Wolverine film digitizer -- Thoughts Anyone?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by icassell, Oct 31, 2008.

  1. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
  2. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yay marketing at work. Why call it a scanner when it doesn't scan :D

    This is somewhat tempting given the large stockpile of old negatives I have.
     
  3. Jeff Canes

    Jeff Canes No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Hollywood, FLA USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    you get what you pay for
     
  4. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit

    Doesn't scan? Claims to

    "Scan Quality: 1,800 dpi
    Data Conversion: 10 bits per color channel
    Scan Method: Single pass "
     
  5. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    On the same page "Image Sensor: 1/1.8" inch 5 mega pixel CMOS sensor"

    This isn't a scanner, it takes photos of the negatives. A good idea really used in other similar devices as it removes the need for expensive and carefully design motors and control systems. "Scan quality" is probably vertical resolution, since 1800^2/2*3 is 4.86megapixels, and I haven't the foggiest why they write Scan Method: Single Pass.
     
  6. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. I've seen very similar products, and while they work, I've had as good or better results by improvising with a cheap point-&-shoot. Honestly I would save up for a film scanner. It doesn't need to be an expensive dedicated one; many flatbeds will probably do the job better than this.
     
  7. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Good points, all. I actually have a very high quality flatbed (UMAX 1100) but, as you know, that's not a very convenient or rapid way to scan large quantities of film or slides. Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out there for opinions.

    Ian
     
  8. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Actually this gives me an idea for a ghetto solution if anyone has a macro lens. Macro are 1:1 right? So in theory you could photograph a 35mm frame at the full resolution of you camera (more for APS sensors). All you would need is:

    A lightbox either commercial or makeshift.
    Camera support
    A guide for the film
    Maybe a sheet of glass to hold the negative flat (like you would in a contact sheet).
    A photoshop action which does colour correction for the backlight, and negative to positive conversion which you can run in batch.

    I'm guessing it is possible to make something like this in a weekend with potential for very high speed digitisation and my guess is high quality too given a suitable macro lens. The hardest part would be finding a suitable backlight with high CRI, but maybe a halogen bulb with the correct colour temperature correction on camera would do the trick.
     
  9. Helen B

    Helen B TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    465
    Location:
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    There are ready-made devices for use with SLRs for copying film. There are those that replace the lens, and typically have a T-mount, and those that are mounted in front of the lens. You can also, as Garbz mentions, use a macro lens and film holder. There are many possible rigs at a wide price range. You should be able to pick up good slide copying stuff on eBay. This used to be routine work. BPM bellows and Bowens copiers were very common in labs in the UK, for instance.

    You need to prevent light from getting into the system from anywhere except from behind the film - no light should fall on the front of the film unless carefully managed for contrast control (this is how contrast was controlled when slides were copied back in the old days).

    Flash is a good source of illumination. Tungsten is not very good for copying colour negative film unless a correction filter is used - the combination of tungsten light and the masks in the film lead to poor response in the blue channel. The density range of colour reversal film (can be over 11 stops) is a little challenging for many sensors, but this would apply to the Wolverine unit as well, I expect. Of course you could use HDR techniques if you used a dSLR - in fact that is a very good way of copying Kodachrome and Velvia if you don't require high resolution.

    Having said all that, the Wolverine unit looks like a convenient, fast solution.

    Best,
    Helen
     
  10. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Thanks for the input, all. I was looking for something quick and dirty as I have gobs and gobs of slides to copy. My flatbed works great, but it is a long and tedious process and I'm afraid that any camera-based product would have that same disadvantage. The slide scanners I've seen in the past have all been pricey. The investment here wouldn't be large, and I've been happy with my other wolverine product. I'll let you know what I decide. In any event, I've learned alot from your posts.

    Ian
     
  11. djacobox372

    djacobox372 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    This scanner is MUCH better, 7200dpi, for not much more $$:


    [​IMG]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838108112


    But keep in mind that most of these scanners don't feed the frames for you, so scanning a lot of film can be S-L-O-W.

    Because of that problem, along with the need to scan large format film, I switched to a epson v700 flatbed scanner that will scan 24 frames at once.

    I still have my plustek, but I'll sell it to you for $100; the quality is actually a bit better then the v700, but I don't use it anymore since I have the epson.
     
  12. skikir

    skikir TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen B. The idea here is to get film to digital. inexpensively.

    I have one of these little guys and for pictures I took back in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s of girl friends and dogs and cars and motor cycles, partying and hiking and skiing and bla bla bla it works great. For negatives carried around in shoe boxes for 40 years it works great. For some one who never left home with out a camera and most friends never realized I had two eyes and not just one big glassy one it works great. It gives you a 5 mega pixel image of average quality you can work with. If you started out with your dads old Argus C3 totally manual rage finder hand me down 40's vintage camera that he carried through WWII where you used a hand held light meter for the special shots (and you knew shutter speed aperture, film speed and depth of field and how they interacted ...kids these days...) or where exposures vary snapshot to snapshot it's OK. It may not give you a Putzer Prize image but to get that picture of the of the 5 gallon bucket of ice being dumped down the back of your neck while your four sheets to the wind at your returning to the real world party...priceless. You can sit and watch 24 and "scan" images and not lose the story line. If you have a decent negative/slide you get a decent image. If you want to create a digital photo album it's great. If you want something better for that OMG moment, go spend the $600 or send it to a professional. For most of us with thousands and thousands of negatives this could be the ticket.

    BUT!!! Here is the killer. It gets a lint build up on the inside and you really can't get it out. Static sticks the lint and crud to the inside leans/platen and you can't get to the inside to clean it. You can run several film strips though it and get the same question mark looking artifact on all the images. You can try blowing it out but it does not work. You could probably run them through some image manipulation software to remove it but that's not what you buy this for. You can use the little brush that comes with it but it just moves the lint around. Don't get me wrong, I really want this thing to work. It's like not being able to get off, Oh Yes, OH YEs !, it's almost there but not quite, its frustrating!

    Bottom line, I don't know. I'm probably going to look for a refurbished Epson V7xx or such where I can run at least 16 images at once and be able to clean the platen and after everything is converted still have a good flat bed scanner for everyday use. But even then it won't be as handy. But I ramble....
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2010

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
wolverine snap
,
wolverine snap 14
,
wolverine snap 14 review
,
wolverine snap-14
,

wolverine snap14

,
wolverine snap14 australia
,
wolverine snap14 photo scanner
,
wolverine snap14 photo scanner review
,
wolverine snap14 review
,

wolverine snap14 reviews