[Twarp]

Yesterday I saw a 9M-pixel *ION Film 2 SD Pro scanner and just took it along. I was not impressed with the scanning results from my Canon flatbed all-in-one because it is almost impossible to keep it dust free and lots of focussing problems due to the curvature of the films. And it is slooooooowwww...

First impression: it handles like a breeze and without tweaking light settings it processes frame by frame almost in realtime with acceptable results for quickviewing and creating albums. In ca. 2 hours time I digitized 250 35mm negative frames and slides. That would have taken me 2 days formerly! And with far better quality.

It comes with a 2 GB SD cart included so you can start right away without a computer attached.

There are of course much better scanners but for now this is what I was looking for.

---

Last edited by Twarp; 02-12-2012 at 05:39 AM. Reason: add picture

[RKKS08]

I saw it in (german) internet trade for about €90, assuming in the Netherlands you will pay roughly the same. The 9 MP model is described as "Mk.II", most shops offer a (~ € 50) 5 MP model which is also named ION Film 2 SD Pro (without the "Mk.II").

Maybe you can answer some questions for which I didn't get information in the data sheets I found.

Does it produce positives from negatives, or does it just scanning?

If no positives, does it remove the orange filter all newer films use? If so, is it done automatically? I do have a couple of Agfacolor films from early 1960s, before Agfa utilized that filter.

If it produces positives, are you satisfied by the colors (with different kind of light sources when you took these pictures)?

Thank you

[Twarp]

I knew of the 5 MP version but thought that to be a little rough, it is ca. €60 and this one cost me €81 and just took it on a splitsecond decision, wth if it isn't right

At startup, it flashes 4 options and after a timeout defaults to the first option=instant scanning in the last used mode.
The second option is playback on the device, it starts a slide show of all recorded frames.
The third is setting is the recording mode: 1=color negative, 2=color slide and 3=B&W negative (however no B&W slide...).
The last flashing option to choose during startup is USB-mode which shows the scanner as device on your PC. For copying etc instead of removing the SD cart.

On screen is a realtime scan of what you put into it: you see the film actually move so you can manually decide on the best crop of the frames. A click of a button finalizes the scan in a second or so. Negatives are reversed, slides are WYSIWYG. It also auto balances light but you can override that with +/- 3 steps. The screen is not that fine/sharp, it just shows what you are doing. Sometimes I was afraid results were very dark or that I just blew my shots but viewing the endresults was a relief after all.
The picture above was from a Fuji Superia 200 ISO in a ME Super, the base is indeed orange-ish; so it seems to adjust automatically. I'm not sure if I have such old negatives without this color base so I don't know what it produces. I'll have a look later... It senses the film and activates the digitizer. I tried 110 film but that's too small and it doesn't show up properly.

The one thing I can say for now about the colors is that the overall scanned picture is not as vivid as the original print but I'm convinced that's correctable with software. Nothing to worry about IMHO.
One other remark: after scanning ca. 500 frames and pushing a lot of film through it, some dust particles seem to "stick" to the sensor, they can be moved with the film so I guess some compressed air is needed to fix that.

[RKKS08]

Thank you very much for these valuable informations. I have tried several methods to get good results when digitizing negatives, without reaching consistent success. You have answered most of my questions. I know getting the correct colour rendition when digitizing negatives is very difficult, and may prove to be impossible in some cases.

Now, about loosing resolution:

I remember when the first 6MP DSLRs were on the market, several German magazines wondered when this new technology would match up with film equipment. Most of them stated, after a lot of complicated calculations, that a very good 12MP FF sensor could squeeze out the full resolution capability of the best non-zoom lenses, matching a film system using 100 ASA slide film.

I would really appreciate (and other members of this forum, probably too), if you could make a comparison. If you can find a negative you feel is very sharp (preferably taken with a SMC-M 1.7/50 on 100 ASA negative film), and compare it by using a strong magnifying glass on the negative and pixel peeping on the digital: is there a visible fall down in resolution? Some could be expected at 9MP, but do you feel it to be significant? If not, this digitizer for that price could be a fantastic solution.

Again, thanks a lot for your answer.

Edit: to test for resolution, of course a slide could be used as well.

---

Last edited by RKKS08; 02-13-2012 at 11:57 AM.

[Twarp]

The filesizes per foto produced by the scanner are consistently between 2 en 2.3 MB.
My 8 MP P&S creates filesizes between 3 and 4 MB. The 12 MP K-x does 4 to 6 MB. It seems I'm actually stuck with a 5 MP scanner?

Anyway, its speed makes up to better but more expensive and relatively slow scanners like Reflecta's.

Most of my old films were shot with a 35-70 zoom. I just shot a 200 ISO with the SMC-A 1.7/50 but have to wait till it's processed.

[stevebrot]

Glad you are happy with the results.


Steve

[procyon]

The filesizes per foto produced by the scanner are consistently between 2 en 2.3 MB.
My 8 MP P&S creates filesizes between 3 and 4 MB. The 12 MP K-x does 4 to 6 MB. It seems I'm actually stuck with a 5 MP scanner?

