Why doesn't anyone make this?

[John51]

There's a compound milling table on the bay for about £20. The y axis is 200mm so plenty there. The x axis is low at only 50mm. Not quite enough for mf. Having a manual top/bottom increases that to 100mm and it will do 4x5 negs.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Milling-...978460?hash=item362eb6fddc:g:emYAAOSwo~1aubNQ

 

[jmoche]

Oh yeah... that looks very promising. That particular seller is in the UK and doesn't ship to the U.S., but there are plenty of these available on U.S. Ebay. They all seem to be limited to 50mm on the x-axis, though. Can you explain what you mean by a manual top?

 

[John51]

Can you explain what you mean by a manual top?

Easier to visualise than explain.

Say a 4x5 neg. Have the carrier/easel 6" x 5". The middle part gets scanned. With the neg touching the top edge, the bottom 2" of the neg can be scanned using the milling table. When done, slide the neg so it touches the bottom edge, then the top 2" of the neg can be scanned.

 

[Billy Axeman]

I looked into the suggestion of @Luckless (#14) to modify a 3D printer for stitching, with an X-Y adjustment for a film-holder and height adjustment for the camera, and came across the Velleman K8200 3D printer which is a relatively cheap kit to build yourself.

Here are some thoughts for modifications and possible limitations.

The printer has an open frame which allows modifications for mounting a camera and a film-holder. I think the best place for a camera is on the position of the nozzle (which is left out) because it has a height adjustment, and the print bed is replaced by a film holder where it can be moved in X-Y directions by the gear below. In this configuration a flat LED light source could be placed below the film-holder between the feet of the frame (for example a Kaiser Slimline LED panel or equivalent).

The camera is relatively heavy compared to the nozzle so perhaps a contra-weight is needed to level that out. I think the camera should also have an angle finder to allow focusing looking from the front.

If the space between the X-Y guide rails for the film-holder is too narrow for the light source to illuminate the film completely, you could perhaps replace some parts to increase the distance.

All adjustments X, Y and Z can be made manual by leaving out the stepper motors and by mounting knobs, but you could theoretically make an automated system too (all software is open source).

The overall dimensions of the frame are width=50cm, depth=42cm, height=60cm, which seems sufficient for 35mm and medium format films. However, the height of the vertical guide rails is much shorter than 60cm so perhaps they must be mounted higher up to get sufficient distance between camera and film.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I know that there are attachments that allow you to "scan" a neg or slide using a digicam. But, I've never seen any such attachment for anything larger than 35mm. Why is there no adaptor that allows the user to "scan" just a portion of a neg (either 35mm or 120) and then stitch in PS? I tried building a rig to do this using a copy stand, but moving the neg around to get 6 shots that could be stitched was way too imprecise and the results were far from what I wanted. Anyone out there got ideas or the skill to build something like this?

--Joe

A 24MP APS-C dslr to digitize a whole frame of 120 isn’t enough resolution? How much resolution do you need? 4000x4000 or 4000x5000 will make a pretty nice 16x16 or 16x20 inch print. Need to print bigger than that? You should probably go to a bigger negative as 16x20 is a pretty big enlargement from what is essentially a 2x2.5 inch negative. If you step up to a 4x5 neg, just use a flatbed scanner.

The whole stitching a bunch of photos of a frame of film is totally overrated, as it is extremely time consuming, prone to less than great results, and at the end of the day isn’t generally as good as just taking one picture of the whole film frame with a reasonably modern sensor digital camera. If you really want to hit it with resolution, buy a used Canon 5DSr and take 50MP photos of each film frame.

I think you’ll soon discover that 24MP in one shot is plenty of res for pretty much anything within reason. Trying to scan and stitch multiple frames isn’t really going to give you more usable resolution. For 35mm, 6000 pixels to scan 36mm of film is ~80 line pairs per mm of film.

 

[Billy Axeman]

A 24MP APS-C dslr to digitize a whole frame of 120 isn’t enough resolution? How much resolution do you need? 4000x4000 or 4000x5000 will make a pretty nice 16x16 or 16x20 inch print. Need to print bigger than that? You should probably go to a bigger negative as 16x20 is a pretty big enlargement from what is essentially a 2x2.5 inch negative. If you step up to a 4x5 neg, just use a flatbed scanner.

