81–90 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Wow, you weren’t kidding, I completely missed this. I bought one, sold it, then bought and currently own another. I better baby it, there’s really nothing like it out there.
I wish the fancy scroll nonsense would go away. For example I wanted to look at the first picture in the horizontal gallery that scrolls horizontally when you scroll vertically. However, there is no way for me to view the whole image. Either it is cutoff at the bottom, or it starts horizontally scrolling. Switching from vertical to horizontal scrolling is awkward and I just want to skip the gallery. scrolling on that…
It’s a cancer on the web. Apple started it and I hate them for it. And I’m an Apple fan. If I wanted to wait 1/2 second for each part of the page to load I’d have stayed on dialup.
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.
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.
Why are you getting downvoted? You’re absolutely right. My mind instantly went to “I would have bought this instead of the F135+ in a heartbeat”
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
I almost missed the price. Wow you're right that's a lot! And the final retail price is 1599 euros. I have a good Plustek that cost me $300 or $400. Automated transport and unantiquated software sounds nice, but those features are not worth an extra $600-1,100 to me. Am I missing something or is this supposed to be in another tier of image quality?
If that matters, I’m not sure.
The fact that there is still no sample scans has me heated - instead of showing us all these specs, how about some sample images!!
Seems about as credible as a lot of the crowdfunded stuff.