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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |