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

[slackercrurster]

You can't get drum scanners. I learned about Coolscans just today and they seem to be discontinued. I've used Epson's of all grades and disliked them for film.

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

<><><><>​

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No market for them.

 

[JerseyDoug]

No market for them.

Agreed. Digital camera scanning has taken over much of what was already a declining market.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The market became small and continues to shrink in size. There is not enough business to encourage further investment.

 

[koraks]

No market for them.

That's all there is to it. Not enough demand to justify the r&d investment.

 

[MattKing]

I expect the once relatively healthy market was a result of two factors:

1) the need to support an evolving market for the very high volume scanners that were needed by the motion picture industry as a result of the move to digital editing of movies that were then primarily shot on film; and
2) what was expected to be a gradual transition from still photographs being shot mostly on film to still photographs being shot mostly using digital capture.

Somewhere in the depth of Photrio there is a discussion I participated in about what a modern, reasonably high volume system for digitizing film should have, assuming movement away from "scanning" and toward a full image capture sensor. I believe @Adrian Bacon was an active participant, among others. When I supplied a list of what I thought one ideally would need - light source, flat field optics, sensor, setup to ensure the appropriate geometry, mechanisms to assist with film transport, electronics and software for image processing - there was an acknowledgment that the combination was bound to lead to a really, really high price tag.

 

[koraks]

the combination was bound to lead to a really, really high price tag.

It depends on volumes. The problem is that for a development like this, the expected volume will be low. That makes marginal costs high. It's really simple economics. There's nothing inherently expensive about the concept as such.

 

[MattKing]

It depends on volumes. The problem is that for a development like this, the expected volume will be low. That makes marginal costs high. It's really simple economics. There's nothing inherently expensive about the concept as such.

Not the concept.
The constituent parts, made to the desired specs, are however likely to be really expensive.

 

[koraks]

The constituent parts, made to the desired specs, are however likely to be really expensive.

Because of the low volumes.

 

[MattKing]

We shall agree to disagree .
Particularly in relation to the optics.

 

[koraks]

We shall agree to disagree

Yup, quite so.
Don't take my word for it. Take your question to a party like Flextronics and ask them to explain it to you. Or Canon, for that matter. Your Japanese will have to be really good though.

 

[Don_ih]

Scanners are good enough for well over 99% of their practical uses. Most people are satisfied with the generic scanner that's built into their printer. At this point, be happy that anyone continues to make anything better than that.

 

[Don_ih]

@dokko has built a scanner. If you want to read about how much is cost him and how expensive it would likely be to make something better, go here.

 

[250swb]

You can't get drum scanners. I learned about Coolscans just today and they seem to be discontinued. I've used Epson's of all grades and disliked them for film.

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

<><><><>​

Because a modern digital camera and a macro lens will do as good a job if not better. The relatively low demand (despite the resurgence of film) is one aspect, but many film photographers also own a digital camera and a simple copy stand setup is all that's needed. If they don't own a camera already think of it another way, you could spend £2500 on a medium format Plustek scanner which has only one use, to scan film, or spend the same amount on a digital camera and you get both a 'scanner' and a camera.

 

[albireo]

Because a modern digital camera and a macro lens will do as good a job if not better. The relatively low demand (despite the resurgence of film) is one aspect, but many film photographers also own a digital camera and a simple copy stand setup is all that's needed. If they don't own a camera already think of it another way, you could spend £2500 on a medium format Plustek scanner which has only one use, to scan film, or spend the same amount on a digital camera and you get both a 'scanner' and a camera.

Many film photographers don't own a digital camera. Many film photographers don't even own a laptop, a scanner, a PC, or a large desk to place all this gear on.

But speaking for myself alone,

• If my Nikon Coolscan 9000ED (which does a much better job at scanning film than any digital camera and Bayer/Xtrans-sensor-based setup costing 2X its price) stopped working tomorrow, and
• If I weren't able to find another 9000ED to replace it, because they've all disappeared from the face of Earth (they haven't) and
• If I had to resort to an expensive, fiddly, rickety amateur DSLR-based scanning setup to do the job

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.

 

[armadsen]

I’m skeptical that there are many film photographers that don’t own all the things you mentioned. But even if that’s true, surely people who don’t own computers don’t need to scan their film?

