I bought this some weeks ago, and it was certainly a "buy cheap, buy twice" scenario. Ended up getting Plustek film scanner in the end, which whilst twice the price, produces a much more acceptable quality.
After looking at many reviews, I've decided the Plustek is the way to go for acceptable quality without paying $000's Reviews like this one have pretty much confirmed my choice.
Glad you posted this. I went to a professional shop rather than use a DIY. This vid was very informative and helped me make my decision. And bravo, sir, for this line right here: ‘A great amount of creativity is always borne out of sheer SPITE’ Thanks again. Great review.
Thank you! I appreciate your frankness and your humor! I purchased the new release 7" screen and was so psyched to get started. I checked the first few black and white and color 35mm scans in the gallery and they looked great. Full speed ahead and onto 110 film and slides. Everything looked great on the screen as I was scanning. The detail was amazing on the 110 scans. Nearly 1,000 scans later I inserted the SD card into my computer. What a let down! Some captures were good. Many were poor quality or greenish or reddish or dark. ?????????? They had all looked awesome on the screen!! I want my many, many hours back!! Clearly, my expectations were unrealistic. Pulled my V600 out of the box and set it up for some real scanning. I had not given it the respect it deserved, setting it aside for flashy, easy Kodak glam girl. I won't say the Kodak scanner was a waste of money, though. It gives me a quick and easy way of seeing what I have and helps me decide what I want to do with each frame. Thank you for helping me to get real about what it can and can't do. 🌿
I have a wolverine scanner that is similar to the scanza. It's fun to play with, but the quality is similar to these Kodak modals. The one thing I like about these small units is that I can pre scan or view negatives to find things. I recently did a massive scan project for My husbands grandparents, and it helped me to sort the film to find the older images for the older cousin. It is fun, but not great quality! I have a Epson flat bed scanner that I use for the actual scanning.
I bought a very similar device with a no name brand. The results were fine. Where it stands out for me is, my friend got back into home processing and so when she processes the films for us, it works as a viewer. How it turns the negative into a positive is helpful and allows you to see if a film came out OK. It is good for a quick scan to use on social media. I usually do a few quick colour corrections in Photoshop but it was cheap and handy for that. I then bought an old Epsom scanner for better results for photos that needed to be better resolution.
I bought a Nikon device that you mount on top of a 40mm or 80mm lens. It only scans 135mm. I then bought a Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 lens and tested it with a Nikon D7000 DSLR and the results are great. I already have lots of presets on Lightroom. I'll resume scanning and learning more about the process, for I have tons of negatives. This is a very useful video. Thanks a lot.
It looks like a good scanner for someone wanting to just make quick scans for proofing or social media. I don’t think it would be good for anything larger than a 5x7 print.
yea i think im going to just get pics developed scan those pics and just edit for SM seems like this scan tool is kinda useless unless you just dont want to go the developing route
LoL, your add integration was great. Since the video is so well put together when you cut to the outside, walking out for coffee, I was like, "Hmm, what's he gonna say?"... Then I laughed cause it was a great transition.
I have an Epson Pro scanner for 120, 4x5 transparency or negative and for scanning prints but for 35mm I use a Plustek scanner which does an amazing job. Yes people should never touch a negative with their fingers because the negative or transparency will pick up the finger prints. If I have an old dirty negative I do clean it with a cotton swap and 90% alcohol. Before I put any negatives or transparencies I will blow the dust off with a Rocket air blower.
I have one of these, and I consider it fine. For a lot more money, I'm sure I could get better quality. But for me, and my binders of negs going back to high school, this is fine. It's fast and cheap. It does not look like modern DSLR imagery. But, the prints I got from edited scanned 35mm negs are just as good as I got in the darkroom back in the day as a HS and Uni student. You are not going to magically get images bigger than about 8x10 to look like DSLR or medium format photos. You also are going to want/need Photoshop, Lightroom, or something similar.
I am an amateur film shooter. I mostly shoot 35mm on a Pentax MX and develop it at home with a Paterson tank and C41 developer. I needed a way to get my negatives digital. I never really plan on making actual prints so for me this is perfect. I used those photo apps at first but they aren't the best. This is perfect for me. Is it high quality? no. but it is great for scanning my negatives and saving them in the cloud. I will say you do need a photo editing program with this unit. The controls on it are super basic and do not produce a good image but with some basic photo editing my negatives have come out great!
If you want to make really good scans and are well equipped in digital photography, I recommend using, for a setup, a tripod, a digital camera, a macro lens, and a light table (or a white picture on any Ipad - watch for the pixels though!). When you get used to it it gets pretty easy and quick, and most of all : the resolution will be fall superior (with modern cameras) to modern scanners!
