Figital Scanner Solution

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting point of view from Michael Sebastion for a business model for Kodak to make film sales more viable for years to come-make a first rate reasonably priced scanner.

http://www.michaelsebastian.com/blog/?p=2101

[Chris Strobel]

Yeah I heard that the other day, but what about us large format guys?I want Kodak to make me a $500.00 drum scanner :D

[sanking]

Interesting point of view from Michael Sebastion for a business model for Kodak to make film sales more viable for years to come-make a first rate reasonably priced scanner.

http://www.michaelsebastian.com/blog/?p=2101


Stephen Schaub makes a good point in that the Achilles heel of film is the scanner and believe he is correct pointing out that Kodak would have much to gain by introducing a high quality inexpensive scanner.

I disagree with him on one point. Stephen suggests that the answer is not a dual purpose scanner but a dediciated film scananer limited to 35mm and 120. I think he is wrong on that end because that leaves a lot of LF users (4X5, 5X7, 8X10), and even panoramic formats out in the cold.

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.

The distance from where we are to where we need too be to pull all of the information from a sheet of large format film is not all that great. In fact the Epson V700 V750 is not that far off the target for LF film. I have done some testing that show that it is virtually impossible to get real resolution of more than 2540 spi, or 50 lp/mm on 4X5 and larger film. The V700/750, when adjusted for best plane of focus and using film holder mode with the super high resolution lens, comes spretty close to that figure in my tests, at about 2300 spi real resolution. Using a higher quality lens and XYZ stitching Kodak should be able to at least double the effective resolution of the V700/750.

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

[Ed Richards]

Bet the Betterlight folks could build a nice 4x5 scanner.

[Mike Anderson]

I think the market for hobbyist scanners is small, pretty much limited to people that develop their own film. If you send your film out for development, why not just have it scanned by the developing service? Especially if the scanning was standardized and high quality and optimized for the specific film. Especially if the developing/scanning service was supported online, where you could access your scans and wouldn't need a disk reader.

If Kodak and Fuji made a complete service package (film, development system and scanning system) that was economical and convenient and consistently good they would sell more film. Imagine if it was fairly inexpensive and convenient to get 30 or 40 meg high quality images from a $500 (medium format) camera, or 15 meg from 35mm ($100 camera). There would certainly be a film renaissance.

There will always be a market for those that want control of the process, but I don't see it being a big market.

...Mike

[Tyler Boley]

I'm not sure I see the point in advancing scanner products for 35mm, this is one area I think capture probably wins on most points. If you want the Selgado / Gibson look, no, but those I know doing that actually are still in the darkroom anyway and not scanning. So Film area real estate is still where film meets the needs of most of us here over digital, and where scanner technology might be better focused. I can see the point in limiting size to 8x10, in order to keep costs in line and marketing more viable. There is the occassional need for larger film scans but that may best be addressed with specialty products.
More intriguing to me than additional scanners, is new film more suited to our needs. Color films designed for scanning instead of display or C printing, but optimized to capture more scene density range like neg, more sharpness like trannies, and no unnecessary emulsion layers to match C paper color, etc etc..
Once you disconnect the needs of film from darkroom reproduction, whether color or B&W, a lot of possibilities open up.
I'm sure criteria for such emulsions could easily be determined and met with today's technology, but I hear no discussion about it at all...
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[jp]

If Kodak and Fuji made a complete service package (film, development system and scanning system) that was economical and convenient and consistently good they would sell more film. Imagine if it was fairly inexpensive and convenient to get 30 or 40 meg high quality images from a $500 (medium format) camera, or 15 meg from 35mm ($100 camera). There would certainly be a film renaissance.
...Mike

Your 35mm suggestions reminds me of Kodak Photo-CD.

[mrladewig]

I just think its too late for film to rebound in that way. Kodak really blew its opportunity to capture the digital SLR market. Their digital point and shoots create great colors, but they don't have the market penetration of Canon or Sony and at this point, I doubt they'll ever get there. They've tried the home printer market against HP, Canon and Epson, which doesn't seem to be working. They seem to have completely lost interest in their still film business. Without those footers for still photography, they are going to hang on the the remaining movie market as long as it lasts and watch their company slowly decline over time. Digital will eventually overtake film in this market to reduce production costs.


