Which Drum - High End Flatbed good for the next 30 years? [Archive]

Frank Petronio

14-Nov-2011, 19:45

If I was going to get a "better than Epson" scanner that I can use for the rest of my working life -- give or take 30 years -- what should I get?

It has to be well built and produce noticeably "better than Epson" results. It also has to be user-maintainable and have a reasonably expectation running under modern and future hardware and software. Or at least a professional level Mac Pro ca. 2020 perhaps?

I don't expect a G3 Mac running OS9 to last until 2041. I also doubt that anyone is going to make some magical new better than Epson scanning device going forward. So whatever is already on the market is pretty much it. Sound about right?

Does this thinking point to the latest Imacon or what?

Noah A

14-Nov-2011, 20:03

Hate to be negative (no pun intended) but I'm afraid that an OS9 Mac and a Howtek may outlast readily available/affordable color film. So I plan to scan my stuff as I shoot it so I don't have to worry about rescanning in 2041. Scan it right the first time and you'll be set as long as you archive your scans and migrate them to new storage media as it becomes available.

But aside from that, I'd say a Hasselblad X1/X5 or Aztek Premier would be your best bet, since they're at least still made and supported. The Aztek will wipe the floor with the Ima/Blads, but at a cost, of course. Of course amortized over 30 years...

Daniel Stone

14-Nov-2011, 20:19

I just looked at some drum scans a fellow member here on the forum kindly helped me to make yesterday(on his Aztek) during a day-long visit to his house. These were from 8x10 color negs(one of the scans) and a few 6x6 Hasselblad transparencies(RDPIII). At ~28" square at 300dpi(6x6 scans), these scans are CRAZY sharp, and I can see more deep shadow detail than with my 6x Schneider loupe, or with my friends 25X Leitz microscope. And this was only a 4000dpi scan ;). I could re-run it at 8000dpi and go 2x bigger(so ~56" square), if I wanted too... Thats BIG IMO...

I'm planning on drum scanning my film in the future, well, at least my color film. B/W I'll still stay in the darkroom for that :)

-Dan

Frank Petronio

14-Nov-2011, 20:22

Well I am planning to be that 80-year old still shooting and scanning... Lenny better be taking his vitamins ;-)

mdm

14-Nov-2011, 21:01

How long till you flick it on? My money is on less tha 6 months.

vinny

14-Nov-2011, 21:08

drum scanning ain't for everybody. kinda like large format. Do a few fluid mount scans and you'll wonder where the day went.

polyglot

15-Nov-2011, 00:07

What electronics hardware do you know of from 30 years ago (1980!) that's still working, other than maybe the meter in a camera, some whitegoods and car ignitions? Certainly absolutely nothing on the order of complexity of a film scanner unless it's been actively maintained at huge expense by an industrial or governmental institution.

Consider the advances that digital imaging technology has made since 2000, when we had 2MP sensors, or since 1990 when people were digitising TV signals. And since 1980? Complete and utter revolution. Count on there being a similarly dramatic shift in technology (and incompatibility).

I don't think what you're asking for exists because technology does not retain stability or compatibility on those time-scales. While we can plug in a hard drive from 10 years ago (you will need an adapter to get it into a SATA machine!), it gets very hard even at only 20 years (prior to IDE). 30 years? Forget it - people are now building custom hardware to electromagnetically scan hard drive platters to retrieve Cray (the biggest player in supercomputers of the time!) operating systems that were discarded. That should tell you what you need to know about proprietary equipment and anything that requires a non-commodity interface or manufacturer's driver.

You need the following features:
- complete open source software imaging chain with full toolchain (compilers, operating system, etc) support to permit rebuild (e.g. VueScan, gimp, jpeg, no manufacturer drivers required, linux, gcc, etc)
- common bus connection that is well supported by consumer hardware, i.e. USB or firewire; SCSI is OK if you have linux support and keep a couple cards on-hand
- physical ruggedness / repairability

You're going to need a dedicated machine and a supply of parts (not just the scanner but the host PC) to keep it going for even 10 years. Forget 30. Getting a 10 year old machine up is the work of a few days, a 20 year old machine is the work of weeks or months. A 30 year old machine: usually faster to design and build an emulator from scratch.