The whole stitching a bunch of photos of a frame of film is totally overrated, as it is extremely time consuming, prone to less than great results, and at the end of the day isn’t generally as good as just taking one picture of the whole film frame with a reasonably modern sensor digital camera. If you really want to hit it with resolution, buy a used Canon 5DSr and take 50MP photos of each film frame.

I think you’ll soon discover that 24MP in one shot is plenty of res for pretty much anything within reason. Trying to scan and stitch multiple frames isn’t really going to give you more usable resolution. For 35mm, 6000 pixels to scan 36mm of film is ~80 line pairs per mm of film.

While I agree that photographing frames single shot with a high resolution camera is the preferred option (when your budget allows this), in most cases even a 50Mp camera is not sufficient. I think your numbers are a bit optimistic. Here are some examples.

Example 1 - 35mm film, 16Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Pentax K-5II
Sensor: 4928x3264 pixels (3:2)
Film format: 24x36 mm (3:2)
1" = 25.4 mm
Horizontal 36 mm, that is 36/25.4 = 1.417"
Resolution: 4928/1.417 = 3470 dpi

Example 2 - 35mm film, 24Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Pentax K3-II
Sensor: 6016x4000 pixels (3:2)
Film format: 24x36 mm (3:2)
1" = 25.4 mm
Horizontal 36 mm, that is 36/25.4 = 1.417"
Resolution: 6016/1.417 = 4240 dpi

Example 3 - 35mm film, 16Mp camera, stitched in 4 parts.
Camera: Pentax K-5II
Sensor: 4928x3264 pixels
Film format: 24x36 mm
Stitch: 2x horizontal and 2x vertical + overlap 3 mm
1" = 25.4 mm
Sub frame horizontal 36/2 + 3 mm = 21mm, that is 21/25.4 = 0.826"
Resolution: 4928/0.826 = 5960 dpi

Example 4 - 35mm film, 50Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Canon 5DsR
Sensor: 8688x5792 pixels (3:2)
Film format: 24x36 mm (3:2)
1" = 25.4 mm
Horizontal 36 mm, that is 36/25.4 = 1.417"
Resolution: 8688/1.417 = 6130 dpi

Example 5 - 120 film 6x4.5, 24Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Pentax K3-II
Sensor: 6016x4000 pixels
Film format: 56x41.5 mm (Pentax 645N)
1" = 25.4 mm
Position frame horizontal, fill out vertical in sensor, 41.5/25.4 = 1.63"
Resolution: 4000/1.63 = 2450 dpi

Example 6 - 120 film 6x4.5, 50Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Canon 5DsR
Sensor: 8688x5792 pixels
Film format: 56x41.5 mm (Pentax 645N)
1" = 25.4 mm
Position frame horizontal, fill out vertical in sensor: 41.5/25.4 = 1.63"
Resolution 5792/1.63 = 3550 dpi

Example 7 - 120 film 6x4.5, 50Mp camera, stitched in 2 parts.
Camera: Canon 5DsR
Sensor: 8688x5792 pixels
Film format: 56x41.5 mm (Pentax 645N)
Stitch: 2x vertical + overlap 5 mm
1" = 25.4 mm
Sub frame vertical 56/2 + 5 = 33mm, that is 33/25.4 = 1.30"
Resolution: 5792/1.30 = 4450 dpi

You can read ppi or lpi instead of dpi.

Some conclusions:

1. A 16Mp camera is not sufficient to scan a 35mm film (24x36) single shot (Example 1).
2. You can scan 35mm film with a 24Mp camera with more than 4000 dpi (example 2).
3. When you are stitching even a 16Mp camera for scanning 35 mm film can give plenty of resolution (example 3).
4. A 24Mp camera is not sufficient to scan 120 film (6x4.5) single shot (Example 5).
5. A 50Mp camera is not sufficient to scan 120 film (6x4.5) single shot (Example 6).
6. With a 50Mp camera you can scan + 2-part stitch a 120 film (6x4.5) with 4400 dpi (Example 7). This number is reduced for 6x6 and 6x9.

So even with a 50Mp camera you can not get enough resolution in most cases and the only solution is to stitch.

On average you need at least 4000 dpi for a good scan, but it depends what you are doing with it. For a large print you need more resolution. When scans are downsized and only shown on a monitor even scanning a 35mm film with a 16Mp camera single shot can be sufficient.

Edit 25/04/19: Example 5 corrected.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

While I agree that photographing frames single shot with a high resolution camera is the preferred option (when your budget allows this), in most cases even a 50Mp camera is not sufficient. I think your numbers are a bit optimistic. Here are some examples.