Digital has pretty much conquered the snapshot-taking consumer public on one end of the user spectrum, and the commercial/editorial/portrait/wedding pros on the other end. For these people, digital is the right choice for many reasons: immediate gratification, ease of image dissemination, film and processing cost, turnaround time, client demand. There’s not much, really, that Kodak or anyone else can do to lead these people back to film. That ship has sailed and it’s not coming back.

Small groups of people like us know that film capture can provide major advantages over digital capture and welcome alternatives too. But I don't see Kodak going this route.

As for the comment in the linked article that the scanner should just do 120/35mm. If its done on a flatbed, then it should offer up to 8X10 so people can scan prints and large format film as well. But a major problem in film scanning is keeping the film flat and in focus. They need to come up with a good method for this that does not involve naptha and mylar.

If Kodak wants to win back market share in film sales and increase use, they need to make a product that is really easy to use and that produces output that surpasses digital capture. That is going to be a MAJOR hurdle and I don't think they have it in them. but many of the suggestions offer in the blog are excellent ideas. Integration with lightroom/aperture would be smart.

[Jay DeFehr]

I just bought a very inexpensive flatbed scanner for proofing and archiving. It cost $150 and scans 35mm and MF films, and prints up to 8x10. It's made, I believe, for consumers who want to digitize their family photos. It does this work very well. "Pro" film scanners must surely be approaching the end of their viability as profitable products, with the numbers of potential users shrinking daily. How wise is it to invest in a shrinking, and inevitably disappearing market? I think the idea that a better $500 scanner is going to persuade photographers to use film is ludicrous, when, as has been pointed out, there's already a pretty good $500 scanner on the market. Consider the number of potential buyers for whom the V700/750 is not good enough; surely a tiny fraction of the market. In my opinion, the only thing keeping film in production is the inertia of a century of exclusive use. Most people who shoot film instead of digital, probably do so for one or more of the following reasons:

They already own a film camera

They already know how to get satisfying results from film, but not from digital

They can't afford a digital camera comparable to the film camera they already own

They don't want to learn a digital workflow

The above are all aspects of inertia, and once overcome, will yield to the inevitability of digital imaging. The only people still using film beyond the tipping point, will be artists/hobbyists. If we want to anticipate the future of film and related technologies, we should consider the market significance of artist/hobbyists, and what kind of industry they can support.

Film photography has built up a lot of inertia, and I intend to ride it out, as long as it lasts, ie, as long as I can still buy film for a reasonable price, but I don't delude myself into thinking there's anything that can be done by artist/hobbyists to forestall the advent of digital domination. The hybrid workflow is a transitional one in the evolution of photographic imaging, and has no future (in the evolutionary sense) except the one that leads inexorably to an all-digital workflow.

What industry will do, is what it's always done; try to anticipate, but mostly respond to the market. What the market is telling industry, is to make better digital cameras, cheaper, which is tantamount to saying; "We don't want to use film". Four guys at the back of the crowd, with their graying/balding heads under a dark cloth are not going to change that message. I'm very pleased to see that the rate of the evolution of digital imaging seems to indicate it will equal or surpass most of the imaging characteristics of film photography before film disappears from the market, except as a niche product for enthusiasts. I think those who embrace a hybrid workflow are the amphibians of photography, and will occupy a special place in the history of our medium.

[Brian Ellis]

In the good old days there were three broad markets for film - pros, snapshooters, and "serious amateurs." By far the largest in terms of film volume were the snapshooters. Not that they used much film, just that there were so many millions of them. Then there were the pros, not so many of them but big volume users of film, especially in more expensive formats. The smallest in terms of dollar volume was the "serious amateurs."

Today in developed countries digital has virtually taken over the snapshooter and pro markets, leaving only the "serious amateurs." And even in that group some have abandoned film, others still do everything in darkroom, and others use a pro lab or someone else to do their scanning. So that seems to leave a relatively small sliver of the smallest market as the people who'd be interested in the proposed scanner.

