Kickstarter: Pixl-latr aims to simplify film digitization

For people with larger formats this is a very nifty solution and while DIY will get you there a bit cheaper, it won't be worth the hassle for most. I am not so convinced for 35mm folks.

I am working on something very similar myself for 35mm film.
The biggest problems my solution has, are shared with his:
1) It works well on a single image, but if you want to digitise a 35mm film, you will be there forever.
2) assuring perpendicularity when taking the photo.

For 35mm film, there are of course "digitiser tubes" you can mount in front of your normal lens (with a dioptre element in them) or your macro lens (without any elements). I have found these to be also unsuitable for handling a whole 35mm film.
I had a look into something that would allow me to clamp-snap-release-move2next-repeat cycle and provide better perpendicularity by supporting my macro lens via its lens hood.

3 months agopermalink

JackM

I’m in. For $33 it’s worth a try. I like the idea of shooting a negative or a slide with my 30mp 5D4 and best lens, and then working on the RAW file in Lightroom. Could get some unique results.

3 months agopermalink

mike80

120 film is not 120mm.

3 months agopermalink

I don't think he says that in the video? He says 120 film up to 6x9 - which in this case is cm. It is confusing, because the next measure he says is in inches.

3 months agopermalink

Tommi K1

6x9 is not 6 x 9 cm. It has some variation like 55 x 80 mm to 56 x 91 mm.
But that is just the frame size, while the film roll has same width.

But I think everyone gets the point about 120 format?

3 months agopermalink

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_rings

Tommi, rounding 120 film up to the nearest cm is common practice and your nitpicking doesn't help the discussion.

3 months agopermalink

Stefan Sobol

This device is nothing but a film holder. Don't see that it actually adds much value to the process, but I guess that's reflected in the price.

3 months agopermalink

Steve Chroma

It is exactly a film holder. Without it, your film will be pretty difficult to keep flat, diffuse the backlight and photograph at the same time.

3 months agopermalink

Stefan Sobol

You could just use two pieces of high quality glass. One clear and one diffuse. Hold them together with spring clips.

3 months ago*permalink

Lambert Heenan

Re using two pieces of glass. There's a reason that method is not used in enlargers: Newton's rings.

3 months agopermalink

glass will cause newton rings, so you need a special anti-newton plate.

3 months agopermalink

sh10453

Hmmmmmm ... scratching my head and thinking loud .... What's wrong with the current scanners, with their film/negative strip holder, and their very high resolution scans?
They have been on the market at least since the 1990s.

3 months agopermalink

JackM

This is much cheaper, and you use your familiar camera/RAW workflow. I think the resulting quality will be very high, perhaps matching or beating a Nikon Coolscan, which are still expensive.

3 months agopermalink

Nuno Souto

What's wrong with current scanners?

They take forever to scan every image and need constant tweaking.
And the software to drive them is most of the time grossly out of date, unless it's third party like vuescan.
And the prices are stratospheric.

That enough?

High time someone looks into making film scanning simple, reliable and fast.
It can be done: commercial scanners for movies work much faster than the rubbish 35mm amateurs have had to put up with!

All it needs is a way to keep film perfectly flat and clean and a digital camera sensor with some software to do the necessary corrections for negative film or contrast control for slides. Fixed focus of course, or else one has to spend years tuning the focus for each image!

And preferably without costing an arm and a leg!

2 months agopermalink

Hanf

I will use it for scanning 6x6 Hasselblad negs. This frame is slightly larger than the image, so the typical notches in the corners will be visible. This is only possible with the more expensive scanners!

2 months agopermalink

Chris2210

Am I missing something obvious here? I expect this is mostly going to be used with 35mm film, [but the same goes with larger formats], so what's to stop you putting a piece of tracing paper over your iPad and holding down the film with anything dark enough and heavy enough to hold down and mask the film?

£25 is not a lot, but a sheet of tracing paper and any assortment of things you might easily find around your house saves you your pony...

3 months agopermalink

rationalist

I think you are missing the details. You have to find a tracing paper with no structure unless you want to have that structure on your images. An option would be to fix the negative at a distance to the iPad. Yes, you could fix it with something heavy enough which should have a hole with the size of your negative. A slide frame would have th hole but is not heavy enough. It works but it‘s quite fiddly. After you have processed the first five rolls of film you wish to have something more easy to handle.

3 months agopermalink

White semi-transparent plastic sheets can be bought cheaply off ebay.
And if you think this device is quick to go through rolls of 35mm film, I disagree.

