camera film scanning just got a lot easier -- Valoi Easy35 is a game changer

[@mikereilly2745]

Hi, Back in 2007, I made a film/slide ''35mm'' imaging lens , It looked very similar to what you are showing. Worked so well, I made another one , I used a old body w motor drive , for uncut negs. It had a variable brightness n color temp, w live view on a monitor in front of me etc... I was able to comfortably shoot/scan 8hrs a day. At the time I worked with truly top shelf film scanners , My work , Using a dslr, was visually equal, faster, easier, cheaper, compared to the super expensive scanners. Yes...Technically, the crazy expensive drum scanner collected more information , and could automatically fix scratches on damaged negs, but other than that, A dslr is an awesome way to do it. Great work my friend !

[@robertmortimer4837]

The real benefit of high end flat bed scanners is that they have an infra red component that allows them to detect dist and scratches, this makes them much better for scanning legacy collections of negatives that may not have been stored perfectly. You can scan positives with the same kit.

[@ribsy]

yea thats fair. prob the only thing of meaningful merit over camera scanning

[@AdamGeorge-pb3fm]

Can you name the flat bed scanners with this feature? I know dedicated film scanners (e.g. Nikon Coolscanner series) but have no knowledge about flatbed scanners doing IR. But it is not as if I knew everything.

[@soreljohnson3953]

@@AdamGeorge-pb3fmI think that the Epson lineup has ICE built-in, although I’m not 100% sure.

[@jorgemtrevino]

@@AdamGeorge-pb3fm Epson V850, 750, 550. etc.

[@jorgemtrevino]

Not true. Dedicated 35mm scanners like the Plustek 3200 have that feature too. I used to have a Minolta 5400 with Digital ICE but gave the ghost a decade ago. Nikon Coolscan as well.

[@snapsnappist4529]

I switched to DSLR scanning for 35mm, and the difference is night and day. The flatbed scanner I had was not very high end, and had no option for manually focusing or changing exposure. With the DSLR, I can now scan slides and have them come out very close to the original, plus the scans are far sharper. For medium format there isn't much of a difference, but I'm very happy with the new setup.

[@ribsy]

yup yup yup!

[@dominicknepper2082]

I haven't used my flatbed since I got an Essential Film Holder. Cheap light source, easy to use, fast, and does multiple formats. This only does 35mm and costs about the same. Until I see a 35mm and 120 version with a scan comparison vs the EFH I'll stick with what I've got.

[@ellyrion8173]

Have you had issues with film scratching in your EFH?

[@ribsy]

EFH is a great start and def helps get the job done

[@dank5372]

I have started the same process May I ask I have Vilteox L116T light Which kelvin temperature do u use 5600 or less like 4300 kel Thank you

[@Folly_Inds]

I picked up a spare set of screws and some lock nuts and now I have don't have to swap out the holders for different film types. Made things a lot easier for me

[@williamburkholder769]

@@dank5372 3350K matches ELH slide projector lamps. I use that for color and 4400K for B&W. But I’ve had som older films where I needed 5600 to correct the base color.

[@jsollowsphotography]

I agree with you 100% I used an Epson V600 for years until a friend .. who is a professional museum curator laughed when he saw I was scanning. He introduced me to camera scanning and I consistently get better contrast and resolution in a fraction of the time. I scan every from 7.5mm to large format. My Epson was given to a thrift store.

[@ribsy]

amen!

[@johnnykempo]

So tell us, do you use this gadget?

[@PhilKnall]

I'd probably still do copy stand scanning if I had the time and space, but with my circumstances (2 toddlers and full time job) this is the only option I'm gonna get to self scan. I'm grateful they made it! That said I do wish we had a 120 option!

[@ribsy]

haha yes, this is good for speed and convenience. copy stand setup = many pieces for toddlers to get a hold of

[@PhilKnall]

@@ribsy and you know they'll go straight for the lens, too 😅

[@johnrflinn]

Makes me want to try my Nikon PB4 bellows with PS4 slide copying adapter and Fujifilm XT-2

[@jamilburnett8899]

@@johnrflinn it works well. That’s my setup except I use a Sony A7IV with an old Nikon macro lens and adapter

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

They copied the design directly from the BlackBox by Igor. But at least the finally admitted that their original design was horrible. The whole idea of using a copy stand and a film holder was ridiculously bad.

[@TristanColgate]

My feeling is, if it can't do 120, I still need something else, so, regrettably, it's not something I'll bother with.

[@ribsy]

Totally understood

[@VariTimo]

Flatbeds are much better with 120. But they won’t give you the full resolution.

[@TristanColgate]

@@VariTimo Flatbeds aren't great for 35 though, and I don't have space for both two "things". 80MP shots from my em5mkiii do OK for 120, at least well enough for my purposes.

[@ik7960]

@@VariTimo do you use a drumscan? I’ve heard we mounting gives out much better results for 120 or is there not much difference in quality?

[@magiccarpetrider4594]

I had a drum scanner. I had a design studio and brought all prepress in house. They’re amazing. Flatbed sucks for anything but paper. I really don’t understand film users that scan film.

