marcusperkins Posted December 14, 2009 Share #21 Posted December 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Anybody buying an X solely for 35mm is going to be disappointed with its limitations. It's primarily a very high quality single scan scanner. That's why we need somebody like Leica to step in, or Nikon to step back in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Hi marcusperkins, Take a look here Should Leica make a film scanner?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thomasw_ Posted December 15, 2009 Share #22 Posted December 15, 2009 as a hobbyist who loves only film, i have no need for a really expensive leica or hasselblad scanner. I want the best possible prints. So why would I waste a lot of money to merely post to the web or to print digitally when i can wet print for much, much less from the light of an old focomat enlarger with a focotar 2 lens and get much, much more aesthetically pleasing results? It wouldn't make sense. if there were no traditional chemicals or papers, I could understand wanting the best scan possible from which to print digitally. But that is a secondary back up plan, not the best possible print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 15, 2009 Share #23 Posted December 15, 2009 The film is bent across one axis which keeps it completely flat across the other axis, then rotated over the scanning head. Thanks for the info. BTW, I found a small movie where this is demonstrated. I think this is what they call their "virtual drum" technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted December 15, 2009 Share #24 Posted December 15, 2009 To answer the original question: why not, BUT I'm afraid Leica wouldn't have interest in making any bigger format scanners than 35mm... Unless maybe now that the Hasselblad is the only choice and out of reach of most consumers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicko101 Posted December 15, 2009 Share #25 Posted December 15, 2009 Well I am (stupidly) awaiting my order for a Coolscan 5000ED to be filled on Adorama. I think I will be waiting a long time like many of those who wanted Kodachrome. Probably going to go therefore the with 9000 because it is actually still around in limited numbers. It is sad there is not more support from the manufacturers for such scanners as I know from experience there are many people willing to pay for scanners that are a step up from the generic Chinese 'scanners' that are rebranded around the world for $79. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosaic Posted December 16, 2009 Share #26 Posted December 16, 2009 Does anyone have experience with this Reflecta? Film scanner Reflecta RPS 7200 Professional experiences test report; Silverfast: slides, negatives: Help Problems Solutions Its still available new and price is reasonable. Even allows batch scanning a full roll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted December 17, 2009 Share #27 Posted December 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mmmm, this looks like an old Kodak RFS 3600 scanner that has been rebadged. I would be suspicious, as the Kodak's optical resolution was 3600 dpi, but in your link it suggests 7200 dpi which is highly unlikely. The original was not brilliant, and dates back to 2002. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted December 17, 2009 Share #28 Posted December 17, 2009 I would seriously consider to buy one. The issue is, the price cap for me would be 2.500 EUR max. I don't see Leica producing one this low priced. My main issue with scanners is not the scanner technology, sensor or alike. For me, the issue comes down to just two points, which are not addressed properly by the affordable alternatives on the market: - adequate film holders, that deal with curled negative film - software, that works reliable, repeatable, without headache and still plenty of options to set by the user. I am now on a low EPSON V300 and eye a Nikon CS 9000 - if I can find one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 17, 2009 Share #29 Posted December 17, 2009 - software, that works reliable, repeatable, without headache and still plenty of options to set by the user. Vuescan - VueScan Scanning Software - satisfies all of those IMHO. A complex interface but versatile. I don't think I've ever had it crash on me using either Windows or Mac Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted December 17, 2009 Share #30 Posted December 17, 2009 Steve, I am very unhappy with Vuescan. I bought a full version and could not extract one film strip out of it without hanging, crashing or simply not working. The interface is very good, the settings layout and potential ease of use very promising, if it would actually scan. Everytime, I want to give it a new try, it fails on me. I tried the latest update again with high hopes and - it hangs again with beach ball and everything. I scan with EPSON Scan since my Vuescan investment failed. I wish, I would have had the money spend on something worthwhile like 12kg peppermint candy, old cucumber pineapple salad or a camera bag. I still wait in high hopes, Adobe implements a scan module into Lightroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 17, 2009 Share #31 Posted December 17, 2009 Like Steve, I have never, ever had a problem with Vuescan. That is using a Mac though. I have no experience of using it on a PC. If you are having problems with it, email Ed Hamrick. He's good at sorting things out for you, in my experience (I'd lost a serial number, and he sorted that for me the same day) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 17, 2009 Share #32 Posted December 17, 2009 So why would I waste a lot