Edit: my crystal ball says that in 30 years, you will be able to order up (parts for) a custom manufactured drum scanner using 3D-printing technology and commodity optoelectronic components, in the same way that today you can buy laser-cut acrylic signs for your shop window or CNC-milled wooden toys. And the performance will exceed that of any scanner that you can purchase right now.

Edit2: Right now, for well under $1000, you can build a CNC machine (mill, laser cutter, extrusion, hotwire, whatever) and achieve better than 100-micron absolute positioning accuracy. It's a very small step from that kind of technology to building a 4000dpi scanner yourself if you have basic engineering skills. Or retrofit assorted old drum/flatbed scanning hardware to talk to a modern computer-of-the-day.

Matus Kalisky

15-Nov-2011, 01:30

Frank, I am sure you have experience with the Imacon scans. For me these are more than good enough, though the question is whether 2040 spi is enough for your 4x5" and whether 4x5" is large enough for you ;)

But would not one of the latest (last?) Creo (iQsmart2 or 3) be the right decision?

Still - I can hardly imagine ANY of the scanners available today to run for 30 years without the need for regular maintenance and repairs.

Who knows - maybe in 10 years one will just get a large Foveon sensor camera and use it for "scannig". Once one camera will stop working, you get another one. If there would be a decent automatized stand that could even do HDR, it could be a solution ... ?

If I had the means today, I would probably get the Imcaon X5 as it would be enough for me. I also like the rather compact size.

Bruce Watson

15-Nov-2011, 06:34

If I was going to get a "better than Epson" scanner that I can use for the rest of my working life -- give or take 30 years -- what should I get?

A reasonable question with an unreasonable answer: There aren't any scanners that will last 30 years. What electronics does? I've got a computer that's limping (dying graphics card) after 11 years. That's the kind of problem you'll face with a scanner, only worse (a scanner has moving parts to wear out). Where will you get the spare parts? As computer OSes evolve, who will write device drivers for your non-supported scanner? As computer interfaces evolve, how will you connect to the scanner (this has been a problem with drum scanners for a decade now as SCSI and GPIB become obsolete)?

About the best you can hope for is to buy multiple scanners of the same model so you can use one as a parts box for the other -- so you can keep one of them running for longer than normal.

Gem Singer

15-Nov-2011, 07:40

Frank,

In 30 years, photo scanning and inkjet printing will be a thing of the past.

Silver coated photo sensitive material (film and paper) will also fade into history.

Go ahead and purchase an Epson 700 series scanner now, and enjoy it while you can.

That's what I did.

Frank Petronio

15-Nov-2011, 07:41

Hate to be negative (no pun intended) but I'm afraid that an OS9 Mac and a Howtek may outlast readily available/affordable color film.