Example 1 - 35mm film, 16Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Pentax K-5II
Sensor: 4928x3264 pixels (3:2)
Film format: 24x36 mm (3:2)
1" = 25.4 mm
Horizontal 36 mm, that is 36/25.4 = 1.417"
Resolution: 4928/1.417 = 3470 dpi

Example 2 - 35mm film, 24Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Pentax K3-II
Sensor: 6016x4000 pixels (3:2)
Film format: 24x36 mm (3:2)
1" = 25.4 mm
Horizontal 36 mm, that is 36/25.4 = 1.417"
Resolution: 6016/1.417 = 4240 dpi

Example 3 - 35mm film, 16Mp camera, stitched in 4 parts.
Camera: Pentax K-5II
Sensor: 4928x3264 pixels
Film format: 24x36 mm
Stitch: 2x horizontal and 2x vertical + overlap 3 mm
1" = 25.4 mm
Sub frame horizontal 36/2 + 3 mm = 21mm, that is 21/25.4 = 0.826"
Resolution: 4928/0.826 = 5960 dpi

Example 4 - 35mm film, 50Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Canon 5DsR
Sensor: 8688x5792 pixels (3:2)
Film format: 24x36 mm (3:2)
1" = 25.4 mm
Horizontal 36 mm, that is 36/25.4 = 1.417"
Resolution: 8688/1.417 = 6130 dpi

Example 5 - 120 film 6x4.5, 24Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Pentax K3-II
Sensor: 6016x4000 pixels
Film format: 56x41.5 mm (Pentax 645N)
1" = 25.4 mm
Position frame horizontal, fill out vertical in sensor, 41.5/25.4 = 1.63"
Resolution: 4000/1.63 = 2450 dpi

Example 6 - 120 film 6x4.5, 50Mp camera, single shot.
Camera: Canon 5DsR
Sensor: 8688x5792 pixels
Film format: 56x41.5 mm (Pentax 645N)
1" = 25.4 mm
Position frame horizontal, fill out vertical in sensor: 41.5/25.4 = 1.63"
Resolution 5792/1.63 = 3550 dpi

Example 7 - 120 film 6x4.5, 50Mp camera, stitched in 2 parts.
Camera: Canon 5DsR
Sensor: 8688x5792 pixels
Film format: 56x41.5 mm (Pentax 645N)
Stitch: 2x vertical + overlap 5 mm
1" = 25.4 mm
Sub frame vertical 56/2 + 5 = 33mm, that is 33/25.4 = 1.30"
Resolution: 5792/1.30 = 4450 dpi

You can read ppi or lpi instead of dpi.

Some conclusions:

1. A 16Mp camera is not sufficient to scan a 35mm film (24x36) single shot (Example 1).
2. You can scan 35mm film with a 24Mp camera with more than 4000 dpi (example 2).
3. When you are stitching even a 16Mp camera for scanning 35 mm film can give plenty of resolution (example 3).
4. A 24Mp camera is not sufficient to scan 120 film (6x4.5) single shot (Example 5).
5. A 50Mp camera is not sufficient to scan 120 film (6x4.5) single shot (Example 6).
6. With a 50Mp camera you can scan + 2-part stitch a 120 film (6x4.5) with 4400 dpi (Example 7). This number is reduced for 6x6 and 6x9.

So even with a 50Mp camera you can not get enough resolution in most cases and the only solution is to stitch.

On average you need at least 4000 dpi for a good scan, but it depends what you are doing with it. For a large print you need more resolution. When scans are downsized and only shown on a monitor even scanning a 35mm film with a 16Mp camera single shot can be sufficient.

Edit 25/04/19: Example 5 corrected.

Not enough resolution for what? At 240 pixels per inch of paper a 16x24 print needs 5760x3840, well inside what a single 24MP picture of a film frame can deliver, regardless of the size of the film frame. 240 pixels per inch of paper is actually a pretty high resolution print.

Have you *actually* printed a 16x24 inch print at 240 ppi, matted it, framed it, hung it on a wall, then stepped back and looked at it? By the time it’s matted out and framed, that’s not a small print.

You think 240 ppi isn’t enough pixels for a print? I have news for you: you can actually chop it down quite a bit and still have a great looking print.

