A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The film won't die first



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 22nd 04, 05:33 AM
Quest0029
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The film won't die first

But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.
  #2  
Old October 22nd 04, 11:54 AM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Quest0029 posted:

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

These are puzzling predictions.

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.

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.

Regards,

Neil


  #3  
Old October 22nd 04, 11:54 AM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, Quest0029 posted:

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

These are puzzling predictions.

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.

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.

Regards,

Neil


  #4  
Old October 22nd 04, 02:30 PM
rafe bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Quest0029 posted:

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

These are puzzling predictions.

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.


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.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

  #5  
Old October 22nd 04, 02:30 PM
rafe bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Quest0029 posted:

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

These are puzzling predictions.

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.


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.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

  #6  
Old October 22nd 04, 02:56 PM
Nick Zentena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil Gould wrote:


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.


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
  #7  
Old October 22nd 04, 02:56 PM
Nick Zentena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil Gould wrote:


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.


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
  #8  
Old October 22nd 04, 03:21 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, rafe bustin posted:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]

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.

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


  #9  
Old October 22nd 04, 03:21 PM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Recently, rafe bustin posted:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]

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.

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


  #10  
Old October 22nd 04, 04:06 PM
Donald Qualls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, rafe bustin posted:


On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]

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 http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Upcoming Film Price Wars - Kodak vs. Fuji... Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 63 October 24th 04 06:07 AM
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf Digital Photography 213 July 28th 04 06:30 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Will we always be able to buy film? Phil Glaser In The Darkroom 30 January 28th 04 06:11 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.