Need a Toaster?

[cgw]

Who doesn't?

Home - www.filmtoaster.photography

 

[limr]

Yikes, $1700?? As the introductory SALE price?? Regular price, $2400. For the box and some film holders. That's a hefty price to pay for the convenience of someone else making this for you when it can be rigged up much much more cheaply at home and do the same job. For that price, they should include the DSLR! Maybe someone can enlighten me, but I just don't see why this costs more than a few hundred dollars.

Ah, it seems they DO have one model - for $3200 - that comes with a used Nikon D5300
FilmToaster with Lens & Base Plates - www.filmtoaster.photography

 

[tirediron]

Based on the pictures, it looks like a well made unit, so I can see the price from that perspective; but my question is, "Why?". What is the tremendous advantage of this over a good-quality, <$1000 flatbed scanner?

 

[Designer]

The claim is that a CCD sensor has better resolution than a scanner. This is something for which I would like to see some evidence.

I would like to copy my old transparencies and negatives, so this might be a good method for me. I have no doubt that I can build something like that, just wonder if it really works.

A couple of years ago I sent off the first 500 transparencies to a company that offered a fairly good price. They told me that they would clean them firs, but alas, they did not, so the images have all the dust included.

So if anybody has a good method of cleaning slides and negatives that will not leave scratches, let me know.

 

[tirediron]

The claim is that a CCD sensor has better resolution than a scanner. This is something for which I would like to see some evidence.

I'm sure it is, in theory, but I doubt if there's a difference detectable to the human eye!

I would like to copy my old transparencies and negatives, so this might be a good method for me. I have no doubt that I can build something like that, just wonder if it really works.

A couple of years ago I sent off the first 500 transparencies to a company that offered a fairly good price. They told me that they would clean them firs, but alas, they did not, so the images have all the dust included.

So if anybody has a good method of cleaning slides and negatives that will not leave scratches, let me know.

Crappy! I know there's a lot of software out there that claims to, but I have no first-hand experience with it.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I already have cameras that work like a toaster - Polaroids. You know, pop in a slice of bread, out pops a picture. Or a piece of toast. Same idea!

 

[cgw]

Based on the pictures, it looks like a well made unit, so I can see the price from that perspective; but my question is, "Why?". What is the tremendous advantage of this over a good-quality, <$1000 flatbed scanner?

I'm guessing you've not seen or done much dslr scanning?

Pages of ghetto/garage DSLR scanning hacks online, some better than others but all evidence that a 24mp camera and a macro lens can produce better-than-Epson results. The Toaster? I'm dying...

Scanner technology is dead in the water. All Epson's done recently(last 3-5 years?)is update their scanners' light sources. Demand just isn't there now.

Advantages? Speed? Cost? Portability? IQ? Ironically, my D7200 will keep the dust off my Mamiya and Bronica gear.

 

[tirediron]

Based on the pictures, it looks like a well made unit, so I can see the price from that perspective; but my question is, "Why?". What is the tremendous advantage of this over a good-quality, <$1000 flatbed scanner?

I'm guessing you've not seen or done much dslr scanning?

Pages of ghetto/garage DSLR scanning hacks online, some better than others but all evidence that a 24mp camera and a macro lens can produce better-than-Epson results. The Toaster? I'm dying...

Scanner technology is dead in the water. All Epson's done recently(last 3-5 years?)is update their scanners' light sources. Demand just isn't there now.

Advantages? Speed? Cost? Portability? IQ? Ironically, my D7200 will keep the dust off my Mamiya and Bronica gear.

I don't doubt that a DSLR & macro lens will produce better results, but are they perceptibly better? I don't know, I have almost zero experience in this particular area, but my experience with large & medium format negative scanning leads me to believe that the amount that it is better than say a V700, likely won't justify the added cost for most users.

 

[cgw]

Based on the pictures, it looks like a well made unit, so I can see the price from that perspective; but my question is, "Why?". What is the tremendous advantage of this over a good-quality, <$1000 flatbed scanner?

I'm guessing you've not seen or done much dslr scanning?