I’ll use an example: what size is your HDTV? Let’s make this ridiculous, let’s say you have a 100 inch 4K HDTV. Plug your computer into it and put a 24MP still image on it and fill the whole screen up with the image, then sit down on your couch and really look at it. I think you’d be really hard pressed not to say that it looks pretty good, despite the fact that you’re really only looking at 8MP spread out over that giant 100 inch screen, which is a lot less than 240 pixels per inch.

Once you hit the ~16MP range, printing bigger almost never means adding more resolution, but instead spreading what resolution you have out over a larger area. For those of you who say that 24MP on a 40x60 inch print doesn’t look sharp when you look at it up close, my response is usually to ask you if you watch your HDTV from 2 feet away. . Big prints are not meant to be viewed from 2 feet away, just like you don’t watch your HDTV from 2 feet away.

All that being said, I’m generally all for more resolution, and please don’t let me be the one to discourage you from pursuing that, however, I have a 24MP camera and a very good, very expensive macro lens along with a large format printer that I use to scan *alot* of film with and make a pretty good number of large prints with, and the reality is that it’s all too easy to get caught up in the “more bigger faster” mindset and not be mindful of reality. At normal viewing distances, for a given output size, once you hit a shockingly low minimum resolution, adding more resolution above that does not appreciably improve the sharpness or visible fine detail.

 

[Billy Axeman]

@Adrian Bacon. I know that prints are 240..300 dpi, but the principal point is that the function of a scanner is to reproduce all the details in the negative, preferably including the details of the grain (grain clumps), so you need 4000 dpi as a minimum to accomplish that. It depends what you are doing with the scan after that, with options to resize to the dimensions of a print or to show it on a screen.

It makes a difference when you are scanning at 240 dpi and then print at 240 dpi, or scan at 4000 dpi and then resize to 240 dpi for a print.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

@Adrian Bacon. I know that prints are 240..300 dpi, but the principal point is that the function of a scanner is to reproduce all the details in the negative, preferably including the details of the grain (grain clumps), so you need 4000 dpi as a minimum to accomplish that. It depends what you are doing with the scan after that, with options to resize to the dimensions of a print or to show it on a screen.

It makes a difference when you are scanning at 240 dpi and then print at 240 dpi, or scan at 4000 dpi and then resize to 240 dpi for a print.

You won’t get any argument from me there, and like I said, I’m generally all for more resolution, but there are definitely points of diminishing returns for the vast majority of uses of scanned film for the majority of film frame sizes.

I can tell you that 24MP shows all the grain of all but the absolute finest grained films in 35mm film, and shows grain in most films in 120 format, so your 4000+ dpi number is probably on the aggressive side depending on what you’re shooting in what format.

 

[Billy Axeman]

I agree that a scan of a 35mm negative with a 24Mp camera gives sufficient resolution without stitching (see my example 2), but not for 120 film. You can easily calculate in advance what you get with the gear you have or when you want to build a scanner yourself, the numbers are speaking for themselves.

Example: When you are scanning a 24x36 mm negative at 240 dpi and print the result (at 240 dpi) you get a postage stamp with a size of 0.84x1.42".

 

[4season]

For what it's worth, some recent Olympus cameras will produce 80 megapixel raw files in pixel-shift mode. I combined that with a late 50/2.8 Canon FD macro lens which focuses down to 1:1.

If you don't already have a negative carrier, you might try something like this:
https://shop.lomography.com/en/digitaliza-bundle

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I agree that a scan of a 35mm negative with a 24Mp camera gives sufficient resolution without stitching (see my example 2), but not for 120 film. You can easily calculate in advance what you get with the gear you have or when you want to build a scanner yourself, the numbers are speaking for themselves.

Example: When you are scanning a 24x36 mm negative at 240 dpi and print the result (at 240 dpi) you get a postage stamp with a size of 0.84x1.42".

If you really want to make 4000 dpi the minimum scan resolution you’re willing to accept, I’m not going to disagree as only can decide what is acceptable for you, however, I own and operate a film lab and process and scan *a lot* of film. 24MP shows film grain in most emulsions in 120 format. It’s a simple fact. Once you’re seeing film grain, more resolution is diminishing returns.

 

[Billy Axeman]

If you really want to make 4000 dpi the minimum scan resolution you’re willing to accept, I’m not going to disagree as only can decide what is acceptable for you, however, I own and operate a film lab and process and scan *a lot* of film. 24MP shows film grain in most emulsions in 120 format. It’s a simple fact. Once you’re seeing film grain, more resolution is diminishing returns.

