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

[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

[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!

[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

[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.

[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"

[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.