New Scanner On its way.

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Might be good for slides

Pete

[Michael Hiles]

Why not film?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

It looks interesting, and just goes to show that there is still a good market, that improvements can still be made in scanning (if claims are true), and what would have been a very expensive scanner can now be made relatively cheaply. I'm going to be very interested in seeing some examples of film scans because if all the other things stack up, like lens quality, accuracy, etc. it could be a contender for replacing my aging Plustek (still a fine machine though).

 

Steve

[bill]

Ditto

[}{B]

The film holder shown appears to be for mounted slides only. I would hope that it is also supplied with a film holder designed for film strips.

 

The D-max of a scanner is also important and this reportedly has one in the higher range. Also the scanning software supplied has to be up to the job unless a third party version such as Vue Scan is to be used. If it can scan film strips and the D-Max figure is accurate I would consider buying one as a backup to my now ageing Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400.

 

Here are the specs.

 

https://reflecta.de/uploads/files/20140326132716_65450_Datenblatt-ProScan-10T-english.pdf

Edited April 1, 2014 by }{B
addition

[stephen.w]

The film holder shown appears to be for mounted slides only. I would hope that it is also supplied with a film holder designed for film strips.

 

The D-max of a scanner is also important and this reportedly has one in the higher range. Also the scanning software supplied has to be up to the job unless a third party version such as Vue Scan is to be used. If it can scan film strips and the D-Max figure is accurate I would consider buying one as a backup to my now ageing Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400.

 

Here are the specs.

 

https://reflecta.de/uploads/files/20140326132716_65450_Datenblatt-ProScan-10T-english.pdf

Howard, the spec sheet does specify the possibility of scanning 'negative and positive as strip'

[Nick_S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howard, the spec sheet does specify the possibility of scanning 'negative and positive as strip'

There is also a picture of a 6-image film strip holder in the photograph on the spec sheet. The DMax figure seems much lower than the Nikon 5000 ED and 9000 ED scanners, however, which makes one wonder about its performance with transparencies.

 

Nick

[CalArts 99]

It's a scanner that's already been out for quite a while now under the 'other' Reflecta badge (Pacific Image.)

Pacific Image Prime Film XE Film Scanner PRIMEFILM XE B&H Photo

 

There are different geographic markets for the same products but under two different names, either Reflecta or Pacific Image.

 

Unfortunately it's not really that good of a scanner.

[}{B]

I found this site with a user's review of the Pacific Image version.

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/isf_scanner/discuss/72157637715206006/

[plasticman]

I found this site with a user's review of the Pacific Image version.

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/isf_scanner/discuss/72157637715206006/

 

Thanks for this link - I was actually quite impressed by some of the results. I'm looking on an iPad now (which isn't the best way to judge quality) but I thought this looked pretty okay.

 

I think film users can maybe be a bit harsh in their judgements - I guess we have to be perfectionists to be using film in the first place...

[CalArts 99]

I think film users can maybe be a bit harsh in their judgements - I guess we have to be perfectionists to be using film in the first place...

 

I think that's probably true and I also realize beggars can't be choosy. But when you know what a really good scan can look like and how good a print can be made from a piece of well exposed and developed film (e.g., from a drum scan) you do get high hopes. After all, the technology is there to produce a consumer scanner that could come very close to a PMT scan. The Coolscans were pretty decent in that respect. And sadly all that tooling is just sitting around somewhere in a Nikon building.

 

If digital users can set their standards high, film users can (and should), too. Look at all the pixel peeping and debates about IQ and 'dynamic range' every time a new camera is announced. And we're using a medium that has such excellent inherent qualities. All we want is a true digital reproduction that takes full advantage of the film's quality. And that means a top grade lens with proper auto focus, film holders that can keep film truly flat, an 'honest' high dpi (not just an advertised one) with high Dmax for all types of films, and a quality (diffuse) light source.

 

People are spending lots of money on digital cameras without any questions. And many film users are spending big money on used Coolscans. This particular scanner is a 280 USD scanner. There's very little cost to the manufacturer in the end. I think that film users (who already spend extra for their materials), would be willing to spend a lot more than that, even to the point where much of the profit goes to the manufacturer to cover their costs in respect to an overall smaller demand.

 

I sometimes get frustrated because I know that a really, really good scanner is so easily possible; the technologically is already here and has been for a long time. It's the relatively small market that is scaring away manufacturers from putting extra effort and costs into making that scanner. And I do realize that these existing scanners are really perfectly okay for basic scanning of film for monitor viewing. However, for quality printing it's a bit of a different story. But then again, not many people print anymore, either. So that has become all part of it, too (and with photo printing technologies not really going anywhere lately.)

 

We know how good film is as a medium. And it's disappointing to me that scanning is still the weakest link in a hybrid workflow (outside of commercial PMT drum scans.)