It's all an optimum between the investment you want to do and what you see as acceptable results. I also see grain on a 24x36 negative scanned with a 16Mp camera (about 3400 dpi), but it is a vague surrogate. When I am increasing the resolution that picture is changing, and my conclusion is that scanning at 4000 dpi is a minimum and that more is even better to fully reproduce all the details. So if you don't believe me give it a try, compare the results, and see for yourself.

The point of scanning film is that ideally you fully need to reproduce the grain because it is a very important feature that can't be missed. So, the grain is an easy benchmark to check if you are scanning correctly.

 

[Luckless]

It really comes down to: You can throw out extra data you don't need, but its a lot harder to create data you didn't have if you decide you need it.

If you only scan to a resolution enough that you're 'just' seeing the effect of the grain, then you have very limited options in how the processing handles rendering it later down the pipeline, and no headroom to work with. If you have a data capture that goes well above and beyond that level of detail, then you retain more control on the look and feel from the final output.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The point of scanning film is that ideally you fully need to reproduce the grain because it is a very important feature that can't be missed. So, the grain is an easy benchmark to check if you are scanning correctly.

That’s what I don’t agree with. It’s important to capture all the resolution that the film can capture, or more realistically, all the resolution that the lens used to take the original picture with put onto the film. This takes the form of how many line pairs per mm of film you’re sampling at as that’s the measurement of what you’re actually putting into the film. Film grain is an artifact of the medium used to originally capture the image. It does affect the picture captured and provides a visual aesthetic, but at the end of the day, time is a lot more valuable than the cost of most equipment, so it’s about scanning with enough detail for the largest reasonable output.

If that number for you is 4000+ dpi, and you’re convinced that the only way to get that is by scanning and stitching, then that’s fine and more power to you.

My point (for other readers) is that you can achieve more than passable results with less resolution and actually have more time to go shoot more. I did the whole scan and stitch thing, and once you get onto a reasonably large print, it’s very much diminishing returns.

 

[Billy Axeman]

I have read somewhere (on Photrio?) that there are persons who actually try to remove grain from scans artificially.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I have read somewhere (on Photrio?) that there are persons who actually try to remove grain from scans artificially.

I never said grain was undesirable or unwanted, it’s just not really the benchmark of image quality. Line pairs per mm rendered onto the film and line pairs per mm the film can resolve is the measurement standard. The combination of the two together is your total system capture resolution in line pairs per mm. If you can scan that with enough resolution to provide good quality for your largest reasonable output resolution without destroying the other desirable aspects of the image, then you’re in the ballpark.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It really comes down to: You can throw out extra data you don't need, but its a lot harder to create data you didn't have if you decide you need it.

Somewhat of a fallacy. If you decide you now need that data, simply rescan the film frame with higher resolution, and even better, gain any improvements that you may have gained since the last time you scanned it. If your original scan was good enough for most of your uses, the number times you’d be doing this is pretty small.

 

[MattKing]

Line pairs per mm is a resolution standard.
But there are a few other factors (e.g. noise and the affect of certain post-processing techniques) that do make it beneficial to have more data than less.
You may be only able to see a difference with certain presentation options - large, backlit prints come to mind - but if you expect to be able to make those presentation choices in the future, you need to either make your scans at those higher resolutions, or be prepared to make additional scans later.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Line pairs per mm is a resolution standard.
But there are a few other factors (e.g. noise and the affect of certain post-processing techniques) that do make it beneficial to have more data than less.
You may be only able to see a difference with certain presentation options - large, backlit prints come to mind - but if you expect to be able to make those presentation choices in the future, you need to either make your scans at those higher resolutions, or be prepared to make additional scans later.

No argument from me on any of those points. Like I said before, I’m generally all for more resolution, but am also fully aware that for a large percentage of presentation choices, it’s not totally necessary to put time and effort in for the max if a fast and relatively inexpensive way gives totally passable results. In short, don’t just blindly scan and stitch every frame you shoot. Do a quick first pass that will cover most things, then, after you’ve done some culling and have a selection of frames for a specific presentation, if you need to, get higher quality scans.

 

[NickolasBaldwin]

It's absolute good idea

 

[jmoche]

Well, it certainly wasn't my intention to start a resolution discussion, but it's pretty interesting reading. Sometime over the next few weeks, I'm going to make a few scans of 120 film using the 50MP GFX 50r. I think the macro setup I have will let me do both a one shot and a stitched version, even though I don't yet have a good way to move the negative between shots for the stitched version. I'll post the results here and you guys can decide if you see a difference. Stay tuned...

