Is Betterlight Still the Standard?

[astroanalyst]

I want to scan artwork in the most professional way possible. After some research it seems that this old Betterlight Scanback and a 4x5 camera is still 'state of the art'.
Is this true? Are there alternatives? Also what about macro lenses on a Canon 5d? Are the results much worse?

The main question...
If you had no equipment and wanted to start scanning artwork what equipment would you purchase?

[foster_jb]

No sure what your budget is, but I know that Phase One make dedicated Repro systems:

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Repro-camera-solutions.aspx

I think that the advantages over Betterlight are that the technology is much newer, as well as the fact that you won't have to use hot lights to light your subject. Flicker from these kinds of lights, plus the fact that they heat up a room quickly, can prove annoying.

John

[koh303]

How big? is it 2D?
Better light was never a standard for anything...
Linhof was teamed with a company that made digital scan backs, that evolved in to the modern age, with USB and firewire connections and modern software called anagramm, but they seem to be gone now.

In any case depending on the above questions a fixed body SLR might be easier/cheaper and offer better results, especially the newer ones.
But you can use an adapter to connect a digital SLR to a view camera and use the movements and lenses of your favorite 4X5 camera... Those are very cheap.

[Drew Wiley]

Friends of mine who specialize in high-end studio photography switched from Betterlight to Phase One some time back. But when you speak of "highest-quality" repro,
you'd have to define the intended applications. Art photography can involve very very expensive equip if you are thinking of the forensic end of it. You also need rectilinear lenses. The reproduction of paintings is what drove the price of already scarce Apo El Nikkor lenses thru the roof. What is your budget - fifty grand, a
hundred grand, half a million? Good ole sheet film and a drum scanning might be a lot more realistic if you don't have that kind of money. .... or, like you suggested
yourself, stay with smaller more conventional equip, like a good macro lens on a DLSR.

[astroanalyst]

fifty grand, a
hundred grand, half a million? Good ole sheet film and a drum scanning might be a lot more realistic if you don't have that kind of money. .... or, like you suggested
yourself, stay with smaller more conventional equip, like a good macro lens on a DLSR.

The question is how much different will a print look, standing 3 feet away, when shot with a DSLR or a Betterlight or Phase One?
From the photos posted on the web the Betterlight always seems to do the best job by a wide margin.
No color aberrations and plenty of details in the shadows while a Canon 5d looked awful.

So no, I don't need it for forensic work but rather for making art prints that people would want to hang on their wall.

[Rollinhofuji]

I'd also consider sheet film and a drum scanner...4x5 should do it, 5x7 or 8x10 would be even better.
Quite affordable (the hassle with lighting is the same for all), and you can have an exprienced drum scanner operator scan your work. Plus, you got a more or less archival proof solution with the negatives (or slides).

[koh303]

Scanning is alot of work, since it requires re touching and many man hours to do.
Recently at SPE i saw several MF digital cameras which would blow your mind away. I was saying to the reps that 50K is not relevant for most users, they said at 10K you get top of the line gear, including the camera and normal lens.
True, some are more expensive then others - but you just cannot compare a small sensor to a large one.
If you can, go and play with the new pentax 645D (take your own card to shoot on) and look at other phaseone and hassy cameras.
In a nut shell it would be cheaper then a negative/scanner solution and much higher quality to start out with, but with out the man hours needed, and would not be much more expensive then a DSLR... you will not be able to shoot video, but you will get 200MB files with more detail then you knew existed.

We just sold our imacon, and will be going this route.

[Drew Wiley]

OK. I get it. You just want to make visual reproductions. 50% of the battle will be in the lighting, regardless of your camera gear. Copied painting rarely look like
the real thing because of the way the light reflects off the pigments. You have to learn to use cross-polarized light in a way that doesn't overdo things, and it can
be a real challenge when the painting has impasto build-up. Buy the best polarizing filter you can find. The scanning back approach of the Betterlight required some
expensive HMI lighting, or else hot lights. You'll have easier options with newer technology. But some post-editing of the curves will be inevitable. No big deal. Just
don't expect things to ever look exactly like the original. If you don't have view camera corrections, you'll need a very solid tall tripod or preferably, a studio stand,
to get squarely in front of the painting. Or you could make a king-sized copystand like I did, if the originals aren't huge, which makes life a lot easier. Having an MF
system will give you a lot more usable range and detail than a DLSR, obviously. Just study the tech specs on potential lenses first, for rectilinearity and MTF.
Longer focal lengths generally have less distortion, etc.

