The film won't die first

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
<neil.RemoveThis@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:

 >Recently, Quest0029 <quest0029.RemoveThis@aol.com> posted:
 >
  >> But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
  >> format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.
  >>
 >These are puzzling predictions.
 >
 >Re: processing,
 >Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve film-based
 >point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is the same for
 >those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority of digital shooters
 >don't print their images at all, I don't expect to see any big changes for
 >quite some time.

Other than the simple (but very important)
differences in form factor and loading
between 35 mm and 120/220. For every
100 rolls of the former, typical labs
might see one of the latter.


 >Re: scanners,
 >Since flatbeds and "pro-sumer" dedicated film scanners are on somewhat of
 >a collision course, I'd expect that in the not-too-distant future, the
 >flatbeds will handle all film formats up to 8x10 with comparable results
 >to those film scanners. There is still a significant difference in quality
 >between the "pro-sumer" film scanners and the high-end drum scanners,
 >though I'm not sure that there is a lot of market force to warrant big
 >improvements to the "pro-sumer" scanners.


I've maintained for a couple of years now
that the market just isn't there for newer,
better film scanners, either 35 mm or MF.
The window for that market is slipping
away, if it hasn't already vanished.

In the last couple of years we've seen the
introduction of the Minolta 5400 (for 35
mm) and the Nikon 9000 (for MF). The Nikon
is for all purposes an incremental improvement
and cost-reduction relative to the machine
it replaces.

We have seen several mid-line, moderately
price flatbed scanners introduced with very
high resolution claims, but with mediocre
performance on film. (Eg. $450, 4800 dpi
advertised, <2000 dpi effective.)

I personally would love to see a new Nikon
filmscanner for 4x5, but I'm not holding
my breath.

The drum scan industry is moribund, at best --
treading water and struggling to stay afloat.
Used Howteks sell for $2k or less on eBay.


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Neil Gould <neil.RemoveThis@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:

 >
 > Re: processing,
 > Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve film-based
 > point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is the same for
 > those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority of digital shooters
 > don't print their images at all, I don't expect to see any big changes for
 > quite some time.


I think this will depend on your local market. If you're in a big city
somebody will still have the volume to process 120. OTOH if you're in a
smaller area then the volume might not exist. Mail order? Think about how
many labs handle sheet film versus how many handle smaller sizes. Same
chemicals but not everybody does all formats. For those of us doing our own
no real change.

 >
 > Re: scanners,
 > Since flatbeds and "pro-sumer" dedicated film scanners are on somewhat of
 > a collision course, I'd expect that in the not-too-distant future, the
 > flatbeds will handle all film formats up to 8x10 with comparable results
 > to those film scanners. There is still a significant difference in quality
 > between the "pro-sumer" film scanners and the high-end drum scanners,
 > though I'm not sure that there is a lot of market force to warrant big
 > improvements to the "pro-sumer" scanners.


I think the whole home digital darkroom market is heading for a cliff.


Nick<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Quest0029 wrote:

 > But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
 > format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.

I would be surprised if scanner development came to a halt, or even
ceased. There is so much film of the past, and that film is a great
resource of images. I see no reason for people to dismiss images of the
past just because they were not digital capture.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin RemoveThis @verizon.net> posted:

 > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
 > <neil RemoveThis @myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
 > [...]
  >>
  >> Re: processing,
  >> Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve
  >> film-based point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is
  >> the same for those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority
  >> of digital shooters don't print their images at all, I don't expect
  >> to see any big changes for quite some time.
 >
 > Other than the simple (but very important)
 > differences in form factor and loading
 > between 35 mm and 120/220. For every
 > 100 rolls of the former, typical labs
 > might see one of the latter.
 >
As long as the capability exists to load and bulk-process multiple
formats, I can't see where the form factor will diminish the availability
of MF processing.