Yeah probably but I am thinking that I will still shoot and home process B&W for long after color and c41 labs vanish. I like B&W fine, although I plan to shoot Portra 400 for as long as it is available and can be commercially processed.

~~~

I am thinking that a currently in production Aztek, ICG, or Hasselblad/Imacon are the real answer, as even if they stop making them tomorrow, we could probably figure on parts and service being expensive but available through 2018 or so. Then you might be able to limp along with luck and maybe purchasing a spare scanner and computer for parts.

Gotta figure there is always going to be one nut nuttier who will keep a high-end scanner running forever... like a priestly scribe in the Dark Ages.

I haven't seen recent prices on the Aztek or ICG but I am suspecting a properly outfitted Aztek with PC and all the mounting supplies is a roughly $35K investment versus $60K for an ICG? Or are my guesstimates off?

(Sales Reps need not call yet....)

Brian K

15-Nov-2011, 08:04

Frank, you're smart to want to buy a scanner which is either still in production or only recently discontinued.

You may also want to consider the IQSmart series as it was only recently discontinued and has a fair number of spare parts available. And unlike the Imacons, and I used to own one, the IQsmart is designed for heavy use in a large production setting. For the price you are looking at for a new Aztek or ICG you could buy several used IQSmart3's and all the spare parts you could want. These also run on a mac using Snow Leopard. The down side is that the software is not nearly as easy to use as that for the Imacon.

Cesar Barreto

15-Nov-2011, 08:22

Few years ago I made a whole exhibition "scanning" 4x5' and 5x7' negatives with Nikon D200 multiples captures, up to 36 shots if memory doesn't fail, and since then I'm pretty much convinced that a digital back is the way to go.
Of course, this route offers some obvious drawbacks, but I guess the advantages may worth the trouble of building a good enough set up, so to keep everything aligned and parallel.
Here are some points:
1- it's a evolving not dying technology;
2- it's easy to upgrade (if one can afford so, of course!);
3- Raw files are easy to get and available programs are much more powerful then usual scanning softwares;
4- one can make files as big as it's patience and technique goes;
5- digital back are much more versatile than scanners!

By this time I used a Sinar P front standard as a negative stage, but having a digital back installed on the right place and a third one for the lens would make a very confortable setup and kind of cheap nowadays.

Of course I don't mean to compare quality against top drum scanners, but here in Brazil it would be kind of crazy to invest on Aztec or similar toys, wich I guess may be true to a lot of people around the world.

Frank Petronio

15-Nov-2011, 08:44

Thanks, those are good points.

I figure I should start with what I want to shoot with for the rest of my days and at this point I see that large format film is worth committing to. I think the nicer medium format backs are great and it would simply be a matter of waiting to buy the previous generation at a good discount to get into using them. But I like the film experience and think it makes a difference in the approach and response I have and get from my subjects. Being photographed with a view camera is very different than being photographed with a Hasselblad H4 or Leica S2.

And so I am finally going to install a small darkroom so I can process B&W film, then scan and inkjet print it. My hunch is that even 50 years from now, some hardcore small business will still make B&W film and supply easy to mix chemistry, although I would expect to pay multiple times the current prices.

Printers seem to still be actively developed and sold regularly so I'm not worried about printing disappearing.

That leaves scanning. I bet something along the level of the Epson 750 will be in production forever, perhaps Epson will build a more professional rugged model for libraries and institutions? But I bet the specs don't dramatically improve beyond their current state-of-the-art.

Frankly an Imacon is enough improved over an Epson to satisfy me although the perfectionist streak makes the modern drums appealing. I also don't think the Hasselblad X5 is worth $20K, it would be a great $5K option if I were pricing it.

I suspect the iQSmart 3 is probably the best bang for the big bucks. So basically the software development has stopped with OSX 10.5 and if it continues to work with future versions then we're lucky?

David Higgs

15-Nov-2011, 10:04