I have no idea of the costs involved in building such a scanner or the likely profit margin so it's just an uninformed opinion but that seems like too small a market to justify building and marketing a new scanner, especially by a company whose digital products haven't been well-received for the most part. I note that Epson isn't exactly flooding the market with new upgrades for the 700/750 series, which has now been around for six or seven years IIRC, which is like a century in the digital world. That to me says Epson, with all of its experience and knowledge of the scanner business, doesn't see scanning by "serious amateurs" as an area that's worth a lot of R&D or marketing effort.

[jp]

Aside from losing the cinema business, film can't bottom out much more.

To me it seems there are far more photographs in existence presently than in the short/medium term business for film sales potential.

If an irresistable scanner is the way to rebuild film, it should be equally marketed to people who want to share their history, i.e. scan their shoeboxes of photos to share with the world on facebook, dvds etc... Snapshots that are gaining in both sentimental and network effect value.

[domaz]

What they really need to do is design film that can ONLY be read digitally and is designed for easy, quick scanning. Since you wouldn't have to worry about things like orange negative masks anymore, and human readable colors then maybe you could design a film that is better than we have now? Perhaps it could even be erasable and re-usable after being scanned.

[seepaert]

Ten years ago a first rate scanner costed in access of one milion dollars. Since then a lot of components have dropped in price, so the hardware itself now maybe would be between 100,000 and 200.000. On the other hand all of the preducers have stopped making this kind of stuff, and there are not many people left, who can design such a thing, in fact not many people would even recognise it, if it were. What would you think would be the public for such a thing. Two different classes were recognised the mid-end and the low-end scanners. Among the last were the Imagon, still costing 50.000 or more. A expert lithographer found with an Imacon, could close its business.

99% of the large format photographers think the Imagon is too expensive, even at second hand prices of a few thousand dollars. Many even think that the Epson scanners are worth considering. For those I have one advice: sell your LF stuff, buy a modern mobile telephone, and you will easily surpass the LF / epson combination. About the same as publishing your LF photos at 72 dpi.

[rob]

What they really need to do is design film that can ONLY be read digitally and is designed for easy, quick scanning. Since you wouldn't have to worry about things like orange negative masks anymore, and human readable colors then maybe you could design a film that is better than we have now? Perhaps it could even be erasable and re-usable after being scanned.

Something like this :) :
http://www.ideinc.com/silfilm.html

[Bruce Watson]

Ten years ago a first rate scanner costed in access of one milion dollars. Since then a lot of components have dropped in price, so the hardware itself now maybe would be between 100,000 and 200.000. On the other hand all of the preducers have stopped making this kind of stuff, ...

So much mis-information!

Ten years ago, Heidelberg was exiting the scanner business, leaving only Screen (Japan) and Aztek (USA) making drum scanners. A few years later ICG (England) was resurrected and re-entered the drum scanner business. Those three manufacturers are still making, selling, refurbishing, and servicing their drum scanners today. The current leader of this pack seems to be Aztek. Aztek doesn't post the price of their Premier drum scanner on their website, but it's rumored to be somewhere around $40k USD, but I don't really know since I'm not in the market for one.

In 2001 the cost of a new drum scanner was well under $200k US dollars. In fact my Optronics ColorGetter 3 Pro drum scanner was only in the $60-80k USD range when new back in 1995. Today one can get complete turnkey drum scanner packages for $2K USD or less on the used equipment market. These 15 year old designs can still run rings around most CCD scanners. The professional flatbeds are just now catching up in scan quality, but the cost of a new professional flatbed scanner is well over an order of magnitude higher than the used drum scanner whose performance it compares to. A used drum scanner is therefore still the biggest "bang for the buck" in film scanning.

I'm just saying that there's seriously good equipment available, dirt cheap. And that's a reality that anyone thinking to make and sell film scanning equipment has to deal with.

[bob carnie]

I am now close to purchase a Drum Scanner sometime this year, as Bruce points out two main contenders that I am considering.
Aztek or ICG , I am now at the point where I believe they are both top end, both suited for my needs.

My hesitation at this point is parts and service over the long haul. I have had my share of equipment not being supported. I am very close to a used ICG and was leaning this way but as Aztec is in NA I am starting to lean to this unit.
Losing Jobo parts and service has really soured our thinking to a long distance relationship with any equipment we use on a daily basis.

