Will there be any new film scanners on the horizon

[chris_c._yu]

The super coolscan 5000ED and 9000ED have been around for more than 2

years,will there be any new scanners for the 135 and 120 films from Nikon on

the horizon.

 

Chris Yu

[ShunCheung]

Again, nobody can provide useful answers to these future product questions. People can make baseless claims here one way or another, but those are useless answers.

 

Those Nikon insiders who actually know are not going to reveal their proprietry business directions here. I heard that some Nikon employees had done exactly that and they were immediately fired, and they may have legal liabilites, as well. For one thing, if someone releases real information that a new Coolscan will be released in 6 months, it would practically kill the sales of the current models.

 

Moreover, the notion that products have to be renewed every so many years is not correct. It may be true for now that DSLRs have short update cycles, but for more mature products, the cycles can be very long. For example, the 9-element/9-groups optical design for the 24mm/f2.8 has not changed since 1977, the year Nikon introduced AI.

 

The Coolscan 5000 and 9000 can already scan 4000 DPI, which is not far from the physical limit where film grain is the limiting factor. In these days, there aren't exactly a lot of new film users. Whoever needs a film scanner probably already has one. So even though there may be some advances in electronics, I am not sure that there is a big enough market to justify new scanner models.

[erik_loza]

Can neither of these scanners meet your current needs? I'm able to generate a 100+mb

file off a 35mm transpareny using my first generation Dimage Scan Elite. This file holds

more information than commonly accesible lightjet and inkjet printers can transfer onto

media, so the real limitation is actually the 35mm format of the film. What is it that you're

doing that requires output beyond the capabilities of the current Nikon scanners?

[ellis_vener_photography]

I had a conversation last week with a v.p. at a company that makes scanners.

Unfortunately I can't really talk about the bulk of our conversation as it is covered by a

NDA. He did make a general comment which I feel safe in sharing however: "Scanner

development is like everything else, driven by customer demand (sales). We see Scanner

sales declining rapidly as very few people are still shooting film and both new and

used scanners are now being bought for scanning archives of film.

 

All of the scanner manufacturers have access to the same information about the market and

it is unlikely we will see any of them pouring alot of resources into developing and

marketing a new edicated film scanner. That isn't to say it won't happen but I think it is

unlikely.

 

So Chris, if your question really is: "Is buying a 5000Ed or 9000Ed in the near future a

good or bad idea or are they about to be replaced?" My bet is that it will be a safe

investment.

 

I don't know if you have done much if any high end scanning but based on my experience

overthe past year or two is that it is a royal pain in the ass and given the amount of cash

and then spending the necessary time learning how to make high quality scans, you are

probably better off bting the bullet and have a lab like Nancyscans.com, West Coast

Imaging, or nasheditions.com do your scanning work for you.

[ShunCheung]

Ellis, thanks for the info.

 

Actually, I have the opposite concern. I have years of 35mm slides and some medium-format slides from the last few years. My Coolscan II is way out of date. I am a bit concerned that Nikon might just discontinue all scanners altogether. However, a Coolscan 5000 ED cannot scan my medium-format slides while spending close to $2000 on a 9000 ED is a bit much, and the footprint of that scanner is huge.

 

So essentially I am on hold as far as buying a scanner goes. If I need to spend $2000, I may be better off getting a D200 instead. However, if Nikon simply discontinues all scanners, I may be forced to buy one of the last ones.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Shun,

 

Just as I pushed the send button to make that last post, myNDA with Microtek expired. Here

is the link to their press release announcing their new scanner.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IYD6

[robert_hooper1]

Has anyone tried using a slide copier like the Nikon ES-1 to digitize their transparencies?

[william john smith]

Hasselblad released two new scanners last month. The less expensive one is around $12000 USD. Maybe Hasselblad knows something about the future of film that most people don't. Just a thought.

[ellis_vener_photography]

yes and what they know is that fewer and fewer people are shooting film. those are high

volume scanners designed for institutions where there are tens of thousands of existing --

not new -- images that need to be digitized quickly.