[@rexypoooo]

I believe color bit depth is still a big deciding factor. Mirrorless SLR mostly shoots in 12 or 14-bit, however, flatbed or tray load scanner does 48-bit raw for higher color latitude. But I still think flatbed scanning has a lot of problem when it comes to negative warping with factory holder that needs to be address, thus tray-load usually provide a better solution on a flat film plane for an even focus scan.

[@DanielLopez-up6os]

Personally i havent gotten any more latitude out of the Film with a Scanner vs a Mirorelless camera for scanning.

[@williamburkholder769]

Color and B&W negs are usually scanned within the range of 12-bit sensors. I don’t miss 48-bit flatbeds at all. Just work in raw, process in Negative Lab Pro and Lightroom Classic, and you’ll be happy!

[@ribsy]

Agreed!

[@ribsy]

Yea agree - that one metric is overshadowed by the plague of other issue

[@professionalpotato4764]

The 48 bit sounds like marketing? Just like how 8 bit monitors are 48 bit (8 bit RGB+Alpha) 48 bit is essentially 16 bit RGB. There's no true 48 bit (per channel) file. The differences between 14 or 16 bit files are kinda negligible in practical use.

[@PeterPaoliello]

Presentation of this is becoming of a channel with 100x the subscribers. Great work.

[@ribsy]

i appreciate that! thanks

[@ImperiousImages]

Glad to see something like this from Valoi. I picked up there previous solution and it worked well for the cost. The fact they keep the cost affordable is another plus. We all know flatbed scanning technology stopped progressing in the 90's. More emerging options on scanning is only going to benefit everyone.

[@ribsy]

yea their previous solution is great and i still use it for 120

[@phileo_ss]

I built something similar several years ago using cardboard tubes, although the light source was independent. I used it to digitize my old film photos. It is so much faster than using a flatbed scanner!

[@ribsy]

Nice!

[@nelsonclub7722]

If it works for you it works for you - I've been Pro for 45+yrs- I've seen a few technical developments in those years!!

[@ribsy]

to each their own!

[@tgchism]

I use a Sigma 105mm Macro lens on a copy stand and a good backlight source with film holders for 35mm 120 and a homemade slide holder and love the quality I get using my Sony A7III to copy the film! The only advantage to flatbed scans is the software that removes dust and scratches as far as I can see.

[@ribsy]

Yea any combination of tools for camera scanning will give you really good results!

[@BobHoughtonProductions]

The key word is workflow. Time is money. If it is good enough for the intended purpose, and it takes less time to operate, it is a win.

[@ribsy]

exactly - i prefer this workflow

[@frstesiste7670]

I think camera scanning can be a great option and this setup looks really interesting with the light source build in. Maybe a lens collar could work to work to mount it on a (table) tripod. For scanning oldish color film my preference is still a film/flatbed scanner with Ice. Getting clean or at least almost clean scans can easily save me 10-30 minutes editing time per image with film that has a lot of dust and scratches.

[@ribsy]

fair enough!

[@jorgemtrevino]

>Maybe a lens collar could work to work to mount it on a (table) tripod Not recommended; can induce focus creep. The manual says so.

[@jeffreyklaum13]

I used a Nikon 4000 Coolscan years ago. Worked well. Eventually developed the blue horizontal line through the scans. The Digital ICE is nice and something I didn't consider I may not have if i choose to do this next round of scanning with a setup like this Valoi or utilize the Epson 600 I have. Which also has ICE. I do like the speed of the Valoi setup though. My end use of the scanned images is for print. A book specifically. If I use the camera setup method I'd be using a Canon 5dmk4 with a Canon 100 2.8 L v2. Aside from the ICE issue, what else may be a determining factor to choose one method over the other?

[@developingtank]

Planning on being crazy and taking my flatbed to scan with me on a 7 week trip this summer. I wish I knew about this earlier/that it came out in time for that trip. Looks so sick!

[@ribsy]

wow! good luck

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

Dedicated film scanners cost less than this setup...

[@RonEMarks]

I bought a lanthar slide duplicator that has a build in lens and holds the film at the exact necessary distance from the sensor. It was $12 on eBay plus $10 for a T2>Nikon F adapter. No, extension tubes, no focusing. Awesome results.

[@ribsy]

yea ive heard a bit about these alternatives

[@sneakingelephant]

There’ll always be snobby whiners complaining that it’s not as good as flatbed or the darkroom. I truly don’t see how it can be inferior to a flatbed. If you have a good lens and light setup it’s going to win against a flatbed in terms of convenience with as good or better image quality. Plus the film prep for dust removal is even less compared to a flatbed. I’m still gonna keep mine for medium format film but this is hands down the way I’m doing 35mm scans from now on.

[@caw25sha]

Assuming you've already bought a macro lens you could get a light panel and 120 film holder such as the Lomography Digitaliza, both pretty cheap, and away you go. Or, as he said, they might bring out a 120 version.

[@chesslover8829]

Does it work with sheet film? 😮

[@ribsy]

lol i hate the "why scan, you are supposed to darkroom print" people 😂

[@BrooksWitta-w6b]

i dont know I love the dslr scanning but I also love flatbed especially for medium format, its nice having a dedicated film scanner and also not having Digital ICE would drive me crazy. manually cleaning dust off negatives sucks one of the biggest drawbacks to that scanning setup for me.

