Film scanners?

In article 2017042111373211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


I guess along the way this was missed.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/great-film-renaissance-2017

and for good reason, because it's complete utter rubbish.

this bit in particular shows just how ignorant he is:
Shooting film is attractive for many reasons: it provides a direct
connection to the great images of the past; it requires more hands-on
involvement and forethought than digital photography; it produces a
physical end product (a negative, a print, a transparency) rather
than an image file stored on a hard drive or a memory card; and above
all, film images have character, that distinctive look and feel that
can be simulated, but never quite duplicated, using digital
film-emulation apps.

above all, 'that distinctive look' can be *precisely* duplicated with
digital, a mathematically provable fact.

*he* might not be able to get digital to look the same, but that's his
own lack of skill, not that of the medium.

as for the rest, film has no more of a direct connection than digital,
nothing prevents hands-on, involvement or forethought either (film
requiring that is actually a defect, not a feature) and a physical
negative, print or slide can be created from a digital original, one
which is *higher* quality than had it been created in the camera.

he also neglects to mention that physical copies take up physical space
and degrade the moment they're created. he also neglects to mention
that many hundreds of thousands of photos can be stored in less space
than a few dozen physical prints would take up, without needing special
storage conditions, and any of which can be instantly retrieved from a
simple query (e.g., 'photos of laura' or 'photos of paris in winter').