61–70 of 198 posts
I’ve got a decade’s worth of 4x6 pictures and negatives from my childhood. Would something like this help me digitize them?
I scanned a lot of 35mm film, of various kinds, using a high-end flatbed scanner (EPSON V700 Photo). The biggest problem is not the optical quality, but mechanics: flatbeds can only scan strips. And if your film is very old and has been stored in a roll, you might not want to cut it, and even if you do, getting the strips to stay flat is nearly impossible. I tried various fancy holders, but in the end decided that I'…
Seems like an obvious question, but why not sandwich it between panes of glass?
For the "this is crazy expensive" crowd: this competes with the Pakon F135 - an ancient lab scanner that involves booting up Windows XP, finding old drivers on a CD, etc This sounds excellent to me, personally.
As someone who has a mirrorless scanning setup for my film, and pondered getting a dedicated scanner... the price of this is quite steep given how inflexible of a tool it is. A second hand DSLR setup is going to be roughly the same price or less. I'm also not sure what kind of workflow improvements it actually offers. If you want fancy and experimental, filmomat has arguably a more interesting but pricier offering. B…
The results are good, as you'd expect. However can I tell the difference between that and me putting the negatives on a decent softbox and using a fancy camera to take a picture? yes, but not by much.
I think the main issue is film registration, that is getting the film to be flat and "co-planar" to the lens so the whole frame is sharp.
My negatives are slightly warped, so they really need a frame to make sure they are perfectly flat. But for instagram, they are close enough.
However scanning more than a few pictures is a massive pain in the arse. If I was scanning film regularly, then this is what I'd want, and its cheaper than the competition.
Assuming that its actually any good, I haven't seen any scans yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I feel like anything beyond 5 megapixels per frame is pushing beyond reasonable expectations with 35mm. This is certainly the case with any kind of available light or high speed work in silver-halide process, the area where I figure most people are going to be using this device. Lab-work in C41 and E6 is definitely possible at home but must account for single digit percentage of the home analogue market.
Never. 20 Mp if you want "lossless".
Ilford Delta 400 pushed two stops to 1600 ASA in a 1970s Asahi Pentax SP1000 was always going to produce… artistic results, requiring as much imagination as acuity to appreciate the subject. (Read: see past the blur.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually a lower DPI and no IR sensor.
Honestly I feel like anything beyond 5 megapixels per frame is pushing beyond reasonable expectations with 35mm. This is certainly the case with any kind of available light or high speed work in silver-halide process, the area where I figure most people are going to be using this device. Lab-work in C41 and E6 is definitely possible at home but must account for single digit percentage of the home analogue market.
For the "this is crazy expensive" crowd: this competes with the Pakon F135 - an ancient lab scanner that involves booting up Windows XP, finding old drivers on a CD, etc This sounds excellent to me, personally.
No, this competes with a lightsource, some stand and a macro lens+DSLR/M. It's a good price if don't have the later ones. But chances are high that you do if you are into photography.
Stick to my Nikon scanner until this comes down in $
It's quite punchy in price for a niche market. I'm struggling to see much of a USP for me.