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.

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.

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

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!

The big issue when you are "scanning" with your digital camera, is the Bayern filter in front of your sensor. To undestand what's happening, you need to know the difference between a digital sensor and a scanner head. A fladhed scanner is outdated when it comes to optical resolution. Even if a scanner like the epson V850 PHOTO promise 6400 DPI, then you "only" get approx 2000-2400 dpi out of it. It takes long time to scan because a flatbed scanner scan every line 4 times and here comes the most important thing. The reason a scanner is scanning a line 3 or 4 times (depending on of you are using infrared cleaning), is that the scanner scan red, green and blue (and infrared). That mean that you get ful contrast and dynamic range for each color. A digital cameras sensor is monochrome. To calculate the colors there is a Bayern filter in front of the sensor. The Bayern filter got a color pattern. But that mean that you dont calculate red, green and blue for the real resolution of the sensor. That's also why the red and the blue color are poor in contrast with a digital camera. it only use 2 out of 9 pixel for the contrast of red and blue and 5 for green. A color film got 3 or 4 color layers. 3 with kodak and 4 with Fuji. That mean that the analog film capture full contrast for each color. You can't transfer all that data to a digital camera when the digital camera loose all those information with the Bayern filter. Yes the digital camera can capture a higher resolution but not the full contrast. I got a Fuji Frontier SP500 professional lab scanner. That's actually build after the same princip as your digital camera there takes a photo af the filmstrip. But the frontier capture each frame 4 times just like the scanner does. The sensor in the Frontier is monochrome but it got 3 different light sources plus the infrared source so it can remove dust and scratches. That scanner can scan a whole roll of 35mm film with 36 frames in approx 5 minutes in full resolution (approx 20 megapixel for each color). The only scanner there can capture this way, is the professionel lab scanners from Fuji Frontier and Noritsu. Those scanners got a very high end optical system with autofocus so every frame always are razor sharp. So yes you got sharper images "scanning" with your camera if you got a good macro setup but you loose the full contrast and a lot of the resolution for each color. Actually it's the same with your digital images. If you got a 60 megapixel sensor, you dont get 60 megapixel resolution for each color. You got a total resolution of 60 megapixel but calculated out from the Bayern filter, you only got 33 megapixel contrast for green and 13 megapixel for blue and red. If you compare that to my Frontier scanner fuji build from 2003 to 2022, I got 20 megapixel for red, green and blue. That's 7 megapixel more in contrast for blue and red but I loose 13 megapixel in green. But adjusting the colors, it's more important to get all the information to work with simply because you got more colors if you got more information. If you watch a hollywood movie captured digital, it's actually captured with 3 sensors. One for each color. That mean lower noise in colors and full dynamic range and contrast for each color. When a motion picture is captured with film, it's digitized the same way as the stills are captured with a frontier scanner or a noritsu scanner. Those scanners are called a telecine. Back to analog negatives.. If you want the highest resolution images with full dynamic range, you need to scan on a Hasselblad scanner. But yes it's slow because it scan each line 3 times. The optical resolution is very high. But it does not remove dust and scratches. If you only shoot 35mm film, take a look at the Plustek Opticfilm 135i. It's a pretty good scanner for a budget. It scan every line 3 or 4 times. The sensor is 7200 dpi resolution but unfortunately the optical quality is lower so you only get approx 4-5000 dpi out of it for each color. I hope this was useful for some of you guys (and girls) 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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!!

From my experiences having something like this, a copy stand and a scanner just makes the whole film process much easier. Like this technology is not really knew as much as it's a huge improvement over stuff from the film world. That is duplicating slides. Like I mean a copy stand and other film holders can achieve the same thing as this and honestly will do it better. It's a station. That you don't have to assemble anything. At least for me I gave up one digital camera and it sits there as a copy camera. Because that is what the tool is made for. I will always have the same setup and everything is hooked together with one power strip even the camera. So turn it on it connects to my computer and you can start copying negatives. This however is a tool that revolutionizes our instant world. If you haven't thought about it think about it this way man. You can shoot one roll is 35 mm, do a quick development in a dark bag and once the film is developed you can take a digital camera and take that device that's already set up for scanning film and pop it on like a lens and scan your film and if your camera has Wi-Fi you can then take the raw images and send it straight to your smartphone or tablet or computer. Like I mean if you're on location you can go to a coffee shop and order food and have a workflow and get people interested in your work and you'll get copy on the internet as fast as typing up a blog post at home. Now the biggest downsides. First to this is the light source. It's not a big worry you can edit for it or accept it. Next is you have to become the scanner. Like honestly I'd the juice is worth the squeeze you'll do it. From moving the film, settings, light source, exporting... It's up to y'all what you wanna do. Now back to the flatbed it a toaster y'all. You want good toast? Put it on that setting, load your bread (film) and forget it. Unless you have a more technical workflow then you know y'all need a toaster and not blowtorch (this camera attachment) What do you y'all think about that idea flow right there? Honestly I'd buy it to do the coffee shop but I said and get more business.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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

