Why do scanning companies not produce better scanners instead of always going downhill?

[BMbikerider]

To reply directly at the topic question. There has been no finer scanner than the Nikon Coolscans. The down hill trend started with their demise. But they were expensive for what they did but the results they gave were from the top drawer standard. As far as I know they were the only scanner who were capable of scanning in RAW and had a better D Max than any of the top of the range flatbeds sold since then. This is why I still have mine and it works perfectly.

 

[albireo]

I honestly don't know why people moan about the quality of flatbed scanners. I have a V750 that I bought in 2012 and it is excellent. I regularly scan 120 film up to 8x10 film, and from the latter I get huge files up to 1.8gb that are spectacularly sharp and contain every atom of information I could ever need/want for further processing. I can't imagine needing anything better.
Caveat: I only scan B&W negs, so my work may be different from yours.

I'm a big fan of flatbed scanners - I obtained some great scans from my humble Epson V550 (now sold) PROVIDED I scanned 6x6 and larger. I have seen some truly exceptional 5x4 and 10x8 scans done with a V800 with fluid mounting.

However - I think the ongoing discussion was mostly around 35mm. With 35mm negatives, a 300$ dedicated film scanner or a well tuned DSLR-based setup will be noticeably better than a flatbed.

 

[retina_restoration]

Two things come to mind:
1: 35mm
2: comparison with other scanners

Re #2: I can't speak to that because all I have ever known is flatbed scanners. But for my needs, they have been entirely satisfactory.
Re #1: I do some 35mm work and the V750 does a fine job. I can see the grain sharp as can be: 54471714920_b8f6e235f4_4k.jpg No complaints there - it doesn't need to be any better than this, IMO.

 

[Chan Tran]

Then, I would definitely abandon film photography altogether*, and would use that 4000$ DSLR and its lenses for the purpose for which it has been designed, which is photography, and not scanning.


*Actually probably not, I would get a 10X8 camera and learn to make 10X8 contact prints. I keep toying with this idea.

Cameras do not scan. They take pictures and you can use them to digitize the film but definitely they can't scan. They capture all the pixels at once not scanning.

 

[ags2mikon]

After I started using my digital camera and a slide duplicator I ditched my film scanners. Then I upgraded the digital camera to a sigma quattro H and it got even better.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If I was interestred in a 35mm film scanner today, I would be looking at the Plustek scanners. But I would be concerned about the significant number of 1-star reviews. Most of the 1-star reviews mention frustration with the Silverfast software. It might be a good idea for anyone who is considering a Plustek scanner to budget for the possibility that they may also want to get a copy of VueScan??

I have a dedicated 35mm film scanner made by Minolta in about 1999-2000, and, combined with VueScan, it does (did) a pretty good job.

But there were several reasons why I eventually switched from a film scanner to a digital camera for copying my film:
1. The Minolta scanner required a computer with a SCSI connection, and it became too much trouble to maintain a SCSI-capable computer just for the purpose of scanning film.
2. The film scanner was incapable of pulling faint shadow detail from my slides, especially if they were the least bit under exposed.
3. I started shooting medium format, which the old Minolta could not scan.

I totally agree with those who say it can be a PITA to put together a film-copy rig built around a digital camera. And I agree that it would be great if I could buy a reliable modern film scanner that is capable of scanning both 135 and 120 film. But...

 

[runswithsizzers]

Cameras do not scan. They take pictures and you can use them to digitize the film but definitely they can't scan. They capture all the pixels at once not scanning.

You are quite right, of course. But other than trying to inforce more rigorous semantics, is there some other point you are trying to make? If you want to get really technical, I'm not sure it is accurate to say digital cameras "take pictures" -- they capture data which can be converted to pictures (and so do scanners).

I am all for using language with as much clarity and precision as possible, but sometimes the vernacular is good enough. Cell phones do not ring, but if I tell my wife her iPhone is ringing she knows what I mean. If she asks me for a Kleenex, and I offer her a Scotties facial tissue, that is probably going to be close enough.

What words do you prefer to refer to the process of using a digital camera to copy film?