 

[John51]

I looked into the suggestion of @Luckless (#14) to modify a 3D printer for stitching, with an X-Y adjustment for a film-holder and height adjustment for the camera, and came across the Velleman K8200 3D printer which is a relatively cheap kit to build yourself.

View attachment 219997

Here are some thoughts for modifications and possible limitations.

The printer has an open frame which allows modifications for mounting a camera and a film-holder. I think the best place for a camera is on the position of the nozzle (which is left out) because it has a height adjustment, and the print bed is replaced by a film holder where it can be moved in X-Y directions by the gear below. In this configuration a flat LED light source could be placed below the film-holder between the feet of the frame (for example a Kaiser Slimline LED panel or equivalent).

The camera is relatively heavy compared to the nozzle so perhaps a contra-weight is needed to level that out. I think the camera should also have an angle finder to allow focusing looking from the front.

If the space between the X-Y guide rails for the film-holder is too narrow for the light source to illuminate the film completely, you could perhaps replace some parts to increase the distance.

All adjustments X, Y and Z can be made manual by leaving out the stepper motors and by mounting knobs, but you could theoretically make an automated system too (all software is open source).

The overall dimensions of the frame are width=50cm, depth=42cm, height=60cm, which seems sufficient for 35mm and medium format films. However, the height of the vertical guide rails is much shorter than 60cm so perhaps they must be mounted higher up to get sufficient distance between camera and film.

As the camera is the heaviest, I'd have it fixed to the bed. As if on a tripod with the lens horizontal. Have the neg carrier controlled by the x and z axes. The y axis would control focus by jogging forward and backward. afaik, some cameras have a video output so focus could be achieved by looking at a monitor.

 

[Billy Axeman]

As the camera is the heaviest, I'd have it fixed to the bed. As if on a tripod with the lens horizontal. Have the neg carrier controlled by the x and z axes. The y axis would control focus by jogging forward and backward. afaik, some cameras have a video output so focus could be achieved by looking at a monitor.

Good catch, that is probably better. So, when I read that correctly the camera is looking to the backside of the frame and the film-holder is hanging down vertically from the extruder carriage. An advantage is also that the backside of the film-holder is now free to position the light source behind it.

I think this setup has also some disadvantages.

The depth of the printer-frame is about 40cm, but the range of moving the camera on the guide rails is much shorter (the original printer range is 20cm in X-Y directions). You need a certain distance between the camera and film to focus. Perhaps a short 35mm macro lens could solve that.

In your setup the film-holder is mounted vertically to the extruder carriage, which has perhaps some movement in the bearings. If the camera is placed looking upwards from the print bed, and the film-holder is mounted horizontally from the position of the extruder, it can be attached directly to the rail (the complete extruder is removed), which is theoretically more stable. Point is, there is more room between camera and film. The sub-frames for stacking are selected with X and Y, and focus with Z.

That said, it is a certainly a good idea to mount the camera on the print bed.

A product overview of the Velleman K8200 printer can be found here:
https://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?id=412554
You can get PDF's with details from 'Download' link on that page:
https://www.velleman.eu/support/downloads/?code=K8200

The assembly manual is extremely detailed so with that you can better judge in advance if modifications are possible. There are several languages available.

Edit 28-03-19.
Forget what I said about the extruder carriage. The extruder can't move in X-direction, it is mounted on a fixed position in the middle of the rail.

 

[rdeloe]

Earlier in this thread there was a question about building a template or jig for camera scanning and stitching. Here's an example I wrote about in the context of 4x5 negatives: https://www.largeformatphotography....era-scanning-on-the-cheap-an-example-approach This approach can easily be adapted to any other film size where multiple frames are needed.

This approach is easy to use and vastly faster than a flatbed scan on an Epson V750. However, I'm going to make a new one to reduce the number of frames, and the resulting resolution. My current setup gives me 2,666 ppi, which is overkill for my needs. The files are huge, and things slowdown too much in Lightroom. The next version I'm going to build will have a target resolution of 2,000 ppi, which I can achieve with 6 frames instead of the 12 needed for 2,666 ppi. For the rare cases where 6 frames do not allow enough overlap, I'll be designing-in the ability to shoot 9 to maximize overlap. 2,000 ppi is still more resolution than I need for my typical largest size print (16" on the short edge), but the resulting files are quite manageable, so it's not a problem to have "too much" resolution.