  >> Re: scanners,
  >> Since flatbeds and "pro-sumer" dedicated film scanners are on
  >> somewhat of a collision course, I'd expect that in the
  >> not-too-distant future, the flatbeds will handle all film formats up
  >> to 8x10 with comparable results to those film scanners. There is
  >> still a significant difference in quality between the "pro-sumer"
  >> film scanners and the high-end drum scanners, though I'm not sure
  >> that there is a lot of market force to warrant big improvements to
  >> the "pro-sumer" scanners.
 >
 > I've maintained for a couple of years now
 > that the market just isn't there for newer,
 > better film scanners, either 35 mm or MF.
 > The window for that market is slipping
 > away, if it hasn't already vanished.
 >
You'll know it's "slipping" or "vanished" when new scanner models are sold
without the capability to scan film. That doesn't appear to be the current
trend, especially for "pro-sumer" flatbeds.

[...]
 > We have seen several mid-line, moderately
 > price flatbed scanners introduced with very
 > high resolution claims, but with mediocre
 > performance on film. (Eg. $450, 4800 dpi
 > advertised, <2000 dpi effective.)
 >
Inexpensive consumer scanners are one thing. However, if you look at the
ArtixScan, Creo, and other mid-range flatbeds, I think you'd find that
their film scanning performance is actually pretty decent.

 > I personally would love to see a new Nikon
 > filmscanner for 4x5, but I'm not holding
 > my breath.
 >
Take a look at the better flatbeds for 4x5 and larger.

Neil<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Neil Gould wrote:

 > Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin DeleteThis @verizon.net> posted:
 >
 >
  >>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
  >><neil DeleteThis @myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
  >>[...]
  >>
   >>>Re: processing,
   >>>Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve
   >>>film-based point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is
   >>>the same for those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority
   >>>of digital shooters don't print their images at all, I don't expect
   >>>to see any big changes for quite some time.
  >>
  >>Other than the simple (but very important)
  >>differences in form factor and loading
  >>between 35 mm and 120/220. For every
  >>100 rolls of the former, typical labs
  >>might see one of the latter.
  >>
 >
 > As long as the capability exists to load and bulk-process multiple
 > formats, I can't see where the form factor will diminish the availability
 > of MF processing.

When most mini-lab operators either don't know or won't admit that their
machine can process 120 just as easily as 35 mm, the capability may as
well be gone. The minilab machinery I used to occasionally patronize at
a local Costco was the same model equipment that had been doing my 120
C-41 before I moved 30+ miles from the shop I'd been going into, but the
operators swore up and down they couldn't process anything but 35 mm and
APS. For my purposes, they couldn't, even though the machine was
clearly capable.

--
The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use
whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative
objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions.
-- Ansel Adams

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://silent1.home.netcom.com" target="_blank">http://silent1.home.netcom.com</a>

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Quest0029 wrote:

 > But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
 > format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.


Yep, everyone will soon destroy any film images they have and only accept
digitally captured ones as "real" photography. All bow to digital capture!
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Hi,

"Donald Qualls" <silent1.RemoveThis@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:yl9ed.356$hr3.24099@twister.southeast.rr.com...
 > Neil Gould wrote:
  > > As long as the capability exists to load and bulk-process multiple
  > > formats, I can't see where the form factor will diminish the
availability
  > > of MF processing.
 >
 > When most mini-lab operators either don't know or won't admit that their
 > machine can process 120 just as easily as 35 mm, the capability may as
 > well be gone. The minilab machinery I used to occasionally patronize at
 > a local Costco was the same model equipment that had been doing my 120
 > C-41 before I moved 30+ miles from the shop I'd been going into, but the
 > operators swore up and down they couldn't process anything but 35 mm and
 > APS. For my purposes, they couldn't, even though the machine was
 > clearly capable.
 >
I agree with you that one may not be able to obtain processing as easily in
some locations. The same thing is true of many products; for example, in the
major city where I live, auto dealerships have been moving out to suburban
locations.So, for certain makes, one could have a 30+ mile drive to the
dealership. It would be unreasonable to extrapolate that inconvenience into
the demise of automobiles.

