Best New Scanners Available?

[Daniel Stone]

I notice a lot of people talk about stitching and reassemble, what are the thoughts of 150mb single capture using a phase back? I like this idea but wonder how people feel about this single capture, or would one still stitch even with this kind of back.?

A friend of mine has the 100mp Phase back and uses it to digitize his film. For MF film, he uses single shot. For 6x17 panoramic shots, he shoots 3 overlapping frames. He built his own frame, which he wet mounts the film inside. He made 3 identical frames. These also work for smaller formats than 6x17(the frames will accommodate (4) 6x6 negatives in a strip at once, wet mounted). He 3d printed the plastic frame, and used a simple sheet of thin glass as the base to mount on, using mylar and Kami fluid like he did on his drum scanner before. MUCH faster, and his results meet his needs without issue.

For 4x5 and 5x7 film, he shoots 3 frames for 4x5, each overlapping one another for a seamless stitch. For 5x7 he shoots 6 shots, 2 columns of 3 frames. He doesn't shoot 8x10, but a 600mp file(roughly sized, smaller once stitched and cropped) is pretty dang big as a start.

In short, for HIS needs(and according to what I see with my eyes in prints), this method is not only faster, but more enjoyable than drum scanning. Having owned my own scanner in the past, the crazing issue with acrylic drums, plus the lack of replacement drums, if needed, dictates that service bureaus abandon drum scanners for another method. I see high MP backs, and/or stitching solutions as a viable method of delivering high quality results.

Personally, my light source planned is a small 4x4 box with two layers of sign white acrylic, mounted into the table flush. The light source being a commonly available halogen source, of approx 150W. It is easy to set a white balance point this way, and there is no issue with output balance shot-to-shot like you'd have with strobes. These bulbs, unlike many of their LED counterparts, also do not flicker, so you have a wider range of shutter speeds if needed, to balance the exposure properly.

[sperdynamite]

You'll make your life a lot easier by picking up a IQSmart 2 or 3 from Micheal Streeter. If I was to go back to cam scanning I'd do something with autofocus and a modern high res sensor. Fiddling around with manual focus on a medium format digital sensor will be a big PITA.

[Peter De Smidt]

Some modern cameras will put out 4k or higher out of their HDMI ports. Hook that to a big TV, and focusing should be easy.

[Oren Grad]

Manually focusing on a 100MP sensor with magnified live view is not especially challenging - *if* the camera and lens are rigidly mounted and the focus mechanism for the lens - whether a bellows or a helical - has adequate finesse. The real challenge is that cobbling together an optimized mounting is currently usually a time-consuming DIY affair, with a fair bit of trial-and-error involved.

Seems to me that what the high end of the amateur scanning market is begging for right now isn't a new dedicated scanner, which isn't going to happen, but rather turnkey mounting setups that can accept high-MP digital cameras and repro lenses, align and adjust easily and with good finesse at both the camera and negative stages, and hold the alignment/adjustment reliably. But given the mechanical precision and robustness required, does anyone have a good sense of how many thousands of dollars such a system would have to cost?

[bob carnie]

Manually focusing on a 100MP sensor with magnified live view is not especially challenging - *if* the camera and lens are rigidly mounted and the focus mechanism for the lens - whether a bellows or a helical - has adequate finesse. The real challenge is that cobbling together an optimized mounting is currently usually a time-consuming DIY affair, with a fair bit of trial-and-error involved.

Seems to me that what the high end of the amateur scanning market is begging for right now isn't a new dedicated scanner, which isn't going to happen, but rather turnkey mounting setups that can accept high-MP digital cameras and repro lenses, align and adjust easily and with good finesse at both the camera and negative stages, and hold the alignment/adjustment reliably. But given the mechanical precision and robustness required, does anyone have a good sense of how many thousands of dollars such a system would have to cost?

I have no idea on the costs, I do have a younger friend who is working on a concept to make exactly what you are suggesting, once he gets to the right stage and the huge sensor backs (phase one) come down in price I will seriously get involved.
But you are right this would be a great device for someone to bring to market, my gut tells me it would be in the 10k range.

[bmikiten]

I have no idea on the costs, I do have a younger friend who is working on a concept to make exactly what you are suggesting, once he gets to the right stage and the huge sensor backs (phase one) come down in price I will seriously get involved.
But you are right this would be a great device for someone to bring to market, my gut tells me it would be in the 10k range.

I would agree based on my expenses in the past. I ended up with an Eversmart Supreme (and an 848) and while the process of getting it here, set up and dealing with a few software/hardware issues was a bit annoying, the scans are AMAZING. Mounting is so critical on other methods and you can spend your life cleaning, mounting, cleaning, etc.

[Peter De Smidt]

I did this. I'd say the material, other than the camera, cost about $1000. What greatly increases cost is adding flexibility. The single biggest cost in my system was a Velmex unislide. That let me use various lenses and cover different formats. Making a minimal vibration setup for one magnification is easy. Making one that would cover a big range is more challenging, and much more expensive.

[biedron]

Seems to me that what the high end of the amateur scanning market is begging for right now isn't a new dedicated scanner, which isn't going to happen, but rather turnkey mounting setups that can accept high-MP digital cameras and repro lenses, align and adjust easily and with good finesse at both the camera and negative stages, and hold the alignment/adjustment reliably. But given the mechanical precision and robustness required, does anyone have a good sense of how many thousands of dollars such a system would have to cost?

Turnkey system does exist: https://heritage-digitaltransitions....-scanning-kit/ coupled with https://heritage-digitaltransitions....vel-digitizer/

The links above don't indicate prices, but I'd bet way north of $10k

Bob

[Oren Grad]

Yes, I know about the DT stuff. I believe it's based on the Cambo repro system, but regardless, you can be sure that it's priced for institutional customers.

[Daniel Stone]

I know someone who purchased a refurbished single-shot DT repro system with a 100mp sensor, and dedicated lens/shutter module. He does digitization work, and formerly used a Linhof m679 with Phase One back on it. The system ran him around $50k, and it was a couple years old already. But a large job digitizing both film and prints for a collection(around 2,000 pieces/frames in total) paid for the system, so with the right jobs, it can be profitable. But yes, it isn't cheap.

But then again, I've met hobbyists who aren't afraid of spending $30k+ on a custom run of Kodak film cut to their desired sizes. Paid up front, didn't even balk at the price. One quipped "It is what it is, my other hobbies cost more(in his case, fancy shotguns and precision competition big-bore rifles)"