@Phillip Banes I'm 48, still shoot a lot of film, and have scores of cameras. I do know my history. Kodak repeatedly created cheaper, lower quality formats to sell some more cameras. I grew up with a disc camera, and those were awful. I do know what I'm talking about.
@Phillip Banes I have a bunch of their older cameras. Yes they did get cheaper as years passed on, but many of them were very downmarket. You also have to admit that for every format they created, they orphaned at least 2 more. I don't hate them or anything, but their name on a product has been basically meaningless for 20 years unless it's film.
Thanks, helps me decide what to do. I have a V600 which gives me images I like but is a slow way to digitizes hundreds of negatives. I wanted cheap and fast to at least save all that I have shot over the past 35 years just to have a digital record to browse on occasion. On stuff I really want to work with (maybe two images per roll) is where the V600 comes in and for my medium format stuff. Will search for a Magnasonic review as I am concerned about damaging my negatives
A quick search on the Magnasonic shows a much smaller screen and if you do decide to edit with the device itself all adjustments are done on a sliding scale menu blindly as you are not seeing the image as you adjust. Sort of a guess and look, go back and guess again, look again, etc.... At least on the Kodak unit you are seeing the image as you make adjustments. Probably worth the extra money.
I didn't expect professional quality for £170, but this is very disappointing. The main problem with it is the excessive increase in contrast: the highlights and shadows are just featureless on the copies of most slides.
I've been shooting film for over 20 years. I've never worn gloves to handle my negatives... nor did any of my mentors or instructors in highschool, college, or university.
Negatives handled properly - only touching the edges - don’t need gloves. When processing film it’s a wet process, water, chemicals & white cotton gloves don’t mix!
Also, I have three 8mm cassette tapes from my old camcorder that I need digitalized. The footage may have some "chewing" damage to them, not sure. Do you by any change digitalize camcorder tapes? Thank you
Saved me some $$$$$ as I thought this might work for me, would rather buy a on camera unit & use my macro lens. Thanks for a brilliant & honest review.
Hmm, two of Eastman Kodak's 35mm to Super 8 film scanners? I've never heard of either unit, but by the time I bought a flatbed scanner, film photography had been replaced by digital images on the computer. On Kodak branded products: "Kodachrome" would be something I'd shell out for, but thos days are as gone as Agfacolor CT and Sakura Chrome films.
I have this. It isn’t great. I wish I had a v600. A used one is actually less. I am probably going to shoot 120 soon. Might just get a macro lens for DSLR scanning. BTW, any recommendations for that? Got a Nikon DSLR.
In my case it isn't about learning curve, its more about quality vs speed. I have an Epson flat bed that does great quality but I have boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes of my parents' slides to do. Ugh.
Good straight-forward review. What scanner do you suggest for slide scanning that does not auto-crop? I don't care if the white corners become part of the final picture. Wasted money having many slides professionally digitized! They didn't capture the entire "picture." Very disappointed. If I have to get a flat-bed scanner--so be it. Not a film or computer pro here at all. Just need your help. Thanks.
Great video, thank you! What's newer Slide and Scan or the Film and Slide? Best Buy sells the Film and Slide, Amazon the Slide and Scan. Can't find the release date on either.
Wished they created a 'pro' version of this. I'd love a smaller device but with a better sensor. They have plenty of great sensor they can choose from they make themselves.
Do you have a video up of your current scanning and processing work flow? Looks like you inverted last when most do it first.. interested in a different perspective!
I had tried sending slides to Kodak to have them scanned a few years ago. The quality was pretty good but was costly. Worse than that, I had to put 40 slides in a box and have a group of 10 boxes to have them processed. You need to put them in the correct order and orientation. Then put them back in your larger file when they return. Then you have to deal with the scans to get them in some kind of order. This was such a nightmare and I stopped having them scanned for me. The Kodak Slide N Scan is so wonderful that you can work from you larger Logan Slide File and put them back where they belong with the initial scan, no multiple handling back and forth and keeping the order correct, So the quality is a little less for all these benefits. Results are Pleasing on computer monitor. If there are a few slides you want in higher quality you can go back to your Logan Slide File and pull them out and have them done or do them yourself. This is by far the best way to scan thousands of slides with Pleasing results!!!!
Thanks for a very clear and informative video. The only point I don't recall you mentioning was the actual time to get a scan - it appears to be a few seconds from the video - is that right? Thanks again.