--
Neil Gould
------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terratu.com" target="_blank">www.terratu.com</a>
Technical Graphics & Media<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Donald Qualls wrote:

 > Neil Gould wrote:
 >
  >> Recently, rafe bustin <rafe.bustin.RemoveThis@verizon.net> posted:
  >>
  >>
   >>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
   >>> <neil.RemoveThis@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
   >>> [...]
   >>>
   >>>> Re: processing,
   >>>> Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve
   >>>> film-based point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is
   >>>> the same for those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority
   >>>> of digital shooters don't print their images at all, I don't expect
   >>>> to see any big changes for quite some time.
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> Other than the simple (but very important)
   >>> differences in form factor and loading
   >>> between 35 mm and 120/220. For every
   >>> 100 rolls of the former, typical labs
   >>> might see one of the latter.
   >>>
  >>
  >> As long as the capability exists to load and bulk-process multiple
  >> formats, I can't see where the form factor will diminish the availability
  >> of MF processing.
 >
 >
 > When most mini-lab operators either don't know or won't admit that their
 > machine can process 120 just as easily as 35 mm, the capability may as
 > well be gone. The minilab machinery I used to occasionally patronize at
 > a local Costco was the same model equipment that had been doing my 120
 > C-41 before I moved 30+ miles from the shop I'd been going into, but the
 > operators swore up and down they couldn't process anything but 35 mm and
 > APS. For my purposes, they couldn't, even though the machine was
 > clearly capable.

The C-41/E-6 machines can do most formats; but the scanner/printer in some
machines need the right adaptor to do 120 or other formats. 2 of 3 places I use
can do 120, the other hasn't purchased the right doohickey for her machine ...
she simply doesn't get enough 120 business... even her own pro work has to go to
her competitor.


Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:02:36 -0700, Gordon Moat <moat.RemoveThis@attglobal.net>
wrote:


 >I would be surprised if scanner development came to a halt, or even
 >ceased. There is so much film of the past, and that film is a great
 >resource of images. I see no reason for people to dismiss images of the
 >past just because they were not digital capture.


I think that most folks who own a worthy
collection of film, in need of scanning,
have already done so, or at least started
the process.

I mean, what exactly are they be waiting for?
While they're waiting, their chromes are fading.

The current lot of 4000 and 5000 dpi scanners
are already getting 90% or more of the detail
and tonality that's there to be had.

Drum scanners are fading out, fast. Just
check out the prices of used Howteks on eBay.
ICG still makes 'em, and Aztek still flogs 'em,
but basically there's one drum scanner sold
for every 100 or 1000 Nikon/Canon/Minolta CCD
film scanners.

Drum scanners that much better than the
newest CCDs? From personal experience
(and lots of other evidence and testimony)
that's simply not the case.

As for Creo flatbeds, you must be joking --
we're talking well in excess of $10K for
the low end models.

I was at Photo Plus Expo yesterday at the
Javits Centery in NY City. Saw some stunning
30" x 45" prints made from Canon 1Ds captures.
Every booth had an Epson 7600 or Epson 4000.
There was far more inkjet paper being sold
than photo paper. Yes, Hassy was there, and
Wista and Arca-Swiss. The latter two booths
weren't drawing much interest. Hassy was
flogging their digital back, and Imacon
scanners. Epson's booth was smack in the
middle of the floor, probably the largest
of all and the busiest. Many stunning
prints there.

But hey, I did pick up a few rolls of
Kodak 120 film "for free."


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

"rafe bustin" <rafe.bustin.RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:99fon0hpcs3umgbpvv9oeh2gsq3iglua9j@4ax.com...

 > I think that most folks who own a worthy
 > collection of film, in need of scanning,
 > have already done so, or at least started
 > the process.

