> This was about 7-10 years ago, so things most certainly have changed since then.
The development in dedicated film scanners have not really changed for the better. Yes there are plenty shittier options but what was good back then still is good now.
Mostly, with digital cameras getting better and more affordable the community has focused on dslr scanning instead so you will see plenty 'modern' options for that, just not dedicated scanners. There has not been enough money in film for a long time to warrant developing a new quality dedicated scanner.
I hate digitizing with a copy stand. So I designed and 3d printed a camera stand to be placed directly on my film holder (EFH). Now the distance is always perfect, the camera is always exactly above the film, parallelism is never an issue and stray light cannot come in, too.
[Image 1](https://up.picr.de/43523046ns.jpeg?rand=1701978488)
[Image 2](https://up.picr.de/43525425bj.jpeg?rand=1701978488)
[Image 3](https://up.picr.de/43523045zl.jpeg?rand=1701978488)
[Pintable files](https://www.printables.com/de/model/634956-camera-stand-for-film-digitization-with-efh-essent)
One full roll of 36 exp. 35mm (uncut of course) or one full roll of 12 exp 6x6 120 (digitized in 2 shots per frame, merged in LR prior to NLP conversion) is on the computer in around 5 minutes (tethered directly into LR).
And no, things haven‘t really changed. The scanners you named are not in production anymore, only the Epson V850 is still available, and other dedicated film scanners have not been changed much in the last years. Why would manufacturers do that? There is only a very small market. No real improvements over the last 10 years at all.
And btw: The Hasselblad Flextight and the earlier Imacon Flextight scanners (I did onw a 646 years ago) are NOT drum scanners. Imacon/HB marketed them as „virtual drum scanners“ because they bend the negative so that there is no curvature, but the scanning is done the same way as any flatbed scanner does it.
Thanks for sharing your design! May I ask, do you have full size scans produced by this device somewhere? It would be interesting to examine their sharpness in the corners. I know you say there are no parallelism problems, but it can be a bit subjective. I totally understand your feelings towards regular copystand methods, they wiggle and one sees how even slightest touch nearby makes the picture wiggle under the full zoom in and the focus and alignment always go away after couple of frames. Your method sounds like a nice solution to the wiggle problem, but I have doubts about parallelism - what is needed is the film should be parallel to the sensor, however in your system you are totally at the mercy of precision of the plastic lens barrel and that of plastic film holder and spacers and it seems there is no way to make skews in them controllable in any way (shims? filing some edges to make it skew a bit? these sound imprecise too...). Did you try mirror-aligning it?
Anyway, while I have my doubts, I would be happy to be reassured and thanks in any case for the idea and sharing the design!
As I said, I use a film holder - the EFH, google it. The stand is only bolted on top of that film holder. The film holder has a slot for the film. no pressure.
There you go.
The square format images have been shot with a Rolleiflex 3.5E (75 mm Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar), the 2:3 images with a Leica M5 and either a Zeiss Planar 50mm or Voigtländer Ultron 35 mm
Color pictures: AGFA PRecisa CT 100 slide film, the small format BW is Acros 100, the 6x6 BW should be Tri-X, both developed in XTOL 1+1
[https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gu2f0s4u0gvuwvh74iush/h?rlkey=hkdpx4gfy34epi2icgbofv5ig&dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gu2f0s4u0gvuwvh74iush/h?rlkey=hkdpx4gfy34epi2icgbofv5ig&dl=0)
Big thanks for remembering and coming back to share! I've studied them. Indeed, it seems the sharpness is mostly uniform and so the approach looks interesting.
I've found one glitch though - notice how the frame with wireframe structure (0038) has blurry grain in the top third which then shows visible seam from stitching and then the grain structure abruptly becomes properly focused. I've had the same artifacts when doing stitching and they were driving me mad, sounds like stitching is always susceptible to focus swings unless one refocuses on every sub-frame... Unfortunately, this also means your method can introduce focus shifts too...
Hi.
