PetaPixel

Reflecta’s Latest Film Scanner Can Digitize Your Negatives at an Insane 10,000 DPI

Reflecta35mmScanner

For those of you who, like me, enjoy shooting film on occasion but keep a predominately digital workflow, German company Reflecta has a new 35mm film scanner on the way that will blow away almost any other consumer-level scanner you’re going to find.

Clocking in at 10,000 dpi, the ProScan 10T delivers crazy large files resolution while also providing an impressively high dynamic range of 3.9 DMax, which we all know is vital when it comes to getting the most character out of your film scans.

Right now, the scanner has only been announced in Germany with a retail price of €469 or approximately $643 USD. There’s no word on whether it’ll make it into the international market, but according to The Phoblographer, if it does it’ll likely be sold under the Pacific Image brand. It isn’t going to come in extremely cheap, although it is likely to be a bit cheaper if it does hop the pond.

If and when it does make its way to the rest of the world, we’ll be interested to see how well it does. After all, a dedicated film scanner is already a niche product — add to that the fact that it only scans 35mm (both slides and negatives) and that narrows down the market even more.

(via heise Foto via The Phoblographer)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • Julian Callan

    Nearly €500 and it doesn’t do even do MF… No thanks.

  • LO(.)(.)

    real 1200 dpi…. you really believe these numbers? get a clue!

  • timparkin

    Well if it can manage 10,000dpi at 3.9 dmax it beats every single drum scanner ever made and happens to outresolve even microfiche film. I’d guess it would be impressive if it got 4000dpi

  • Gav

    Wow now my grain will be even sharper…:)

  • http://www.edgarcardenas.com ecardenas

    My only qualm is the no MF. I don’t bother with 35mm film anymore but still shoot MF

  • Wodan74

    So if I calculate it right I get a ±14000x9400px image file of a 36x24mm frame… That will just give us a lot of grain, because the optical resolution of film isn’t that great that it will give us more detailed picture quality when scanned at higher ppi.

  • 232Lokus

    never….. more like real 2400 dpi.
    and i bet the dmax is also much lower in real life.
    from my past experience with plustek and reflecta it is pure fiction what they write on the package.

  • PeterTx52

    lots of archives around the world are seeking a tool like this

  • http://www.mindthemix.com Federico Montemurro

    Please don’t bring the mega-pixel war to the art of film photography.

  • Jeff Davis

    Probably won’t look as good as a Nikon coolscan.

  • 1234341241

    nope… they have better more reliable scanners.

  • 14234123412

    +1
    still the best if you dont have space for a drum scanner.. still expensive. 2000+ euro used.

  • jmco

    A Nikon Coolscan 5000 is 4000 dpi and that is *plenty*. The files are basically unmanageable. Also, the higher the dpi, the more DUST and that means more time retouching. What we need is more competition in scanner software.

  • Cynical Bloke

    At that price if it did do medium format it wouldn’t be any good. You have to pay at least 2k.

  • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com/ Stan B.

    Never used a Coolscan, but I’ve been using the basic Plustek 7200 scanner for my 35mm B&W film for several years now. No complaints. I get sharp, 27in prints with full tonal values that can easily rival, if not surpass, my 11X14 and 16X20in FF darkroom prints. Grainy, you bet- but they hold up magnificently!

    At this point, glad someone’s still making (what is hopefully) a quality product in this niche- though as others pointed out, wish it included MF, say… at an even grand- that would be real news!

  • hini

    Yes, the sensor may be insane 10 000 but the lens will be 2000

  • http://www.aluzinando.com Fernando Callo

    Why the hell would you need something like this? To print? Well let me tell you something, you can PRINT FROM THE NEGATIVE and you get more detail, don’t have to waste your time in this sh*t. Film scanners are supposed to scan the photo and be shared on the internet, not to print it from the computer because that’s just so stupid.

  • Paul-Simon

    Hahaha. Digital copies exist for other reasons than just “sharing on the internet”.
    Yes, I’d rather print from my computer where I have more control.

  • Gavin Lister

    I think you need to do a bit of research and see what the rest of us little people do ;-)

  • Dover

    The LS 4000 can kill many drum scanners.

  • Zos Xavius

    What we need is something like this for MF that doesn’t cost $2000.

  • sascharheker

    ICE for Black&White film would have been an innovation. More and more resolution beyond the usable is not!