I'm not sure on your volume or print sizes, but like many I use the Epson up to a certain print size, and then send out for drums from then on? The running costs, and general ball ache of drum scanning is avoided this way, unless we can look to send our film your way in the future?

People seem quite happy to pay the equivalent of the average weeks wage for a 20x16 scanned with my Epson. Its only really for very large images, and exhibition work that I need the drum scan. This all relates to 4x5, smaller formats - different matter.

Frank Petronio

15-Nov-2011, 10:15

Brian K

15-Nov-2011, 10:26

Thanks, those are good points.

I suspect the iQSmart 3 is probably the best bang for the big bucks. So basically the software development has stopped with OSX 10.5 and if it continues to work with future versions then we're lucky?

It stopped with 10.6x, snow leopard. It will not likely work with Lion but I haven't tried it and most likely will not. As long as you own an intel mac capable of using snow leopard it will work.

Peter De Smidt

15-Nov-2011, 14:49

Aztek used to offer refurbished Aztek and Howtek scanners. (Azteks are basically upgraded Howteks.) You might call Aztek and see what they have, and what their prices are.

sanking

15-Nov-2011, 15:21

I suspect the iQSmart 3 is probably the best bang for the big bucks. So basically the software development has stopped with OSX 10.5 and if it continues to work with future versions then we're lucky?

If you are scanning large format B&W or color negatives the iQ3 (or Eversmart Supreme or Select) would give you great scans. In theory you might get a better scan with a drum scanner but frankly I don't believe you would ever see any difference on the print, at any size. And these large flatbeds are very versatile machines as you can batch scan large numbers of negatives (or slides), and easily scan reflective materials, including glass negatives, etc.

At $5K-$10K a professional quality flatbed would be a good bargain IMO compared to the cost of an Imacon/Hasselblad or Aztek Premier.

Sandy

Lenny Eiger

15-Nov-2011, 17:13

That's what I have been doing too and it is probably the most logical way to go... edit harshly and only drum scan the finest images. Figure that someone like Lenny Eiger will keep his services going for as long as possible since he is a photographer himself.

Still it is good to know the options and numbers to make a more absolute decision.

Frank,

Hey, I'm trying. I eat plenty of vitamins, but I don't get as much exercise as I should. I'm working too damn hard. I would add a couple of things. First, spend some money to get scans now (I will happily oblige), come on out and visit and take a scanning class with me. This will save you a lot of time when you are ready. Then, keep your eye out for a used Premier. They show up about once a year, for about $15K these days. Have your financing ready so you can spring when you have to.

Very few Premiers have come on the used market because people like them. As those "other" cameras get cheaper, some will move over, leaving you with a Premier they would be willing to part with. That should start happening any time. Lots of folks don;'t want to develop film, or develop their own E6/C41.

You could also pick up an 8000, get it nice and tuned up, our even upgraded, partially or fully, by Aztek to save some money. Their new machines cost a little more than last years, somewhere in the low 40's these days vs the 36K range.

Hope this helps,

Lenny

Daniel Stone

15-Nov-2011, 17:20

Lenny,

I looked at the "upgrade" route for my soon-to-be DPL8k. Evan said they don't do it anymore unfortunately, they just sell new scanners.

But they'll happily service and maintain DPL8k's, no problem there(well, there is a limited supply of boards, etc...) hence my buying a 2nd scanner for use as a parts machine vs buying new and paying through the nose :o.

I'd love to get a Premier, however, being able to get (2) DPL8k's with one drum, computer, mount station and other misc things for around $6k, I should be happy for a while until a PM is needed. Not super bad IMO, that's 60-$100 scans.

Once I'm up and running though, I'm gonna contact you regarding doing one of your scanning tutorial days :).

-Dan

Frank Petronio

15-Nov-2011, 17:40

Thank you Lenny, taking your class makes the most sense of all.

sully75

15-Nov-2011, 18:01

Frank,

What are you using now?

Frank Petronio

15-Nov-2011, 18:06

Epson and a friend's Imacon.

I used to get Howtek drum scans from a friend 7-8 years ago and I owned a Leaf Scanner back in the mid-1990s.

sully75

15-Nov-2011, 18:14

which Epson. Just wondering.

sully75

15-Nov-2011, 18:15