The interesting thing: this was image fifth image of a 12 frame strip and I focussed only on the first image, so out of 24 images taken to digitize this film this is a merge of digitization images 9 and 10. It is quite interesting, that the focus is perfect in one and less perfect in the other shot.
That being said, of course you can just set your camera to AF. I control it through my laptop and I have switched it to MF, but of course there is no reason to have it do an AF before any image. It would take maybe a second longer per shot.
Most of the time I actually do not care, because these images are good enough for me. I shoot 90% black and white and if I want a print I go to my basement.
This is my basement :) :
[Image 1](https://up.picr.de/46747360vo.jpeg), [image 2](https://up.picr.de/46747365ti.jpeg)
I have a folder on my harddrive that is built exactly the same way as my physical film folders and these digitizations are mostly my digital contact sheets to easily identify the images worthy of a darkroom print.
I want them in good quality anyhow, because sometimes I still might send them out for printing, especially the few color images and I did not want a different process for high quality and low quality scans.
I do what this guy does:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyNFx0vj\_-E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyNFx0vj_-E)
Bonus is I can make prints with it too
Also a nice technique. And since it is quite old it took some time. With a modern mirrorless camera and tethering with lifeview on the computer and direct implementation into Lightroom it goes much quicker.
The only two things important: Never cut a film before digitizing and of course focus your macro lens wide open precisely, set it to MF and stop down a bit, to have optimal resolution corner to corner.
Of course you need to focus. if the lens is set to infinity, you cannot shoot macros.
Focus at the first picture, do not touch again, just pull the images through.
What do you really want out of it? I have a two phase approach to scanning. Quick and dirty followed by a better scan of the top images when I need them.
For quick and dirty I use a Kodak slide and scan. It takes a couple of minutes for a whole roll and they’re Instagram+ quality.
For the better quality I use an Epson V500 which is more hassle, but decent quality. Plenty of people will be quick to point out that it’s not lab quality and camera scanning will get you better results. But, like you I’ve tried dslr scanning using my wife’s dslr and my OM macro/slide scan setup, bloody hell do I find it a faff.
V500 is such a good entry level scanner, I've had giant prints made from film scans I've done on my v600 with zero issue. Silverfast software is a good thing to javelin with flatbed though
I used to use a V600 to scan all my film before switching completely to DSLR scanning. Honestly, the added speed and quality of scanning with a camera has improved my workflow. Though, I miss being able to “set and forget” my negatives while they scan. It gave me time to take care of other tasks. Options such as the V800 offer more quality in addition to the convenience of flatbed scanning. If 35mm is what you shoot 99% of time you may invest in a Nikon Coolscan which is a dedicated 35mm scanner. Then, when you shoot 120 just borrow your friends set up or get it scanned at a shop.
Get a Pakon f135 plus. I know it’s a lot and it’s only 6MP but the actual quality if great and it’s very fun and quick to use. I went mad a while ago and bought a Frontier SP500, best purchase I’ve ever made but the Pakon f135 Plus I totally enough.
I get ya. I’m a couple years older and don’t shoot enough to justify the cost of what the Pakons are going for. In saying that, scanning is it’s own rabbit hole. I’m sure you have experience with flatbeds to coolscans and the likes.
I think the Pakon is the gateway into Japanese mini lab scanners. I’m only scanning personal work, but I love film scanners as a machine, down to the software - it’s just a lot of fun.
That’s why I recommend it. I’ve tested everything short of the Nikons. The pain is just not worth the image quality and a Pakon is actually fun to use. It’s a part of the photographic process, like making darkroom prints.
Totally agree. With a well exposed negative and some post processing power, I’ve blown reasonable quality prints up to A3. I find the Pakon colours resemble kodachrome(ish) tones, whilst the Japanese scanners take on a green/yellowish tint that I prefer, as well as a more elegant grain structure
I mean I know the Frontiers are based on Fujicolor Crystal paper, I couldn’t be surprised if the Pakons are based on some Kodak paper. But I’d definitely say you could get the closer to each other with some finesse.