I am thinking a recent model that is refurbished and some training is the ticket and I will be getting quotes from both companies and doing a little bit more research to make a final decision.
I have seen scans now from every imaginable type of scanner, and printed all of them to large magnifications.
One observation: at 30x40 Lambda fujiflex high gloss at 400ppi , there is not much difference between all the scanners that we have tested, I have done two many tests thinking I was going to find one unit that completely blows away the other and to date not seen a significant quality increase.
The drums do seem to have a slight edge in shadow detail, but very slight. Also the operator to end product has a significant quality effect.

[Marko]

Bruce, please don't feed the troll - our old friend Pablo is back... ;)

[domaz]

Something like this :) :
http://www.ideinc.com/silfilm.html

Yes but without the vaporware feature.

[Gordon Moat]

Biggest issue in outsourcing scanning is the cost. Partially that is due to the expense of a professional level scanner, but it is also due to labor costs. If quality lab scanning costs dropped, then that might provide a bit of a lift in the market. I don't see the status quo changing.

A couple issues for Kodak (CREO) with lower cost scanners. First is that the software is really good, but not beginner friendly. Second is that lower costs Kodak scanners using any technology in their higher spec gear would cannibalize sales at the high end.

Kodak now sell all-in-one consumer scanner/printers. They could try an upscale model with the better CCD from their iQSmart series, maybe even combined with a better stepper motor set-up. Then offer an option of better software as an upgrade.

Overall it is a big maybe. I don't agree with the $500 price point, because I think that is unrealistic, unless Kodak want to sell such a scanner at essentially no profit. Though maybe that would be the incentive. I know lots of professional photographers who would shoot more medium format film, given a more affordable scanning solution. It is harder to bill out scanning fees, without hiding that expense in the overall creative fee, so I do think there is a need.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Oren Grad]

The premise is that Kodak should give away razors to incentivize people to keep buying blades. There's no other way to interpret Michael Sebastian's proposition, which is that they should sell a Nikon 9000-class scanner for $500, which is a quarter or a fifth of what a 9000 costs now.

From a purely economic perspective the analysis becomes, what's the net present value of the additional film sales would you gain, vs how much of a loss you're going to incur developing and selling such a scanner at that price, and what's the net ROI of the combination.

From an organizational psychology perspective, regardless of what the financial analysis says, there are probably high barriers right now to a business plan that requires a substantial upfront investment in a new product line that is expected to incur a loss, in the hope of enhancing the value of another, declining product line. Probably they're expecting each line to pay for itself.

[Bruce Watson]

Also the operator to end product has a significant quality effect.

Yes. At the upper end of equipment, there is more variability in the operators than the machines. A good operator can make a big positive difference.

[Kirk Keyes]

Figital Scanners?! I still haven't figured out my digital scanner - now I'm going to have to upgrade and get a figital scanner...

[Preston]

"now I'm going to have to upgrade and get a figital scanner..."

Its a new type of scanner you have to fidget with to get it to get the best scans.

--P

[Kirk Keyes]

Oh, good. I must already have one as I fidget a lot when I scan!

[gainer]

"...they should sell a Nikon 9000-class scanner for $500, which is a quarter or a fifth of what a 9000 costs now."

At PMA the folks at the Nikon booth told me they are "out of the scanner business completely". So even if you want a 9000ED you can't get one. When I pressed the people at the booth about the scanners they had on display they told me they were "empty shells" and seemed bothered about being asked.

I also tried the Kodak route...the bottom two of the iQSmart scanners aren't being made anymore -- at least that is what the pro desk at Samy's told me. I tried to verify with Kodak and couldn't get anyone to answer my queries. I agree that it would be nice to see better offerings, but if they are quietly slipping away from the scanning business and not even supporting sales on currently listed models...

I ended up with the Hasselblad X5 which is really nice, but is limited to 4x5 or smaller and requires expensive holders. Quality is very good for 4x5 -- much better than I've been able to get on the v750 with any software/holder combination -- especially with color negative film.

Unless you are in the market for a drum scanner, there are fewer and fewer options for professional quality. There just isn't the kind of market there was even a few years ago.