I'm using a 4870 and it's pretty mediocre, I'm realizing. But just would like to stop spending money on shit.

Peter York

15-Nov-2011, 18:36

Brian K

16-Nov-2011, 05:19

An Epson and an 8x10 is a powerful combination.

If you have a lot of color neg and prefer a flatbed, I would recommend the Kodak line over the Screen line. The software for the Cezanne is wimpy. B&W and E-6 scans are easy to accomplish; color neg is more challenging.

Peter do you have a profile for kodak ektar? Kodak doesn't have one for it. But other color neg films come out great on the IQS 3.

Ivan J. Eberle

16-Nov-2011, 07:59

Frank, think 5 or possibly 10 years out-- not 30. Nobody's crystal ball is that good. My suggestion would be get a Howtek drum scanner and legacy hardware bundle (G3, G4-- they're pretty robust as dual-boot OS9 and OSX machines but you can't put later than OS 10.3 Panther on it-- and can communicate easily with other machines on a network). Budget a year to the learning curve and let fly until you get sick of it. You'll catch up with the legacy images that need better-than-CCD drum scanning soon enough.

If you've got a lot of spectacular legacy 35mm or 645/2-1/4/Mamiya 7 work you'll need much better than a Nikon LS 9000 at 4K dpi to scrape everything off off transparencies or negs. The real-world resolution of an LS 8000/9000 can be no better than 67 lp/mm and you might be leaving 1/3 to nearly 1/2 the resolution on the light table with the best that the smaller formats can achieve.

Likewise the Imacons don't resolve well enough for larger formats.

If you're shooting transparency-only in 4x5, you may not need better than 8 bit and won't very likely have on-film resolution much north of what a 4K dpi scanner can resolve. (But again, an Imacon or V750 might be leaving half the resolution of which the best of 4x5 is capable on the table.) My experience suggests Epson scans are worthless for 35mm and 645. The Imacons with which I'm familiar have no better resolution at 4x5 than a cheap Epson, and no Digital ICE. Heidelberg Tango's are shit for negs and tough transparencies because they're not 16 bit.

So to cover it all you need a later production drum scanner, when they were purposed for more than the needs of print-house pre-press. Current drum scanners of which I'm aware that have greater than 5000 dpi and true 16-bit hardware-level capture are the Aztek/Howtek and the ICG 380. 16-bit is needed for neg emulsions and difficult transparencies (e.g. digging detail out of the shadows).
The ICG seems problematic in that there aren't many outside of Europe.

Peter York

16-Nov-2011, 08:40

Peter do you have a profile for kodak ektar? Kodak doesn't have one for it. But other color neg films come out great on the IQS 3.

Brian, I do not. I have a Screen Cezanne and their colorneg profiles are for mostly non-current film. Even more frustrating is the fact that the profiles clip shadow and highlight detail. One thus has to find some workaround, which is not easy given the fact that ColorGenius does not display a histogram. Several workarounds are mentioned on the "Screen Cezanne Users Unite" thread, but none seem to be consistent so far.

Other than this, the Screen is an outstanding scanner, and cheap compared to the Kodak line. Screen still services these scanners, but at a price.

Jay DeFehr

16-Nov-2011, 15:26

I'm with polyglot.

30 years out is an unrealistic time frame for meaningful predictions, given the rate of technical innovation, and an unreasonable expectation for the longevity of any electronic device. What we can predict, though in vague terms, is that the current technology will be replaced, sooner than later, by better, cheaper technology. The time frame you're talking about will see digital electronic technologies replaced by quantum and nano technologies. It's not likely any major manufacturer will dedicate a lot of resources to designing/manufacturing a new technology to support a dead one, but that doesn't matter, because manufacturing, like all technologies, is decentralizing. Within 5 years you should be able to build a better scanner than you can buy now, at any price, for almost nothing, but that doesn't matter, either. Flexible, thin film sensors are right around the corner, and will make the whole scanning issue irrelevant, except for digitizing archived film. Imagine a sheet of film more sensitive and capable of better resolution per mm2 than any current imaging sensor, for about the same price as a sheet of color sheet film. The sensor will also be the display, so the experience will be like looking at a ground glass, but much better. The image will not be upside down, or reversed (unless you'd like it to be), and you won't need to huddle beneath a dark cloth to see it. Neither will you need a tripod (unless you'd like one), due to the extreme sensitivity of the sensor, and the light weight, compact design of the camera. Want to apply a little front tilt? Tell your camera; it will understand you, and make any corrections you tell it to make. Or you can make them directly on the touch screen display, post capture. But all this will seem crude and primitive 20 years from now.