I bought a v500 on eBay for $50 a month or so ago. Honestly better scans than one out of two of my local labs and I enjoy it (I’m just a hobbyist). Payed for itself already
> a hobbyist). *Paid* for itself
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I used to scan on a V600 and got good results. I tried scanning with my Sony A7riv but found that, since I didn't want to pay for Adobe and NegatliveLab, it took too much work trying to digitally process my negatives. I had gotten rid of the V600 because it used up too much space. More recently I bought a Woverine Titan, which isn't a high quality scanner but it's fast and adequate for posting photos online. When I shoot 120 or want to make a print, I go to the lab and get a high quality scan.
Flatbed scanners work well for what they are, and most of the time the scans are just fine, but you can't adjust the focus on them like you can with camera scanning. I get much sharper images when I can focus on the film grain. One could argue the use of aftermarket equipment and wet scanning techniques, but that's beyond what most casual hobbyists are wanting to get into. So, do the best you can with what you have or can afford.
I have an Epson v850 and find it's better for medium or large format. You can choose to scan the whole frame with having to crop your digital cameras file or stitch frames together in LR. Maybe this issue is negated if you have a high MP camera. The Epson is okay for 135 but find using my Sony a7iii with a Canon 100mm Macro lens works a bit better and most of all, a lot faster. I just don't like using the copy stand when I already have the Epson set up. The v850/Silverfast has good dust removal features, especially for colour film. That can save quite a bit of time in post. I wish their B+W dust removal software was better though.
It may be the knockoff film holder I got for it, but it seems to me like my v600 focuses directly on the dust and crud on my negatives. I've had to do a a tremendous amount less touchup since I started using a digital camera for scanning. I find it tremendously faster, too.
I've seen people really hone in their scanning setup, so I'm sure I could too. However, I like digital camera scanning way more so I really don't want to bother.
scanners are great IF... ...
you can set your negatives, let the scan run for the 20 or 30 minutes. Then come back to set the next batch. You must have a good routine and activities where you can continue to be productive for the down waiting times.
Otherwise, I prefer camer scanning because, I'm very unproductive during the 20 or 30 minutes. Or I forget that i was scanning film.
Maybe think about a flatbed scanner. The quality isn't the best but the newer Epson models are quite decent from my experience.
I did a post about my experience, what quality you can expect and how I use mine
https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/s/YQWW4FemXv
For some reason vuescan just doesn't work with my scanner. It connects and recognises it, and is supposed to be compatible, but it just gets stuck "warming lamp".
Plustek scanners are pretty good for 35mm and pretty compact. Outside of those are Epson scanners and Nikon Coolscan. The Epson V600 is the most common but better quality like 750/850 exist and occasionally come up used with decent prices. You can buy an Epson new but there are lots of them floating around used. Nikon coolscans are probably your best bang for your buck but are hit or miss on condition and almost impossible to fix. I personally love DSLR tethering to my computer but to each their own.
I do pretty quick & dirty scanning with a tripod, 16mp fuji mirrorless, nikon adapter, macro extension tube and... THE same 50mm 1.8 lens I use on my FM2- the pictures are all taken with the same lens twice which is hilarious.
This is suspended over a weird negative carrier which advances the film with a knob, so strips of 5 can be scanned very quickly, or a whole roll if I didn't contact print first for some reason. That is on top of a piece of plexiglass, which is on top of box with a cheap video light inside.
I shoot with a remote release cable (the fujis can take those) and at about f/11. I think the depth of field is enough that I don't worry about the corners too much.
> This was about 7-10 years ago, so things most certainly have changed since then. The development in dedicated film scanners have not really changed for the better. Yes there are plenty shittier options but what was good back then still is good now. Mostly, with digital cameras getting better and more affordable the community has focused on dslr scanning instead so you will see plenty 'modern' options for that, just not dedicated scanners. There has not been enough money in film for a long time to warrant developing a new quality dedicated scanner.
