Figital Scanner Solution

[SW Rick]

Just in from Kodak (and not totally shocking):

"Thanks for your inquiry regarding Kodak possibly manufacturing a $500 pro film scanner, based on the post in figitalrevolution. We've investigated the possibility with a number of colleagues.

The truth is that in this challenging film/digital era, every product we introduce has to justify itself in terms of demand and, of course, sales. We've had elements of film scanning in Pakon and Creo scanners and in recent past the Kodak HR500 film scanner. All those scanners failed to generate enough interest to sustain the product line. So while doing what we can to keep the film process alive with our terrific film users and advocates, the film scanner idea isn't feasible from us.

Thank you for your interest and inquiry.

Sincerely,

Kodak Professional Technical Support"

[Jeremy Moore]

To bring things back on topic a bit, I for one send my stuff out for development and then scan myself. Why? I don't have the space I need to do it right, and its a relatively exact science that I an trust a pro lab to do as well as I would, so long as I tell them exaclty what I want. On the other hand, SCANNING doesn't take much space, is as much art a science (When it comes setting tones and colors at least) and cost an ARM AND LEG if you want professionally results. Developing is relatively cheap by comparison.

Film development is "as much art as science" when it comes to setting tones. You prefer to do it in the scanning/post-processing stage as opposed to in the film development. There are many here who set their tones where they want them in development. If you do the tone setting in the development of the film scanning becomes the rote process.

They are both a "relatively exact [science]" because if they weren't you couldn't consistently map tones from reality to a final image.

The art is in the agency of the photographer.

[AFSmithphoto]

Film development is "as much art as science" when it comes to setting tones. You prefer to do it in the scanning/post-processing stage as opposed to in the film development. There are many here who set their tones where they want them in development. If you do the tone setting in the development of the film scanning becomes the rote process.

They are both a "relatively exact [science]" because if they weren't you couldn't consistently map tones from reality to a final image.

The art is in the agency of the photographer.

I realize that there is art in film development, I think maybe I was unclear.

I much prefer setting tones in the development process as opposed to when scanning, its much faster and easier, and I'd wager I exert as much control over that as most people on this forum (excluding the ones who develop by eye with infra-red viewers.)

What I meant was that its is INCREDIBLY simple to instruct a lab how you would like your film processed. There is an exact science to THAT. (I.E. what developer, how diluted, and push/pull.)

It is much more difficult to communicate to a scanning technitian where you want colors and tones to be. For my process at least, the changes made at scanning should be as minute as possible, and short of providing color swatches and grey scales, I don't know how to be that precise.

[Vertex Ninja]

...
My suggestion instead would be that Kodak produce a smaller version of the IQSmart3 flatbed that could scan both transparency and reflective materials up to 8X10" in size with real resolution of about 5000 spi. This could be done by utilizing the XYX stitching technonolgy that Kodak aquired from Scitex, via Creo, and by the use of a high quality focusing lens. Such a scanner could be relatively small, about like the current generation Epson flatbeds that scan up to 8X10.

...

Anyway, if Kodak is listening, my opinion is that what is really needed is a high quality flatbed scanner capable of doing up to 5000 spi of real resolution of either trasparency or reflective material. Throw in Dmax of about 4.8 and there would be precious need anymore for drum scanners.

Sandy King

I agree with so much of this, but I imagine most film shooters don't even need something that capable. I also think the original $500.00 Stephen suggested is a bit low. Make a small Iqsmart2 with a 8.5"x11" bed, real 4000dpi, 4.0 Dmax for $2-3000 and I'd buy it tomorrow. People are willing to pay this and greater for a Nikon 9000 and they are always out of stock. I find it hard to believe that Kodak couldn't do this. They've got all the parts, technology and software, just scale it down a bit and cut a few corners. I know, wishful thinking!

