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

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#161

Post by alistairSH »

solatic wrote: post #135
alistairSH wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cost per shot and availability (far more 35mm stuff out there than larger format). That explains 35mm.

The look and the process explains film over digital.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#162

Post by alistairSH »

tecleandor wrote: post #143
JohnTHaller wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's a reasonable model with a semiautomatic workflow (that I don't have to work manually frame by frame) for that? A 5000ED or something like that? I could do that for my dad too...

Slides are going to manual because they’re (usually) individually mounted.

I haven’t seen any consumer scanner that has an auto feed. Good ones have a nice sprocket wheel but you still feed manually with a wheel.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#163

Post by hilbert42 »

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.

"…beyond 5 megapixels per frame is pushing beyond reasonable expectations with 35mm."

Well, as I mentioned elsewhere old fashioned Kodachrome resolves ~100 lines/mm and some newer color emulsion are considerably higher, and of course B&W ones have even higher resolutions.

Given that a 35mm frame is 36x24mm even Kodachrome achieves 8.64 megapixels. OK, let's allow for an overgenerous Kell factor of say 0.8, this figure will drop to ~6.9 megapixels. Given the ready availability of emulsions with higher resolutions, especially the best B&W ones then a figure well in excess of 5 megapixels is relizable in practice.

Of course, that doesn't take into account the image chain as a whole, lenses, displays, compression, etc. which would reduce the effective resolution. That said, these days the typical image chain can easily achieve much higher pixel throughput than 5 megapixels before bandwidth limiting so the effective Kell derating factor could easily be kept quite small.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#164

Post by tedggh »

I’ve been using an inexpensive Epson V600, I think I paid under $300 and it came with a license for the scanning software which was another $50-$100 value. I also got $25 anti newton ring inserts. The process is SLOW but the quality I think is excellent unless you need to print XL and show your work at MOMA.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#165

Post by kopirgan »

I used a semi pro Plustek model to scan hundreds of negatives and was able to sell it off for same price as I paid.. that was nearly 8 years back.

Guess this can't improve on that lol. But by the look of it, negatives that's already cut into small strips of 4-6 frame each wont be easy to load?

I think software is the key. While the bundled one was ok to do basic stuff, figuring out stuff was complex. In the end I just used default.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#167

Post by jpfromlondon »

fusslo wrote: post #23

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…

https://dontfuckwithscroll.com

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#168

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

formerly_proven wrote: post #156
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I assume the LEDs were matched to the typical pigments used in films though? Because otherwise metamerism just wouldn't work, RGB mixed to some CCT is not white light and can't illuminate arbitrary pigments with any kind of good color reproduction.

I assume so. The folks that designed the scanners were no slouches. I suspect that they never completely turned off any LEDs, so there was always some deliberate “slop.” With LEDs, however, you can explicitly control that. They probably had some kind of filter, also. I never took one apart, though.

I got the response curves by feeding in a special slide with a diffraction grating.

The curves were markedly different from an incandescent light source.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#169

Post by TwoFerMaggie »

rckt wrote: post #154
tecleandor wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scanner are you using, out of curiosity? Funny thing is, in general, low and midrange desktop scanners that public can generally buy, haven't changed much in 10-20 years since they started using led lights and IR dust removal (Canon Fare, Digital ICE or similar stuff). Some are even the same hardware just slightly rebadged or with a different USB connector. But they're the same price or more expensive. And, at a…

it's plustek OpticFilm 7200, I bought it second-hand.

This one would be much faster than the plustek though, if they keep their promises. I use a 8200. It takes more than 1 hour to scan a 36 frame color negative with dust removal on, and it requires constant manual input. Pushing the holder to the next frame, unloading and loading the holder, etc.

It's fine, sure. For the price I paid for it and the image quality I'm getting, I have no complaints. On the other hand, a new device that can cut the time down to 5 mins with modern software support (silverfast is kind of dated and VueScan will run you another 100), while priced at 1000 EUR, is not cheap, but also not that unreasonable tbh.

Re: A modern 35mm film scanner for home

#170

Post by TomMasz »

fusslo wrote: post #23

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…

On Firefox Mac, it doesn't scroll with the scroll wheel, though it does with the down arrow key. Go figure.

Looks cool, but I'll stick with my DSLR scanning setup.

Post reply on HN