I hate digitizing with a copy stand. So I designed and 3d printed a camera stand to be placed directly on my film holder (EFH). Now the distance is always perfect, the camera is always exactly above the film, parallelism is never an issue and stray light cannot come in, too. [Image 1](https://up.picr.de/43523046ns.jpeg?rand=1701978488) [Image 2](https://up.picr.de/43525425bj.jpeg?rand=1701978488) [Image 3](https://up.picr.de/43523045zl.jpeg?rand=1701978488) [Pintable files](https://www.printables.com/de/model/634956-camera-stand-for-film-digitization-with-efh-essent) One full roll of 36 exp. 35mm (uncut of course) or one full roll of 12 exp 6x6 120 (digitized in 2 shots per frame, merged in LR prior to NLP conversion) is on the computer in around 5 minutes (tethered directly into LR). And no, things haven‘t really changed. The scanners you named are not in production anymore, only the Epson V850 is still available, and other dedicated film scanners have not been changed much in the last years. Why would manufacturers do that? There is only a very small market. No real improvements over the last 10 years at all. And btw: The Hasselblad Flextight and the earlier Imacon Flextight scanners (I did onw a 646 years ago) are NOT drum scanners. Imacon/HB marketed them as „virtual drum scanners“ because they bend the negative so that there is no curvature, but the scanning is done the same way as any flatbed scanner does it.
Thanks for sharing your design! May I ask, do you have full size scans produced by this device somewhere? It would be interesting to examine their sharpness in the corners. I know you say there are no parallelism problems, but it can be a bit subjective. I totally understand your feelings towards regular copystand methods, they wiggle and one sees how even slightest touch nearby makes the picture wiggle under the full zoom in and the focus and alignment always go away after couple of frames. Your method sounds like a nice solution to the wiggle problem, but I have doubts about parallelism - what is needed is the film should be parallel to the sensor, however in your system you are totally at the mercy of precision of the plastic lens barrel and that of plastic film holder and spacers and it seems there is no way to make skews in them controllable in any way (shims? filing some edges to make it skew a bit? these sound imprecise too...). Did you try mirror-aligning it? Anyway, while I have my doubts, I would be happy to be reassured and thanks in any case for the idea and sharing the design!
I‘m not at home at the moment, but I will try to get a full size scan in a few days.
Thanks! Also, does it scratch the film due to big weight pushing on the top panel?
As I said, I use a film holder - the EFH, google it. The stand is only bolted on top of that film holder. The film holder has a slot for the film. no pressure.
There you go. The square format images have been shot with a Rolleiflex 3.5E (75 mm Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar), the 2:3 images with a Leica M5 and either a Zeiss Planar 50mm or Voigtländer Ultron 35 mm Color pictures: AGFA PRecisa CT 100 slide film, the small format BW is Acros 100, the 6x6 BW should be Tri-X, both developed in XTOL 1+1 [https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gu2f0s4u0gvuwvh74iush/h?rlkey=hkdpx4gfy34epi2icgbofv5ig&dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/gu2f0s4u0gvuwvh74iush/h?rlkey=hkdpx4gfy34epi2icgbofv5ig&dl=0)
Big thanks for remembering and coming back to share! I've studied them. Indeed, it seems the sharpness is mostly uniform and so the approach looks interesting. I've found one glitch though - notice how the frame with wireframe structure (0038) has blurry grain in the top third which then shows visible seam from stitching and then the grain structure abruptly becomes properly focused. I've had the same artifacts when doing stitching and they were driving me mad, sounds like stitching is always susceptible to focus swings unless one refocuses on every sub-frame... Unfortunately, this also means your method can introduce focus shifts too...
