Simple Scanning. Valoi 360 Advancer and Film Holders
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- VALOI FILM SLIDER (10% DISCOUNT)
valoi.kamerast...
Zeapon Micro 2 SLIDER
www.pergear.co...
Like this video? Want to buy me a coffee or a roll of film or generally just support the channel?
Now you can. Cheers!
www.buymeacoff...
QUICK LINKS
Simple Scanning. Valoi 360 Advancer and Film Holders
SFLaB Hoodies & Merch
/ @shootfilmlikeaboss
SFLaB BEGINNERS GUIDE TO FILM PHOTOGRAPHY & DARKROOM
payhip.com/b/RtMY
JOIN SFLaB UA-cam COMMUNITY MEMBERS AREA
/ @shootfilmlikeaboss
SUPPORT MY CHANNEL ON PATREON
/ shootfilmlikeaboss
ORIGINAL PRINTS FOR SALE
www.etsy.com/u...
THE SFLaB WEBSITE
www.rogerlowe....
FACEBOOK
/ shootfilmlikeaboss
INSTAGRAM
/ shootfilmlikeaboss
ABOUT THIS VIDEO
Introducing the NEW Valoi 360 Advancer and Film Holders.
EQUIPMENT USED
CAMERA -
FILM -
DEVELOPER -
STOP & FIX - Fotospeed
ENLARGER - DURST M605
PAPER -
DEVELOPER -
STOP & FIX - FOTOSPEED
PRODUCTION GEAR
CANON 6D, GOPRO 7 BLACK, TASCAM DR10L MIC, SENHEISSER SHOTGUN MIC,
NEEWER LED PANELS, GVM COLOUR PANELS,
Editing - FCP, PHOTOSHOP, LIGHTROOM
ABOUT MY VIDEOS
If my videos inspire, create ideas and help others in film photography and darkroom work then it's worth making them.
I always welcome comments that are useful towards the video subject that will help others understand the process within.
Keep shooting and thanks for watching.
MUSIC CREDITING
UA-cam Studio Music
Cool idea, looks like a good solution but that price seems quite steep. 😳
I've seen these on other channels. Looks pretty interesting and actually just what I need. Waiting till July is fine by me, I'll just rack up a heap of negative to scan!!! :D
I use their medium format film holder and it works great! I didn't get the roller device though! I have a Negative Supply 4x5 light source that the film holder fits on perfectly! The scans come out great!
I still use it
Companies sending their gear to test and use...this is the beginning of fame Roger 🎉🥳🍻🎉🥳🍻
Thanks for this -- looks like a good solution and allows for a quick workflow.
Frankly nothing beats DSLR scanning nowadays for 35mm -- not flatbeds, dedicated film scanners or anything.
Depends what you are doing, if you are not printing. You don't need a proper scanner. If you are printing, then you do need a real scanner. Digital cameras have bayer sensors, scanners have trilinear sensors. This means that your 30MP bayer sensor has 15MP of green, 7.5MP of blue and 7.5MP of red. While a 30MP scanned image has 30MP of green, 30MP of blue and 30mp of red.
You can mitigate this by scanning using a camera that does pixel shifting. But you still end up with inferior optical path, as linear scanners only use the center of the optics and have higher microcontrast because only a tiny amount of the negative is illuminated at a given time. Scanners also often use condenser light paths, that are superior to diffuse sources in microcontrast.
And then if you compare the ultimate, drum scanners. That have the optical path of a microscope, nothing can compare them. They scan 1 pixel at the time. Using only the absolute best center of the topics and only illuminate a tiny spot of the film. Köhler illumination.
So yeah, it all depends on what want to accomplish. But saying that scanning using a bayer sensor is the best way to scan, is simply not understanding what scanners are.
And just to add to this, the problem in bayer sensors is that while they only have 1/3rd of the rated megapixels, they then interpolate the 2/3rd and you get a file with has a lot of interpolated information that you can never remove. The end result lacks microcontrast and color detail. You can see the difference in action, by checking out comparings of pixel shifted images and non pixel shifted images.
