Tim Heubeck, over at the Waste of Film channel on Youtube, has made a great video detailing the Film Toaster, a platform for using your DSLR to scan film. DSLR scanning has rapidly become a preferred way to capture negatives with a potentially higher quality than a traditional flatbed. The Film Toaster brings attempts to make this process easier, but with a $1699 price tag that may turn off potential investors.
One of the most important points that Heubeck hammers home is that the Film Toaster, first and foremost, a platform. It isn't a one button press solution that does everything for you. You'll still need to know how to use a macro lens and most post process your images. However, probably the most important part is that you need to have your own camera and lenses to use the apparatus.
To use the Film Toaster, you attach your own camera and lens to the device, place your film in the holders, and shoot macro shots of your negatives or slides. The benefit of using the toaster as opposed to a tripod and light box is that with the toaster your scans are more consistent, as every aspect is in a locked configuration, and you can shoot in a well lit room as the device itself will block stray light. You'll then bring those images into your image editor of choice to invert and post process to your liking. DSLR scanning, as shown previously by our own Quentin Decaillet, has been shown to give much sharper results that flatbed scanning, comparable even with drum scans, so this platform can certainly maximize the quality of yor images while streamlining the process.
As cool as this sounds, there are a couple of issues I could see rearing their ugly heads. First of all, because the resolution of the image is camera dependent, the higher the resolution of your camera and sharper your lens, the better your results will be. So in addition the high price of the machine, you also have to add on the cost of the camera and lens you'll be using. It would be easy to mitigate this issue if you had some freedom to move the holder laterally in the holder, enabling you to take many more shots of the image and stitch them together in post, increasing the resolution of the slide. If you were scanning 4x5 film, you'd still be able to do this, but with 120 film it's not as easy. The problem is not as important with 35mm film as the size of the film itself limits its potential resolution.
I tried DSLR scanning a while back and, while it was effective, the process was a bit clunky. This device would definitely streamline the workflow and make it more bearable. I'm just not convinced that that ease of use is worth a $1699 price tag. Perhaps if you're constantly sending away for drum scans this would be cost effective. Maybe I'll get my hands on one at some point to test it out, but in the meantime, the video is very well done and equally comprehensive. If you scan your own film do you think the Film Toaster would be worth the price of entry? The Film Toaster is available at $1299 with no holders and $1699 fully equipped. Sound off in the comments!
I read thru the article and thought, this would be great, my grandmother and mother has probably more then a 100k negatives wich I at some point want to digitalize. I really did think id buy this gadget.
Then the bomb was dropped. 1200? What the actuall fuck? Cardboard box, light table, tripod and a darkroom it is for me....
Nothing you can't do with a bellows and slide copier you can pick up for anywhere between $150-300:
http://tinyurl.com/glzx4tf
You can rephotograph medium format film by simply placing it against a light panel.
LOL!!! You could get two of Epson v800 for this price. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083200-REG/epson_b11b223201_perf...
This box is worth no more than $50
Yeah, but flatbed scanners suck at scanning film, especially 35mm film which needs significant enlargement. As a matter of fact, modern film scanners suck at it too, and the reason for all of them is that they're all pre-focused units. Modern scanners no longer focus on the film plane. They also don't have glass carriers to maintain film flat across the focused plane. The last great scanner is the long-discontinued Nikon Coolscan 9000.
Not that I think this unit is worth it, it's not.
I wish I could afford market price for used Nikon 9000...
There is a company (http://www.betterscanning.com) that makes holders which allow you to "focus" by adjusting holder hight. They also have solutions for flattening the negs, including ANR glass.
Still almost half the price and doesn't require dSLR so 1/3 of the price ;)
The third-party film holders will only be beneficial if the focus plane on the scanner is high enough to give you the option to fine-tune the focus. If the scanner's focus point is lying too low then the third-party holder will not be of any help...
...and therein lies the rub with these pre-focused scanners, it's a hit and miss affair. and additional complication is that they may go in and/or out of focus as they glide down the rails. I suppose you may be able to bring one to a local tech shop and have the focus plane adjusted and optimized, but that's yet another expense. In these times it may be the only real option left.
I agree about the Coolscan pricing. I saw a (supposedly) new one the other day going for $5000!
Yeah, there's no way I could justify that price. My V700, though not ideal, is still putting out adequate scans. If I need more sharpness for whatever reason I could always DSLR scan it with a conventional setup for that once in a blue moon use.