Your best strategy is to use the best (as determined by your personal requirements) technology currently available, and upgrade when possible.

Cesar Barreto

16-Nov-2011, 16:59

I may agree with Jay and others that expect large changes in the next few years, but to be sincere I hope that within the time frame suggested by Frank I shall end doing a lot of fishing!
That technology, I suppose, shouldn't change that much. Unless there are no fishes left in the seas. A rod, a couple of hooks, some baits... whatever we need?

John NYC

16-Nov-2011, 17:44

Richard Mahoney

21-Nov-2011, 00:36

There is no working technology that exists today that you will even consider using for anything but nostalgic purposes in 30 years... if it still runs at all (there will be no parts for it if it is broken).

Well that depends entirely on what one is talking about. I've a couple of Land Rovers. One was built in 1960 and the other in 1966. Both live outside, both have been used for what they were made for, and both are still `fit for purpose'. And after almost fifty years, obtaining new -- or if one is pushed, reconditioned -- parts is as simple as visiting a local garage. My scanning is also sent out to a 15 year old Fuji Celsis 6250 (Crosfield). It's been upgraded but hasn't to my knowledge broken down. (Although apparently the Crosfields weren't a patch on the Hells for reliability.) Still, there is no reason that properly maintained industrial grade equipment shouldn't last for decades. How often do hydro power stations or industrial manufacturing plants get tossed aside for the latest version ... and it would be no different with many of the crude and functional Cambos. Although I've read that a well soldered joint can't be trusted for much more than 40 years, my '66 Land Rover -- with its original 24 volt wiring -- remains more reliable in the wet and cold than many recent trucks.

Kind regards,

Richard

mdm

21-Nov-2011, 01:15

In 30 years time functional epson v700 scanners will be prized for their outstanding out of focus blur rendition.

Richard Mahoney

21-Nov-2011, 01:23

In 30 years time functional epson v700 scanners will be prized for their outstanding out of focus blur rendition.

Absolutely, no need for expensive soft focus lenses if one has an Epson ;) I also read somewhere -- on a spec. sheet? -- that the Epson's MTBF was 150,000. I'm sure that that was what Nikon traditionally gave for their bodies. I'd beggar myself before I came anywhere near this figure. Actually, to be honest, before I got even close I can see myself getting so fed up with the abomination that I'd probably have just thrown it out.

Best of all that,

Richard

cosmicexplosion

21-Nov-2011, 04:25

besides the dubious name 'hell tango'

is there any thing about an 11000 dpi unit that is not for useful consideration.

cosmicexplosion

21-Nov-2011, 04:28

i ask as i am interested in buying one myself.

John NYC

21-Nov-2011, 05:45

Well that depends entirely on what one is talking about.

I was talking about the technologies specified in the title of the thread.

Jim Jones

21-Nov-2011, 07:00

There is no working technology that exists today that you will even consider using for anything but nostalgic purposes in 30 years... if it still runs at all (there will be no parts for it if it is broken).

Sixty years ago I was a career electronics repairman. There is equipment from that time that is still practical today; a Simpson 260 multimeter for example. New digital multimeters have both advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the old Simpson. For nostalgic reasons I would consider using a BC-221 frequency meter because of its simple but elegant engineering. The SP-600 radio receiver was another of those timeless performers. Computers were another story. Like most emerging technologies, the vacuum tube computer I worked on in the late 1950s was horrible. The clock rate was 100kHz and the mean time between failure may have been a few hours. It consumed many KW of power. Solid state computers were just appearing, and integrated circuits were merely on drawing boards. Today's electronic imaging technology is more advanced than that computer, but hasn't reached the relative level of the SP-600. Big investments in digital cameras, scanners, and printers are viable only for intensive users. The rest of us should use gear that may fail before it becomes too obsolete.