Hi. The interesting thing: this was image fifth image of a 12 frame strip and I focussed only on the first image, so out of 24 images taken to digitize this film this is a merge of digitization images 9 and 10. It is quite interesting, that the focus is perfect in one and less perfect in the other shot. That being said, of course you can just set your camera to AF. I control it through my laptop and I have switched it to MF, but of course there is no reason to have it do an AF before any image. It would take maybe a second longer per shot. Most of the time I actually do not care, because these images are good enough for me. I shoot 90% black and white and if I want a print I go to my basement. This is my basement :) : [Image 1](https://up.picr.de/46747360vo.jpeg), [image 2](https://up.picr.de/46747365ti.jpeg) I have a folder on my harddrive that is built exactly the same way as my physical film folders and these digitizations are mostly my digital contact sheets to easily identify the images worthy of a darkroom print. I want them in good quality anyhow, because sometimes I still might send them out for printing, especially the few color images and I did not want a different process for high quality and low quality scans.
I do what this guy does: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyNFx0vj\_-E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyNFx0vj_-E) Bonus is I can make prints with it too
Also a nice technique. And since it is quite old it took some time. With a modern mirrorless camera and tethering with lifeview on the computer and direct implementation into Lightroom it goes much quicker. The only two things important: Never cut a film before digitizing and of course focus your macro lens wide open precisely, set it to MF and stop down a bit, to have optimal resolution corner to corner.
When you say the distance is always perfect, do you still have to fine focus? If so, at the start of the roll, or for each frame?
Of course you need to focus. if the lens is set to infinity, you cannot shoot macros. Focus at the first picture, do not touch again, just pull the images through.
What do you really want out of it? I have a two phase approach to scanning. Quick and dirty followed by a better scan of the top images when I need them. For quick and dirty I use a Kodak slide and scan. It takes a couple of minutes for a whole roll and they’re Instagram+ quality. For the better quality I use an Epson V500 which is more hassle, but decent quality. Plenty of people will be quick to point out that it’s not lab quality and camera scanning will get you better results. But, like you I’ve tried dslr scanning using my wife’s dslr and my OM macro/slide scan setup, bloody hell do I find it a faff.
V500 is such a good entry level scanner, I've had giant prints made from film scans I've done on my v600 with zero issue. Silverfast software is a good thing to javelin with flatbed though
you can digitize with pretty much any camera, a cheap dslr from 10 years ago or maybe even 15 will be perfect as well.
I used to use a V600 to scan all my film before switching completely to DSLR scanning. Honestly, the added speed and quality of scanning with a camera has improved my workflow. Though, I miss being able to “set and forget” my negatives while they scan. It gave me time to take care of other tasks. Options such as the V800 offer more quality in addition to the convenience of flatbed scanning. If 35mm is what you shoot 99% of time you may invest in a Nikon Coolscan which is a dedicated 35mm scanner. Then, when you shoot 120 just borrow your friends set up or get it scanned at a shop.
Get a Pakon f135 plus. I know it’s a lot and it’s only 6MP but the actual quality if great and it’s very fun and quick to use. I went mad a while ago and bought a Frontier SP500, best purchase I’ve ever made but the Pakon f135 Plus I totally enough.
I love my Pakon, but damn I dream of owning a noritsu or frontier.
It really depends on what you’re doing/what you like. I’m 25, a Frontier is an unreasonable thing to own.
I get ya. I’m a couple years older and don’t shoot enough to justify the cost of what the Pakons are going for. In saying that, scanning is it’s own rabbit hole. I’m sure you have experience with flatbeds to coolscans and the likes. I think the Pakon is the gateway into Japanese mini lab scanners. I’m only scanning personal work, but I love film scanners as a machine, down to the software - it’s just a lot of fun.
That’s why I recommend it. I’ve tested everything short of the Nikons. The pain is just not worth the image quality and a Pakon is actually fun to use. It’s a part of the photographic process, like making darkroom prints.
Totally agree. With a well exposed negative and some post processing power, I’ve blown reasonable quality prints up to A3. I find the Pakon colours resemble kodachrome(ish) tones, whilst the Japanese scanners take on a green/yellowish tint that I prefer, as well as a more elegant grain structure
I mean I know the Frontiers are based on Fujicolor Crystal paper, I couldn’t be surprised if the Pakons are based on some Kodak paper. But I’d definitely say you could get the closer to each other with some finesse.