This is why scanners use trilinear sensors. They are purpose build machines.
@@Nobody-Nowhere Thanks for the reply. Just to add some background. I've been scanning (35mm) at one time or another since the 90's. I've used pretty much every model of Coolscan, the top end Agfa flatbeds, various desktop Kodak models that weighed a tonne, Epson flatbeds with various wet and dry mounting solutions, Hasselblad Dixels and Imacon/Hasselblad Flextights, various Fujifilm frontier models, and drum solutions from top labs.
Hardware specs are not everything, and software plays a huge role -- my old favourite scanner, a Nikon 5000, gave different results with Nikonscan, Vuescan and Silverfast, and with infinite combinations therein. I've had really bad results from drum scanners too, probabkly due to operator experience.
Workflow speed for so many of these solutions is truly awful - with flatbeds and the various glass mounting systems being the worst. To get the most out the Coolscans you could program multiple passes, but this took ages. Even with the bulk roll feeder a roll would take overnight to do, with a big risk of a crash.
Flatbeds were the biggest disappointment for me. For MF and LF, they may be a better option. For some reason, contrast was just awful, and I couldn't get satisfactory shadow depth, especially from Velvia and Kodachrome. Worst of all, it took ages. I can say that I have never been happy with a result from a flatbed, and that's been with 4 different Epsons and two Agfas.
My best scans out of all of these were from a Flextight X5. Unfortunately the service I used no longer offers Flextight or drum, and it's hard to find good operators nowadays.
For a few years now, I've switched to DSLR scanning, using a Nikon D850 and a Zeiss macro. The workflow is so quick -- I can get a whole roll of 35mm "scanned" and imported into LR in about 30 minutes from start to finish. I find working with RAW and Lightroom is much better than working with TIFF. I've redone some of the slides I did with the Flextight and they are very, very, very close - the Flextight is getting better microcontrast while the DSLR solution gets better shadow detail.
The DSLR beats anything I've ever had scanned on a drum scanner, on a flatbed or a coolscan. The biggest problem with DSLR scanning is dust, and the lack of a DigitalICE solution.
Finally, I also think a lot of these differences tend to also get exaggerated in forums. For printing, I've seen 20 year old scans from a Nikon Ls-2000 (2048x) printed at 3m x 2m for outdoor exhibitions, alongside prints from scans done with a DSLR and even a Dixel (1024x !!!). With a good operator who can handle post-processing well, you can get spectacular results.
From my perspective, I'm getting the best results I've ever had from DSLR scanning, and it's significantly faster too.
@@ssmith954 Yes, flatbeds are horrible. Expect the professional ones with multiple quality optics. I too have used every machine there is, and i never use the scanning software. I use photoshop. In the end, the softwares these scanner come with are just low quality image editors. All of them allow full raw output. Most of them were designed for the purpose of outputting an 8bit image, because old machines could not handle full sized 16bit files.
And the whole speed issue... how many photos you actually use from a roll of film? Not many. If you do, better to shoot digital in the first place.. it suits that style of workflow much better.
I have rarely seen good inkjets from film. And would never print 3m x 2m from a nikon ls2000 :) Upscaling kills the print. I have scanned up to 1.5gigapixels from a 35mm negative, because i dont upscale for prints. I scan at the print resolution, as thats the way you get quality prints. It might be, that you have never seen what film & inkjet can do. Most people have not. Because the tools for this do not really exists, and i had to create them for my use.
I also do all my scanning myself, so i know how to use these machines. And what you need to do to get the scan you need. I dont rely on operators. I just saddens me to see horrible prints from film, because people are stuck in the past or too lazy. And how scanning speed is even a consideration when making prints. Some of my drum scans take over 12 hours, for one scan. I dont cut corners, i dont think anyone taking their craft seriously should. If you actually exhibit prints, have some self criticism.