How narrow sighted. You seem to presume they 1) know they have a worthy
collection of negatives and 2) they know of digitizing or care. Hell, most
people with a lot of old negatives have them by accident, by tradition or by
habit and very many of them are of the non-digital age and those negatives
will, if we are lucky,go to the next generation.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

rafe bustin wrote:

 > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:02:36 -0700, Gordon Moat <moat.DeleteThis@attglobal.net>
 > wrote:
 >
 >
  >>I would be surprised if scanner development came to a halt, or even
  >>ceased. There is so much film of the past, and that film is a great
  >>resource of images. I see no reason for people to dismiss images of the
  >>past just because they were not digital capture.
 >
 >
 > I think that most folks who own a worthy
 > collection of film, in need of scanning,
 > have already done so, or at least started
 > the process.
 >
 > I mean, what exactly are they be waiting for?
 >

Better scanners? The scanners get better every year just like digital
capture does. Or do you think the newest nikon MF scanners are no better
than what was being sold 5 years ago? And you think in 2-3 years they won't
have something equally improved on the market?

--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:32:27 -0500, "jjs" <jjs.TakeThisOut@x.x.com> wrote:

 >"rafe bustin" <rafe.bustin.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote in message
 >news:99fon0hpcs3umgbpvv9oeh2gsq3iglua9j@4ax.com...
 >
  >> I think that most folks who own a worthy
  >> collection of film, in need of scanning,
  >> have already done so, or at least started
  >> the process.
 >
 >How narrow sighted. You seem to presume they 1) know they have a worthy
 >collection of negatives and 2) they know of digitizing or care. Hell, most
 >people with a lot of old negatives have them by accident, by tradition or by
 >habit and very many of them are of the non-digital age and those negatives
 >will, if we are lucky,go to the next generation.


You're fiddling with the context.
This being an MF forum, I do take for
granted above-average awareness and
interest in the issues.

The point was the potential market
for better film scanners from here
on out.

What might get these films digitized
would be cheap and fast batch scanning
capabilities. But the issue here will
be speed, cost, convenience -- not quality.

It's equally a stretch to suppose that
these photographic gems, long lost in
a shoebox in some hot attic or damp
basement, will benefit from some future
20,000 dpi Nikon or Tango film scanner.



rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first 

Hi,

"Stacey" <fotocord.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2u3gkjF25d7r1U3@uni-berlin.de...
 > rafe bustin wrote:
 >
  > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:02:36 -0700, Gordon Moat <moat.DeleteThis@attglobal.net>
  > > wrote:
  > >
  > >
   > >>I would be surprised if scanner development came to a halt, or even
   > >>ceased. There is so much film of the past, and that film is a great
   > >>resource of images. I see no reason for people to dismiss images of the
   > >>past just because they were not digital capture.
  > >
  > >
  > > I think that most folks who own a worthy
  > > collection of film, in need of scanning,
  > > have already done so, or at least started
  > > the process.
  > >
  > > I mean, what exactly are they be waiting for?
  > >
 >
 > Better scanners? The scanners get better every year just like digital
 > capture does. Or do you think the newest nikon MF scanners are no better
 > than what was being sold 5 years ago? And you think in 2-3 years they
won't
 > have something equally improved on the market?
 >
If not, the current models should be quite cheap by then!

I don't think that the demand for scanners will taper off any time soon. As
in many other mass-marketed products, we'll likely see some improvement in
features and capabililty along with a reduction in price. My original point
was that the technology used for mid-range flatbeds and "pro-sumer" film
scanners is basically the same. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see true
4,000 dpi film scanning in flatbeds in the next 2-3 years, since the CCD
technology is already available today. Eventually, that will be the selling
point for mid-range flatbeds. At that point, one could do 8x10s as easily as
MF. The question is whether or not dedicated film scanners could compete
with such a product, which I suspect is why we don't see such flatbed
incarnations now.

--
Neil Gould
------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terratu.com" target="_blank">www.terratu.com</a>
Technical Graphics & Media<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: The film won't die first