Lack Of New Film Scanners

[douglas_vitello]

What gives with the lack of new dedicated film scanners?Numerous scanners are

no longer available and Nikon must have a waiting list a mile long for their

Coolscans.What is going on?Is this their way of getting everyone to go out and

buy all new digital cameras or is this a lack of interest in film scanning?

[Hector Javkin]

It's unlikely that new desktop scanners will be coming out, because it is a transitional technology. As digital capture continues to improve and get cheaper, there will be less and less of a market for scanners.

 

Coolscans do become available new from time to time. If you'd be happy with a Coolscan, decide which one you want, keep checking with the various retailers, and don't hesitate when one becomes available. That's what I did to get mine.

 

In addition, many of us are only keeping ours until we finish with accumulated film collections, and plan to sell them after that. I know that's the case with me. And honestly, I'm scanning as fast as I can!

[ronald_moravec1]

Stores are selling digi cams as fast as they arrive. One local Circuit City has a waiting list for Canon elphs.

[dave_redmann]

We have these silly, maybe even barbaric, market forces that we call <I>supply</I> and <I>demand</I>. These forces, the pawns of the digital Visigoths, seem to tell the manufacturers that the demand for film scanners is fading fast, that most people who really want them already have them, that more and more lightly-used ones will be hitting eBay, and that any sizeable investment in developing new film scanners isn't likely to produce a high rate of return. In a similar vein, you will notice that, despite occasional pleas from photo.net members, we don't have an all-manual-only digital SLR, or a popularly-priced digital rangefinder, or any number of other things that a few people want. You might as well complain about the lack of new 35mm film camera models, or the lack of new medium format film cameras.<P>

 

With all digital cameras, and especially DSLR's, improving at the rate they're improving, the <I>rational</I> decision to shoot film and scan is becoming more and more rare every day. So scanners become purely an interim product: a way to put the film archives into digital format, and, for a brief time, a way to get the best of both worlds with a hybrid workflow.

[robert_k1]

What really amazes me is the number of posters at this forum discussing scanners/scanning. It's good to know that I'm not the only one hanging on.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>What gives with the lack of new dedicated film scanners?</I><P>Honestly? Rapidly

falling

demand and a saturation of the market place. <P>From the research they have done,

manufacturers have concluded that there simply isn't enough Return on Investment (ROI) for

money to be pumped into the research and development, manufacturing and marketing of

new dedicated film scanners. Even the new high end Hasselblad (formerly Imacon )

Flextights show no increase in scan quality and focus instead on speed and are intended for

organizations with large collections of images.

[tony_black1]

what a shame. this boring digital cameras are ruining the photography world.

 

i always do my scanning by hiring an imacon either in ny or in london. it costs me $5 in ny and 5 pounds in london per scan. its ok for now but i would prefer doing it at home conveniently.

 

i hope some manufacturer will fill this gap. i believe some people will never give up shooting film. its unreplaceble.

[doug_nelson3]

I wonder if the makers are not blowing off a potentially lucrative market - those of us who have 40 years worth of everything from family snapshots to serious art photography that we'd like to share and archive. We in our 50's to 80's have money to spend and the time to do the work.

 

The market doesn't have all the answers and sometimes doesn't behave rationally. The makers are letting Nikon have this market just as the US auto industry offers little to counter the Toyota Prius.

 

The new Epson flatbeds are a good solution for those of us who want decent scan quality, but don't require the very best, and don't want to invest the time to master full-blown Photoshop, VueScan and/or Silverfast.

[Brad_]

<I>What gives with the lack of new dedicated film scanners?</I><P>

 

Rapidly shrinking film and film camera market + rapidly growing digital capture market =

lack of new dedicated film scanners<P>

 

That isn't too surprising, is it?

[ellis_vener_photography]

For medium and large format, the Epson V-750 is good to quite good, depending on how

much effort you are willignto put into it and what your expectations are. go to the trouble

of wetouting your film and itthe results are hard to differentiate between the output of a

V-750M anda $50,000 scanner. Microtek has announced a new flatbed scanner, the M1,

which should give the Epson V-750M a very hard run for the money. We will see when it is

introduced in the Spring of '07. Among other things in the M1 there is no scanning bed

glass between the film and the scanner's CCD.

 

Digital cameras are no more ruining photography any more than flexible film did when it

was introducedand peopel stopped using glass plates. It's just a different medium that

takes some retraining and learning new

skill sets.

[tony_black1]

well maybe i should have said its ruining film photography.

 

as we can clearly see there is no investment in scanners, film cameras, films and etc from these big money hungry corporations.

[aeiffel]

<i>With the speed and accuracy of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 along with all the accessories - what other choice could there be?</i><br>

Better handling of 35mm negs (flatness issue for focusing), a diffuse light source to prevent grain, scratch and dust exaggerations among others. There's room for some improvements on Nikon's side IMHO.<br>

Imacon answers those needs at a much higher, and unreasonable, cost.

[ellis_vener_photography]

As Frederic noted: film handling evenessof light.

 

more importantly: MUCH BETTER Software!

[Spearhead]

<i>as we can clearly see there is no investment in scanners, film cameras, films and etc from these big money hungry corporations.</i><p>

 

If there are sufficient sales, someone else can make them. Apparently you think there is demand, so I would recommend negotiating with some of the companies that no longer make them and pick up their technology and build them. I believe Microtek is open to OEM deals for their scanner, it's worth a try.<p>

[mendel_leisk]

A scanner with a diffuse light source, ICE capable of handling Kodachrome and decent depth of focus is always on my shopping list. Regardless of declining film sales, there is a *lot* of film out there already, and I would think the bulk of it is not scanned yet.

[don_e]

It is an odd argument that digital photography and the immanent vanishment of film scanners is killing film photography via preventing film photographers from turning their film into digital files. I guess optical printing is not an option for these film photographers. It is amazing film photographers were able to make prints for around a century and a half before photo capable scanning.

 

If I were to bet on a niche technology gaining traction, it would be film recording of digital files...another layer of archiving, an issue of great concern to digital photographers.

 

 

--

 

Don E

[aeiffel]

Les Sarile><br>

<i>If you have extremely rolled up strips of film the FH3 holder will correct that, everything else there is no issue with the standard film strip feeder as I have explored over 5,000 frames now.</i><br>

great, this fragile plasticky stuff is nikon's answer to this issue, talk 'bout convenience. with the strip feeder, no matter how flat my negs are, I can distinctly see the perfectly focused area and the not so focused one. it's fairly obvious on grainy negs. not even talking 'bout the first and last frames of filmstripes which are totally OoF on the 5mm end.<br><br>

<i>Again, the Coolscan 5000's ICE is the best and fastest today. It does appear to "exaggerate" more then the 9000, but that is noticeable only at >400X magnification in PS and not on prints up to 13" X 19" on my 1280 at highest dpi prints on glossy Epson paper.</i><br>

I'm not talking 'bout ICE or GEM here, I don't need them anyway since I mostly deal with b&w films. Minolta successfully fitted a diffuser in the 5400 mkI, so it can be done on desktop scanners. The scanhancer I have installed in the coolscan is half-satisfactory in this regard, but it's closer to the grain you get with a conventional diffuser head on wet prints.<br><br>

<i>Just for my reference, do you use a a Coolscan 5000?</i><br>

For your reference I owned a LS40, LS50, and now the 5000 in order to use the SA-30 roll feeder. At work we use a LS9000 and an Imacon 949. We'll probably get rid of the 9000 soon.<br><br>

<i>Compared to the previous king of desktop scanners, the CS5000 improved in speed and a few other tech specs at half the price. Sure they can give it away and include the accessories . . .</i><br>

So what, we've reached a statu quo ? No more improvements ? Am I talking to a nikon rep ?

<br><br>

<i>IMO, if they can figure out how to use ICE on true B&W film now I would pay for that upgrade . . . or buy the new scanner altogether!</i><br>

A diffuse light source would precisely take care of all that without ICE artifacts.

[robert_k1]

"With the speed and accuracy of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 along with all the accessories - what other choice could there be?"

 

Many users do not consider Nikon scanners to be the better choices.