But these holders are not made for what you described. If you want to make 2x3m prints from your digital scans on nikon ls2000.. then you are talking about something totally different. If that look tickles you, maybe its your thing. To me its just waste of time, and a spit to the spectators face. As i know you need 1.5gigapixels for a print that larger. I have made one, and i know the difference. The workflow on scanning & inkjet, actually offers some real benefits, compare to wet prints (when you go over about 1m print size, optical enlargements start to loose in detail against what inkjets can do) & digital/inkjet.
But these holders are not made for this, what they try to do is promise fast & easy. But do not really deliver that. As now you need to set up your camera, your light etc. Not to mention, purchase a quality 1:1 copy lens. And getting that lens parallel to that holder is pretty much impossible. So i have seen people stop down their lenses to like f11. So diffraction eats what was left.
@@ssmith954 Ill add one thing to this, why i think scanning & inkjet should be done to the max possible quality. It simply because the wet prints you could do, are so far superior in quality (about under 1 meter prints). One reason i like this channel, that he does wet prints. Scanning is kinda always the lazy route, so if you take it.. at least give it all you got.
I think these scanner holders are ripping people off, no inbuilt light source... no way to align your lens with the surface of the film.. just the bare minimum of a film holder. How hard it would have been to put an adjustable stand on that for your lens? So your lens would always be perfectly parallel to the film. How much it would have costed to put a nice led light source of that? Every one of these holder was made in such a hurry to take out the profits when they realized people pay hundreds for a film holder.
Absolutely, heavily overpriced pieces of equipment that are not a complete solution. And not even keeping the 120 film flat if it is a curly one, from what I’ve seen in another video.
@John ok no one said it was as expensive as Negative Supply, but that it is overpriced for what it does, as good as it is as a holder. Btw, with the accessories, it comes much closer to Negative Supply holder. 25 USD for a role??? For that price, consider buying a used Fuji Frontier or Noritsu on a mid-term period. Plustek is 250 USD and works perfectly for 135, it is not that expensive.
The point is - prices are going down with each new holder that does what the one more expensive did before, it will pay out to wait a bit more. Cheers
@John ok it seems you read my comment, but still did not get the point. I am not saying there is better value for money at the moment, I am following-up OP’s comment and stating that there are new holders coming every few months. Also - hopefully, the prices will continue going down, as this seems as an insane price for what it does in its complete package. I don’t care if if it is called NS or Valoi or whatever. I am approaching it exclusively from a point of view of a consumer, looking for a most practical option that makes financial sense and I am not involved emotionally (as I would conclude you are, based on your comments). It is just a product of a company that wants to make as much money as possible with the idea they have, not really worth further arguing like it is a life changing product. Cheers
@John ok and BTW - I am still shocked you are paying 25 USD for scanning a film and continue to shoot it. Respect for that.
@John ok ah, OK - you are doing this commercially, I am doing it as a hobby. Big difference. I cannot transfer the expense to the client.
Would love to see a comparison between this and the essential film holder.
Thanks for this info Roger, but I'll stick to my old flatbed for scanning my negs. Take care.
Crackin little bit of equipment :-)
A useful thing! Thank you!
Thanks, looks amazing!
Definately getting the 35 and 120 holders myself. I dont do enough scanning to justify the advance system thought. Should go perfect with my existing light table, diffuser and copy stand.
What kind of diffuser do you use if I may ask?
@@Asn820 I have the essential film holder system but with different masks.
The tripod has been excellent for scanning dslr Janne.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Great to hear. I was lucky and awhile ago found a old pentax copy stand that is perfect for dslr scanning.
Just got one of these, but beware you’ll be charged a further £53 to cover import duty and VAT! This means that with delivery your paying £76 more so over it is expensive.
NIce,...but i think the Essential FIlm Holder provides a better value for money
Nice unit but extremely expensive. Almost $600.00 Canadian dollars. Even with the high film prices, I can buy a lot of film for $600.00. Makes manually positioning negatives worth the time and effort.
I use a scanner but this would be much faster. The price is pretty good too. Thanks for sharing.
