Prev: Now, the next BIG contest is ON!
Next: Pentax makes DSLR profit
From: Castor Nageur on 15 May 2010 17:01
Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> �crivait
news:qu5mu5l55lgvpt5oaerpvt9k6lpbcs4jk8(a)4ax.com:


> "The law of supply and demand."
>
> If more people want something than the supply available, the price
> rises until the demand drops. There is nothing new about that.

You are probably right.
I got my scanner on eBay but before buying it, I watched some of them to
get an idea of the price.
And I was suprised to see that many people (14 to 20 ebayers) put a bid on
it (which of course raise the final price).


From: Castor Nageur on 15 May 2010 17:17
"GM1925" <abc(a)xyz.co.me> �crivait
news:T5adnWu3AtbWfHbWnZ2dnUVZ8rydnZ2d(a)pipex.net:

> Just to add, the technology has been there for a while. Don't forget
> ILM had to get the video footage onto their SGI's before adding their
> 'magic'. Although, of course they were dealing with big uncut rolls of
> film and were possibly scanning at lower resolutions.
>
> Ironically, I knew of a company that used to ship their rolls of film
> to France to convert to digital quite a while back. The French
> company would process the film, tape the rolls together and batch scan
> them.
>
> The reality though is that companies would have to be crazy to go
> through this process now-a-days, but there are still two distinct
> markets out there for film scanners. Consumers who want to convert
> old film to digital themselves and businesses who would provide a
> service to convert the film to digital for them (but not at
> astronomical prices).
>
> In both cases, the chances are that the film would have already been
> cut in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, the solution would be
> to develop a film scanner that is capable of automated loading and
> scanning 4/6 strips of negs, whereby you batch load them, press the
> scan button and let the scanner/computer do all the work.

Thanks for your very interesting post about film scanners technologies.
As far as I am concerned, I am a just a no-professional who want to convert
all his old family films to digital pictures. I do not need to batch
because I have some time to do it. I even prefer doing it manually because
some photos will need the ROC filter and some will not.

As you said, nowadays it is very difficult to find a film scanner at
affordable price so that's why I bought mine on eBay.
Many people probably had the same idea and I suppose that's why this film
scanner (Nikon Coolscan V ED) is now more expensive than the brand new
price when it was sold.
Again as you said, the photo companies seems to have abandonned the film
scanner technology to make some researches on digital cameras.


From: Ted Nolan <tednolan> on 15 May 2010 17:51
In article <XnF9D79ECE3175AFNageur(a)212.27.60.40>,
Castor Nageur <castor.nageur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>"GM1925" <abc(a)xyz.co.me> �crivait
>news:T5adnWu3AtbWfHbWnZ2dnUVZ8rydnZ2d(a)pipex.net:
>
>> Just to add, the technology has been there for a while. Don't forget
>> ILM had to get the video footage onto their SGI's before adding their
>> 'magic'. Although, of course they were dealing with big uncut rolls of
>> film and were possibly scanning at lower resolutions.
>>
>> Ironically, I knew of a company that used to ship their rolls of film
>> to France to convert to digital quite a while back. The French
>> company would process the film, tape the rolls together and batch scan
>> them.
>>
>> The reality though is that companies would have to be crazy to go
>> through this process now-a-days, but there are still two distinct
>> markets out there for film scanners. Consumers who want to convert
>> old film to digital themselves and businesses who would provide a
>> service to convert the film to digital for them (but not at
>> astronomical prices).
>>
>> In both cases, the chances are that the film would have already been
>> cut in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, the solution would be
>> to develop a film scanner that is capable of automated loading and
>> scanning 4/6 strips of negs, whereby you batch load them, press the
>> scan button and let the scanner/computer do all the work.
>
>Thanks for your very interesting post about film scanners technologies.
>As far as I am concerned, I am a just a no-professional who want to convert
>all his old family films to digital pictures. I do not need to batch
>because I have some time to do it. I even prefer doing it manually because
>some photos will need the ROC filter and some will not.
>
>As you said, nowadays it is very difficult to find a film scanner at
>affordable price so that's why I bought mine on eBay.
>Many people probably had the same idea and I suppose that's why this film
>scanner (Nikon Coolscan V ED) is now more expensive than the brand new
>price when it was sold.
>Again as you said, the photo companies seems to have abandonned the film
>scanner technology to make some researches on digital cameras.
>
>

I got a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 about two years ago. I'm pretty happy
with it, but just be aware even if you "have some time to do it", these
things are *SLOW*. I guess my thought before actually looking into buying
a scanner was that you would engage the sprockets on your 35mm strips
and it would feed them in, frame them and scan them bam bam bam.

Even after I realized I would have to load the negative strips two
at a time into the trays and frame them myself, I figured each tray
would go pretty quickly. Instead, I figure it takes about 2 hours
to go through a roll of 24 exposures...


Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
From: Castor Nageur on 16 May 2010 05:13
ted(a)loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) �crivait
news:858ja4Fvk8U2(a)mid.individual.net:

> I got a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 about two years ago. I'm pretty
> happy with it, but just be aware even if you "have some time to do
> it", these things are *SLOW*. I guess my thought before actually
> looking into buying a scanner was that you would engage the sprockets
> on your 35mm strips and it would feed them in, frame them and scan
> them bam bam bam.
>
> Even after I realized I would have to load the negative strips two
> at a time into the trays and frame them myself, I figured each tray
> would go pretty quickly. Instead, I figure it takes about 2 hours
> to go through a roll of 24 exposures...

I found this Nikon accessory : I suppose you need to have an uncut film
roll, you load in into the charger and everything is done automatically:

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/INKSA30.html

All my films are cut in strips of 4 frames so this would not work for me.
From: Neil Harrington on 16 May 2010 17:44

"Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote in message
news:2f7mu5h21ve14lu9m0upbhh5cl46c18816(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:14:26 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <qu5mu5l55lgvpt5oaerpvt9k6lpbcs4jk8(a)4ax.com>, Gary Edstrom
>><GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have an CoolScan 9000 ED that I purchased in March of 2005. I still
>>> have a use for it, so I am not planning on selling it anytime soon. I
>>> have really liked it. It has done a great job. The only down side is
>>> that it only supports the FireWire interface.
>>
>>why is firewire a downside? it's faster and more reliable than usb.
>
> Because fewer and fewer new computers are providing FireWire support.
> Yes, I know that you can get adapters, but it's nice when the capability
> is built-in. Currently, the only computer I have that can talk to it is
> a Sony VAIO that I purchased in 2002. None of my 3 newer computers have
> the support.

If you build your own PCs it isn't a problem. The last three motherboards I
bought, over the last year or two, all have 1394 (FireWire) built in, both a
port on the back I/O panel and also a connector on the motherboard for a
case-front port. Many new computer cases come with the front 1394 port and
wiring already in place.

Dunno about laptops though as I have little use for those.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Now, the next BIG contest is ON!
Next: Pentax makes DSLR profit