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

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#121

Post by ryukoposting »

In case anyone is wondering, the current meta in home 35mm film scanning is divided:

Option 1 is to get an Epson Perfection series flatbed scanner. V800 or V850. This approach is highly automated and you get automatic dust correction with color film. But, leading software packages don't support Linux, and the quality for 35mm negatives is just okay. Performance on medium and large format is SOTA.

Option 2 is to assemble a scanning rig with a DSLR and a light table. This approach is fiddly and requires a lot of space, but with some tuning, the 35mm scan quality can beat flatbeds.

There are some other, more obscure approaches, like vintage Minolta and Nikon scanners, but unless you have a PC with a parallel port laying around, you're gonna have a hell of a time getting those working.

None of these options are good, and if this thing can really perform, I'd happily drop $500+ on it.

Side note: Those little toy scanners like the Kodak branded ones on Amazon are atrocious. Avoid them. If you need to scan some family photos and you don't want to break the bank, go to your local photography store. They could really use your business.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#122

Post by ares623 »

ryukoposting wrote: post #121

In case anyone is wondering, the current meta in home 35mm film scanning is divided: Option 1 is to get an Epson Perfection series flatbed scanner. V800 or V850. This approach is highly automated and you get automatic dust correction with color film. But, leading software packages don't support Linux, and the quality for 35mm negatives is just okay. Performance on medium and large format is SOTA. Option 2 is to assem…

DSLR is the most flexible way, cost wise. You’ll likely have a DSLR already if you’re a film photographer, and You can get a decent scanning setup for under $200. Being able to edit RAW files is also more flexible. It’s a lot more fiddly though so not ideal for high volume work.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#123

Post by buildbot »

atomicthumbs wrote: post #99
KaiserPro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought some time on a hasselblad medium format scanner (took fucking ages) 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 n…

It'd be nice if they were able to adapt the Hasselblad/Imacon "virtual drum" concept and curve the film underneath the sensor for side-to-side flatness. I wonder if that's feasible with a 2D sensor.

You could, but it probably makes more sense to do focus stacking in that case

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#124

Post by ares623 »

skhr0680 wrote: post #116
jdelman wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 / advantage…

Some influencers that make money directly from their photos could find it beneficial. Although as the saying goes, the fastest way to make money with photography is to sell your gear!

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#125

Post by ryukoposting »

ares623 wrote: post #122
ryukoposting wrote: post #121

In case anyone is wondering, the current meta in home 35mm film scanning is divided: Option 1 is to get an Epson Perfection series flatbed scanner. V800 or V850. This approach is highly automated and you get automatic dust correction with color film. But, leading software packages don't support Linux, and the quality for 35mm negatives is just okay. Performance on medium and large format is SOTA. Option 2 is to assem…

DSLR is the most flexible way, cost wise. You’ll likely have a DSLR already if you’re a film photographer, and You can get a decent scanning setup for under $200. Being able to edit RAW files is also more flexible. It’s a lot more fiddly though so not ideal for high volume work.

Don't count out the flatbeds. I don't have the space (or the patience) for a DSLR rig, and I've been quite happy with the output from my Epson V800. I bought mine used for $700 or thereabouts. For the amount of time it's saved me, the added cost over a DSLR and bellows/macro lens was worthwhile.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#126

Post by eviks »

ryukoposting wrote: post #121

In case anyone is wondering, the current meta in home 35mm film scanning is divided: Option 1 is to get an Epson Perfection series flatbed scanner. V800 or V850. This approach is highly automated and you get automatic dust correction with color film. But, leading software packages don't support Linux, and the quality for 35mm negatives is just okay. Performance on medium and large format is SOTA. Option 2 is to assem…

What about option 3: drum scanner?

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#127

Post by kamranjon »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #114
atomicthumbs wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

One of the things that the Coolscan did well from a hardware perspective was that it made the transport sprocketless which allowed damaged film to be easily scanned, and it also allowed non-standard formats to be scanned easily as well. I’m curious if they have a sprocket driven system for this or if it utilizes a similar system as the Coolscan - I’ve used many scanners and the Coolscan is still the best/most convenient because of being able to just sequentially scan an entire roll of negatives.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#128

Post by esafak »

jaffa2 wrote: post #109
deinonychus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I wondered what the price was. 1599 seems pretty decent.I was expecting about 4k This is about the price of a venerable Nikon 5000. Some of the setups use film mounts that cost as much as this whole unit. Are there any sample images

That was over twenty years ago! Why should it cost that now?

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#129

Post by eviks »

brcmthrowaway wrote: post #68
m463 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every optical system attracts dust - dslrs / mirrorless cameras with removable lenses have extensive hardware and software systems to handle dust detection and removal from the sensor.

Why not use a blower fan?

Because dust sticks strong enough to withstand the blow

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#130

Post by JohnTHaller »

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.

It seems like folks buy a used Coolscan, scan their stuff, then sell it. They seem to last pretty well. I'm about to buy a used one to scan my Dad's old slides. And then sell it.
Post reply on HN