 

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

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001A4q

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2Sh

 

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

 

http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/

 

http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html

[j_sevigny]

Another issue to consider is that scanning technology hasn't improved by leaps and bounds the way digital film technology has. The Canon FS4000 scanner that I bought three years ago does what it did when I took it out of the box. I imagine that few scanner-owners see any reason to upgrade.

 

It's kind of like the old days when you bought a camera thinking you'd use it for years and years and years.

[marc_rochkind]

I've been doing a LOT of scanning with my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV lately, and it's sure not because I like film or scanning.

 

Just the opposite. I want all my film archived, and I hope then never to use the scanner again, unless for old-time's sake I decide to shoot some film someday.

 

Chasing the dust, dealing with scratches on poorly stored negatives, and trying to keep them flat all remind me what I always disliked about film.

 

(Yes, I know you can get dust on a sensor, but that's a minor problem by comparison.)

 

On the other hand, there are sensational bargains to be had if one wants to buy a used film camera.

 

--Marc

[aeiffel]

Les,<br>

We're talking about the lack of new scanners here. Some state we don't need better ones, like you do, others think it can be improved. While the CS5000 is probably the best in its class, it doesn't mean we can't ask for more.<br>

I have no problem standing by everything I said on the FH3 holder, light source and flatness/DOF issues. Have some negs scanned on a flextight 949 or X5 and you'll probably get my point.

[aeiffel]

I went to your album, choose a pic randomly and checked the high rez version : <a href=http://www.fototime.com/%7B932A156C-9E03-4199-9CB8-7391D1BB03CD%7D/picture.JPG target="_blank">this one</a>.<br>

Now, honestly, tell me if you don't find the left and right parts of the pic to be soft, out of focus ? And this is with Nikonscan I presume, which already crops the borders of the frame...<br>

This pretty much says it all, and is consistent with what I have observed.

[aeiffel]

ok, last answer from me cause it's a plain waste of time.<br>

You claim eveness of focus and the first scan I pick exhibits 2 problems I mentioned.<br>

You say FH3 is the answer, well, maybe for you but it's a no-go for people who scan thousands of pics a year. When I have a whole project to scan it is 40 to 80 135-36 rolls. Do you really think I'm gonna lose my time with this toy ? Last year I burned 437 rolls, that's 15000 scans or so.<br>

So I probably don't know how to use the tool. That's right, I dismissed Nikonscan long ago except for some mounted slides. Vuescan and Silverfast give much more control over the process.<br>

Why sould I provide you with some examples ? You did prove my point with your picture. My negs are exactly the same except they are uncropped.<br>

Now if you want to see a comparison with a flextight, drop a line to your nearest hasselblad/imacon dealer and ask to have one of your negs scanned with their hig-end units. Make sure to ask for a tiff version and the "raw" fff with a copy of the flexcolor software. Then compare with the coolscan results and draw your own conclusion. No cheating, no suspicion, just the facts you ask for.

[robert_k1]

There have been plenty of complaints about 35mm film scanners' shallow dof (and lousy carriers). That is definitely an area worth improving. But I doubt that we will ever see it.

[douglas_vitello]

Sorry guys but I did not mean to start a war over this issue.I decided to purchase a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (just received it this week, new from KEH - the only ones who had one in stock)because my 4 year old Canon FS4000 US just could not cut it anymore (scan times)and there is just nothing else out there anymore.I had a KM 5400 Duoscan for about a year (rarely used) that died on me and as a result went back to the Canon.My first scanner was a Canon FS 2700 that did a fair job and never missed a beat - that unit got shelved because of Microsoft XP.The FS 4000 had beautiful color match but was very slow and needed to be serviced more than once.I wished Canon would of taken one more shot at it and released a improved version of the FS 4000.Funny,Canon still makes a full line of film cameras and no longer sells a decent scanner and here we have Nikon that has pretty much dumped film and still makes the last decent desktop film scanner of high quality.Go figure.I have no desire to go digital other than for scanning because of the lack of a hard copy like you have with film.I think more and more people are beginning to feel this way and are shooting more film for the "must preserve" stuff.That recent post "Digital Ice Age" really put a good spin on why film must survive.