[@ribsy]

yea thats totally fair. i just clean up the dust in photoshop

[@carlos_mann]

Idk much about this type of stuff, but I sure would buy this. This seems like it can become a fun hobby and then profitable in a short amount of learning time

[@ribsy]

def save money by scanning at home

[@andydreadsbmx]

This looks awesome and I love the simplicity of the set up but I shoot so many different formats and sizes (35mm half frame, 35mm full frame, 35mm pano) and I enjoy shooting a bit of the boarder of the film which this and a lot of holders seem to chop off to help keep it flat. Personally I use the lomo digitaliza 35 and 120 holders and yes the set up is a pain but it allows for flexibly in formats (120 645, 120 6x6, 120 6x7, & 120 6x9). I do also use a v850 but thats for 4x5 strictly because I find that camera scanning gives great results for 120 and especially 35mm.

[@ribsy]

makes sense!

[@jimzielinski946]

If i didn't already have a DIY version of this gadget, id buy one. The speed and ease of copying with this type of gadget is unbelievable.

[@ribsy]

Nice! DIY is good!

[@gottanikoncamera]

Cool gizmo. Back in the Sixties and Seventies, Honeywell and a couple of other manufacturers marketed slide duplicators with built-in light sources. This one is a bit more portable. I used to use a Nikon PB IV bellows with the slide and film roll attachments which gave me the added benefit of being able to crop somewhat.

[@ribsy]

Nice!

[@rbatbaptista]

Hey Ribsy! Thanks for another great video. I like the Veloi, but in my opinion is too expensive. A year ago I found in Amazon a similar option for a fraction of the Veloi price "JJC Photo Slide and Film Digitizer Converter with 10-Levels Brightness LED Backlight for 35mm Slide and Negatives Copying Scanning to Digital for Select Canon Nikon Sony Macro Lenses" Maybe is not as good as the Veloi, but for me works fine at reasonable price. I hope this info help somebody. Regards

[@ribsy]

yup there is an amazon alternative. ive never used it but seems promising

[@andrewmartin8739]

Used a Pentax DSLR , macro lens , extension tube , tripod stand and light board for scanning 35mm negatives and the results I found exceptional

[@ribsy]

yup! preach!

[@jeffreymorris1752]

All I use film scanning for is culling (by 80%) what I have printed photographically. Quality isn't (way) important because I'm not trying to create anything of value on digital, just using it to make an analog selection process easier. This looks perfect for that.

[@geophizz]

I like to use a digital camera scan for B&W negatives or color slides. I really struggle with color negative films because I'm color blind, and have a really hard time correcting for the base color of the film. The flatbed does a really good job with that for me. For 120, my flatbed gives me about 25 Megapixel images which is about the same that I would get with Digital scans.

[@ruffprophetproductions]

im colorblind too. try to use negative lab pro? it'll do all that for you. its worth the price in gold. and im kinda at the point where i just make it look good to my eye. i never feel 100% confident when color correcting but if i can get to least 95% i'm ok lol

[@ribsy]

yea flatbed is good for some

[@DanielLopez-up6os]

Negative Lab Pro for lightroom, already color corrects for the colour of the base.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@ribsy It's better for virtually everybody except the most casual of person. And, honestly, if you're that casual, then you might as well just have the lab developing the photos do the conversion for you. 16-bits, 2x the horizontal and vertical resolution and IR dust removal make a massive difference over what you're going to get with this sort of rig. Personally, I'd rather just use technology that's intended for this rather than deal with adapting technology that's for a completely different purpose for this. By the time you plunk down all the money for what they're selling, you could easily have purchased a much better flattop scanner and been done with it. A scanner will last many, many years if cared for properly.

[@russjump6194]

have not tried the Valoi Easy35 but struggled using my DSLR on 120 and 135 film so I bought a Epson v600 and absolutely love it. I don't hate people that use the DSLR to scan that's crazy. I would have really liked my dslr which is a canon 5d mark 4 to have worked much better than my scanner but I was having issues with getting it completely level and flat so I had corners on the film that was out of focus so I looked at the price of the copy stand that would hold the camera and that's when I decided to buy the Epson v600 so I'm Not Looking Back. but I may buy the Valoi Easy35 to see how it works. I am open to any technology that does the job good and works good. by the way I use negative lab Pro with the v600 but have used the scanner software also with good results but prefer negative lab Pro. it all gets Lightroom classic adjustments anyway

[@ribsy]

yea flatbed def does a good job - i used to own one. but i just really don't enjoy the physical workflow

[@d0rifto1]

very cool ! hope they make a 120 version. in their FAQ, it says- " The same way of attaching a scanning device to a camera could be used for 120, however, the additional size and weight of that setup requires additional support to take stress off the lens and filter thread mount. Therefore, while we might do something like it in the future, it will not be as easy and compact in use as the VALOI easy35." if they update you please let us know !

[@ribsy]

yup!

[@KentuckyDarkroom]

After spending the morning at a copy stand, this sounds VERY appealing.