Does the Wolverine scanner have a digital limit counter that limits how many reels of film one can scan? I remember seeing many years ago that Nikon had a 30mm film scanner on the market but was not cheap by any means, any idea if they still make a similar product? Might be a lot better than Kodak. BTW, I was surprised to learn that the big K ( not the now dead K Mart) still makes Super 8 film and offers processing for it. It seems that many universities that offer cinematography courses use this format still and Kodak is the go to supplier. It was a concept that they were to also release a new "digital" super 8 camera as well that used a LED screen to view the image while it is being recorded on film. The processing was to also include a digital copy along with the processed film.
buddy what would you recommend to someone like me, I'm wanting to experiment with vintage cameras but ideally id like to get some good quality images, i do have photoshop knowledge. i just saw a video but it wasn't overly clear apart from mess about with setting to get the negative looking like a normal photo
Hi, I came across your tutorial because I just bought the Kodak Slide N Scan Film and Slide Scanner, but I am so frustrated because my slides will just NOT fit into the scanner. Am I doing something wrong or are the way my slides are mounted too thick and incompatible with the scanner?? What a bummer... Have you experienced this with any of your slides?
I've had the same issues - cardboard framed slides are fine, but the plastic framed slides just don't fit properly, and I'm worried about damaging the tray. Did you find a workaround, by any chance?
@@CiaranMeagher you can pop the film out of the plastic slide holders, scan the film, then put it back in the slide holder. Be sure to wear lint-free cotton gloves.
Hi when I insert the 35 mm film into this device does that ruin the film so I can't send it to be printed because it seems like people chop the film in segments?
--- Slide thickness problem --- Hi there, I bought this Slide n Scan scanner after watching this video. I have problems with my parents' thicker slided films which dont fit in the mount of this product. Is there any way to get a seperate mount for this device that can fit bigger slides? Thanks in advance.
hi, i'm looking for a plug and play film scanner that works with mac, one that you can upload the pics to a computer but if i have to do sd card i will, this is going to be a gift for someone else so im looking for the easiest option. also the larger the screen the better. what are your recomendations?
I have been trying to preview my slides, but it is reversed - the black is white and white is black, so to speak...I have read through the instructions until I am cross-eyes, and it does not show a positive photo...what am I doing wrong? HELP! I have the Kodak slide n scan.
I'm a beginner for film photography and just found out how expensive all the process is. How much should you invest to scan it yourself and get a decent quality? (considering Scanza or Slide N Scan is not enough) or is just paying the full price at the lab every time is worth and the only way...?
I was in your shoes two years ago and massively underestimated the reality of it all. Use a lab . You’ll end up dropping a ton of time and money if you try to do this yourself. It’s a rabbit hole.😅
Another great presentation!! ON a bit different topic, I"m gearing up to soon start rolling my own Vision 3 35mm for stills and developing it too!! I've got your videos bookmarked as references!! Thank you and wish me luck!! CC
Is there an alternative out there? Flat bed scans are so cumbersome and it takes so much time scanning just one roll of film. Professional scanners are thousands of $ and many of them wont even do 120 film I'm just looking for a decent 35mm scanner that can auto-feed the film!
Aha -- magic! Since 16mm movie film is the same width as 110 film -- you can *slide* a roll of 16mm film through this thing using the 110 film holder and digitize your 16mm movies in mediocre quality, one frame at a time!!!
I got the Slide and Scan 6 months ago and scanned about 8 K slides. I have tried many scanners over the last decade and this is by far the best for quick pleasing results. Many I bracketed so actually less quantity. I don't like the overexposure with slide film. The results are very pleasing and quickly obtained as I did many thousands already and many more to go. My scanner is starting go do some big distortion after so much use once in awhile. I just ordered a second Slide and Scan to have ready if this one fails completely. For the heck of it I just scanned stills from my dad's 16 mm movie film with the Kodak Slide N Scan. The results are proportionally less than the 35 mm but still pleasing. I get two frames on each scan. I just crop it down to one picture. When I look at the movies I had digitalized, they go so fast that much is lost from that. I scanned about 180 stills from a 16 mm 400 foot Reel. I like looking at the stills as I can recognize people and subjects better. It only took a few hours doing it without any preparation. I think it is great to have both formats of the pictures. I know a lot of old timers with thousands of slides from their parents. I try to encourage them to get to work scanning with the KODAK SLIDE N SCAN. They need to get started now, time is running out for them.
Photos lost in discarded boxes are dead. If these devices bring them back to life and the memories with them, they deserve credit for that! I think the most important quality they need to offer is ease of use! Of what use would be a device that offers higher quality but discourages people with longer scan times and more challenges in handling? However, there is a difference between simplicity and bad quality! There are companies that consider quality as a threshold of acceptability, and there are others that consider it an ethical standard they hold themselves to. I thought Kodak belonged to the latter...
No excuse for such bad quality, when it zoomed in the digital noise yikes. I used to put a magnifying glass in front of an old digital camera and it made better close up negative photos.
A scanner like an Epson V600 or V700 can easily be bought for under 1K and you can scan the sprockets using a DigitaLIZA holder from Lomography. Alternatively camera scanning setups can be put together for under 1K and holders like the Essential Film Holder will allow for you to capture the sprockets.