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.

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

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 😊

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.

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

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.

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

What a crazy world. I never thought that scanning vs photo-scanning was "a thing". I just need a less expensive way to scan images. Buying, shooting, developing, and scanning 10 rolls of B&W 35mm film costs me over $350!!!!!! I guess I got into film too late? I think I'm going the scanner route, myself. It costs just as much to scan the film as it does to develop them. So my thinking is, I can half my developing/scanning cost (and shoot twice as much film) by buying a scanner. If I buy a $200 scanner, it will pay for itself in 20 rolls of film. 20 rolls is easily shootable on a vacation. For me. Scanning at gelatin labs is $12/roll and developing is $13/roll for B&W. So half the cost if I can scan at home. I have sent 4 rolls off (2 color, 2 B&W) to them today to compare their work to mine.

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

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

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..

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.

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! 👍

Have done this kind of work professionally 10 years ago. With a canon 550 and a 100 mm macro. We have mostly done slides. And I have build a n automatic feeder Machine for slides. Has worked for some 100.000 slides.

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.

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. ☺️

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.

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.

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.

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?

There is nothing wrong with using a digital camera to digitize your negatives, unitl you put a 4X5 or larger negative in front of it. Here the flatbed is the king. For 35mm a digital camera is a fast and easy way of ' scanning '. BTW, this thing from Valoi is the ' Johnny come lately ' on the scene. Nikon's Digitizing Adapter the ES2 has been out for years.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !!

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

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.

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!! 🙌

Hi Risby- For years I have used the Nikon ES-1 with my Canon Macro lens and the appropriate number of extension tubes to fill the distance between the lens and film holder. It has worked just fine to copy my negatives and slides. The big advantage I see with the Valoi Easy35 is the built-in light source. One less thing that I would have to deal with. I did not hear you mention whether or not the Valoi unit can handle slides. If not, then the Nikon ES-1 is better in that way. A couple of years ago, I did a KZfaq video on my setup. Here is the link- kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9unqZagvtXYnp8.html. Sorry for the lousy audio. I was still learning how to deal with sound recording while shooting video. ~Earl

There are lots of ways from A to B.... none are wrong! You use what suits 🙂 Looks like the filter thread on your macro lens my be damaged though 😞

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.

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.

I like this setup, and I am not one of those people who has issues with camera scanning. I have to disagree with your statement that flatbed scanners are obsolete. In professional environments, when a drum scan is not justified, flatbeds are still used to this day, as the quality of the scan is still higher than a camera scan, and digital dust removal is a thing as well. Scanning large format is also much easier with a flatbed scanner than with a camera. There are definitely fewer flatbed scanners around, which might make you believe that they are outdated, but only the cheap entry-level crap models have been eradicated.

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

The thing is camera tech has been advancing but scanners definitely haven't been standing still, not to mention other features that make them better than a camera. There is also the resolution issue, your camera needs to capture more detail than the film did and most cameras have a AA filter which reduces detail, I think this is more for a quick preview before the thing goes to the scanner. And maybe for people who do mainly digital and have a slight film hobby and can't/don't want to spend the extra on pro scanning.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Flatbed scanners are not outdated technology. Flatbeds are great for scanning the prints. You can't scan prints when you don't have the negatives with a camera attachment.. You can't scan polaroids with a camera attachment.