[@ribsy]

haha yea. copy stand workflow can be annoying depending on the tools you have

[@robocobrabot]

I don’t have a DSLR so this would be a huge investment for me. On the other hand I got my Nikon dedicated film scanner for $50 and I’ve been using with great success for about 10 years now 😊

[@ribsy]

Fair enough

[@rustysena2638]

I think this way of scanning is super cool! I have no beef with anyone who scans this way. However, there are some distinct advantages to a good flatbed scanner. Part of my job is scanning thousands of originals. For the most part, I don't get to scan from a roll. I get all kinds of supplied originals that are pre-cut. I get 35mm slides, 4x5 transparencies, 8x10, and all kinds of reflective art. I don't see how this system could scan these types of originals. Another thing is batch scanning. My scanner has large holders that allow you to scan something like 30-40 originals at a time automatically. You just load them all up in the holder and hit GO. And then there's the software that drives the scanner. It allows you to make changes to color before you actually scan which I'm sure you already knew. But as I said, I probably would have bought one of these years ago if I had known about it. It's a great option - especially for the price.

[@ribsy]

Yea def - this system isn’t for all film types. What is your job btw??

[@rustysena2638]

@@ribsy I'm a prepress operator and I work with a lot of archival photos that come to me for scanning. Usually these photos are used in books, which I work on quite often. My scanner sits for months at a time doing nothing but then a big project will happen and all of a sudden I'm working with the scanner for weeks. That's where a good flatbed and software really shine. My scanner has special glass that prevents newton rings so I don't have to worry about the film not being flat. I've used those scanners and it's their biggest shortcoming - those lousy film holders.

[@ribsy]

@@rustysena2638 very cool job. anti newton ring glass is a game changer. all scanners should have that

[@Skipsul]

Got an old Minolta macro bellows with a slide / film duplicator and a macro lens. Does basically the same thing as the Valoi, and in fact used to be the way camera shops had duplicated negatives, or converted negatives to slides, or slides to negatives, for generations. The chief limitations I've found are that moire patterns can be an issue (I shot a corrugated steel grain silo, and while the negative was perfect, the digitized neg was not so), and the slide holder can sometimes cause vigneting on the captured negative.

[@Skipsul]

One note regarding the bellows: there's not any guesswork with extension tubes, you simply extend the bellows and adjust the slide holder, both on the same rail.

[@ribsy]

yea there is some fine-tuning that could def help to avoid moire and vignetting -- appropriate shutter speed and aperture should handle that

[@ChuckAbles]

Well done with the presentation. I looked into the camera film scanning concept, liked it, and thought perhaps someday. However, I do have my comfort zone as a grumpy ol' man that still likes his flatbed and the abilities to scan 35mm, 120, and 4X5.

[@ribsy]

haha flatbed works too. your choice!

[@garygaryp1984]

Works great with my canon 100m macro but struggled with my Fuji 60mm macro, which tried to move the whole unit to focus and needed to shut camera down each time.

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

This looks very good. Maybe the $227 pricetag is a little high?

[@selectiveimagery]

Real cool unit, this will be very convenient for many people. Thanks for sharing.

[@ribsy]

Definitely

[@IvarsDayLab]

Wooow....! I 100% need this! 😃 Thank you Ribsy for awesome video, I was waiting for this video. It actually can speed up my scanning + make it more compact and practically trip friendly. I hope Valoi will make 120mm film scanner too so that all medium format films can be scanned right after film dries. Thank you Ribsy for demonstration! 👍

[@ribsy]

Yea I hope for 120 too

[@andrewneil8240]

Dedicated film scanners trump camera scanning for the medium and large formats. When it comes to 35mm film or half frame film, there is so little resolution in your average film stock. So you might as well scan it using a dslr or mirrorless camera.

[@ribsy]

you can do a pano scan and make up any perceived resolution loss

[@theblackandwhitefilmproject]

I'm a flatbed guy. I use Silverfast scanning software to tweak the image and while I'm waiting for the scanner to do it's thing .I am using Photoshop Elements to get rid of dust / crop etc. I don't use Lightroom or Photoshop and Silverfast gives me enough options to tweak my B+W photos. My only digital camera is X100V so no point in buying a digital camera to save on scanning. The time saved with this system seems to be taken up with all the Post processing required. It really depends what gear you already own whether it is value or not. Whatever works..

[@ribsy]

the post processing is done via batch processing and the controls are more intuitive imo. it really is faster overall especially since you can do the post work from the comfort of your couch

[@jtshannon]

Damn, i like that setup! The only thing scary is if someone in my house thinks it is the sous vide and puts it in a pot of water.

[@ribsy]

Haha true that!

[@zerixos]

To be honest, flatbed scanners are horrible for 35mm, but film scanners like the Nikon Coolscan are great, especially for colour film. I use a Coolscan IV-ED (just 2800dpi, way less than 4000 of the higher end scanners) and it still beats my Sony A7III with a Nikon AI macro lens. I like that camera scanning is fast, but it isn’t as fast as just pressing the shutter. The copy stand set up takes pretty long to set up every time I take my camera off. This Valoi Easy35 looks like it solves that problem and it looks to work great, but camera scanning also takes a lot of time correcting the images, even if you use a plug-in like Negative Lab Pro you still need to clean up the images, especially when you scan older rolls. This could be a time consuming process and I hate doing it. Digital ICE is one of the reasons flatbed and scanners are populair. If you use something that can batch scan its also less work intensive (although it could take longer). Load up the roll and press scan, after 15 minutes and they’re done, no conversion, no cleaning up the image, not pressing the shutter and importing images, hoping they are perfectly aligned every time and you didn’t mess up the focussing. If you did mess up anything you need to do it over again (I’m pretty clumsy so this wouldn’t effect every one) so there is much more room for human errors.

