Live data from Hacker News

A modern 35mm film scanner for home

soke.engineering

71–80 of 198 posts

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#71
post #69
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How long does a roll take you to scan that way?

5-10 minutes depending on equipment/skill. You "lose" most of the time if your strip is cut into stripes of 4-6 images, otherwise you can do it in 2 minutes.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#72
post #44

I'm glad this exists but at ~1k EUR I would be interested if it could scan 120 medium format negatives...but the fact that it does not is an absolute deal breaker for me. It seems like they are considering it. I hope they do figure that out sooner than later.

Medium is the problem. There’s nothing. Epson stopped making their flatbeds that do film, reportedly because they can’t get the CCDs anymore. That may be a rumor. The result is they go for 2x MSRP on eBay for models that are many years old. Because that’s all that exists. Without that, you can buy the kind of scanner meant for a photo lab ($$$$$), DIY it with a DSLR ($$$ if you don’t have one), or pay your a lab a lo…

I tried some scanning on a Plustek 8300, which is supposed to be the fastest. The process is still extremely manual/slow and I don't think it's practical on a large scale. Many families who owned cameras in the 60s-70s-80s-90s will have potentially thousands of negatives to scan, but I don't see a solution that will automate that digitalization process.

Software could also use some improvement. Automating batch correction and clean up should be easier, IMO.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#73
post #31

Film doesn't really make sense anymore outside the realm of luxury-budget art. And if so, why 35mm? Why not medium format / Hasselblads, or large format? Why not actually go for the format sizes where there's a reasonable argument that film can produce a better end result compared to DSLRs?

> Why not medium format / Hasselblads, or large format?

That has also been superseded in the digital realm. I can use a top DSLR from the last decade to blow film medium format cameras away under most conditions, especially in low light. If I just use a digital medium format camera, it invalidates almost any rationale for film medium format (there is a minor, minor argument to be made about depth of field when the lens is wide open).

Large format can squeeze slightly more resolution out of an image, but the ability to actually use that extra resolution is rarely satisfied. Again, a MF digital subs in for almost every conceivable use case.

The reality is that people do this because it is fun, or a challenge, or for a feeling. Basically, its interesting. The technical excellence of the 'end result' is secondary.

There's tons of things that people do that don't make sense from a purely pragmatic point of view, and that's what makes the world so much more fun to live in.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#74
post #52

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?

Newton's Rings. Anti-newton glass is frosted, loses resolution.

Professional drum scanners would immerse the film in mineral oil. Epson used to ship a kit for their flatbeds. Popular with 8x10 photographers.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#75
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like an obvious question, but why not sandwich it between panes of glass?

Newton's Rings. Anti-newton glass is frosted, loses resolution. Professional drum scanners would immerse the film in mineral oil. Epson used to ship a kit for their flatbeds. Popular with 8x10 photographers.

Example Newton's rings:

https://shootitwithfilm.com/what-are-newtons-rings-and-how-t...

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#76

The industrial design is really nice! I like the fun LED display as opposed to an LCD. I am surprised there doesn't seem to be any physical controls! I'm sure this will be on every photography youtuber's channel shortly, can't wait to see it in action.

It seems to me like they spent most of their budget on things that don't really matter.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#77

I’ve got a decade’s worth of 4x6 pictures and negatives from my childhood. Would something like this help me digitize them?

No. 4x6 negatives are large format and requires a different type of scanner (flat bed). If you look at the photos the 35mm roll slides into the device so you can’t fit a larger format sheet into the feed.

You might be confusing 4x6 inch prints with 4x5 inch film.

35mm typically uses 2:3 ratio images, often printed as 4x6 inch pictures.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#78
post #44

I'm glad this exists but at ~1k EUR I would be interested if it could scan 120 medium format negatives...but the fact that it does not is an absolute deal breaker for me. It seems like they are considering it. I hope they do figure that out sooner than later.

Medium is the problem. There’s nothing. Epson stopped making their flatbeds that do film, reportedly because they can’t get the CCDs anymore. That may be a rumor. The result is they go for 2x MSRP on eBay for models that are many years old. Because that’s all that exists. Without that, you can buy the kind of scanner meant for a photo lab ($$$$$), DIY it with a DSLR ($$$ if you don’t have one), or pay your a lab a lo…

> I expect their specs are far better than the $300 one I’ve mentioned

It's not, it's actually quite a bit worse, especially with color reproduction.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#79

RGB LED backlight is a terrible choice. Wide gamut but terrible color rendering.

Can I ask why it will produce terrible color rendering? In addition to commercial scanners that used narrowband trichromatic (RGB) light sources, hobbyists are creating their own RGB light sources to digitize color negative film claiming superior results and putting forward arguments why this is better:

https://jackw01.github.io/scanlight/

(NB: Most film I shoot is slide film, which I’ve been told doesn’t benefit from RGB light sources because it’s intended viewing was projected with a broad-spectrum white light [likely a warmer than daylight (but color temperature isn’t much of a concern for digitizing slides)] so I haven’t dug into this much.)

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#80
This is cool. I spent ~$1k on a Pakon F135+ a number of years ago, and the workflow was indeed extremely frustrating and the results not that great. If I were still shooting a lot of film I’d definitely pick this up. But we need to see sample images!
Post reply on HN