Camera scanning is not trash. Most of the flatbed scanner people take issue with the fact that camera scanning uses bayer and not a full RGB for every pixel like a flatbed or other dedicated film scanner. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with a bayer sensor for film scanning. Depending on the format of film you're scanning, the flatbed could be better than the camera scanner (medium and large format film), but the camera scanner is totally fine for smaller formats. In my lab, I use 3 different methods: An Epson v850Pro for higher resolution medium and large format scans, a Canon EOS R5 (with RF 100mm Macro lens) for good resolution medium format and good to high resolution 35mm, and a Pakon F135 for good to low resolution 35mm. Which scanner it goes through depends on the film and output, and I've carefully calibrated my workflow to match the colors between the three as closely as possible. For medium format and large format, the flatbed easily gives the R5 a run for its money when it comes to total resolution, though the R5 setup is seriously fast in comparison. For 35mm film, the R5 blows the doors off of everything else for both speed and resolution. Anybody who tells you otherwise hasn't seen full resolution 8192x5462 35mm scans. You very quickly realize that there aren't a lot of pictures committed to 35mm film that actually have that much detail and resolution. 40-60MP is nearing the upper limit (if not at the upper limit) for what you can capture with 35mm film unless your technique and lenses are top of the line. For ease of use and mostly unattended awesome color, the Pakon F135 makes scanning whole strips brain dead easy for those customers that want small to medium sized scans. It all boils down to what the customer wants to pay for. There is no wrong.

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

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.

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?

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

About one year ago, i got a device like this one, made by jjc, and really love how easy is to scan with it...

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.

Game changer. This has been around for 50 years long before digital cameras. Nikon sells this for their macro lenses for years

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.

I really like my film scanner… I’ve done both and still get better quality with flatbed or machine for film scanner. I don’t think it’s worth getting mad over tho lol

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

You can use a scanner and/or you can use a camera. You could even do a pencil drawing. It's up to you. Variety (and therefore diversity) is the spice of life.

Digital camera scanning is superior in every way to flatbeds/dedicated film scanners (ie: coolscans) with one exception -- dust and scratch removal.

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 hope all good enjoyed your visit to IOW with the Boss...Only cause I use my close up Micro Nikor..I can scan larger negs on an LED tablet.. from my Super 3*2

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.

This seems like the most hassle-free way to scan with a digital camera! I'd love to try it out on my A7III

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.

seems legit. would love to see some side by side comparisons with the other scanners

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?

Ya that's ok if you have a few occasional negs to scan but for those of us who shoot film all the time it just isn't an even remotely workable solution. With an Epson flatbed I can mount 24 frames at the same time in 4 rows of 6. Then with the Epson software I can zoom in on each frame and set up the scan parameters for each frame individually and they are all saved. If I don't want to be bothered with individual complex settings then I can just let the Epson scan software figure it all out and it's pretty good. The thing about setting up each frame individually is that you come to 'know' each frame and what it is capable of producing in post. When I hit the scan button it will batch scan the whole 24 according to my settings and save to computer hard drive allowing me to go to the bar to relax with friends and a drink. When I get back, all of my scanned files are just waiting to be enjoyed on the big screen, post process and the neg strips are ready to be filed in neg holder sheets. There is no way on this Earth I am going to do anything like that with this Valoi box and a digicam.

Finally!!!! Someone with a GREAT idea!

Fast, practical & to the point. Thank you!

Honestly the fact that it looks weird kinda is a plus for me

This is an excellent concept ... If this is not too expensive, Ill pick one up...

It's fine if you are not a professional imaging specialist and are in a hurry and don't care about bit depth and other advantages of a quality flatbed scanner. In other words, it's still good for "most people" with a decent lens.

Honestly don't know why people are so protective over flatbed scanning, you can get great results especially if you do wet scanning but what a hassle. I used to have access to a Coolscan 9000 but since I can't use that any more (and can't afford to buy a prehistoric one), I tried a bit of flatbed afterwards but never got on with it. Camera scanning and products like this are brilliant, it's quick and easy, small and relatively cheap, best of all you don't have to run antiquated software to do it since no one makes quality dedicated scanners any more.

interesting. I made a slide scanner to be worked into a kodak carousel projector, and I used a Ulanzi 49 LED as the backlight... and this appears to use another Ulanzi lamp with the same formfactor. :D

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

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.