[@mcbohdo]

My problem with using a mid-range film scanner was that I always used slides and I undexposed them very often to avoid white clipping. So these are very dense and the scanner could not deal well with that. Also, it took a LOT of time.

[@zerixos]

​@@mcbohdo Good to know! I try to expose my slides pretty natural, and my negatives a little over to be able to pull back the highlights and not crushing the lows, so I've never encored any problems with that. But yes, they're slow, but using a batch scanner it doesn't take to much working time and the clean up is way faster if you can use Digital ICE. But for some people, underexposing their film it might not be the best option I guess? Any idea how those simple lights hold up using a macro lens?

[@jameschho]

Coolscan 9000 here... I've tried camera scanning but found it fiddly - requires a really consistent setup and ideally a 1:1 macro and 100% perfect alignment to prevent distortion and a really even and high CRI lighting. I prefer to use my coolscan any day.

[@ribsy]

flatbed or camera scan, you will likely mess with the images in post. so i rather save the upfront time and go camera scan

[@jeffreyklaum13]

@@jameschho @ribsy My Coolscan 4000 died many years ago. Loved that thing. Eventually developed the horizontal blue line through all the scans. I'm trying to figure out the best method for this next round of re-scans I need to do. Preparing images for a book. Everything is pretty much cut and sleeved already. I have a Epson 600 i've barely used. Been considering maybe one of those Plustek film scanners too. I'm not rescanning everything I have, just certain images from a certain strips but there will be a lot of them. The biggest negative factor I see is lack of ICE. Is there a substitute software that can do it? I know PS has a "remove dust and scratches" menu item once you have a image up on screen for editing. Is that the same? Is there a problem with image quality (for print) vs. one over the other? Negative scanner vs. flatbed vs. camera capture. Thanks in advance for any replies.

[@ericlarson6180]

I’ve used a Nikon es-2 to do the same thing. I bought it to go with my Nikon D850, but it will work on any camera with a macro lens. Same principle but you need to supply the light source. I set it up with a Nikon D600 and copied most of my 35mm archive including color transparencies and color and b&w negatives. I have a rather nice nikon coolscan film scanner, but I found using a 24 megapixel camera and the es-2 is lightning fast and produces better scans. Another benefit using this method, is you can capture raw files which have quite a bit more latitude for editing your captures

[@ribsy]

yup - sounds like a good setup

[@RWROW]

I've ordered one despite already doing digitization using my camera and copy stand. The main attraction is that this unit seems so portable and I want to do digitization of negatives belonging to family members.

[@ribsy]

Yea it’s super portable

[@AlexOnStreets]

I'm definitely getting the final product. 💯

[@ribsy]

yea its a no-brainer for 35mm

[@peterbeck-rasmussen8514]

I have done both flatbed scanning with Epson 550V and dedicated 35mm scanning with a Plustek scanner, and they dont deliver the same quality as scanning with my camera and a macro lens !! Well the Plustek comes close - but the process takes forever compared to the camera scanning. I use a reprostand to hook my camera up to, a lightboard to put the negatives on, which are held in a Digitaliza negative holder from Lomography. This works with both 35mm film and 120 film. If this device would be usable for both 35mm and 120 film, it would be a no-brainer !!

[@ribsy]

yea camera scanning speed is huge

[@TasteofTaboo]

the problem here is with the light source, LED, especially these cheap ones are really low on the red spectrum… which on the other side is important for color negatives. With a flash tube and a led for focussing the quality, especially for blue/cyan tones after conversion would be much better. … means just a diffion on the backside that you can use your on camera flash or whatever would be a nice mod for much better color quality

[@ribsy]

Will this make a meaningful difference in the end result tho?

[@noricd]

I have been researching digitisation of film negatives, slides and print photos for three years and progressively acquiring the gear needed for copy stand digitisation. Having a strong light is critical, as important as macro lens selection and post-production software. There are videos on KZbin comparing results from different light sources. I have been astonished at the quality of the results I achieved with all the very economical gear in place in 2023, resulting from the research.

[@Paul_Wetor]

In the late 1990s I bought an HP scanner that would feed in slides, prints, or negatives. It had three sizes of openings that changed with the push of a button. Very compact, but it eventually failed. It wasn't as good as my current flatbed scanner, but it sure was convenient. I wish they had made an updated USB version.

[@ribsy]

Sounds useful

[@Stevie75]

I did a few BW negatives a few years ago, setup was a Canon 5DII with the Nikon PB4 and attachment

[@ribsy]

cool!