3 months agopermalink

rationalist

You still have to fix the film on the tablet. No objection that all this can be done in a handicraft project. If its fun for you and you want to invest the time, its fine. I would not however judge the practicability of a product before it is out.

3 months agopermalink

The product is effectively finished. All he needs are custom rubber parts. As such, I'm am confident that I am right when I say that this is a time consuming device when you digitise rolls of 35mm.

3 months agopermalink

Aliexpress is full of tablets with backlight that are designed for transferring images by drawing over them by hand. I see no counterpoints to using a camera with those.

3 months agopermalink

The problem with using an LED tablet is that when you focus on the negative, you can also see the LEDs through the negative/slide.

3 months agopermalink

But isn't this one also the LED tablet?
UPD: Oh I see they use an Ipad as a backlight source. Then it is the same as the copy tablet. You cannot see the LEDs because they are not in the field, they are on the perimeter.

3 months ago*permalink

If a tablet is used, (and that's how the product is optimised to use) then the lighting will be directly underneath but diffused by the opal (I presume) plastic. The LED issue can of course be negated by moving the slide away from the light source, by that in itself can be problematic as this decreases the intensity of the light and can introduce more complexity in getting a flat surface for the slide.

3 months agopermalink

What LED issue are you talking about? LEDs used for backlight are located on the border of the field, not in the field.

3 months agopermalink

I'm referring to tablets, Android and iPad etc.

3 months agopermalink

Or perhaps I'm actually talking about pixels, rather than LEDs.

3 months agopermalink

Yes, but the tablets I'm talking about don't have any pixels, just a white plate with backlight.

3 months agopermalink

James_UK

We need an updated version of the Pakon F-135 or Noritsu LS600 which don't cost a fortune

3 months agopermalink

The problem is any such new product will cost a lot, more than any available old and used ones, because there's still relatively low demand in numbers and it's not cheap to develop and build even if the components themselves are cheap.

3 months agopermalink

fmian

I've been using salvaged film holders from old flatbed scanners to do exactly this. Flatten some layers of diffusion paper underneath it and you have a DIY version of this product.
Good to see it as a neat purpose built package at a decent price.

3 months agopermalink

esmufotografija

Nice idea but I still have my coolscan

3 months agopermalink

👍I'm still using Canon's last film scanner, the Canon FS4000. A bit sharper images than the Coolscans but slow as molasses. This is what I have to say about film though, 🖕🎞.

3 months agopermalink

scoobysnapstories

he does know that he still gotta have time processing film in the dark room or taking it to cvs etc right?

3 months agopermalink

Wye Photography

I think that is blatantly obvious.

3 months agopermalink

elundqvist

Do you think he knows he first needs to take the time to take the photos with a film camera? :P

3 months agopermalink

Turbguy1

A Nikon PB-4 bellows (with a good quality enlarging lens) and the mating side copier attachment with my Nikon D300 works for me with a flash for the light source...

NOTE: 135 film (35mm) only.

3 months agopermalink

Rensol

We did something similar in 2013 and tried to bring it to kickstarter. But they did not approve it.
It had all these guys have + right angle camera mounting.
Funny,,,
That project is dead and the page is abandoned but here is a link for it:
https://www.facebook.com/Image-Laboratory-100423346821002/

3 months agopermalink

Copal Fit

You were a couple years too early before the revival of film happened. Bad luck I guess!

3 months agopermalink

Rensol

Could be :)
At least it had way to attach camera at 90 degree and shake was nit an issue.

3 months agopermalink

That looks pretty good! I want something like pixl latr but I don't the proper copy stand so the integrated camera mount would help a lot. Guess I will to buy at least decent slide copier from eBay.

3 months agopermalink

Nice! 90° mounting is so important!
Working on my own DIY solution for 35mm rolls.

3 months agopermalink

AbrasiveReducer

This might be ok for a few frames--in fact, the film holders might be better than those that come with some scanners. But back when Coolscans were available and somewhat expensive at around $500, people would buy them, intending to scan their film and return the scanner within 30 days. Even with auto feed, most took more than a month or got bored with the task. But now, those un-returned Coolscans are worth more than new.

3 months agopermalink

What I find mind boggling is that none of the camera makers have gotten back into the film scanner business. I always thought they abandoned it way to early to begin with. Canon or Nikon or Sony should come out with a relatively inexpensive and super fast film scanner with infrared dust correction that would cover all formats to large format. Otherwise we are going to lose so much of our photographic history. Think of all that film that will otherwise be damaged or get tossed in the garbage. Sad.

