On 8/27/2010 8:00 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
> And yet Ken, whenever someone brings up the notion that camera makers are now
> deliberately trying to kill off film because planned obsolescence makes
> digital that much more profitable, that person is laughed off or shouted down.
You're kidding, right? They make what they think will sell and make them a
profit. The ones who survive are fairly good
at that. They really don't care at all whether they make film or digital
cameras. If there were a significant increase
in film equipment sales, they'd be introducing new film equipment.
The truth is that film is not dead, but it is now a small, niche market, far
too small for mass market companies.
> At the very best, all the big players in the camera markets are indifferent
> toward film and film shooters.
Not indifferent. They'd like them all to switch to digital and buy new
equipment. But uninterested in serving them as a
market too small to be profitable for them.
> Nikon quit making new scanners long ago, and none of the big boys have even
> shown the slightest interest in making a relatively inexpensive, high quality
> scanner. And don't tell me it can't be done, because my Plustek was less than
> $500 and does a reasonably good job.
I'm not sure that's such a great price. It appears that, specs or not, the
actual resolving power is just over 3000 dpi.
Where the 7600 dpi of the specs has gone, I'm not entirely sure. The good news
is that 3200 dpi is the point where many
testers have concluded that there is little more of use to be pulled out of
film. Personally, I have seen subtle
increases in detail on some film images at 4000 vs 3200 dpi, but I can't
imagine they will ever show in web images other
than full at pixel detail or in any printed images .
I wonder how much of the resolution limit is in the optics. After all, it
appears that the scanner dutifully buzzes
away, scanning at 7600 dpi, so it sounds like it out resolves the lens. And,
like the manual film advance, it may be a
consequence of cost minimization. A fixed focus lens design is cheaper than one
that focuses, but may have to sacrifice
resolution to the need for DOF to cover film variations.
> I'm sure with their resources, Nikon or Canon could come up with an even
> better dedicated scanner, at the same price point.
They did come up with much better scanners. Not at the same price point, but
then they have greater resolution,
automated film advance and such. If they had sold in large volumes, they might
well have dropped to $500 or so. So you
think they discontinued them just to "deliberately trying to kill off film"?
They discontinued them because they didn't
sell well enough to be profitable.
> Actually, I take it back, Canon did release their Canoscan 9000f this year,
> so they are at least showing a passing interest.
Actually, there are two makers of new flatbed scanners with high end film
capability, Canon, with the 9000F and Epson
with the V700 and V750. These are pretty good scanners, but have the same
problem as the Plustek, less resolution in
practice than the specs would seem to indicate. My flatbed 9950F, scanning at
4800 dpi, actually resolves slightly less
detail than the FS4000 dedicated 35mm film scanner at 4000 dpi. They also tend
to soften edge contrast, requiring more
post processing to see the full resolution.
The BIG advantage over something like the Plustek is time. My first film
scanner had manual film advance, which led to
really slow work flow and being tied to the computer as it works. I don't know
the capacity of the 9000F, but the 9950F
will handle 12 slides or up to 30 frames of cut film at a time. That means you
can set everything up in preview, then
set it to scanning without supervision.
The other advantage of the 9950F and the Epsons is the ability to scan larger
and different film sizes. For someone with
films in formats of various sizes, they are a big deal.
The truth is that there are great film scanners available at good prices, but
they are all used. A lot of people bought
them and either found they didn't use them or finished scanning their film and
then put them up for sale. I bought both
my current 35mm film and flatbed film scanners used, in perfect visual and
operating condition.
If I were looking for a 35mm film scanner today, I'd be looking for a clean
Canon FS4000. The superior DOF, and thus no
focus issues, is an advantage over the Nikon and Minoltas and the lack of flare
an advantage over the Nikons. For larger
volume, it's the Nikons with roll film and/or slide feeders.
Another option is a slide copier on a DSLR. I had some decent results with the
80/4 Auto, Auto Bellows and Slide Copier,
all hung on a 5D. Practical resolution for older film was about the same as the
FS4000. With a higher resolution camera,
it might well do better. Still, manual film advance and lack of IR cleaning
make it less effective than a scanner.
> Just one of the many reasons why I'm keen on learning traditional darkroom
> printing.
Have fun!
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|