[@teaman7v]

Wow awesome. This has so much potential. Imagine they put a sensor inside it so you didn't even need to attach the camera. And maybe make it bigger so you can scan multiple imagine at once, and medium format. Maybe some sort of lid for easy access. I'm all in. These guys are on to something!! 🙌

[@teaman7v]

All jokes aside. It's a neat bit of kit. I can see it working well for some folk

[@ribsy]

😐

[@teaman7v]

@@ribsy 😁 sorry!

[@andrewbarnum5040]

Camera scanning has issues but when done right can produce amazing results. Flatbed scanners are great for odd film sizes and film stocks such as 116. And for happy medium is to get a pro scanner like a Noritu and get the best of both worlds.

[@ribsy]

Agreed!

[@troysvisualarts]

I've been using a flatbed scanner for years and it's good enough but I get scan line artefacts in the picture, also I shoot and home process vintage expired film and get overdeveloped from time to time resulting in excessive grain. I am wondering with this film scanning product say you can make the backlight super intense over a near opaque grossly overdeveloped film and light it up enough, will you get a decent looking image with decent contrast and not too much grain? Also scanning 400 iso films that are grainy when scanned with a flatbed, will they be less grainy on this film scan system?

[@ribsy]

A good scan (via any method) will pick up all of the grain. This is a good thing

[@g-r-a-e-m-e-]

Flatbed scanners do work reasonably well depending on the model. Software can allow auto scans in batches, like say 24 frames at once. Handy. Not taking anything away from this setup. ☺️

[@ribsy]

totally. i don't hate on people using it - it just aint for me

[@3dtrip870]

great video! I think the time it takes to just snap a photo is the most compelling argument.

[@ribsy]

yea hard to beat

[@sanguyer6683]

I don't have a problem with it, probably works great for 35mm (I hear that 35mm isn't really scanned well on a flatbed). Appreciate the speed. For medium format or larger... I have to imagine flatbeds are still the way to go.

[@ribsy]

yup - you are correct

[@MDMiller60]

I bought a scanner some years ago to do my slides and film. I stopped after realizing how hard and time consuming it was. Now, I am looking for a good camera scanner that will well with my 60mm (120 efective) Olympus macro lens.

[@ribsy]

camera scanning is your friend!

[@stefanvanderklink6864]

Easy right, make a comparison between a decent flatbed scanner and camera setup of the same film and compare quality? Only thing I know for sure is that I can leave my scanner unattended for multiple scans instead of manually make every single picture.

[@ribsy]

there are many of those videos on youtube already, and they all show how camera scanning is equal to or better

[@Francois_L_7933]

Wow, do things go around and around! There used to be a lot of devices like that called "slide duplicators".

[@ribsy]

Yup! I mention them at the end of the video

[@andrewcroft2570]

Great video I'm new to photography I have a Canon 1300D and I've just bought my first 35mm camera and would like to scan my own negatives. At the moment I can't afford a dedicated macro lens, I've been doing some macro photography using macro tubes and good Canon lenses. These lenses only go down to f3.5 would this system work for me, please?

[@vanhetgoor]

When scanning a film it is important to go for the maximum highest quality imaginable. Once a film is scanned the original gets forgotten and it is never used again. Therefore the quality is important. What is the difference in quality between maken a photo of the film or millimeter by millimeter scanning this film, making every ray of light make a detour if there is a dust particle on the film. I have always had the impression, forgive me if I am wrong, that scanning in the old fashioned way gave the highest quality, am I wrong?

[@caw25sha]

"I don't like it because it looks weird." 😀 Flatbed scanners are frustratingly slow, and the software is often annoying. I used to use an Epson and it would reset all the enhancement options (sharpening, scratch removal etc.) which I didn't want, to on for each individual scan. Using a camera is not only faster but gives you complete control. I usually use auto white balance but I would guess negatives would confuse it so it's necessary to manually set WB to the colour temperature of the light source. A 120 version wouldn't be a problem. Just make it take negatives up to, for example, 6x7 which is probably the largest common format, and provide masks for 6x6 and 6x4.5. The biggest 120 format is 6x17 but obviously it's completely unreasonable to expect a gadget like this to go that large!

[@ribsy]

Yea a 120 version would be pretty cool

[@frankwolff2903]

How flexible is the scanning area? Can you get the whole negative including the sprocket holes? or are you restricted to a tighter crop?. Thanks, FW

[@ribsy]

My prototype wasn’t full sprockets but I think you can do so with a different mask

[@chbrownie18]

Fast, practical & to the point. Thank you!

[@ribsy]

thanks

[@BraeHunziker]

Dang this looks like a super cool piece of kit!

[@ribsy]

It is man! Very intriguing and intuitive

[@CockpitScenes]

This looks good. I scanned thousands of negatives and slides on my flatbed. It has digital ice which really helps restore and take the dust out. ALL of these scans were on 50-year old film and slides. The problem with this solution is that a lot of my negatives have been cut up, and not on a roll. Also I just don't understand why anyone would use film today, and then digitize it. Why not just go right to digital with a digital camera and skip all the scanning?