Ed Kelsey

21-Nov-2011, 11:55

I predict film will not exist in 30 years.

Miguel Curbelo

21-Nov-2011, 13:21

I know very little about scanners, but I have found someone in Germany who sells refurbished Heidelberg flatbed scanners that work with OS X (up to 10.5) and Silverfast. He also offers repairs and spare parts. His business seems to be based on what he describes as "Scanner bundles". Beyond that, I know nothing about them.
http://www.high-end-scanner.com/english/index.html
Just in case anyone is interested...

gth

21-Nov-2011, 20:49

What about these guys:

http://www.colortrac.com/pdf/Gx+28_lo.pdf

Are they useless for photo scanning? Claim is 1,200 dpi which is respectable for 4x5 and 8x10. Especially if they are real in focus pixels. Up to 28 In image width so ULF?

Seems to be in the $5,000 region, new, supported. Has RAW output.

I like the principle with the moving image and stationary sensor/optics.... questions is, how good is the optics? Good enough for photo work?

Would also work for scanning prints. Available up to 40 in in width.

gth

21-Nov-2011, 21:10

Never mind.... only reflective scanning.... :(

Brian Vuillemenot

21-Nov-2011, 21:37

On a related note, what is the life expectancy of an Epson scanner? My 4990 is still going strong after 7 years and thousands of scans, and I wasn't planning on replacing it anytime soon...

polyglot

21-Nov-2011, 23:58

In the hacky stakes, you could put a DSLR and macro lens on a really shoddy X-Y gantry (about $500 for the gantry, $1000 for new DSLR+lens, a bit of cash for a glass sheet and backlight) and shoot your film in little 1x1" squares, about 1s/sq.in.

It's pretty easy to automate stitching of the frames to produce one honking big file at at least 4000 dpi using current off-the-shelf consumer gear. And it scales easily to 40x40", limited only by how much memory you can cram into your PC.

Karl Hudson

16-Dec-2011, 09:39

Well, unfortunately I've been to New Delhi, and while I was there I worked on Hell Scanners that were built in 1983...that's pretty close to thirty years old. There are plenty of printing presses still in daily use that are 60 years old. A machine will stay alive as long as there is someone around who loves it. I happen to love the Tango / Primescan and S3800 / S3900. They were built in Germany from the finest materials and they were built to run in a daily high-production environment. I can easily see them lasting 30 years. Silverfast will drive it on a Snow Leopard machine today. As long as Lasersoft can stay in business, then maybe they'll keep on porting the microprogram over to newer and newer Operating Systems. There's actually a lot of love for these old German scanners across the globe, so I think they'll be around for a long time. Part of my mission is to teach end-users how to do their own maintenance. Contact me off-forum if you are interested.
Karl

John NYC

16-Dec-2011, 15:57

There are plenty of printing presses still in daily use that are 60 years old.
Karl

Of course there are going to be exceptions. But really, a printing press is something that is very, very old technology that wasn't even beginning to get outmoded as a process until very, very recently. It was also built with industrial strength most of the time. Most stuff we use today electronics-wise is not built to last. That is a fact.

Also, our way of using technology is changing at a much faster rate than in the past 50 years. Some of my young relatives don't even have a voice mail account set up on their mobile phones because they view voice mail as an outmoded technology... "If someone calls me and I don't answer, they can call back and they know I saw they called because of caller ID... if they need me right away, they can text that it is urgent that they speak to me... so what does voice mail do for me?" I have to say, they are right and they changed my own mind about using voice mail for personal use. Same types of things will happen with photography in the next 30 years... ideas and ways of working will become outmoded even if some of the technology lasts. Maybe it will be niche only or maybe it will go away entirely.

Come up with a list of 30 pieces of electronic gear (that were built recently in this new age of throw-away and planned obsolescence) you are using today and tell me which exact pieces you expect you will be using in 30 years.

europanorama

18-Dec-2011, 01:56