one go is obviously much more efficient than feeding in or mounting strips of film.

I really don't think the USB version will make any difference, it would probably add another €50 to the cost of the scanner for literally no purpose.