  • Allan Milnes

    How quick is it.

  • lilu

    I think 5kppi would be good enough if it gives 50% what the seller claimed, and far beyond how much a 35mm frame can take. But Dmax 3.9 is a little poor. Thus the 469 euro is not cheap at all.

  • http://www.aluzinando.com Fernando Callo

    More control of what? You mean “retouching”? Retouching a negative? Ugh…

  • http://www.gannonburgett.com Gannon Burgett

    Yes, because retouching a negative never happened in the darkroom.

  • Ivan

    Awe. Too bad all my Tech Pan is in medium format.

  • Paul-Simon

    Haha yes, why not?
    “Stop liking things I don’t like”

  • Peter “Pots”

    I must say that I hate scanning any film because most scanners (even modest ones) pick-up all the crap that stuck to the emulsion. It is bad enough when you have a dirty sensor as well.

  • http://jtruephotography.com/ Jeremiah True

    If it did MF or LF then yes… otherwise I’ll stick to my DiMage 5400.

  • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com/ Stan B.

    Fernando- I printed darkroom B&W for 30 yrs.- and did it to exhibition quality standards. I can now scan, create a file from a 35mm B&W neg and get a 24 in print for $90 that rivals what I made at 11X14. I would have felled an entire old growth forest’s worth of paper, used countless gallons of water (and polluted countless more)- and still not have produced a print of that size and quality in the darkroom… and all told, certainly not for just $90.

    Now I take my file to the printer and have them run a test strip of the entire image; tweak the file, have them run the final print, and in return, I get one gorgeous print I could not have gotten otherwise, and for less money, work and aggravation. BTW- I’m not a scanning/software/PS expert by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I use any high tech hardware (see my comment below), but if you’re not getting the detail inherent in your negs in your files- it’s your equipment/workflow that is at fault.

    That’s why the hell I need my scanner.

  • kassim

    What’s film resolution? High resolution scan worth nothing if the scanned medium doesn’t have the details.

  • http://www.sin3rgy-creative.com/ David Liang

    I haven’t used Nikon’s cool scan or drum scans, but my Epson V700 does MF and LF quite well. I’ve printed 17×24 and there isn’t a single person that thinks it’s from a negative if they didn’t know any better.

  • Fernando Callo

    If you want to retouch the photo. then do it in the darkroom and print it.

  • David Goldblatt

    Well, it’s sort of not from a negative, since it is scanned digitally.
    And your print is digital.
    It’s a digital image.

  • http://www.sin3rgy-creative.com/ David Liang

    But I’m not debating semantics. I was saying the scanner does such a good job that in that instance, that in print one can’t tell if it was a scan or file from digital sensor. Whether its considered a digital or from a negative the quality doesn’t hint to the viewer which source it came from.

  • James Mason

    Can anybody out there tell me why Nikon quit making scanners? And quit supporting the ones they made?

  • Alan Klughammer

    yes retouching was “possible” in the darkroom. (look up Jerry Uelsmann, but he has moved to digital too) It was just much harder and more expensive, and possibly not as well controlled as with digital. Some things, like local contrast control were next to impossible. Even simple things like dodging and burning were not consistent between prints.

    I used to be decent in the darkroom, but I once spent most of a box (250 sheets) of paper trying to get an image I wanted. I never did get it quite right (it involved a lot of complex dodging and burning, multiple contrast filters, etc) Today, I could make the same image in a few hours in Photoshop, and I could make multiple identical prints.

    Sorry, but I get tired of people who say it was better in the darkroom days. No it wasn’t!

  • Auto Motive

    I have my eyes on the Canon for $200 does film at 9600 dpi. Best value around.

  • ms

    I dunno. I interests me. 35mm low iso film exposed correctly can resolve a lot more than people think. Plus, a lot of 35mm film cameras are fun to shoot!

  • Paul-Simon

    Or do it on the computer because it’s easier.

  • PeterTx52

    and they are?????

  • Ivan

    TMax100 and Arcos can supposedly get 200lp/mm, which is ~10,000dpi.
    With a great lens, you’ll be lucky to get 120lp/mm. (Most things that go higher than that are industrial lenses.)

    For photographic usage (AKA, not test charts) all of those numbers are half or less.

  • http://www.richardfordphotography.com/ Richard Ford

    I’ll stick to my CoolScan 5000.

  • Homey D. Clown

    just crop your film with skizzers