Leica Film Scanner – Would You Buy One?

[berndr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

why not use the M9 with macro equipment (Visoflex)?

 

Maybe it is possible to realize an ICE function, here my idea:

First take the photo with the light behind the slide (normal projection mode) (for example flash to white wall)

Second take a picture with black background and a light source with about 70° angle from the camera direction, so you might be able to see the dust.

Third, the rest is just a software application which corrects the failures and generate the cleaned picture from the two pics.

 

I do not think that scanning is the future of reproduction.

 

Kind regards,

Bernd.

[thrid]

Three points.

 

- If Leica decided to make a scanner, we would end up with something like an IMACON, that would make the M9 look like a bargain.

 

- Leica would probably like to see their analog bodies disappear in to the dustbin of history, so they can fully concentrate on digital.

 

- If anyone should be making a good scanner at a reasonable cost it is Kodak. You would think that someone over there would understand that if we can no longer convert our film images to digital for distribution and printing, then film will die a very quick death. If it wasn't for the availability of good and affordable scanners in the past years, film would have died a long time ago.

 

I have two scanners, the Nikon 5000ED and 9000ED. If they die on me I'm in trouble. A new IMACON/Hasselblad is out of the question. They cost as much as a decent car. Even a used one is thousands of dollars. Aside from the Nikon models, there isn't a good and affordable scanner on the market and something like an Epson flatbed is not a viable option, unless you are just playing around.

 

This could spell serious trouble for anyone still shooting film.

 

If anyone wants my advice, give Kodak a call and try to explain that to them. If they see the light, remind them not to build a piece of crap, like most of their gear is.

[UliWer]

The Fuji minilab can develop and scan the images in one go.

 

The main challenge is typcially to convince the operator to use this feature, especially, if a higher resolution is requested. One of the reasons is the long scanning time for higher resolution (the workaround here is not to ask for an 1hr service but to give the operator time to do the job when the machine has no load). Some of them are concerned about changing the settings and not being able to set them back. Alway helpful to know a lab where the people really know their machines...

 

Stefan

 

There might be one reason for producer's lack of interest in consumer scanners: they are competitors to the business of labs. Film producers still depend mostly on labs, so I don't exspect they will move on this market. On the other hand many private scanners would make it more difficult for labs to exist. Perhaps the market is too small already to guarantee margins for consumer's film scanners and fotolabs at the same time.

[earleygallery]

Well I'm happy 'playing around' with my Epson flatbed and so are lots of others - quality is perfectly good and up to A4 I doubt you'd see any difference with any scanner.

 

You must tell Kodak about their crappy M9 sensor then I guess

[jplomley]

Kodak purchased Creo, so they are already in the pro scanning market with the IQ1, IQ2, and IQ3 product line. I've used the IQ3 and it is pretty close to drum scan quality and nearly as good as the Screen Cezanne. For the last bit of quality however, you still need to go with a drum scan.

[Maxtream]

As Jeff mentioned, Kodak is already in the high-end flatbed scanner market. And these machines are available quiet cheaply on the used market. Even drum scanners go for next to nothing on the bay. It shows that there's not that much of a demand on high-end scanners. At least most film shooters are not willing to pay a large sum for a scanner with a taste of adventure (SCSI interface, OS9 workstation, wet mounting...).

The Imacons are selling for so much because they're so easy to operate and deliver pretty good quality, and Hasselbad is still updating these scanners.

 

I think it's better to outsource your scans to a lab or scan service with a high quality scanner and an operator who can get you the scan you want. This way many shooters profit from the quality of the machine, and you don't have such a huge single investment. I know there are several providers offering Imacon raw scans for under €7 where you'll get a 16 bit/channel 500 MB file out of a 35mm frame.

I do only drum scans which I cannot offer cheaply because it's a very time consuming process. But the quality shows. My philosophy is that if you have an image on film that you'd like to print very big with a digital workflow then a drum scan should be your only option. There's no better quality you can get. The large print itself is not going to be cheap. It's meant to stay on someone's wall for a long time. You want to get the best print possible. So why make a huge print from a mediocre scan?

 

-Dominique

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would love a Leica scanner..and would be willing to pay the high price. But of course, I'm probably in a teeny tiny minority and it's not worth Leica's time & effort

[thrid]

Well I'm happy 'playing around' with my Epson flatbed and so are lots of others - quality is perfectly good and up to A4 I doubt you'd see any difference with any scanner.

 

You must tell Kodak about their crappy M9 sensor then I guess

 

The Epson flatbeds are ok, but it is widely known that they are no competition for a dedicated film scanner.

 

I use a flatbed to preview 6x6 and sometimes 135, but there is no comparison to the scan quality from the Nikons, unless we are talking about highend pre-press model and for that sort of money you can get an IMACON.

[thrid]

Ok, but none of those Kodak scanners are priced like a 5000ED...

 

In my experience minilab scans are ok, but not as good as those from a good dedicated scanner.

 

I don't think the average shooter wants to deal with all the work involved with using a drumscanner.

The older models can also be tricky to set up. They may need an SCSI connection, the software will sometimes only run on an older versions of an operating system and some of those machines will only put out an 8-bit file..

 

I really think it would be in best interest of Kodak and Fuji to put some good quality and reasonably priced scanners on the market.

[hamey]

Yes, if they made one I will order a Leica Film Scanner immediately.

 

Ken.

[marcusperkins]

I've never understood why Leica don't produce a scanner to go along with their film M cameras.

 

With the advent of Lightroom, C1 etc, there is no need for clever software for cropping, sizing, colour adjustments etc, just a damn good quality scan somewhere between 6,000 - 8,000 dpi, and in the cost region of about €3,000 - 4,000

 

The reason the Imacon's are so big is because they scan up to A4. If it is specifically for 35MM, I don't see that it would have to be such a huge unit.

 

It's incredible what can be pulled out of 35mm film - it may not look as smooth as digital, but it certainly has the detail - the problem with the Nikon 35mm film scanners is the issue of film flatness. I sometimes cannot get the corners completely flat or in focus - not always an issue, but it happens enough to be a problem. I know the big nikon scanner has a glass holder, but I'm not convinced this is the way forward. The better solution is the Imacon one where the film is bent which irons out any buckles.

[StS]

Just an idle thought - I have never heard of a concept combining a classical enlarger with the sensor part of a flat bed scanner. Taking the glass away, there would be only a focal plane for dust in the film plane. The scan could be fast, I would assume the resolution would be limited by the lens anyhow....

 

Stefan

[Lucklik]

I have two scanners, the Nikon 5000ED and 9000ED. If they die on me I'm in trouble. A new IMACON/Hasselblad is out of the question. They cost as much as a decent car.

 

I have a Nikon 4000ED with extra film loader, when it brakes I'm in trouble too.

 

rgs

 

Luc

[jplomley]

I'm sure Leica would sell more film scanners than they have the Pradovit D1200. Given the fact that in the Stephan Daniel interview it was revealed they they sell ~ 12,000 film cameras a year, I would expect the demand for a 3K dedicated film scanner would be very high indeed. Especially if the light source were optimized for scanning B&W negs. I believe Leica would have a real winner.