File sizes in megabytes have nothing to do with megapixels. If the files are smaller then they either contain less detail (and thus compress better) or are more heavily compressed.

[RKKS08]

Twarp:
The filesizes per foto produced by the scanner are consistently between 2 en 2.3 MB.
My 8 MP P&S creates file sizes between 3 and 4 MB. The 12 MP K-x does 4 to 6 MB. It seems I'm actually stuck with a 5 MP scanner?

procyon:
File sizes in megabytes have nothing to do with mega pixels. If the files are smaller then they either contain less detail (and thus compress better) or are more heavily compressed.

I was assuming the scanner produces JPGs, not RAWs. That's why I asked for some pixel peeping. As far as I know, there are so many parameters you can squeeze doing JPG compression, you may be able to reduce file size by 75% without loosing "resolution". Instead you may loose dynamic range, colour space, or nothing of these, and the results may just be a little bit more prone to produce artefacts in special situations. I do have a very old program which I still use sometimes, where you can do some fine tuning of the JPG engine (it is of the Windows 95 era, and I took some efforts to persuade it to run under Windows XP). There I can get result files in 1:8 relative size without significant general reduction of "resolution". When doing pixel peeping, you can find some degradation, but it does not "feel" to be significant without pixel peeping.

[Twarp]

The scanner produces JPG's indeed. Since it is possible to produce A4-sized prints without going grainy, it serves my purpose.
To get better color saturation etc. perhaps we have to wait for the Mk. III where they replace the CCD sensor with a CMOS.

&RKKS08: I remember long long long ago I experimented with a microscope trying to find the "grains" everybody talks about. They were nowhere to be found as I recall. It is probably the behaviour of the color distribution and not the structure of the emulsion, but everyone understands what is meant by it.

[stevebrot]

File sizes in megabytes have nothing to do with megapixels.

...sort of true. If no compression is applied, file size is directly related to the number of pixels and the bit depth. The real question is the quality of the pixels!


Steve

[procyon]

...sort of true. If no compression is applied, file size is directly related to the number of pixels and the bit depth. The real question is the quality of the pixels!


Steve

Kind of nitpicking isn't it
To be even more precise we have to also consider that most uncompressed formats also pad the size of pixels to be 32 bits although there is only 3 channels x 8 bits per channel = 24 bits actual information (those extra 8 bits are in some formats used to store transparency/alpha information).

Actually uncompressed formats are not very common as output for any consumer device nowadays. Even RAW files are compressed (though mostly losslessly). I know that there used to be cameras that could shoot tiff files. I wonder if those were uncompressed or used one of lossless compressions available for tiff.

About the quality of pixels - I know some sh***y devices use low pixel count sensors and then extrapolate this to some higher resolution. Webcams used to do that a lot at some point (Big advertising text "X MP still pictures" with tiny warning about being upscaled from lower resolution). I haven't seen that a lot recently. Hopefully the ever increasing pixel density on sensors has made it unneccesary.

[Twarp]

Thanks for reminding me of all the different implementations of 'standard' formats like JPEG, of course comparing filesizes on different devices is comparing apples and bananas. What matters is what is lost along the way while compressing. I used to rip all my music from CD to MP3 but since I'm a little picky on sound quality, as much as possible in the higher bit rates. Only use it in the car. (Totally off topic but analogue music reproduction beats digital my ears tell me). I guess FLAC-like compression is the future but then I have to start all over and I still play the original whenever possible.
This does not translate to photography for me however. I will never dispose of my original film material but if it is possible to digitize the whole lot and organize it in a logical way, without loss of extraordinary amounts of money and time, I'm happy. Really 'exceptional' pics will be printed in the traditional way anyway.

While typing this, an HD webcam is staring at me. The lens opening already betrays its widescreen inards. Its sensor probably is not in the same leage as you mention, it doesn't even mention MP's but only 720p(rogressive, not pixel) 30fps HD.

[stevebrot]

About the quality of pixels - I know some sh***y devices use low pixel count sensors and then extrapolate this to some higher resolution.

...then there are the sh***y devices that have a high count sensor and crummy or non-existent optics. The later is what I meant. The "scans" I used to get from Costco had a high pixel count, but were a very poor reproduction of the negative. Add onto that at ton of sharpening and smoothing artifact and the images were a mess, despite being huge on disk.


Steve

[gabro822]

Sorry if I resume this thread, but I've a big problem with this scanner: the scanner doesn't not cover the 35mm frame, but cut off like 2-3cm (on the scan. So I assume it cuts off like 1-2mm on the frame).
My question is: Is that normal? I mean, when you scan, should you lose a part of the frame?
thanks

[Twarp]

I think it depends on the actual frame size of the camera itself, thus the recorded area on film. This is most of the time not exactly the 3:4 ratio. I recall that when I ordered reprints of certain frames, the composition sometimes differed from the original so it is up to you, or the person who prints them, what the actual data will be.

You have to shuffle the film in the scanner to get the desired composition per frame. You may be right that it doesn't cover the entire area.