I AGREE WITH MOOSE!
AG
On Saturday, August 28, 2010, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|