@@AnalogResurgence this definitely the product I was looking for. I have the V600 but find the factory film holders suck to use. I'll give this a try and see if it works as good as I hope
Hope you get to read this comment... Im going try my luck and ask😏can i buy the scanza or the slide and scan from you? Im just got myself a point and shoot camera to distact myself from my depression plus the scanners are very expensive in south African rands😢and im only a student 😭😭
Film cameras for Kodak were always a vehicle to sell film. That's why they weren't great. Nikona and Canons had to be good because they didn't sell film.
I have bought it 4 weeks ago, the quality is down, very down.... i sade I buy a ligh box and with my camera D810 and with macro, i can have a good scan.... the quality is not same that Plustek film scanner, so it s ok for me.
I like the KODAK Slide N Scan because the archiving process is very fast. As you mentioned, the image quality is certainly inferior to true film scanners and flatbed scanners. In addition, the reproductions tend to be too contrasty. The files look fine when printed on glossy 4" x 6" photo paper using a high quality color printer. The images look great on my 70" TV when playing back a 1080p video. Here are some of my KODAK Slide N Scan results, which were "enhanced" with Photoshop and Topaz Photo AI: ua-cam.com/video/1NzRi8bQyP0/v-deo.html
the comparison you edit to show us is unfortunately kinda useless, because it's very hard to really, well, - compare. It'd be much more insightful to place the SAME half of both images besides each other. Right now, we're comparing different parts of 'different' images (as in 8:52), which is harder to compare since the image/texture varies from spot to spot ANYWAY, so our brain would have to "correct" for this as well. So why not go for the more direct comparison? Less fancy - yes - but more useful
I wish I'd have seen your review, of the Scanza, but I think I had bought the thing before you made the review. I spend one hour with it, came to the same conclusion you had, and returned it the next day. Very disappointing.
Kodak Scratch n Sniff. Thanks for helping me not waste money.
I bought this some weeks ago, and it was certainly a "buy cheap, buy twice" scenario. Ended up getting Plustek film scanner in the end, which whilst twice the price, produces a much more acceptable quality.
is there a review on the Plustek?
Which type of plustek do you use?
After looking at many reviews, I've decided the Plustek is the way to go for acceptable quality without paying $000's
Reviews like this one have pretty much confirmed my choice.
I have a scratch on my viewer. Can it be fixed, replaced? It’s ruining my photos. 😢
Glad you posted this. I went to a professional shop rather than use a DIY. This vid was very informative and helped me make my decision.
And bravo, sir, for this line right here:
‘A great amount of creativity is always borne out of sheer SPITE’
Thanks again. Great review.
This video has the best Squarespace ad I've seen in a while.
Thank you! I appreciate your frankness and your humor! I purchased the new release 7" screen and was so psyched to get started. I checked the first few black and white and color 35mm scans in the gallery and they looked great. Full speed ahead and onto 110 film and slides. Everything looked great on the screen as I was scanning. The detail was amazing on the 110 scans. Nearly 1,000 scans later I inserted the SD card into my computer. What a let down! Some captures were good. Many were poor quality or greenish or reddish or dark. ?????????? They had all looked awesome on the screen!! I want my many, many hours back!!
Clearly, my expectations were unrealistic. Pulled my V600 out of the box and set it up for some real scanning. I had not given it the respect it deserved, setting it aside for flashy, easy Kodak glam girl. I won't say the Kodak scanner was a waste of money, though. It gives me a quick and easy way of seeing what I have and helps me decide what I want to do with each frame. Thank you for helping me to get real about what it can and can't do. 🌿
I have a wolverine scanner that is similar to the scanza. It's fun to play with, but the quality is similar to these Kodak modals. The one thing I like about these small units is that I can pre scan or view negatives to find things. I recently did a massive scan project for My husbands grandparents, and it helped me to sort the film to find the older images for the older cousin. It is fun, but not great quality! I have a Epson flat bed scanner that I use for the actual scanning.
Yeah, it worked for me for FB and other social media.
I bought a very similar device with a no name brand. The results were fine. Where it stands out for me is, my friend got back into home processing and so when she processes the films for us, it works as a viewer. How it turns the negative into a positive is helpful and allows you to see if a film came out OK. It is good for a quick scan to use on social media. I usually do a few quick colour corrections in Photoshop but it was cheap and handy for that. I then bought an old Epsom scanner for better results for photos that needed to be better resolution.
I bought a Nikon device that you mount on top of a 40mm or 80mm lens. It only scans 135mm. I then bought a Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 lens and tested it with a Nikon D7000 DSLR and the results are great. I already have lots of presets on Lightroom. I'll resume scanning and learning more about the process, for I have tons of negatives. This is a very useful video. Thanks a lot.