I 'm no photographer but I understand some film shooter shoots film because of the look that is very different from bayer filter look. So why then subjecting your film to the bayer filter interpolation instead of buying or using affordable full rgb color dedicated scanner.
Hey Ibrahim. For me personally I make my prints in the darkroom. This tool is great for me to quickly reference my negs and also digitise to show on the channel using my DSLR as the capture device. Good scanners are not cheap. So it's also an affordable choice for those that have a DSLR I guess.
This sounds interesting but once all the costs are added up it starts to get pricey ( damn Nikon for discontinuing the Coolscan ED series ). Strictly speaking these gadgets are not to scan a film but to get a digital photo of the negative. Also, I have yet to see one that addresses the problem of the film sagging under its own weight, in particular the 120 film. This is probably more of a shortcoming of the 120 film itself, but I doubt if Kodak or Ilford are going to redesign the 120 just that we could get it flat through a ' film scanner '. Thanks for posting this introduction.
@John ok Just that scanners use trilinear sensors. And cameras use bayer sensors. There is a huge difference there. A scanner will provide full RGB data, a bayer only gives out 1/3rd of the rated megapixels. This is why scanners use trilinear sensors, and not single shot bayer sensors.
Not to mention the light path, that i went in more detail on some other comments under this video. Scanners are purpose built machines, for the exact thing they do.
@John ok The problem is, that scanning is really a thing most people do not understand at all. And it shows in these products, that people who made this didn't really understand scanning that well. Its not like things like this are a new thing, we have had slide copy rigs for ages. The least they could do, is make it attachable to the lens.. to keep it parallel (the most important thing in repro photography), and to have bellows to block out stray light etc. Like the absolute basics, but because they lack the understanding.. they cant do it.
@John ok Yes, i went on detail about this also. Its about what you use it for. Just pointed out that there is a massive difference between sensors.
If you do not print, you most likely don't essentially need a scanner. But then again, if you dont print... then essentially any horrible flatbed is easier, as you can just scan the whole roll in one go contact print style. So essentially, repro photographing negatives is also a mid level solution.
Also,t negativelabs does not have anything i would like to see on these, its also a table top film holder. The main issues are the same, getting your lens parallel to the film. All the excess light etc. Having a separate lightsource, masking it off etc etc. Things that could be so easily solved, if they knew what they were doing.
I think there is a definite place for reprophotoing negs, i just wish the people making these would understand what they are making. So people would not have to content on bad solutions and pay huge money for them. Its not a film hodler people need, they need a reprorig. A nice stand where you can just stick your camera, and everything is perfectly aligned by design. With an inbuilt quality lightsource. None of this is hard to make, or would even cost that much to manufacture.
But i guess they are going to sell all of these parts separately to milk max profits :) I bet soon they will start selling stands, and light sources. And the whole kit will cost something like 500€ :)
I personally print big, so i own a drumscanner. And would not use anything else. As no other method can get the file sizes i need. You need to pick your tools to fit your job.
@John ok One thing also, as i'm on this subject. Scanners can have 16Bit ADC. While digital cameras are even currently max 14bit. 16bit is 4x more tones than 14bit. Especially in b&w.. thats a lot, when you only have one channel.
Something like Minolta 5400, with its 3x40MP output at 16bit... thats a lot more than a 1x40MP bayer at 14bit. Thats enough to for moderate sized prints, and enough for quality books.
@@Nobody-Nowhere Well said. I used to do a lot of deep space imaging, and we had the same issues with people doing terrestrial photography not understanding why a mono ccd with broadband/narrowband filters always, always outperformed a bayer matrix sensor by a vast margin.
No thanks. The pricing is an absolute joke for little more than a toy. They’re having a Steffi Graf, as you might say.
Lol, you're havin' a bubble 😂. (bubble bath)
If you think this is pricey, and it is for what it is, then take a look at the stuff Negative Supply has. Their stuff is literally astronomical in price.
It's too expensive... not worth it.. EFH is the way to go..
To expensive.!