[8x10 user]

It was sad to see Kodak discontinue the trilinear sensors that were used in the Betterlight backs and most of the highend CCD scanners. Weird things are happening at Kodak, when I talked to them about the Eversmarts being discontinued they told me there was a rise in costs. But I think in addition to that I think that they were doing almost no new sales at all. There is a lot of overhead related to keeping the manufacturing facilities running. I don't even know if they are making IQsmarts any more. As I mentioned the sensor is discontinued, and my gut tells me that they are selling from a limited supply of old stock.

I suppose they are in a hard spot. They need to find new markets and create new products for the future but the first priority for them has to be stopping loses in departments that are in the red before they jeopardize the company as a whole. I'm sure they are going to continue their scaled back film market as long a good percentage of movies are shot on film. After that, I don't know if the LF market will be big enough to make it economically viable. The only reason why they made Ektar 100 is because they already did the R&D when they came up with the Cinema version, which Ektar 100 is based off of.

Kodak screwed up when they used their extra resources to buy back old stock. A year or two later their stock was at $2 a share. Luckily they didn't go under, but who knows if they had to sell back stock at a huge lose during that time frame. Certainly it would have been better for them have purchased when it was low but I suppose the stock might not have went down so much if they still had the funds.

Kodak needs multiple million dollar ideas to secure the companies future. I just don't think the market is there for another film scanner to be made by a company that size, and in such a position. Right now they are probably more afraid of making a mistake then doing nothing. They can cut their loses and hold out for awhile. They might even be able to scrounge up some capitol for R&D. The budget is going to be limited though so I would look for areas with the most potential if I were them. They need something really big. Something that would change the world like the slide projector did. A new film scanner may benefit their film sales slightly but they are not going to put any money back into expanding that market. Right now they have products that have already been developed and market themselves. They are going to milk the market as long as then can and put the money something else. Maybe in the future they will find some new technology like film that they could market to the current LF film market as well as more mainstream ones. Honestly if I worked at Kodak I would be more concerned with the digital cinema and movie camera movement. I am sure that they want to remain involved in one of Americas biggest industries.

Perhaps a smaller company could rig a scanner up from third party parts. It is too expensive to design a new trilinear sensor so they would probably have to use a regular CCD array so you would have to live the issues of a Bayer grid.

If you want a really good scanner for cheap, look around for one of those big ol' drum scanners from yesteryear. They may weigh near a ton and require substantial space but these days you can save them from the Junk yard for the cost of shipping and installation.

[8x10 user]

I do have some faith in Kodak. I knew $2 a share for Kodak stock was a good deal and If I had money to invest at the time I would have made a good return. I hope the company continues it's recovery and finds a safe place in our changing world.

[Brian Ellis]

Just in from Kodak (and not totally shocking):

"Thanks for your inquiry regarding Kodak possibly manufacturing a $500 pro film scanner, based on the post in figitalrevolution. We've investigated the possibility with a number of colleagues.

The truth is that in this challenging film/digital era, every product we introduce has to justify itself in terms of demand and, of course, sales. We've had elements of film scanning in Pakon and Creo scanners and in recent past the Kodak HR500 film scanner. All those scanners failed to generate enough interest to sustain the product line. So while doing what we can to keep the film process alive with our terrific film users and advocates, the film scanner idea isn't feasible from us.

Thank you for your interest and inquiry.

Sincerely,

Kodak Professional Technical Support"

I'm not one who bashes Kodak at any opportunity, I liked and used many of their products for many years. But I had to smile at ". . . while doing what we can to keep the film process alive . . . " in the above response. That makes it sound as though Kodak is gritting its corporate teeth and staying in the film business as a favor to film users. In fact if you look at Kodak's financial statements in the last year or two you see that it's their film and related businesses that's keeping Kodak alive. They've been losing their rear end on the digital side of things.

The sad fact is that as a broad generalization, anything that's film-based these days isn't ripe for a lot of R&D and exciting new hardware being brought to market. I'd be very surprised (not for the first time) if Epson comes out with another prosumer scanner that incorporates major improvements over the 700/750 series. And even that series wasn't a major improvement if any at all over the earlier 4990, which first came to market about 10 years ago I think.