The few third part manufacturers produce crap dedicated film scanners, by the way.

3 months agopermalink

There are pretty good 120&135 format scanners but they are around $2000 which is like new DSLR and hard to justify unless you shoot a lot of film.

3 months agopermalink

cosinaphile

make a mask out of board mount slide and shoot use milk glass or other system and dont sandwich backround near plane of focus

a macro lens and a bit of will is all you need

3 months agopermalink

TMax1980

I've got a collection of Omega enlarger negative carriers from 110 to 4 X 5 and in addition, a slip stage for mounted 35mm slides. I use a flicker-free circular LED (Genaray 10" bicolor) as a light source (adjustable luminance and color temp, high CRI). The setup works well on a copy stand. ... Admittedly, it's a high-end setup.

The Pix-Latr looks like a decent kit. I think both metal and rubber pins should come with the set.

As an aside, it's best to separate the light source from the negative/transparency stage by at least a few inches.

3 months ago*permalink

BobORama

Why the allergy to doing things which work?

By which I mean an inexpensive flatbed scanner?

3 months ago*permalink

Roland Karlsson

I guess that a substantial market target are those that have old negatives an a mobile phone or maybe a simple camera.

Or maybe just a hipster with a holga camera and a mobile phone.

3 months ago*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Too easy.

3 months agopermalink

Fazal Majid

The optics on most consumer flatbed scanners are usually quite mediocre (often nothing more than simple pinholes), and easily beaten by a macro lens. You'd have to get an Epson 700 or above to get proper optics.

3 months agopermalink

I wonder if a Canoscan 9000F Mark-II flatbed will suffice in lieu of this.
https://goo.gl/cwzDVJ

3 months agopermalink

Jerwin

most, if not all flatbed scanners have a fixed focus lens. Some of the older dedicated film scanner models can focus down to the grain and you get significantly sharper images than a flatbed that usually requires copious amounts of sharpening in post.

3 months agopermalink

I'm kinda curious about this actually, scanning film with another camera seems (at least to my ignorant self) like the most laborious path possible... But there seems to be a deep gulf in the flatbed scanner market between the cheapo stuff ($200 or less) and the better stuff ($700+) alluded to above.

It's not just idle curiosity btw, I don't have a lot of old stuff to scan (started shooting digitally in 2000 in college), but my parents sure do and I'd like to tackle that myself someday rather than just dump it at some random lab and get equally random results.

3 months agopermalink

For myself the Canoscan 9000F Mark-II I mention of above for all practical purposes is sufficient for my needs. I am not a professional ready to dump 100's of dollars into some high end film scanner. Beyond scanning old negatives and slides, it's utility will be limited and not needed much afterwards. Being a flatbed however it can always serve to scan old photos and documents too and not just film. but then, so can the scan function in Google Drive or apps like CamScanner do the same. For the price I think it's a good deal. It comes with holders for film strips as well as mounted slides. When I purchased it was $199 USD, but I see Amazon ( https://goo.gl/uv11Fu ) now offers for only $165. You can see photos of the film holders as well as a short video as well.

I am not saying this is the only choice, but for a one off project over a period of time and occasional use afterwards, it's good enough for my purposes.

3 months ago*permalink

BobORama

Fazal, you are incorrect. They are finite conjugates ( the same design used for many macro lenses ) designed for a specific reproduction ratio, like 4:1. I have used these lenses as macro lenses, they do a great job for high ratio macro. There are, of course, different quality lenses - but most of the difference is in the linear array. The problem is that even with a 36MP FF sensor at a 1:1 macro - which most people do not necessarily have access to, the color filter means you are sampling chroma at half the linear resolution. The linear array in scanners generates co-sited R,G,B data - there is a linear array for each color with its own color filter. The proof is in the pudding, obviously. The Pentax with pixel shift would get you back that lost chroma resolution. But then you still need that "perfect" macro lens, perfectly alaigned. I think it may be tricky to get all that perfection in a easily repeatable way.

3 months agopermalink

Roland Karlsson

Neat and cheap. I like it.

I am a bit worried about the diffuser though. How hard is the surface?

Also, my main problem is aligning. In order to get optimal result, the camera shall be totally perpendicular to the surface. That needs som kind of bench to be easily repeatable.

3 months agopermalink

BobORama

Exactly, it also requires you have fairly decent flat field macro, a tripod, possibly a remote release, and you risk introduction of aberrations and distortions that flat beds do not have. Plus I can scan 10 35mm shots on one scan. If you literally have just one negative to do, wait for a cloudy day, tape it on a window.

