35mm film users should be mad

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Scott W, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    On more on topic thread.

    35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too
    slow. It really seems that by now we should have film scanners that
    could scan a frame in a few seconds. Has the market for new film
    scanners dropped to the point where there is not going to be any more
    real development?

    A scanner based on a monochrome area CCD and LEDs for the illumination
    should be able to digitize a frame in about 2 seconds.

    Scott W, Sep 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. How long do current film scanners take (let's say for a frame of 35mm
    film)? I've never used one, but wish I had one.
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott W

    Annika1980 Guest

    Ain't that the truth! The main reason I don't shoot more film is that
    is just too damn sloooowww to scan.
    Annika1980, Sep 3, 2008
  4. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Mine takes around 45 seconds at low res, 1410 ppi I believe, or around
    2 minutes at full res, 2820.
    Going through a stack of photos means sitting at the computer for a
    fair bit of time, even at 45 seconds/scan.

    Scott W, Sep 3, 2008
  5. Scott W

    Annika1980 Guest

    I used Vuescan when it first came out. I believe Ed Hamrick posted a
    lot on these groups back then. Then I bought Silverfast, which is
    supposed to be the best scanning software available. It is certainly
    capable of doing an outstanding job, but is painfully slow with my
    Minolta 5400 scanner. It takes a few minutes just to boot up and get
    do a pre-scan. Then every little adjustment you make takes an
    eternity to go through. For example, it allows you to really zero in
    on the focus for a particular slide, but this process might take you
    15 minutes to get exactly right.

    IOW, I'll probably be moving back to VueScan soon.
    Annika1980, Sep 3, 2008
  6. Scott W

    Ken Hart1 Guest

    Why does it need to be faster? Is your life that harried that the minute or
    so to scan a frame is so precious? Perhaps instead of demanding a faster
    scanner, you could try doing things to improve your health and increase your
    lifespan. One thing might be to not stress out over the amount of time it
    takes to scan a negative.

    If you want really fast, try optical wet-system printing. My enlarger
    exposures are typically in the 10 to 15 second range.
    Ken Hart1, Sep 3, 2008
  7. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    If all I was scanning as say a frame or two a day then sure what is a
    minute, but a roll of film is going to take 30-60 mintues to scan,
    kind of takes the fun out of shooting a roll of film.
    I did a lot of wet printing back in the 70s, not nearly enough control
    for my tastes, and whereas you exposures are maybe 10 to 15 seconds
    you are still looking at a few minutes to get the thing developed.
    Add to that the fact that I want all my images in digital format, but
    I don't want prints of all of them.

    Scott W, Sep 3, 2008
  8. Scott W

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Times vary greatly depending on color depth & resolution used, which in
    turn depends on the film & equipment used (I usually use 5400 dpi
    instead of 2700 dpi typically for films of 100 ISO and under and my
    better lenses), as well as whatever else is going on in the background.

    But while the film is scanning, I can do cropping and any other
    photoshop adjustments - a dual core processor really made a big
    difference there!

    Yes, in an ideal world, a super-fast scanner would be nice and will
    probably come out sometime because of the billions of film images which
    will eventually be digitalized.
    Rol_Lei Nut, Sep 3, 2008
  9. Scott W

    Bruce Guest

    Or is he so anti-film that he cannot stop sniping at film users?
    Bruce, Sep 3, 2008
  10. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Or trying to keep get a few film posts in here, which I don't see many
    others here.
    I do care about film scanning, I still have a lot of negatives that
    need to be scanned and I really would like to see a much faster

    Scott W, Sep 3, 2008
  11. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    This may be why a really fast scanner has not been made, not enough
    people care enough about scanning speed.

    Scott W, Sep 3, 2008
  12. Scott W

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On more on topic thread.
    : 35mm film users should be mad that film scanners are still far too
    : slow.

    Yeah, all five of them are furious.

    Robert Coe, Sep 4, 2008
  13. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    If I am still scanning film that was shot some time ago does that mean
    I am still using film?

    I mean it is film, and I am using it, but I sure wish I could scan a
    lot faster.

    Scott W, Sep 4, 2008
  14. Question--and please pardon my abject ignorance here--but aren't there
    film scanners that can autoload slides? (You didn't say whether you were
    scanning film strips or slides.) That would at least let you load up a
    bunch of slides and scan them while doing something else.
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 4, 2008
  15. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    There are bulk loaders for slides, but from what I have heard they
    tend to jam.

    In any event I have all my slides scanned, just have the negatives
    left to do.

    If I knew I was going to be scanning my film when I shot it I most
    likely would have shot mostly slides.
    Most of my early stuff was on slides, I liked to see it big and the
    only cheap way to do that was to project it on a screen. Once I
    started to fill a lot of slide carousals I switch to prints just to
    save some space. For me at least I find slides a lot easier to scan
    then negatives, although VueScan has helped a lot with the negatives.

    Scott W, Sep 4, 2008
  16. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/09/2008 2:22 AM:

    noritsu koki and fuji frontiers scan a frame in seconds....

    pity they are not affordable to amateurs. but Costco is apparently putting the
    cat amongst the pigeons on that field!
    Noons, Sep 4, 2008
  17. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/09/2008 11:50 AM:
    have you tried a slide duplicator with a 5D and
    a diffused flash?
    Noons, Sep 4, 2008
  18. Scott W

    Bruce Guest

    There must still be hundreds of millions of film users. Not many show
    serious concern about the alleged "slowness" of scanning film.

    Apart from Scott W, who takes every available opportunity to criticise
    film (and makes up a few opportunities of his own along the way) I
    don't know anyone who is so obsessed with the slowness of scanning.

    If you have a lot of slides to scan, or whole rolls of negative film,
    there are bulk feeders available that make it easy to leave a scanner
    to do them all together in one job, unattended.

    Not a problem, except to some people who just cannot stop criticising
    film. And these people should stop trying to offload their own
    personal insecurities on to film users
    Bruce, Sep 4, 2008
  19. Scott W

    Hanz Guest

    Good plan!
    I moved from a 5400-II/Silverfast/Mac after the Minolta broke to
    CoolscanV/Vuescan/NoiseNinja/Linux, never regretting it. But it is a
    good idea to shoot the coloraid.com color reference target now and then,
    especially with negative film.
    -- Hans
    Hanz, Sep 4, 2008
  20. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    My understanding is that they are all area CCD, which is what I think
    is really needed, but for the home market.

    Scott W, Sep 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.