It looks like a good scanner for someone wanting to just make quick scans for proofing or social media. I don’t think it would be good for anything larger than a 5x7 print.
yea i think im going to just get pics developed scan those pics and just edit for SM seems like this scan tool is kinda useless unless you just dont want to go the developing route
Well it can. But it depends on the quality of the negative. If you have the negative, perhaps is easy to make a specific print in a shop nowadays.
Not gonna lie, i was looking for a good review of this thing like 3 weeks ago but didn’t come across one but finally its here! Thank you!
“This could be you!” - cracked me up! Hahaha
Thanks!
LoL, your add integration was great. Since the video is so well put together when you cut to the outside, walking out for coffee, I was like, "Hmm, what's he gonna say?"... Then I laughed cause it was a great transition.
I have an Epson Pro scanner for 120, 4x5 transparency or negative and for scanning prints but for 35mm I use a Plustek scanner which does an amazing job. Yes people should never touch a negative with their fingers because the negative or transparency will pick up the finger prints. If I have an old dirty negative I do clean it with a cotton swap and 90% alcohol. Before I put any negatives or transparencies I will blow the dust off with a Rocket air blower.
I have one of these, and I consider it fine. For a lot more money, I'm sure I could get better quality. But for me, and my binders of negs going back to high school, this is fine. It's fast and cheap.
It does not look like modern DSLR imagery. But, the prints I got from edited scanned 35mm negs are just as good as I got in the darkroom back in the day as a HS and Uni student. You are not going to magically get images bigger than about 8x10 to look like DSLR or medium format photos. You also are going to want/need Photoshop, Lightroom, or something similar.
I am an amateur film shooter. I mostly shoot 35mm on a Pentax MX and develop it at home with a Paterson tank and C41 developer. I needed a way to get my negatives digital. I never really plan on making actual prints so for me this is perfect. I used those photo apps at first but they aren't the best. This is perfect for me. Is it high quality? no. but it is great for scanning my negatives and saving them in the cloud. I will say you do need a photo editing program with this unit. The controls on it are super basic and do not produce a good image but with some basic photo editing my negatives have come out great!
If you want to make really good scans and are well equipped in digital photography, I recommend using, for a setup, a tripod, a digital camera, a macro lens, and a light table (or a white picture on any Ipad - watch for the pixels though!). When you get used to it it gets pretty easy and quick, and most of all : the resolution will be fall superior (with modern cameras) to modern scanners!
I would still love to see u try other scanners
Kodak has rarely been about the highest quality. They want to sell to the masses. Unfortunately, the days where their name can carry them have ended.
Kodak WAS synonymous with high quality, those days are way behind them.
@Phillip Banes Their equipment rarely reads great, unless you went for the highest end stuff made in Germany.
@Phillip Banes I'm 48, still shoot a lot of film, and have scores of cameras. I do know my history. Kodak repeatedly created cheaper, lower quality formats to sell some more cameras. I grew up with a disc camera, and those were awful. I do know what I'm talking about.
@Phillip Banes I have a bunch of their older cameras. Yes they did get cheaper as years passed on, but many of them were very downmarket. You also have to admit that for every format they created, they orphaned at least 2 more. I don't hate them or anything, but their name on a product has been basically meaningless for 20 years unless it's film.
@Phillip Banes I'm curious what you think is do fabulous about them.
Thanks, helps me decide what to do. I have a V600 which gives me images I like but is a slow way to digitizes hundreds of negatives. I wanted cheap and fast to at least save all that I have shot over the past 35 years just to have a digital record to browse on occasion. On stuff I really want to work with (maybe two images per roll) is where the V600 comes in and for my medium format stuff. Will search for a Magnasonic review as I am concerned about damaging my negatives
A quick search on the Magnasonic shows a much smaller screen and if you do decide to edit with the device itself all adjustments are done on a sliding scale menu blindly as you are not seeing the image as you adjust. Sort of a guess and look, go back and guess again, look again, etc.... At least on the Kodak unit you are seeing the image as you make adjustments. Probably worth the extra money.
I didn't expect professional quality for £170, but this is very disappointing. The main problem with it is the excessive increase in contrast: the highlights and shadows are just featureless on the copies of most slides.
I've been shooting film for over 20 years. I've never worn gloves to handle my negatives... nor did any of my mentors or instructors in highschool, college, or university.
Negatives handled properly - only touching the edges - don’t need gloves. When processing film it’s a wet process, water, chemicals & white cotton gloves don’t mix!
Got this from Amazon during Black Friday flash sale for $89 it just arrived in the mail!
Outside of the brilliant video (🤣🤣) the ad break is outstanding! Well made!!
Works awesome!
A great buy and solution!
💯
Nice review. That sponsor read was spot on too lol!