[@ribsy]

people shoot on film for many reasons -- they like using old mechanical cameras, the visual qualities of film, having negatives to also print in the darkroom ... etc

[@TheWutangclan1995]

After using my Sony to scan my film, I haven’t looked back at using my Epson as it’s much more efficient for me to get a couple rolls done in an hour or an entire gig I photographed before I go to bed. While camera scanning has been a breeze there are certain drawbacks that makes me want to get this. Such as readjusting everything from moving my setup slightly or my hand whacks the camera and it needs to be realigned. Including my film touching dust on the table and sucks it back up.

[@ribsy]

yea it is annoying to camera scan if you don't have a permanent desk setup. this new unit does reduce setup

[@jimtalor7971]

Years ago I had the Epson perfection series flatbed to film scan. It was slow but ok. The method on this video appears much better to use if you have thousands of negatives to scan. Hopefully price will drop for such device.

[@ribsy]

there are some cheaper alternatives out there

[@franklittle6702]

Hi, that looks great for negatives in 35 mm, I have been looking at a mountain of kadachrome transparancies and have not had good results on my flat bed scanner so gave up. Question is does it do mounted cardboard & plastic slides?

[@ribsy]

Mounted slides will not fit

[@darwinwins]

the color negative at 8:45 would make a great image in and of itself.

[@ribsy]

😄

[@ziorxkomtuper]

I do think camera scanning is better than most flatbeds for 35 mm. When it comes to what you get for your money, I think flatbed scanners still win. An Epson V700 can be had for as little as 160 €. It will also happily do Medium Format and Large format. You can still scan them as negatives and then do your inversion with what ever software you like. At the end I do not own any digital camera beside my phone, but if I had one, I would definitely scan my 35 mm negatives with a camera

[@caw25sha]

You can get gadgets to scan negatives with a phone. I think Lomography make one. Obviously the results depend on the quality of your phone's close up lens which on mine is awful ☹

[@ziorxkomtuper]

@@caw25sha I've tried with my phone but my scanner provides better results

[@ribsy]

Yea flatbeds are good for the money - def can’t debate that!

[@SuperZardo]

Could you take a picture without a negative in order to assess homogeneous brightness distribution across the light source? Also, does it accept slides, meaning framed reversal film?

[@ribsy]

framed film will not work in this

[@digitalrex5]

Thanks for this, one of the main things that’s prevented me from learning self development of film is I could never find an optimal scanning method that was better than what my local lab could do

[@ribsy]

This method could def help

[@discojelly]

Finally!!!! Someone with a GREAT idea!

[@ribsy]

haha its not a brand new idea but its a good version of one

[@quite1enough]

I'm worrying about scratching the film. Also how it compares with Noritsu for example?

[@ribsy]

You have to compare you camera/lens to a noritsu. Not this product

[@VariTimo]

If it’s build right there is no need to worry about scratching. Optically is much closer to a Noritsu than any consumer grade scanner. And color is always depended on your post workflow. You can get there with NLP.

[@sayitsendit6565]

Great, I didn't know this existed. What about slides? Thanks.

[@ribsy]

It doesn’t handle mounted slides

[@LoFiAxolotl]

Nice that there's an option for digital cameras... but the scanner does have some advantages.... the camera is very much limited by resolution (unless you stitch which is an imperfect solution), so if you want to print bigger sizes the camera behind it would need to match.... for 2mx2,5m at 300ppi i'd need a phase one..... another problem is the loss of quality.... if you're using a FX30 you're shooting 35mm on APS-C

[@ribsy]

yea the sensor is the limit. but modern sensors are extremely capable even apsc

[@JasperBunschoten]

I already signed up for mine a while back, with the rising costs of film, taking charge of your own developing and scanning is the only way of cutting costs.

[@ribsy]

For sure! Well said

[@flyonwall360]

If you're scanning 35mm with a camera, how much does the camera cost. My Canon XTi at 10 Mpxl wouldn't be worth the time. Back in 2008, I bought an Epson V750 Pro, and it's still going strong.

[@ribsy]

this is best for those who already own a usable digital camera. usable is up to you tho

[@SchardtCinematic]

I need this! I have so many old negatives I want to digitize. Flat bed scanning takes to long. I currently use my small light box and just hand hold my Canon R7 over the negative and snap the photo. I don't always fill the whole sensor. But I generally get a 12 to 15 megapixel image that looks great after I crop it and photo shop it.

[@ribsy]

this is def a great solution for cranking through tons of negatives

[@SchardtCinematic]

@Ribsy Yes I need one of these. My Canon R7 should handle the scanning nicely.

[@larsholst6216]

Great video. I have a few issues with this, though. I have all kind of formatsfrom 110, 18x24, 4,5x6, 6x6, 6x9. My Epson flatbed with transparent ability can do these formats. Another thing is dpi. I get up to 12800dpi. How much will this device give?

[@ribsy]

this device is not a scanner. it is simply a film holder/light

[@seralegre]

I was lucky enough to be one of the first backers, so in theory I will receive it on Jully. Really looking forwardt to it!

[@ribsy]

good luck!

[@timryan894]

I got in on the crowd funding early. Can’t wait to get mine

[@ribsy]

Nice! You will like it

[@bwc1976]

Very nice! Do you have any full-resolution sample scans we could look at, from a variety of different film stocks?