Pages of ghetto/garage DSLR scanning hacks online, some better than others but all evidence that a 24mp camera and a macro lens can produce better-than-Epson results. The Toaster? I'm dying...

Scanner technology is dead in the water. All Epson's done recently(last 3-5 years?)is update their scanners' light sources. Demand just isn't there now.

Advantages? Speed? Cost? Portability? IQ? Ironically, my D7200 will keep the dust off my Mamiya and Bronica gear.

I don't doubt that a DSLR & macro lens will produce better results, but are they perceptibly better? I don't know, I have almost zero experience in this particular area, but my experience with large & medium format negative scanning leads me to believe that the amount that it is better than say a V700, likely won't justify the added cost for most users.

Look, nobody's going to buy the Toaster but anyone can hack together a light source/neg holder and camera stand. Just look online. Epson V800/V850 models go for just shy of a grand and 1200 bucks Canadian. I paid C$1100 for a d7200 body late this summer. Micro Nikkors I've got. Medium format kits I've got. What I no longer have are labs that will do affordable, quality film scanning. For me, DSLR scanning is the solution for 35mm and 120, as it seems to be for many others.

 

[Derrel]

From what I have seen online, d-slr scanning with a good macro lens, a good way to hold the film flat, and 24 or more megapixels produces a better digitized image than scanners priced in the $100 to $4,000 price range, with LESS of an issue with dust and scratches than scanners tend to produce. It seems that the new, low-noise, high-resolution 24 and 36 million pixel sensors were the last missing piece in d-slr scanning, the thing that moved it from a stop-gap measure and in to position as the preferred method for most users for most purposes. Not saying it's the same thing as an oil-mounted drum scan from a $15,000 Imacon scanner with an operator who has five years' worth of experience running the same scanner...but it seems like what I've seen is better from the d-slr than from normal Nikon/Minolta/Epson/Plustek film scanners on 35mm and 120 rollfilm.

 

[minicoop1985]

CCD sensors are relegated to medium format these days. A CMOS sensor probably still is better than a scanner, but for how much they're charging, I'll stick to paying the camera store to scan em for me.

 

[limr]

I have no problem with the DSLR scanning and understand that it can yield better results than a scanner. It's something I consider doing at some point if I ever get a "real" digital camera. I simply have no idea why this toaster thing is worth thousands of dollars when the same set-up can be arranged for peanuts. I mean, with actual scanners, I understand that the cost goes into the actual scanning equipment as well as the build of the machine around the scanning mechanism. But this? It's just the incidentals - the holders, a light source, and box to keep the camera stable. I'm not saying these things are not important, but they're worth bupkis without the actual scanning mechanism - i.e. the camera. And of course, if you DO want the camera, you have to pony up an extra grand.

My biggest issue with this is that it's billing itself as the next coming, but really, people have been doing this for years with homemade rigs that produce the same results. I could buy a used D5300 for less than $500, a used lightbox for $50, and rig up the rest with tools and materials I already have in my own home (including a big brand-spanking new roll of gaffer's tape! ) and the pictures would be of the same quality as if I'd used their rig. The only difference is convenience. I'm not saying that convenience isn't worth paying money for sometimes. I just think it's not worth even the $1700 sale price.

 

[compur]

Perfect for digitizing slides of pet rocks, DVD rewinders and shoe umbrellas.

 

[smithdan]

Speaking of obsolete gear, just today teaching the K-S2 to play with others and Kenny and Spot to share, here's a comparo of a scanned slide vs one done with this antique contraption. Both are unaltered except for a crop to match approximate sizes. There is a noticeable difference. Scanner is Epson V500, not too fancy but not too shabby either.


That toaster thing seems pretty expensive.

..from the bellows / slide copier

..from the scanner

 

[Derrel]

From the bellows/slide copier I see one large piece of objectionable dust; from the scanner, I can spot eight pieces of objectionable dust. At this size and resolution, the two systems appear to me to be delivering the same degree of resolution. I saw that you had just recently received the K-S2 camera...it has a very futuristic-looking handgrip on it!