Also, I have three 8mm cassette tapes from my old camcorder that I need digitalized. The footage may have some "chewing" damage to them, not sure. Do you by any change digitalize camcorder tapes? Thank you
Saved me some $$$$$ as I thought this might work for me, would rather buy a on camera unit & use my macro lens. Thanks for a brilliant & honest review.
Hmm, two of Eastman Kodak's 35mm to Super 8 film scanners? I've never heard of either unit, but by the time I bought a flatbed scanner, film photography had been replaced by digital images on the computer. On Kodak branded products: "Kodachrome" would be something I'd shell out for, but thos days are as gone as Agfacolor CT and Sakura Chrome films.
Thank you bud for the review and comparisons....appreciate
the scanza has a big chunk of metal in the bottom that gives it some weight, i just watched a video of someone repairing one
5:37 is that photo on Flickr?
if this is a bad purchase whats the alternative on a comparable price point?
I have this. It isn’t great. I wish I had a v600. A used one is actually less. I am probably going to shoot 120 soon. Might just get a macro lens for DSLR scanning. BTW, any recommendations for that? Got a Nikon DSLR.
In my case it isn't about learning curve, its more about quality vs speed. I have an Epson flat bed that does great quality but I have boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes and boxes of my parents' slides to do. Ugh.
Good straight-forward review. What scanner do you suggest for slide scanning that does not auto-crop? I don't care if the white corners become part of the final picture. Wasted money having many slides professionally digitized! They didn't capture the entire "picture." Very disappointed. If I have to get a flat-bed scanner--so be it. Not a film or computer pro here at all. Just need your help. Thanks.
Great video, thank you! What's newer Slide and Scan or the Film and Slide? Best Buy sells the Film and Slide, Amazon the Slide and Scan. Can't find the release date on either.
Wished they created a 'pro' version of this.
I'd love a smaller device but with a better sensor.
They have plenty of great sensor they can choose from they make themselves.
Interesting device!
Thanks for the review!
Do you have a video up of your current scanning and processing work flow? Looks like you inverted last when most do it first.. interested in a different perspective!
I know so many older people who bought terrible scanners like this, scan their film and then throw them away. A crime
That’s terrifying
I had tried sending slides to Kodak to have them scanned a few years ago. The quality was pretty good but was costly. Worse than that, I had to put 40 slides in a box and have a group of 10 boxes to have them processed. You need to put them in the correct order and orientation. Then put them back in your larger file when they return. Then you have to deal with the scans to get them in some kind of order. This was such a nightmare and I stopped having them scanned for me. The Kodak Slide N Scan is so wonderful that you can work from you larger Logan Slide File and put them back where they belong with the initial scan, no multiple handling back and forth and keeping the order correct, So the quality is a little less for all these benefits. Results are Pleasing on computer monitor. If there are a few slides you want in higher quality you can go back to your Logan Slide File and pull them out and have them done or do them yourself. This is by far the best way to scan thousands of slides with Pleasing results!!!!
Great review, very detailed and I could follow your thoughts easily
Would this be good to use to just view the slides so I can see them and decide what to develop?
Excellent review and excellent channel. Informative with a little bit of humor too. Thank You!
A little humor is always good when doing something so painful to lessen the pain and cursing.
I got an old Nikon Coolscan V. It works like a charm..
I have a super cheap film scanner like this. Its results are OK. The seal around the film lets light through. I only shoot b+w.
Nice informative review. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for a very clear and informative video. The only point I don't recall you mentioning was the actual time to get a scan - it appears to be a few seconds from the video - is that right? Thanks again.
Does the Wolverine scanner have a digital limit counter that limits how many reels of film one can scan?
I remember seeing many years ago that Nikon had a 30mm film scanner on the market but was not cheap by any means, any idea if they still make a similar product? Might be a lot better than Kodak. BTW, I was surprised to learn that the big K ( not the now dead K Mart) still makes Super 8 film and offers processing for it. It seems that many universities that offer cinematography courses use this format still and Kodak is the go to supplier. It was a concept that they were to also release a new "digital" super 8 camera as well that used a LED screen to view the image while it is being recorded on film. The processing was to also include a digital copy along with the processed film.
I have a couple of the Nikon LS2000 scanners...although professional, it was hard to keep dust off the sensor.
buddy what would you recommend to someone like me, I'm wanting to experiment with vintage cameras but ideally id like to get some good quality images, i do have photoshop knowledge. i just saw a video but it wasn't overly clear apart from mess about with setting to get the negative looking like a normal photo
Noha, I knew that if I was patient, you would come out with the "Slip & Slide" reference! 🙂
I believe the Kodak Slide N Scan is much easier to use. Check it out!
So you have to put the slides into a holder and open it to view another? I need one to view a few hundred slides and scan at most half a dozen.