3 months agopermalink

You can align with centering on a simple mirror. Camera with good lens, even with simple extension tubes will have vastly better image quality than any flatbed scanner but I agree it's more hassle to set up and use it.

3 months agopermalink

Simon97

One of the hardest parts to copying film is getting the camera sensor parallel to the film plane so the results are sharp across the frame (when using a flat field lens, such as many macros). It would be nice to have a set of focusing rails to attach this to.

3 months agopermalink

You will need some kind of fixed setup anyway which is the problematic part. Then use small mirror to center the lens properly.

3 months agopermalink

Woodyz

I use film and flatbed scanners to digitize my 35mm and 120 films because the digital camera method is a pain in the ass.

To use the digital camera method, I have to:

1. Bust out the gear and set up everything
2. Meticulously load each frame or strip onto the film holder
3. Make sure the camera + tripod is 100% lined up and leveled with the light table setup
4. Adjust exposure and focus
5. Shoot, check, and try again if needed
6. Repeat most of step 2 to step 5 over and over while hunching my back
7. Post process--invert, white balance, curves, colors, crop, etc.

I just use a scanner at my computer and skip most of that work. I post while the next frame is scanning--it's actually decently efficient.

3 months ago*permalink

Basically that is what it comes down to, plus, up to two strips of film can be processed at one go accommodating 8-10 frames in the holder. Or if mounted slides, then a single row for 4 frames at a time. I have the Canoscan 9000F Mark-II ( https://goo.gl/cwzDVJ ).

3 months agopermalink

What kinda scanner you using? There seems to be a huge divide between the best ($600+?) and the rest... I'm rather curious what kinda difference there is in quality.

3 months agopermalink

It's a shame there's no simple tool to help digitizing film. Using DSLR and macro lens (or any camera with decent magnification capability) offers the best possible quality, much better than flatbed scanner and much cheaper than high resolution scans from professional lab. There are some 3D printable adapters on the net but it's limited either in film format or the specific lens it's designed for.

3 months agopermalink

probert500

Using vue scan and different modes such as multiscanning and hardware size reduction, you can get decent results. An epson 4990 must be pretty cheap by now, and some holdera holders will help with sharpness.

3 months agopermalink

Steve Chroma

The pixl-latr is aimed at those people who don't want to have a flatbed scanner taking up space on their desks or getting dusty between uses. It only takes a few minutes to setup, shoot and process film using this simple holder.

3 months agopermalink

As opposed to the alignment mount/tools for the camera to get it perfectly square to the film? That can take a while to setup I imagine and it's gonna take up even more space while in use...

3 months agopermalink

Woodyz

impluses, I have a Plustek 7500i. It has a 6-frame 35mm holder and IR dust removal.

I also have a Canon Canoscan 8600F with 12-frame 35mm holder and a 4-frame 120 holder. Also has IR dust removal.

Both were bought from ebay for less than $150 each. I use both with Vuescan on OSX. I can't comment much on quality since the only other scans I have are from pro labs. Definitely satisfied with the at-home results, though.

3 months agopermalink

Steve Chroma

@Impulses I've never spend more than a few minutes setting up a pixl-latr (fitting the film in place) and taking a handheld image. As I said, this is a different product to a dedicated flat bed/35mm scanner and the price reflects that. Many people don't want to have a couple of scanners taking up space, nor do they want to spend $150 on each if they're only going to digitise a few rolls of film every month.

2 months agopermalink

Elemanzer

Two things occur to me, on the basis of my experience DSLR-scanning 5x4s:

First, even a light table has some amount of texture (both the plastic surface and, more prominent, the scratches it almost surely will acquire). That will be visible in the scan if the film isn’t suspended over the light table on glass, rather than in direct contact.

Second, with 5x4s you’re better off with a flatbed unless you’re either stitch-scanning or using a 100MP+ digital back. And stitch scanning is such a pain (I go for 16 shots for each sheet, and you wouldn’t want to do too much less than that) that it’s probably just plain better to accept the cost of a V850.

3 months agopermalink

krtshv

Your alternatives are extremely pricey ones. I'm using a Yashica Mat 124G and I very occasionally shoot film for the fun of it, I have no intentions whatsoever to spend the vast amounts of money it would take to invest in a flatbed (plus the space) or a 100 MP digital camera.