[@ribsy]

i don't have much yet. but also the camera/lens will matter significantly more than this product

[@kevinglennon2370]

Risby, there is nothing wrong at all in using a digital camera system for scanning what looks to be 35mm negative or positive film. However, a professional flatbed scanner or a drum scanner is much more flexible and can scan to a specific density. The pro scanners scan at densities of 4 to well over that specific classification. This means they get far more of the details in the more darker areas of the media being scanned. I have no understanding of what density the camera scanner can resolve so cannot comment. However there are much bigger sizes than 35mm that are still in need of scanning for posterity, so why is there a problem?

[@ribsy]

i have no issue with people using camera scanning. i just know it is not for me

[@meibing4912]

Interesting. I have old film that is quite "curled" which makes it necessary to have extra glass to press the film "flat". Can this device keep the film 100% straight?

[@ribsy]

Yes

[@ActionZ]

I've been DSLR scanning for over a decade. It yields much higher resolution than flatbed. The only con with DSLR scanning is the lack of software. You need to color correct and de-dust. Yes there are packs you can buy but adjusting and fine tuning is still a major time constraint compared to flatbed software.

[@ribsy]

negative lab pro is pretty fast

[@TheSilverprint]

What camera & lens to use? Is there a diffrence btwn cameras? lenses? set-ups? The cost of a proper set-up? Less than a V800/850? I don't own a digital SLR. This work flow could get expensive. Great video.

[@ribsy]

Yea if you don’t own a digital then might not be worth it for you

[@CartyCantDance]

IS THAT YOU ERIC??? Congrats on the KZbin my dude

[@ribsy]

yoooo carty whats good! yes it me 😅

[@bondgabebond4907]

flatbed scanners are great when making copies of paper for the IRS. I actually use it for scanning 120 film. I have a dedicated scanner for 35mm. but this tiny scanner looks quite doable.

[@ribsy]

haha the IRS loves flatbed scanners

[@eyeperture]

A nice approach that should be done a long time ago, I like the built-in LED backlight, and I wish there is a cable connection to the camera that can enable bracket (backlight changes according to the EV bracketing). How about bellow In stead of the extension tubes?!

[@ribsy]

Extension tubes keep everything rigid without the need for additional structure

[@Martin_Siegel]

I prefer camera scanning over flatbed scanning for the speed and conveniance. I supported the Valoi and I look forward to receiving it. Maybe if scanner companies kept actively developing scanners but right now I don't think so.

[@ribsy]

Yea agree - would be very interesting if the scanner manufacturers came out with something that addressed the flaws

[@John_Pither]

Where was this device 3 yearrs ago when I went the copy-stand route?! 😭 As for film scanners versus camera-scanning, having done both I'm 100% onboard with the latter. I've actually had a few instances of "recovering" overexposed slides (wrong ISO setting) by photographting the slide.

[@ribsy]

Yea camera is best

[@DavidGault-d5o]

I've just finished a home-made version of this idea. I use my Pentax SMC-M 50mm f4 Macro and my Pentax K-x. I'd like to sort out a better light source though...

[@ribsy]

The cinestill lite is a good one

[@eliaspap8708]

Im already doing this quite easily, all u need is traditional slide film lightbox, macro lens and tripod. U definitely don’t need extension tubes, either take the shots in a dark room or simply make light hood with black paper cardboard.

[@ribsy]

👍🏽

[@RFranks]

Looks good, definitely better than the tripod/mirror setup I'm using at the moment which is kinda annoying to set up.

[@ribsy]

ahh yea i can image

[@craynotcreigh]

I was all hardcore dedicated scanner for a long time but once I got a good backlight there was no looking back from macro. In my experience flatbeds cannot pull the same dynamic range or sharpness that macro can.

[@ribsy]

Yea can’t beat a good backlight!

[@craynotcreigh]

@@ribsy Its game over for flatbeds.

[@fruitcup01]

Is taking a picture of a picture better now with high pixel cameras, than scanning? As a guess, I would think so, and it's at least easier as demonstrated with your video. Thanks, I will consider this device. In the 90's I took a few photos of a stamp using my Nikon and some magnifying lenses, I thought it was great for those times.

[@ribsy]

Quality wise - it can be debated. But all I can guarantee is that a digital picture will produce really great results, especially with high megapixel cameras

[@brentOhlookAsnake]

In your opinion. Would my Rebel T5 be worth using to “scan” my film using this? I know the T5 is very much an entry DSLR. I have the proper lens to use.

[@ribsy]

yes def worth it if just for showcasing online and social. make sure to get the best macro lens possible (1:1 macro) so you can maximize the use of your camera sensor

[@d.e.d.e.t]

Scanning using a digital camera compared to a flat bed is of course faster. However, it will take longer and be tedious if the scanned films are old films, generally with defects and dirt that is not easy to clean. We are forced to clean and repair the film using a separate image editing software, unlike the dedicated film scanner, this software is integrated with it.

[@ribsy]

Flatbed isn’t end all be all. Prob still requires some photoshop or Lightroom after

[@UNLKYHNTR]

I think this is quite neat. If you just post pictures on Instagram or whatever, it's a quick and easy way to scan your film.

[@ribsy]

def good for that, but also more