When scanning a slide with the Kodak slide N Scan Digital Scanner, can you rotate the image if it's not right side up? Thank you
in terms of quality, for only instagram photos do you prefer scanza or this?
what inexpensive flat bed scanner do you recommend for slides, film and prints?
Hi, I came across your tutorial because I just bought the Kodak Slide N Scan Film and Slide Scanner, but I am so frustrated because my slides will just NOT fit into the scanner. Am I doing something wrong or are the way my slides are mounted too thick and incompatible with the scanner?? What a bummer... Have you experienced this with any of your slides?
I've had the same issues - cardboard framed slides are fine, but the plastic framed slides just don't fit properly, and I'm worried about damaging the tray. Did you find a workaround, by any chance?
@@CiaranMeagher you can pop the film out of the plastic slide holders, scan the film, then put it back in the slide holder. Be sure to wear lint-free cotton gloves.
Hi when I insert the 35 mm film into this device does that ruin the film so I can't send it to be printed because it seems like people chop the film in segments?
thank you for this reviewed! i was thinking of getting a flatbed scanner.
--- Slide thickness problem ---
Hi there, I bought this Slide n Scan scanner after watching this video.
I have problems with my parents' thicker slided films which dont fit in the mount of this product. Is there any way to get a seperate mount for this device that can fit bigger slides?
Thanks in advance.
Thank you for your review. 😸 Its helped greatly!
I want to know, do u need to develop the films using blix and other chemicals before scanning it, or u can just straightway scan it?
All film needs to be developed first before scanning.
What is the best, most afordable to scan 16mm film reels at home?
Is there the ability to scan a 35mm film from top to bottom including the holes for the gate? I’m using a camera which exposes the whole film…thanks
hi, i'm looking for a plug and play film scanner that works with mac, one that you can upload the pics to a computer but if i have to do sd card i will, this is going to be a gift for someone else so im looking for the easiest option. also the larger the screen the better. what are your recomendations?
That is most available archiving material for computer if we modified data format then it can last hundred years
Does this produce low resolution scans compared to printing the pictures?
Would you say this suffices for a beginner Black and White film photographer?
Ratheon tomahawk would love it
Hi why don’t you try the Kodak Mini Digital Film & Slide Scanner it the Film Scan Tool for PC and Mac?
how can I scan stereo transparencies/ slides?
"The Kodak Empire Strikes Back"
Or, "The Ghost of Rochester Strikes Out.";)
@@Otokichi786 It is so sad to see the Kodak Empire defeated. The government should have "bailed" them out like they did with many other companies!
WOW you sold me the epson 700 there in the comparison. I am gonna save more money haha THANK YOU for the review.
Great review! Do you think it would have enough focus and detail to scan microfilms of old newspapers?
Definitely not. The quality of this unit is very low.
@@AnalogResurgence Thanks a lot, you saved me a lot of research -and perhaps even money!
I have been trying to preview my slides, but it is reversed - the black is white and white is black, so to speak...I have read through the instructions until I am cross-eyes, and it does not show a positive photo...what am I doing wrong? HELP! I have the Kodak slide n scan.
hmmm, the same problem...a lot of scanned negatives and no... positives> how to convert it to photos???
I'm a beginner for film photography and just found out how expensive all the process is. How much should you invest to scan it yourself and get a decent quality? (considering Scanza or Slide N Scan is not enough) or is just paying the full price at the lab every time is worth and the only way...?
I was in your shoes two years ago and massively underestimated the reality of it all. Use a lab . You’ll end up dropping a ton of time and money if you try to do this yourself. It’s a rabbit hole.😅
I'm a little confused, because the Slide N Scan showed to be less green than the Scanza in one pic, then in the next, it was more green.
Another great presentation!!
ON a bit different topic, I"m gearing up to soon start rolling my own Vision 3 35mm for stills and developing it too!!
I've got your videos bookmarked as references!!
Thank you and wish me luck!!
CC
What format or bit depth does this Kodak scanner save scans or output to? Can it scan to film in RAW format in 16 bit?
8bit Jpg only
Can you scan a half frame?
Is there an alternative out there?
Flat bed scans are so cumbersome and it takes so much time scanning just one roll of film.
Professional scanners are thousands of $ and many of them wont even do 120 film
I'm just looking for a decent 35mm scanner that can auto-feed the film!
You could look for a Kodak Pakon 135, but they are really hard to come by unfortunately.
I have a couple Nikon LS2000s for sale :)
Thank you very much.
Aha -- magic! Since 16mm movie film is the same width as 110 film -- you can *slide* a roll of 16mm film through this thing using the 110 film holder and digitize your 16mm movies in mediocre quality, one frame at a time!!!