of money to merely post to the web or to print digitally when i can wet print for much, much less from the light of an old focomat enlarger with a focotar 2 lens and get much, much more aesthetically pleasing results? Because not everyone has a darkroom and the means to wet print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted December 17, 2009 Share #33 Posted December 17, 2009 You can scan a strip of six in a special holder, but it is certainly not capable of scanning a roll of 35mm in one go. However, I was wrong about mounted slides, you can scan them, but only with a special bulk scanner which only fits onto the X5, and I understand it is very expensive. The slide scanner attachment will certainly do a stack of mounted slides far quicker than one by one, but you can do them one by one without removing from the paper mounts, and without spending several thousand more dollars on the attachment. You need this holder: Hasselblad | 35mm Flextight Original Holder | 50200100 | B&H Jeff. PS: I currently own a Hasselblad 343, and will be purchasing an X5 next spring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomM Posted December 17, 2009 Share #34 Posted December 17, 2009 I wonder whether a Leica M9 with Visoflex and bellows needs but an illuminated holder for the (to be scanned) film, and we would have a pretty decent and inexpensive scanner system. It would be a lot quicker than the line by line film scanners most of us have to use now. Making a holder to keep the film flat might be difficult but not beyond Leica. The main problem is that Leica will not support this old equipment by developing any new uses for it, but enterprising persons could do it for themselves. For those who do not already own a M9 the cost would of course be ($8,000) higher. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted December 17, 2009 Share #35 Posted December 17, 2009 The slide scanner attachment will certainly do a stack of mounted slides far quicker than one by one, but you can do them one by one without removing from the paper mounts, and without spending several thousand more dollars on the attachment. You need this holder: Hasselblad | 35mm Flextight Original Holder | 50200100 | B&H Jeff. PS: I currently own a Hasselblad 343, and will be purchasing an X5 next spring. Thanks Jeff - I wasn't aware there was an adapter for a single mounted slide - that's good news. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted December 17, 2009 Share #36 Posted December 17, 2009 Thanks Jeff - I wasn't aware there was an adapter for a single mounted slide - that's good news. You're welcome! There's quite a range of "original holders" for the Flextight scanners. Each scanner comes with a couple of them for common sizes/formats, and the rest can be purchased a-la-carte for typically $200.00 to $300.00 USD (or equivalent GBP, Euro, etc.). They're detailed here: http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/483461/flextight_holders_09_web.pdf The cost of entry to the world of Hasselblad scanning is still quite high, but they are wonderful machines. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 17, 2009 Share #37 Posted December 17, 2009 There's quite a range of "original holders" for the Flextight scanners. By coincidence, I scanned through a German magazine for black-and-white photography in the bookstore today and they had an article about cameras that expose a whole 35 film including the sprocket holes, like the Holga. They also discussed how to scan such a film and mentioned that you can get custom holders from Hasselblad (I think they said 275 Euro, but I'm not sure anymore) for such a task. So, there might be even more holders available than those listed in the PDF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 18, 2009 Share #38 Posted December 18, 2009 as a hobbyist who loves only film, i have no need for a really expensive leica or hasselblad scanner. I want the best possible prints. So why would I waste a lot of money to merely post to the web or to print digitally when i can wet print for much, much less from the light of an old focomat enlarger with a focotar 2 lens and get much, much more aesthetically pleasing results? It wouldn't make sense. if there were no traditional chemicals or papers, I could understand wanting the best scan possible from which to print digitally. But that is a secondary back up plan, not the best possible print. How did you get those pics on your flickr site? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted December 18, 2009 Share #39 Posted December 18, 2009 By coincidence, I scanned through a German magazine for black-and-white photography in the bookstore today and they had an article about cameras that expose a whole 35 film including the sprocket holes, like the Holga. They also discussed how to scan such a film and mentioned that you can get custom holders from Hasselblad (I think they said 275 Euro, but I'm not sure anymore) for such a task. So, there might be even more holders available than those listed in the PDF. There's mention in the PDF about custom holders being available. In other words, if you're willing to pay, Hassy will make it for you. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrisfoto Posted December 18, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted December 18, 2009 Thanks for the suggestion about using the M9 and the Visoflex to make digital copies from film negatives. Perhaps it would be possible to use an enlarging lens, and mount it on the visoflex. Can the Visoflex mirror be locked up, after the initial focus is set up? Which is the best Visoflex to mount on the M9? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.