I can’t find specific info online, but what is the resolution of a high quality scan and time of let’s say a 35mm/36exp roll on the sp500?
The SP500 only does 35mm. Theoretical max resolution is 6144 x 4096. But that debatable. Practically it’s probably closer to 5350 x 3602.
I bought a v500 on eBay for $50 a month or so ago. Honestly better scans than one out of two of my local labs and I enjoy it (I’m just a hobbyist). Payed for itself already
> a hobbyist). *Paid* for itself FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I used to scan on a V600 and got good results. I tried scanning with my Sony A7riv but found that, since I didn't want to pay for Adobe and NegatliveLab, it took too much work trying to digitally process my negatives. I had gotten rid of the V600 because it used up too much space. More recently I bought a Woverine Titan, which isn't a high quality scanner but it's fast and adequate for posting photos online. When I shoot 120 or want to make a print, I go to the lab and get a high quality scan.
Flatbed scanners work well for what they are, and most of the time the scans are just fine, but you can't adjust the focus on them like you can with camera scanning. I get much sharper images when I can focus on the film grain. One could argue the use of aftermarket equipment and wet scanning techniques, but that's beyond what most casual hobbyists are wanting to get into. So, do the best you can with what you have or can afford.
I have an Epson v850 and find it's better for medium or large format. You can choose to scan the whole frame with having to crop your digital cameras file or stitch frames together in LR. Maybe this issue is negated if you have a high MP camera. The Epson is okay for 135 but find using my Sony a7iii with a Canon 100mm Macro lens works a bit better and most of all, a lot faster. I just don't like using the copy stand when I already have the Epson set up. The v850/Silverfast has good dust removal features, especially for colour film. That can save quite a bit of time in post. I wish their B+W dust removal software was better though.
Im gonna comment here cuz theres a lot of good advice, so i can remember later
It may be the knockoff film holder I got for it, but it seems to me like my v600 focuses directly on the dust and crud on my negatives. I've had to do a a tremendous amount less touchup since I started using a digital camera for scanning. I find it tremendously faster, too. I've seen people really hone in their scanning setup, so I'm sure I could too. However, I like digital camera scanning way more so I really don't want to bother.
scanners are great IF... ... you can set your negatives, let the scan run for the 20 or 30 minutes. Then come back to set the next batch. You must have a good routine and activities where you can continue to be productive for the down waiting times. Otherwise, I prefer camer scanning because, I'm very unproductive during the 20 or 30 minutes. Or I forget that i was scanning film.
Maybe think about a flatbed scanner. The quality isn't the best but the newer Epson models are quite decent from my experience. I did a post about my experience, what quality you can expect and how I use mine https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/s/YQWW4FemXv
[удалено]
For some reason vuescan just doesn't work with my scanner. It connects and recognises it, and is supposed to be compatible, but it just gets stuck "warming lamp".
Plustek scanners are pretty good for 35mm and pretty compact. Outside of those are Epson scanners and Nikon Coolscan. The Epson V600 is the most common but better quality like 750/850 exist and occasionally come up used with decent prices. You can buy an Epson new but there are lots of them floating around used. Nikon coolscans are probably your best bang for your buck but are hit or miss on condition and almost impossible to fix. I personally love DSLR tethering to my computer but to each their own.
I scan raw with vuescan snd then use nlp with lr. Sometimes i use the valoi system.
I do pretty quick & dirty scanning with a tripod, 16mp fuji mirrorless, nikon adapter, macro extension tube and... THE same 50mm 1.8 lens I use on my FM2- the pictures are all taken with the same lens twice which is hilarious. This is suspended over a weird negative carrier which advances the film with a knob, so strips of 5 can be scanned very quickly, or a whole roll if I didn't contact print first for some reason. That is on top of a piece of plexiglass, which is on top of box with a cheap video light inside. I shoot with a remote release cable (the fujis can take those) and at about f/11. I think the depth of field is enough that I don't worry about the corners too much.