Oh god no
@@AnalogResurgence 🙂
I got the Slide and Scan 6 months ago and scanned about 8 K slides. I have tried many scanners over the last decade and this is by far the best for quick pleasing results. Many I bracketed so actually less quantity. I don't like the overexposure with slide film. The results are very pleasing and quickly obtained as I did many thousands already and many more to go. My scanner is starting go do some big distortion after so much use once in awhile. I just ordered a second Slide and Scan to have ready if this one fails completely. For the heck of it I just scanned stills from my dad's 16 mm movie film with the Kodak Slide N Scan. The results are proportionally less than the 35 mm but still pleasing. I get two frames on each scan. I just crop it down to one picture. When I look at the movies I had digitalized, they go so fast that much is lost from that. I scanned about 180 stills from a 16 mm 400 foot Reel. I like looking at the stills as I can recognize people and subjects better. It only took a few hours doing it without any preparation. I think it is great to have both formats of the pictures. I know a lot of old timers with thousands of slides from their parents. I try to encourage them to get to work scanning with the KODAK SLIDE N SCAN. They need to get started now, time is running out for them.
What is the resolution of resultant photo?
same as if you take a photo with a phone from 2007......
Is this scanner suitable for 120 type film (6x6 cm)?
No 120 film will not fit in this scanner
Still nothing seems to beat my Minolta 5400 from like the 90s
Photos lost in discarded boxes are dead. If these devices bring them back to life and the memories with them, they deserve credit for that! I think the most important quality they need to offer is ease of use! Of what use would be a device that offers higher quality but discourages people with longer scan times and more challenges in handling? However, there is a difference between simplicity and bad quality! There are companies that consider quality as a threshold of acceptability, and there are others that consider it an ethical standard they hold themselves to. I thought Kodak belonged to the latter...
No excuse for such bad quality, when it zoomed in the digital noise yikes.
I used to put a magnifying glass in front of an old digital camera and it made better close up negative photos.
Man ur the best!
Sorry but it doesn’t take standard 120 medium format film ?
No it will not take 120 film
@@AnalogResurgence what would be the best scanner on the market for 120 film ? Thank you 🙏
I’m looking for a scanner that will take 120 if anyone knows
Can we get a video on something that does a good job but is under 1k. And can scan the sprockets
A scanner like an Epson V600 or V700 can easily be bought for under 1K and you can scan the sprockets using a DigitaLIZA holder from Lomography. Alternatively camera scanning setups can be put together for under 1K and holders like the Essential Film Holder will allow for you to capture the sprockets.
@@AnalogResurgence this definitely the product I was looking for. I have the V600 but find the factory film holders suck to use. I'll give this a try and see if it works as good as I hope
As always, get a used PlusTek and be happy.
is 126 medium format?
It was actually the same width as 35mm film, but came in special plastic cartridges!
Hope you get to read this comment...
Im going try my luck and ask😏can i buy the scanza or the slide and scan from you?
Im just got myself a point and shoot camera to distact myself from my depression plus the scanners are very expensive in south African rands😢and im only a student 😭😭
It seems like only good as a film viewer. The Epson V600 isnt much more money and has a full auto mode
Film cameras for Kodak were always a vehicle to sell film. That's why they weren't great. Nikona and Canons had to be good because they didn't sell film.
I have bought it 4 weeks ago, the quality is down, very down.... i sade
I buy a ligh box and with my camera D810 and with macro, i can have a good scan.... the quality is not same that Plustek film scanner, so it s ok for me.
very disappointed with the 50mm slide capture -- cropped/lost the bottom 10-15% of the image.
I like the KODAK Slide N Scan because the archiving process is very fast. As you mentioned, the image quality is certainly inferior to true film scanners and flatbed scanners. In addition, the reproductions tend to be too contrasty. The files look fine when printed on glossy 4" x 6" photo paper using a high quality color printer. The images look great on my 70" TV when playing back a 1080p video. Here are some of my KODAK Slide N Scan results, which were "enhanced" with Photoshop and Topaz Photo AI: ua-cam.com/video/1NzRi8bQyP0/v-deo.html
I see the Kodak is giving a better image than the Scanza in your side-by-side comparisons. So I don't know why you are saying the opposite.
They're both Kodak.
the comparison you edit to show us is unfortunately kinda useless, because it's very hard to really, well, - compare. It'd be much more insightful to place the SAME half of both images besides each other. Right now, we're comparing different parts of 'different' images (as in 8:52), which is harder to compare since the image/texture varies from spot to spot ANYWAY, so our brain would have to "correct" for this as well. So why not go for the more direct comparison? Less fancy - yes - but more useful
I wish I'd have seen your review, of the Scanza, but I think I had bought the thing before you
made the review. I spend one hour with it, came to the same conclusion you had, and returned
it the next day. Very disappointing.