[NJH]

100% agreed, I was bidding on a Minolta 5400 II on ebay the other week but backed out when it shot up to over £400. When one thinks about that it must be insane to spend so much on a several year old scanner that is bin fodder if it breaks and is as much as what the thing would have cost new.

[madNbad]

In a world of cell phone snaps, it makes you wonder if buying a new Plustek every couple of years just to prove there is still a market? All of the big manufactures have abandoned the scanner market because they want users to move to the latest digital offering and all of the accessories that come with it. Keeping the small manufactures in business so they can continue to supply products the niche market needs is falling to a shrinking group of consumers. If as film users we are willing to spend the money necessary to keep our cameras in working order, perhaps if some of those funds were directed to the companies still producing scanners, then we could to ask for more.

Edited April 1, 2014 by madNbad
Punctuation

[philipus]

This is a promising development, personally I am thrilled that there are manufacturers who are providing scanning options.

 

What CalArts wrote above really could be taken as the template for a good scanner. These are such obvious things (no offence intended) that any moderately experienced scanner operator can identify as the bare necessities needed in a scanner, but still manufacturers don't build scanners that we want. I am still extremely surprised that Plustek didn't include autofocus in the 120. It's all a process, I guess. In that sense it's really great that the process has begun. It would be simply wonderful with a consumer scanner with drum scan performance.

 

The scans of this new scanner certainly look OK, but it's hardly Coolscan territory imho. There are some scans in this Flickr thread. At max resolution my Coolscan V (and the 9000) will look sharper.

 

I am wondering if the resolution number is inflated - if so, I am wondering why Reflekta uses it rather than actual resolution.

Edited April 1, 2014 by philipus

[AlanG]

Most of you are probably not going to want to hear this but a good current solution is to use a Sony A7R with a macro lens or bellows setup with top quality lens and just shoot the slides and negs as we used to do slide copying. You could probably find a used Bowens slide copying setup or something similar for next to nothing today and just attach the Sony to it.

 

You can shoot the images pretty quickly as opposed to the time it takes to scan each photo. And later you can adjust each raw file individually or in groups (for similars). If you shoot Raw + jpegs, the jpegs could be used sort of like contact sheets. You could archive a good size collection fairly quickly this way.

Edited April 1, 2014 by AlanG

[CalArts 99]

Most of you are probably not going to want to hear this but a good current solution is to use a Sony A7R with a macro lens or bellows setup with top quality lens and just shoot the slides and negs as we used to do slide copying. You could probably find a used Bowens slide copying setup or something similar for next to nothing today and just attach the Sony to it.

 

You can shoot the images pretty quickly as opposed to the time it takes to scan each photo. And later you can adjust each raw file individually or in groups (for similars). If you shoot Raw + jpegs, the jpegs could be used sort of like contact sheets. You could archive a good size collection fairly quickly this way.

 

I've been looking around for a Beseler Dual Mode or a Durst ChromaPro that's functioning and not overused and questionable in respect to the condition of the electronics/fan/light source, etc.. I'd use the D800E with a bellows and a good lens like a Rodenstock enlarging lens.

 

But the disadvantages are mounting negative film strips (tedious), and also the fact that you have to dedicate the camera set up unless you don't mind tearing it all down every time. It also takes up a lot of space. And of course there's no parts/service support to the duper itself.

 

If you dedicated the camera and the rest as a permanent solution, then the cost comes to the price of a used Coolscan 9000 (and of course which also has no support.)

 

I'd certainly resort to doing scans this way if it ever comes down to it. But I'm always hoping in an ideal solution. And that's a proper dedicated film scanner to be available on the market in the same vein as something like the Coolscan 9000.

 

(btw, I agree with Philipus; I'm also disappointed that the Plustek 120 doesn't have autofocus.)

[zlatkob]

Another option is the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter - through the Nikon F-Mount - How to digitise your slides (and negatives). I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting and not too expensive.

[plasticman]

CalArts - I agree with you really. I'm just afraid that best is the enemy of good in this territory.

 

I'm wondering about Kickstarter...?

[Nick_S]

Another option is the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter - through the Nikon F-Mount - How to digitise your slides (and negatives). I haven't tried it, but it looks interesting and not too expensive.

One can also use the Leica Beoon copying device, which will allow copying of both 35mm and medium format slides and negatives. I have found it to be a practical device, though I prefer the Nikon 5000 ED scanner.

 

There is a thread discussing the Beoon here:

Sculpting with Light: The other day I bought a Leica BEOON.

 

Nick

Edited April 2, 2014 by Nick_S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[CalArts 99]

CalArts - I agree with you really. I'm just afraid that best is the enemy of good in this territory.

 

I'm wondering about Kickstarter...?

 

Yeah, I've daydreamed about somebody coming on Kickstarter and saying they have the facilities and manufacturing know-how to build a new (and even better) Coolscan. Or better yet, a billionaire Jim Jannard type who simply enjoys using film and decides to build an affordable state of the art film scanner without worrying about making profits (although it turned out pretty good in the end for Jannard )