 

[mwdake]

100-150€ old macro lens
20€ adapter
600-1500€ camera (fuji or sony aps-c, preowned or even new, something like that)
150€ copy stand (50-60€ if diy)
40-200€ film holder
100€ light source

Here’s what I did but for less, prices USD if I had to buy from scratch…
$100 - NIKON macro 3.5 non AI, M2 or PK 13 and a Nikon to MFT adapter, already had all except the adapter
$180 - Panasonic 20mp rangefinder MFT, already have a Nikon D90 but wanted something smaller and lighter
$50 - DIY copy stand, plywood base, 3/4 inch iron pipe and base mount, Super Clamp with tripod spigot
$60 - Essential Film Holder but could use a negative carrier
$40 - Cinestill light source

 

[Chan Tran]

You are quite right, of course. But other than trying to inforce more rigorous semantics, is there some other point you are trying to make? If you want to get really technical, I'm not sure it is accurate to say digital cameras "take pictures" -- they capture data which can be converted to pictures (and so do scanners).

I am all for using language with as much clarity and precision as possible, but sometimes the vernacular is good enough. Cell phones do not ring, but if I tell my wife her iPhone is ringing she knows what I mean. If she asks me for a Kleenex, and I offer her a Scotties facial tissue, that is probably going to be close enough.

What words do you prefer to refer to the process of using a digital camera to copy film?

Yes if you want to call it using digital camera to copy film or digitizing is fine or even invent a new word. I am bothered by the word scanning. Even I don't like to call thing like the Noritsu or Fuji scanner as scanner.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Yes if you want to call it using digital camera to copy film or digitizing is fine or even invent a new word. I am bothered by the word scanning. Even I don't like to call thing like the Noritsu or Fuji scanner as scanner.

To say "using a digital camera to copy film" is awkward and way too many words. I prefer "camera-scan" but I am open to any description which is short, simple, and reasonably clear to anyone who is familiar with the concept.

 

[MattKing]

"Digitization".

 

[OAPOli]

Cameras do not scan. They take pictures and you can use them to digitize the film but definitely they can't scan. They capture all the pixels at once not scanning.

Only a few digital cameras have a global shutter that reads all the pixels at once. Most read the sensor line by line. It may take 5ms or 60ms depending on the sensor. A very fast scan.

 

[BrianShaw]

"Digitization".

That’s American for “digitisation “.

 

[koraks]

it doesn't need to be any better than this, IMO.

For you, it doesn't, and that's fine. But that's not a solid basis to dismiss other people's objections, which are as valid as your positive experience. I've used an Epson flatbed side by side with a proper film scanner (Minolta Scan Dual IV) for something like 20 years now. The difference is night and day, but the flatbed also scans 120 and sheet film which the Minolta doesn't. The Epson is also quicker in scanning a full roll of 35mm (albeit at much lower effective resolution). So the flatbed has its use, for sure. But the usefulness of its output of 35mm scans is really limited to small prints and web previews; it's of not much use for anything serious.

I can see the grain sharp as can be:

No, you don't. You see the grain the way this flatbed tends to render it. You'd understand why you don't see it "sharp as can be" if you had actually seen that and then you'd recognize the difference. There's a whole lot more detail in that negative which the Epson can't touch. Again, it's fine if you don't need to go there.

The Epson flatbeds have many things going for them that make them very useful tools indeed. Raw resolving power is, however, not one of them.

 

[armadsen]

2. The film scanner was incapable of pulling faint shadow detail from my slides, especially if they were the least bit under exposed.

This is one of the other reasons I prefer using a camera for scanning. Being able to easily manually adjust the exposure, as well as to just capture RAW files with a lot of usable shadow detail is super helpful for slide film. I particularly struggled to get good scans of Velvia on my Epson.

 

[brbo]

Yes if you want to call it using digital camera to copy film or digitizing is fine or even invent a new word. I am bothered by the word scanning. Even I don't like to call thing like the Noritsu or Fuji scanner as scanner.

Now I really wonder why would it be wrong to call a Noritsu scanner... a scanner?


Anyway, camera vs scanner digitisation is the new film vs digital. Imagine all the exciting threads we'll have (in addition to all that we already had)! Fun times!!!