For what it’s worth, I own an Epson V850, a Nikon Coolscan 5000 (with roll feeder), a Plustek 8200, and a Negative Supply Co. camera scanning setup. The camera scanning setup is the least fiddly of all of them, which is why I use it by far the most. It’s not rickety either.

 

[albireo]

I’m skeptical that there are many film photographers that don’t own all the things you mentioned. But even if that’s true, surely people who don’t own computers don’t need to scan their film?

I'm not sure I understand. Teenager, students on the younger cohort etc, with nothing but a big expensive iphone want scans to upload to instagram etc.

They'll eventually get an ipad or a macbook air probably, but not all of them, as these are often obtained on loan from school/college etc.

 

[armadsen]

Most teenagers at the very least have access to a computer. But in any case, people like that (and most other film photographers) just have the lab that develops their film scan it too.

 

[albireo]

Most teenagers at the very least have access to a computer. But in any case, people like that (and most other film photographers) just have the lab that develops their film scan it too.

Ah got you, sorry.

Well some soon become unhappy with those scans (too pricy, too contrasty, colours off etc) and end up buying a small scanner. Many people on reddit go for a Plustek 8300 these days. Tiny desk footprint, and really decent results as far as I can see. Probably cheaper than a full blown DSLR based setup, and ready to go without having to find a suitable lens, find a decent used DSLR body, find a light source, buy some sort of overpriced 3D printed film holder, buy a repro stand. Following the latter path, imho at some point the hobby risks becoming tinkering with kit, rather than scanning.

 

[armadsen]

Yeah, that makes sense. I bought an Epson flatbed first (many years ago). The Plustek came later when I wanted something smaller and less fiddly. It does produce very nice results. I eventually went to the camera setup because I wanted to scan 120 and it was appealing to scan a whole roll in one go without cutting into strips.

That said, at least Plustek themselves are still making decent film scanners!

 

[tykos]

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

If one already has a camera, and lots of people interested in photography tend to have it, the setup is quite affordable. Or, better: i don't think a teenager suddenly goes like "mh, photography is interesting, let me try it with additional steps of madness", i would think most of the times one starts with digital photography and then continues with analog.
It takes the same space on the desktop as a traditional epson scanner but it can be disassembled easily. It's quicker than a scanner, or at least it's quicker the acquisition procedure (after that you can put the negative and hardware away and work on your negatives when and where you like, with a scanner you have a variable dead time before changing frames where you need to be around). You don't need to work with veeeery fiddly software (i've only used epson pro and it seems like a bad software from 1998).

I don't know about quality because zooming on files is the most boring thing ever, but i can see why dslr scanning is gaining traction against buying an 800€ slow and big piece of furniture.

 

[JerseyDoug]

For scanning 35mm negatives, which I suspect is what most new users would be doing, if they have a digital camera and a macro lens what will focus to 1:1 the VALOI easy35 for $245 from CineStill is all they need to buy. It includes the film holder and light source and uses a set of tubes in place of a copy stand. My easy35 with a Fuji X-T20 fits fully assembled in a shoebox so setup takes about 10 seconds. And it takes less than five minutes to scan a 24-exposure roll of film.

I also have an Epson V600 and a Plustek 8100 but I haven't used either of them even once since I bought the easy35.

 

[albireo]

Yeah, that makes sense. I bought an Epson flatbed first (many years ago). The Plustek came later when I wanted something smaller and less fiddly. It does produce very nice results. I eventually went to the camera setup because I wanted to scan 120 and it was appealing to scan a whole roll in one go without cutting into strips.

That said, at least Plustek themselves are still making decent film scanners!

Agreed. I would skip the Epson flatbed step if I were to redo it all over again. Nowadays if I were a budding 35mm film photographer on a budget I'd just spend those $300 on a tiny Plustek 8100 or on the motorized version (I think it's called 135i) and call it a day. The jump in quality from a flatbed is pretty spectacular on well exposed+developed negatives. And it's really tiny, and pretty quiet for a film scanner.

Really good value line of products.

They had a 120 model too. Not sure what happened to that one.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

 

[koraks]

I honestly don't know why people moan about the quality of flatbed scanners

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