Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A modern 35mm film scanner for home

soke.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#111

Post by jaffa2 »

gorgoiler wrote: post #50
ZeWaka wrote: post #33

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.

I digitise a lot of 35mm.

A 36Mp camera is not enough to best a 4000ppi scanner. You need about 60-70 mp to resolve the detail of a scan to similar level .

Even a layman can see the difference at 100%

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#112

Post by roblh »

Brian-Puccio wrote: post #79
felixfurtak wrote: post #65

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 fro…

I got one of these from the latest batch last week and I’m not entirely convinced by it yet. I need to experiment some more but I went back and did a couple rolls from this summer and so far I think the cslite warm setting + negative lab pro results are better and more consistent. I’m still getting some wonky colour casts with it. It’s nice that the control app lets you change the power of each LED colour separately, so that’s the next thing I’m going to experiment with.

I’ll also note that negative lab pro hates negatives that are scanned with it. They don’t turn out at all. If you’re using it, you should expect to be inverting them manually, which is kind of a pain. I was quietly hoping (but not expecting) to still see some of the benefits of it when passing them through NLP.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#113

Post by scrps »

pontus wrote: post #110

Somewhat related question: Any suggestions for a scanner meant for bulk scans of old family photos (think a few thousand images)? I bought, what I thought, was a reasonably solid scanner, the Pacific Image Powerfilm scanner but the software is so janky that it hangs every two strips and has to be restarted making the entire process super labor intensive. Also the entire "bulk feature" where it's meant to pull the str…

Granted my film scanner (epson v750) has gotten on in years the more prosumer-professional Epson scanners were good, software was still a bit janky but IIRC there is aftermarket scanner software for them.

It can do 36 exposures but you have to cut them into strips and place them in a carrier but it isn't terrible and if you store your negs in film protectors you are cutting them down anyway.

I am fairly sure the newest version (V850) is the same but be aware they aren't cheap, at least $1k+ USD but still cheaper than the next level up which are pro drum scanners and they are many orders of magnitude more expensive.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#114

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

atomicthumbs wrote: post #98
anonymousiam wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem to exist yet. The specifications are not specifications, they are design goals. I don't see how they can get the color coverage they're claiming with RGB LEDs. Seems about as credible as a lot of the crowdfunded stuff.

The Coolscans used RGB LEDs.

Can confirm. I used to write software for them.

The issue with LEDs, is very pure colors. That’s actually a bit of a problem, with film scanners. You need a smooth curve, and it needs to extend out a bit. You don’t want areas of color being missed.

The Coolscans had a light color response (think the “levels” screen, in Photoshop) that looked like three steep hills, with minimal overlap, but they were able to make them wider than a “pure” LED. Coherence is a feature of LED lighting.

Most previous light sources used filters over a white light, and they looked “sloppier,” with a lot more overlap, so there was more coverage. We had to correct for the unusual color coverage of LEDs.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#116

Post by skhr0680 »

jdelman wrote: post #107
skhr0680 wrote: post #94

Scanning 135 format at home is pretty much a solved problem right? The home made solution to this costs $0 if you own any DSLR and some other basic photography gear. I think the product would be more compelling and worth it or even a good deal at the price they are offering if it offered drum scan-quality for larger formats.

The workflow for this scanner would allow you to thread an uncut roll of 35mm film through it. You'd have to spend more than $0 to get that kind of speed on a DSLR rig.

1. I had never even heard of an uncut developed roll of film before, so I guess it's useful for that.

2. Time is money, but who is honestly shooting that much 135 film that it's worth 1600 Euros to buy a faster scanner for it? I don't think a museum wants to feed degraded film through a fast scanner, and surely pros who still shoot film would use a larger format, since that's where it has some differences / advantages compared to digital?

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#117

Post by MBCook »

anfractuosity wrote: post #53
MBCook wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Epson scanners are supposed to be nice but they stopped making them and they’ve shot way up in price second hand.

Yeah I do remember hearing good things about the Epson scanners, will have another look, thanks.

I’m not sure if they can do 4 x 5. I know they can do 120.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#118

Post by MBCook »

chem83 wrote: post #72
MBCook wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 corre…

This really isn’t my area but it sounds like nothing is fast. DSLR may be fastest without just flat out hiring someone else to do it. But even with thousands of shots that would still take quite a lot of time.

And yeah, workflow is the thing that seems the worst. That seems like a great place to try to improve things to get a sale.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#119

Post by MBCook »

elzbardico wrote: post #83
MBCook wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wasn't the NYT that started this?

Oh that does sound familiar. I think you’re right.

Apple certainly made it popular for product pages though.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#120

Post by turnsout »

jaffa2 wrote: post #111
gorgoiler wrote: post #50

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.

I digitise a lot of 35mm. A 36Mp camera is not enough to best a 4000ppi scanner. You need about 60-70 mp to resolve the detail of a scan to similar level . Even a layman can see the difference at 100%

A 4000 DPI scan of 135 gives you 21 megapixels. So 36MP with a good lens will easily resolve just as much detail. There is not 60-70MP of information in a 4000 DPI scan, period.

For most films, anything beyond 4000 DPI is just going to help resolve the grain particles or dye cloud shapes. You have to be shooting slow fine grained BW with the best lenses to need more.

Post reply on HN