 

[tykos]

Here’s what I did but for less, prices USD if I had to buy from scratch…
$100 - NIKON macro 3.5 non AI, M2 or PK 13 and a Nikon to MFT adapter, already had all except the adapter
$180 - Panasonic 20mp rangefinder MFT, already have a Nikon D90 but wanted something smaller and lighter
$50 - DIY copy stand, plywood base, 3/4 inch iron pipe and base mount, Super Clamp with tripod spigot
$60 - Essential Film Holder but could use a negative carrier
$40 - Cinestill light source

yeah, your mileage may vary, i was just giving an idea

 

[250swb]

The richness of the English language did not get where it is today by linguistic pedantry but by 'knowing what another person means'. And particularly when the objection to 'camera scanning' is weaponised by the very same people who say they shoot film. Good look with that.

 

[BrianShaw]

The richness of the English language did not get where it is today by linguistic pedantry but by 'knowing what another person means'. And particularly when the objection to 'camera scanning' is weaponised by the very same people who say they shoot film. Good look with that.

I know what you mean.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For what is worth here's a comparison I did between an Epson 850 and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner on 4x5 bw Tmax 100 The Epson compares very favorably.

Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...

www.largeformatphotography.info

 

[runswithsizzers]

For what is worth here's a comparison I did between an Epson 850 and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner on 4x5 bw Tmax 100 The Epson compares very favorably.

Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...

www.largeformatphotography.info

After looking at your results, I would not come to the same conclusion. Comparing the unsharpened results, the Howtek scans were significantly more detailed than the Epson. After sharpening, the Epson results were considerably improved. I guess you could say the sharpened Epson result compared favorably to the unsharpened Howtek result, but I think it would have been more relevant to compare sharpened to sharpened.

After only a brief search, I was unable to find anyone selling new Howtek scanners. Are they still in production? I did see a spec sheet indicating they require a SCSI connection, so I'm guessing the Howtek drum scanners are another remnant of the glory days, now facing extinction?

At least Epson is still selling a flatbed scanners, and for that we should be thankful. For 4x5" photographers, I suspect the Epson V850 is still a good choice. But maybe not so good for 135 photographers(?) I don't really know.

 

[koraks]

how many people actually need more "resolving power" than that?

How many people need the photos most of us take to begin with? That sort of question goes nowhere.

 

[albireo]

I'm not that much into printing, but I did print some family snapshots over the past few years, using a hybrid process: shoot - develop film - scan - print the digital file onto paper using a local photo lab.

I scanned the same frame (Fomapan 100 in D76 1:1) both in an Epson flatbed (V550, same as the V600 hardware-wise, so perhaps around 1800 dpi) and in a dedicated film scanner (Minolta Scan Dual IV, about 3200 real dpi). The lab was instructed to produce exactly the same print (all 'auto' postprocessing was deactivated) from the two 16bit grayscale .tif files.

The difference across the 2 20cmx30cm prints was immediately noticeable. The print from the dedicated film scanner was vastly better.

So it's not a matter of pixel-peeping onto a computer screen only - although that's important for some people, too.

The differences are visible in a moderate size consumer-level print. Those of you who print at a much higher level of quality than I did, and use much more resolving film, will agree the scanning has a tangible impact on your prints, at least, in my experience, if you start from a 35mm negative and aim to produce something around an A4/letter sized print at least.

 

[David Brown]

My luck is holding out, but for how long?

I have an Epson V550, which has been noted above as fine for roll film, and a still working Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV for 35mm. The only reason I usually scan negatives or slides is to put them online, and these tools are more than good enough for that. One exception was a 35mm TriX negative that suffered from poor storage for 50 years, and was not going to make a good darkroom print. I managed to scan it (with the Dimage), clean it up, and make good ink jet prints.

However, I think for the long term, I am going to set up and practice using a digital camera and a macro lens. I own several of each, as well as a copy stand and a light source, so my monetary investment will be minimal or nill. (Plan to use negative carriers for film holders.). We'll see ...

 

[runswithsizzers]

[...] However, I think for the long term, I am going to set up and practice using a digital camera and a macro lens. I own several of each, as well as a copy stand and a light source, so my monetary investment will be minimal or nill. (Plan to use negative carriers for film holders.). We'll see ...

Be prepared for some minor challenges getting everything set up the first time, but if you can avoid one or two common "gotchas" I think you will be pleased with your results.