The thing is that today there is no real benefit of using film, other than nostalgia for the process. Similarly to shooting digital, usually there is no need for high resolution image because they will end up on a web, and all the benefit of high resolution is lost...
The only clear benefit to shooting film is its archival quality. I love to shoot film, but I believe digital is a technically superior medium. I just love the process of film, particularly large format. As to really high resolutions, I'd agree that most people dont need it and it's overkill for the majority of users.
"The only clear benefit to shooting film is its archival quality."
There's no truth to this. Film requires careful storage in order for it not to be damaged. I have plenty of damaged negs and chromes, either damaged by my own careless handling, or by unforeseen conditions that damaged them. Many great photographic works from the turn of the last century, both still and motion, have been forever lost because the film disintegrated for one reason or another.
The same applies to digital storage. Both mediums need to be properly cared for and looked after in order to preserve the images recorded, but the bottom line is that film has absolutely zero archival advantage over digital.
I don't agree completely here. While there is always a chance for damaged negatives or slides, with digital, there's a larger chance for catastrophic failure of the device holding the images, as well as a lack of consistency in said storage. How many old images are kept on old ide drives that cant be read by current systems? Of course, those images could be transferred to a newer storage medium, but that introduces another potential moment of failure. Also, if I want to take a look at negs or slides from 20 years ago, all I need to do is hold it up to the light. Digital images from 10 years ago need to be accessed and searched. Now all of this isn't to say that film is "better" for archiving, but there are benefits.
"While there is always a chance for damaged negatives or slides, with digital, there's a larger chance for catastrophic failure of the device holding the images, as well as a lack of consistency in said storage. How many old images are kept on old ide drives that cant be read by current systems?
As I said, both mediums need to be properly cared for and looked after in order to preserve the images recorded. They both need to be addressed properly. Neglect is not excuse for blaming the technology, whether it be analog or digital.
"Of course, those images could be transferred to a newer storage medium, but that introduces another potential moment of failure."
Again, not true. See above.
" Also, if I want to take a look at negs or slides from 20 years ago, all I need to do is hold it up to the light. Digital images from 10 years ago need to be accessed and searched."
That's inconsequential. It has nothing to do with preserving the image.
" Now all of this isn't to say that film is "better" for archiving, but there are benefits."
...as there are benefits to digital. The bottom line is that film is not a superior archival medium, and history has proven that quite well.
Perhaps I should have said that there are benefits and not "the" benefit. I in no way meant to imply that film is a superior medium for archiving but only that it does have some advantages. I do believe that ease of search and access is not inconsequential. Archiving is not only about the integrity of the image but also about how accessible it is. We will have to agree to disagree there.
As to transferring images from one medium to the next, that has little to do with neglect. Any number of things can happen while transferring files from hardware failures, power outages, faulty software and malware. Its not just about whether or not someone was careful.
As I said, digital, by and large, a superior medium. But I do believe that film can shine in some respects, archiving being one of them.
I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I simply don't see an advantage either way. I can call up hundreds or thousands of images in a browser, so one can argue either way about the convenience of sorting through stuff.
Film is tangible. One can look at film and even with negative film (B&W or color) determine what the photo is. With digital, it needs a computer, operating system, digital image viewer, ...
I like this idea in theory, especially since I already own a D800 which could give me great resolution on scanned film, but at $1700 and still needing to shell out for a macro lens until someone comes up with something cheaper, if not better I will stick with my V850. While there is a leaning curve when it comes to scanning with it the results I'm getting now are impressive and the files are large enough to print at native resolution FAR larger than I could with my D800. Maybe Ill spend some of that $1700 on upping my wet scanning game...and my hasselblad set up...and my 4x5...and buying tons of film....and still have some left over.
First, if someone has gone far enough to consider this, they are pretty well committed to the "benefits" of film, which do not include high resolution in the first place. I have a v800 and a PrimeFilm XA (takes rolls of 35mm) and I have used drum scans quite a bit. I can say that there is little difference, and certainly no aesthetic difference, between the average scan I can do at home vs the drum scam. So this thing, at this price, is a non starter.
Second, what is also missing in this discussion is that with DSLR "scanning" you have to "scan" each frame one at a time. My Epson lets me load 18; the PrimeFilm takes the entire roll. I go do something else for a few hours, and they are scanned.
IF I discovered a shot that I absolutely loved, and IF this thing was priced realistically, I could use it to go back and rescan (another "benefit" of film) for a better image. (I already have a D810 and the Zeiss 2/100 macro.)