[Findingmyway4ever]

If a $750ish scanner was produced, similar to that Microtek offering or the Epson scanners, but producing quality as good as or hoping would be superior to the Nikon, it would sell incredibly well. I know a LOAD of people wishing they could afford a higher end scanner. I also know a LOAD of people that do not want some mega device sitting around their place only to scan their film. They want a small format based scanner that can scan multiple formats, but provide the kind of quality they absolutely know can match the Nikon or even drum scanning territory. Epson hasn't done well or hasn't developed anything in such a long time because every single scanner is a miniscule upgrade, if at all, over their prior products. Same with Microtek which seem to even/possibly degrade in time. All I know is that thread Ted did about the Microtek and when it would be out produced a LOAD of response. I just don't see why this wouldn't be a massive seller if people worldwide could get superior scanning results and know they don't have to send their film off to drum scanners or pay $2K or whatever the going price is for a Nikon that can only scan up to roll sized film.

[Preston]

"Oh, good. I must already have one as I fidget a lot when I scan!

Man, ain't that the truth of the matter!

--P

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The reasons why not may more political than technical.

We do know that flatbeds with the resolution of roll-film scanners exist. They've just either expensive and/or remain stuck in a pre-1994-era time-warp.

One reason being that all present consumer ones big enough to scan folding money must (at least in the USA) include a software driver package that detects currency being scanned, and that connects via the internet to report such activity. (Which also leaves a backdoor in your computer OS that, once patched, tends to bomb scanner software.) Explains why the drivers for your Epson are nearly 200 MB.

Even though every scanner and printer and peripheral has a unique MAC address imagine the Treasury Department's nightmare of keeping track of all that new activity, were every high school and community college in the USA suddenly to have a scanner like this.

[Jeremy Moore]

The reasons why not may more political than technical.

We do know that flatbeds with the resolution of roll-film scanners exist. They've just either expensive and/or remain stuck in a pre-1994-era time-warp.

One reason being that all present consumer ones big enough to scan folding money must (at least in the USA) include a software driver package that detects currency being scanned, and that connects via the internet to report such activity. (Which also leaves a backdoor in your computer OS that, once patched, tends to bomb scanner software.) Explains why the drivers for your Epson are nearly 200 MB.

Even though every scanner and printer and peripheral has a unique MAC address imagine the Treasury Department's nightmare of keeping track of all that new activity, were every high school and community college in the USA suddenly to have a scanner like this.

Aren't you 3 days too late?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

No April Fools joke.

I'm reminded of all this because I just spent a couple of fruitless hours yesterday attempting to get a perfectly functional HP flatbed scanner to work with my firewalled MBP-- no joy.

When updates to Windows and OSX were released that broke all the RIAA sponsored tattleware, it also broke a lot of old scanner drivers.

If you want a scanner with software that doesn't leave a backdoor on your computer wide open, you need to go with the older stuff on a machine without updates, preferably one that is firewalled behind a router or better still isn't connected to the Internet at all.

[Jeremy Moore]

No April Fools joke.

I'm reminded of all this because I just spent a couple of fruitless hours yesterday attempting to get a perfectly functional HP flatbed scanner to work with my firewalled MBP-- no joy.

Edit: Okay, I'll bite: please cite relevant evidence for this.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

What world do you live in, where there yet exists Internet and computer anonymity? (Because if it's true, I wouldn't mind getting some of that privacy back, myself.)

Unless MAC address spoofing is being done intentionally, every utterance on the Internet is stamped with a unique resource code, and that goes for networked peripherals, too.

Even without being networked, going back at least to the 1980's, print engines have had unique dot patterns laid down in every page of output which identify that particular machine.

I'd expect that anyone trying to pass funny money who already doesn't know this, is soon imprisoned these days.

[Jeremy Moore]

What world do you live in, where there yet exists Internet and computer anonymity? (Because if it's true, I wouldn't mind getting some of that privacy back, myself.)

Unless MAC address spoofing is being done intentionally, every utterance on the Internet is stamped with a unique resource code, and that goes for networked peripherals, too.

Even without being networked, going back at least to the 1980's, print engines have had unique dot patterns laid down in every page of output which identify that particular machine.