3 months agopermalink

Elemanzer

I wasn't suggesting a 100MP back. I also wasn't talking about 120. I was trying (and, apparently, failing) to say: DSLR-scanning 5x4 is either a huge hassle or enormously expensive if you do it right. So barring money or patience, either you do DSLR-scanning wrong (in which case: why 5x4? Why not 120?) or you do something other than DSLR-scanning. In that case, flatbeds are the obvious option.
They're not always expensive, either. I suggested a V850, but something like a Canoscan 9000F costs about £150 (and can give decent results with 5x4, since your sheets are so large that you just don't need a great scanner).

3 months agopermalink

Turbguy1

The Canoscan 9000F won't "do" 4x5 (in one pass), it's largest width of the transparency light source handles 6cm with only.

3 months agopermalink

I have exactly that model, the Canoscan 9000F Mark-II ( https://goo.gl/cwzDVJ ). I think it is sufficient and works well. 9600 dpi on the negatives and up to 4800 on all other documents (i.e., photos, etc.)

3 months agopermalink

Is something like the Epson V7xx/8xx series worth it to scan a lot of old 35mm negatives (and some slides) vs the cheaper <$200 alternatives? I know it's not the best place to ask, but it's a project I promised my parents I'd tackle at some point, the little research I did a while ago didn't really get me very clear answers.

3 months agopermalink

yanisha

Photo says "35mm film being loaded into the Pixl-latr."

That isn't 35mm film. Looks like 120 film.

3 months agopermalink

piratejabez

Looks like they fixed it.

3 months agopermalink

bergat

Intresting. Very well!

3 months agopermalink

jadot

Backed. (And I hate Kickstarter, specifically after backing Lume Cube's "Lumi" nearly two years ago without seeing a product). Don't let me down negative flattening guy!

3 months agopermalink

Elonlukatski

This with an adjustable mount for the camera would be sweet.

3 months agopermalink

stevo23

Looks like a great start. I'd really like to see a product like this that has an integrated mount so you can ensure that you're camera is normal to the film and a little translation stage so you can use a macro and get in close enough to get a couple of high resolution scans that can be stitched.

3 months ago*permalink

bookman100

That's 2 1/4 film being loaded.

3 months agopermalink

HamishGill

Thanks for the support, guys! :)

3 months agopermalink

Jason

Hey Hamish. Looks like your Kickstarter campaign is already a success. Congratulations! I'll be backing it! I enjoy the work you do at 35mmc (still waiting for my turn at the Traveling Yashica).

I've experimented with a bunch of different ways to shoot film with my digital camera, but I always come back to my scanner. I've found that it works better for me to set up a strip or two in my Epson V600 and walk away while the scanner does the work. I'd really love to see the idea (pins, gates etc.) you've developed for pixl-latr repurposed into a V600 film holder. There are a few third-party film holders available, but they're expensive and/or overly complicated. I'll bet something like pixl-latr would be perfect if the frame were thinner and there was a way to secure the gates and frame when you flip the whole thing upside down. If your pixl-latr adventure turns out to be a positive experience, you should consider a film holder version!

3 months agopermalink

Jonathan Mac

The real problem with copying negatives using a digital camera is not the lighting or holding the film flat but getting the colours and contrast right in post-processing. It's amazing there's still no simple tool for doing this.

3 months agopermalink

HamishGill

Hopefully, this will be a catalyst for such a tool - I know of two people working on something already!

3 months agopermalink

tex

@Jonathan Mac: right you are, but then there's loads of family snapz stuff where the only thing that could be called "critical" is ok focus. Digitizing all of the negs we have of family stuff from years and years ago daunts me, and I've got a good scanner. I'd be happy with a simple down-and-dirty solution for a ton of stuff, and wouldn't be hyper sensitive about correct color or contrast for those things.

3 months agopermalink

@tex In that case just use a flatbed that holds plenty of film.

3 months agopermalink

tex

@PhilDunn: Got one, but it's a process. If this is simpler, then....

3 months agopermalink

4294967295

Google PhotoScan?

3 months agopermalink

@tex. It could never be simpler or faster to use such a device because you would still need to color correct each image afterwards. A competent scanner with the right software can scan and color correct at the same time. I see people giving up on the camera scanning technique all the time because they get frustrated color correcting their negatives, not to mention the mechanics involved in capturing each frame. If it's slide film or b/w then that would be fine.

I think this kind of device makes sense only for a very limited number of frames of b/w or slide film AND if you don't already have a competent flat bed scanner.

3 months agopermalink