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

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#131

Post by spott »

turnsout wrote: post #12

When it comes to the light source, it's a huge missed opportunity. The next wave of film scanning involves capturing Red, Green and Blue separately (separate narrow-band LEDs) to better isolate C-41 layers and counteract crossover on the image sensor. And yes, it should have an IR pass as well, for dust removal. With that said, I'm happy to see new film products released in 2025/2026. Hopefully this is just the first…

Only for C41…. For slide film that sets you back.

I think the problem is that it sounds like you get worse results for slide film with RGB than you get with C41 and white light. So the tradeoff is only worth it if you shoot no slide and C41.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#133

Post by sam_lowry_ »

ben7799 wrote: post #34

I still have an expensive Canon dedicated slide/film scanner from 20 years ago. IIRC at some point their value started going up as they became rare. Mine did something like 50MP scans of 35mm film/slides. The quality was more than enough. But it was painfully slow. This thing is not 100x faster, so I think it's still painfully slow. If it takes 5 minutes to do a roll of 24 that still means someone with hundreds of ro…

This and Vuescan. I once lost the license file, wrote to the author and got a new one.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#134

Post by rckt »

I got my relatively portable scanner for around ~100 euros, plus the software for 100 as well if I’m not mistaken. And it works fine.

It’s weird for me that with the advancing technology people keep coming up with higher price with an excuse of approach, design, whatever.

This seems like an overpriced piece of tech for niche connoisseurs. And I don’t like it.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#135

Post by solatic »

alistairSH wrote: post #48
solatic wrote: 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?

35mm wins by a mile on price per shot. And for web scans (where most photos end up), it's got more than enough resolution. 35mm film and 120 film are a similar cost per roll, but with 35mm you get 36 exposures vs 8-16 exposures on 120 film (6x12 and 6x4, with square 6x6 in the middle at 12 exposures). And if you shoot half-frame, the cost/shot really goes in the 35mm direction. That said, I have a handful of of 35mm…

I don't feel like you really countered my argument. If you're concerned about cost/shot, digital beats 35mm, no question.

> I shoot film because it makes me slow down and think a bit.

100%, because of the higher cost per shot compared to digital. The higher still cost per shot of medium/large format enhances that effect.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#136

Post by staticautomatic »

positus wrote: post #96
snowwrestler wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re for sure exceeding the linear resolving power of 35mm film at 40MP or 64MP. However , a Bayer-filtered sensor has lower color resolution, since each pixel only sees one color. So the pixel shift really helps quite a bit here since the sensor (and Bayer array) are shifting relative to the film multiple times per exposure. High-quality film scanners maintain color resolution by using linear sensors without Bayer…

Some modern 35mm emulsions can record ~500 megapixels worth of detail, but good luck getting all that detail in a digital scan. https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

I wonder how this compares to Technical Pan, which I imagine it was modeled after.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#137

Post by solatic »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #73
solatic wrote: 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 le…

> top DSLR / digital medium format

But these cost several thousand dollars, due to them still being relevant for contemporary professional applications. Medium format bodies can be found for hundreds of dollars on eBay. Even at $1/shot, if as a hobbyist even if you shot 4 rolls (48 shots total) in a weekend, you'd be shooting that much every weekend, every weekend straight for years before a top digital body would break even for you. And you would have more fun and a more meaningful time due to the more deliberative process.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#139

Post by buccal »

turnsout wrote: post #120
jaffa2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For me real grain looks much better than digital smoothness. That is important for big prints.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#140

Post by Blahagun »

dan_can_code wrote: post #132

Looks interesting but €999? Is that a placeholder value?

Yes. From the article: "It's [sic] final retail price is set at 1599€" I was actually excited from the title but upon reading further I got really disappointed. It's basically wishful thinking right now, not sure if it's even going to be released. Not sure why this is posted here.
Post reply on HN