I'd expect that anyone trying to pass funny money who already doesn't know this, is soon imprisoned these days.

Regardless of any of the above, what is this U.S. Law you previously referenced ( http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml ) and please show me any evidence of any code in the driver or the Epson software that does this--or how about a legitimate news article?

[Jim collum]

i scan with large flatbeds (current) all the time not connected to the internet. I also have a Betterlight scan back (which uses the same sensor as many of the high end scanners), and it too can operate without being connected to the internet. Photoshop does have code built in that doesn't allow scanning of money (but does not send that info anywhere.. it just doesn't let you do it)

In fact, I just tried scanning money with a network sniffer hooked up on the ethernet port of my computer.. and nothing left it as I scanned a dollar bill

this is the stuff of Urban Legends

[Jeremy Moore]

Photoshop does have code built in that doesn't allow scanning of money (but does not send that info anywhere.. it just doesn't let you do it)

You just scan into Imageready then click the "edit in Photoshop" button. I've done this in the past to use scans of money in digital collages.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Gee, suddenly I'm sorry for mentioning any of this-- particularly now that someone has posted a workaround to the open internet describing a workaround for counterfeiting money.

Seriously, what alternate universe do you guys live in, where there aren't automated web-crawling spiders constantly searching and flagging such discussions 24/7?

[Jim collum]

Gee, suddenly I'm sorry for mentioning any of this-- particularly now that someone has posted a workaround to the open internet describing a workaround for counterfeiting money.

Seriously, what alternate universe do you guys live in, where there aren't automated web-crawling spiders constantly searching and flagging such discussions 24/7?

i've been a network engineer/developer for the last 10 years (20 years of development before that)... working at Cisco. Focus has been security on the routers, firewalls and wireless access points. I know what goes in and out of my network, as well as those of *many* others. Have never seen those famous 'bot's of urban legend lore. as far as the 'workaround' ... this is pretty common knowledge to anyone who's been working with photoshop, scanners and graphics at any depth. just google it, and you'll find all sorts of info
google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=scanning+money+photoshop&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

I'm not saying information isn't collected.. .but if it is, it's at major nodal points in the internet ... data moving between different parts of the country /world.

There are all sorts of nasty sites out there constantly probing addresses ( most common source is North Korea and China if you monitor the alarms hitting a firewall)... but any decently protected home network will keep those out. (if you don't have a decently protected network.. then yes.. chances are your home system is a node that can be used as a source point .. one of many... for a denial of service attack at some other major system)


i know the universe i'm living in.. i've been developing it for the last 30 years

[jp]

http://www.eff.org/issues/printers

http://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots

I'm not aware of scanners having this tracking stuff, but printers do, and many scanners exist as multi-function printer/scanner/copier, thus could be less desirable because of this association by function.

I've personally tracked down unkind documents authors from a list of suspected students, simply by comparing paper choice, font choice, margins, and dot pattern of documents compared to homework on file. No need for secret tracking dots in my case.

[Jeremy Moore]

http://www.eff.org/issues/printers

http://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots

I'm not aware of scanners having this tracking stuff, but printers do, and many scanners exist as multi-function printer/scanner/copier, thus could be less desirable because of this association by function.


Scanners don't have this tracking info--and not every printer does, only "some" and that some is, as far as I know, limited to color laser printers and color photocopiers. I have yet to see any legislation or information about this being included in inkjet printers or monochrome laser printers.

[AFSmithphoto]

I think the market for hobbyist scanners is small, pretty much limited to people that develop their own film. If you send your film out for development, why not just have it scanned by the developing service? Especially if the scanning was standardized and high quality and optimized for the specific film. Especially if the developing/scanning service was supported online, where you could access your scans and wouldn't need a disk reader.

If Kodak and Fuji made a complete service package (film, development system and scanning system) that was economical and convenient and consistently good they would sell more film. Imagine if it was fairly inexpensive and convenient to get 30 or 40 meg high quality images from a $500 (medium format) camera, or 15 meg from 35mm ($100 camera). There would certainly be a film renaissance.

There will always be a market for those that want control of the process, but I don't see it being a big market.

...Mike

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.

[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.