[dennis_shumaker]

At the time of the post

 

1) At time of post oct 2006, the Nikon coolscan film scanners are not just more than 2 yrs old..they are 3 yrs old. They were announced oct 2003. Now they are almost 4.5 yrs old...ANCIENT!

 

2) comparing the product life cycle of a lens to a real digital product is absurd! How many advances in optics have there been compared to the advances in electronics, processor speed, and interface speed?

 

3) its not just about 4000dpi! The list of improvements that can be done is huge:

a) dynamic range,

b) reducing the size of the final file. Some files that are produced are over 100MB- this is crazy. ideally they should be close the range of cameras such as the current D300 or even D3.

c) clearly the scan speed can be improved. Waiting 5 minutes or more to scan 4 35mm slides is not fun. The Nikon Coolscan use firewire ports..this was a mistake. At that time USB2.0 was almost ready. USB3.0 is now on the horzon and promises to be 10x USB 2.0.

d) speed up and improvement of auto fixing can be improved

e) batch processing more than 4 at a time can be improved

 

4) not sure if there is a big enough market? Guessing is not good basis for any rational discussion. Scan Digital is a new start up..started alittle more than a year ago. They are growing fast. They are now doing almost 30,000 scans per week now. They estimate that there are well over 1 trillion images that are available to be scanned. At 60 cents an image that potential is $600Billion. I suspect that if we counted all film scans and photo scans that number is drastically higher! Lets take 1trillion as the number divide that by 24 to get an average roll. that means 41.7 billion rolls of film. How long has kodak and others been making film ? I suggest the 1 trillion number is much larger.

 

5) Film sales in India and China are still large. If film is developed, then there is a need for film scanning. Many professionals still shoot film, since even the best digital cameras can not give them what they want. I know several people that pack an extra case for their now Ancient cool scan scanner.

 

6) developments for film scanning have not stopped at other companies like it has at Nikon, who struggles to keep up with Canon's digital cameras and lenses. D300 is kind of a disappointment since to get low light sensitiy it claims, it needs to blurr the image somewhat. Canon D5 retains more detail and color accuracy. Ive seen plenty of comparisons on this.

i) Microtek just shipped Artixscan M1 series. They call them film scanners. But they are offering sub $1,000 film scanners. ED9000 at $2k is too high for people to consider digitizing their shoe boxes..and there are still plenty of them. In my case...6 packing boxes of photos and film still need to be scanned. :(

ii) other companies making flatbed scanners have announced improvements for their film scanning options. They haven't been sitting idly on the rears on film scanning.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Dennis; the scanner is not held up by the interface in its transfer rate. Its the scanner itself thats the slow poke device. A faster interface than USB 2 or firewire adds nothing; its like polishing a riding lawn mower to save gasoline; or adding streamlining features to a turtle. <BR><BR>35mm Scanners are a mature product; demand is low; they already have reached their zenith in design.<BR><BR>High resolution scanning is a slow process; after the honeymoon phase folks often shelve their 35mm scanners. <BR><BR>Clearly the scan speed cannot be improved; its inherent with the scanning process where the scanner scans line by line and one giant file is made.<BR><BR>Here one can use a 10 year old 200Mhz pentium pro or fairly new dual core 3400Mhz 64 bit cpu and the scan times with a 4000 dpi scanner with ice off are the same; the scanner is the slug.<BR><BR>Folks dont like to fart around ans waste an evening scanning a roll or two of film unless its some old stuff that has memories. Sane folks use digital and avoid the time sinkhole of a hybrid shoot film and scan event. Scanning takes time; thats why bundled Cd's with prints are low res crappy scans often just 1.3 megapixel.<BR><BR>Scanning takes labor; thats why some usa labs send the originals overseas or to low cost farming areas to cut labor costs.<BR><BR>MAYBE Nikon or Canon could do like Radio Shack with CB radios; change the model every 3 years via the knobs and trim and then folks who crave "new models" will have them!