[astroanalyst]

When I started this thread I was convinced that the Betterlight was the way to go. Wow was I wrong! Then I was going to go the route of large format film and drum scan. That was until I re-visited the idea of Phase One. I got thrown originally after reading an old article that Betterlight was better than Phase One. I now see that is not true. Phase One delivers really great images.

I love the 'look' of large format film but I don't know how accurate the color reproduction is.
I have to rethink my main objective. Is it to make artwork look good or accurately reproduce the image?
http://bugraergil.blogspot.com/2013/08/d800-vs-linhof-35mm-digital-vs-5x4.html


I see that the Nikon D800 can mimic a MF camera by shooting twice and stitching the image
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D800/Nikon_D800_vs_Phase_One_medium_format_quality.shtml

But this Hassleblad image in my opinion blew away the D800
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/


So I think I will end up going in the Phase One direction but I will play around with a Nikon D800s as well (it should be available soon)

and yes...lighting, polarizing filter, copy stand or hang it on the wall?

You guys were an enormous help! Thank you!

[astroanalyst]

play with the new pentax 645D

Why does Pentax call every new version of its camera by the same name?

If I want to go with a MF camera is this Pentax the one to buy?

[astroanalyst]

Oh I see the new Pentax 645D II is about to come out any day now.

[koh303]

The new pentax is only appealing because it is DIRT cheap. Its not the best camera our there, but for the price of D800 you get almost 4X the sensor size, and some of the best lenses out there (they are also stupidly cheap for some reason).
The pentax does not compare well with the newer hasselblad, which is about 10X more expensive or with the 2-4X more expensive phaseone/mamiya system with the later backs.

Another redeaming feature of the pentax is a very good user interface (including a tripod socket on both the vertical AND horizontal planes).

There are really only these three options... and in all cases you pay for what you get. IMHO - the 645D is more then plenty for any repro work, but then again testing for the specific use should confirm this first.

[Drew Wiley]

You don't want to scan because it seems like to much work, but are willing to stitch??? You can't just pan the camera for this kind of stitch like someone might in
a landscape panorama. You'd need some very precise equip to keep everything on the same plane, for rectilinearity, unless you've got endless PS correction patience. Arca makes some nice MF equip for this kind of thing, but be prepared for a serious investment. ... But don't underestimate the quality of Pentax lenses, even if Hassy
might offer a superior system overall. A P645 would still maul any DLSR in terms of final image quality, esp with a macro lens.

[analoguey]

The new pentax is only appealing because it is DIRT cheap. Its not the best camera our there, but for the price of D800 you get almost 4X the sensor size, and some of the best lenses out there.

Isnt the D800 about 3k USD? Is the Pentax around the same minus lens? (I'm assuming it's integrated back)

[astroanalyst]

I believe the 645D is about $6500 without a lens and the 645D ii will be a couple of thousand more so it is considerably more expensive than a D800e.

[astroanalyst]

I don't think I said that scanning was too much work... i wouldn't mind doing that if the results were great.
It just seems that the MF cameras actually outdo the LF film cameras.

Stitching didn't appear that difficult. I've lived on photoshop for the last 15 years so I don't think it would be a problem. I would also mount the camera on a slider to keep it parallel to the art piece.

So it looks like you are also in agreement that the Pentax is the reasonably priced camera that yields the best value to achieve acceptable results.

[Drew Wiley]

OK.. here we go again.... and again... and again... and again. Take the most expensive MF back you can find and sloppiest view camera work on the planet and make a comparison. Sounds you've been spending too much time surfing web hearsay. But the pros and cons have been endless debated elsewhere, and seem to be more a matter of voodoo religion than objective fact. Take the approach you feel comfortable with. Either way will work. But there are real advantages to having some kind
of lens movements, esp rise. And I really don't know how well these little "shift" lenses actually work for high-resolution applications - remember, you want a somewhat long focal length relative to format, to avoid iillumination falloff and corner distortion. Maybe someone else can comment on that, cause I have no personal
interest in those 'lil things.

[Drew Wiley]

... but I should have clarified that I know nothing about DLSR shift lenses for such applications. Others would. The Pentax MF shift lenses are basically custom
super-angulon designs and would probably not compete in a fine detail sense with either the latest large format or top-end DLSR lenses. There were basically designed as a poor man's architectural lens, and I'd be pretty surprised if they can compete with Pentax's basic lens formulas, which can be pretty good in some
focal lengths - but remember that the wide-angle ones will not be corrected for potential color-fringing with digital backs (versus film). One more reason to stick
with somewhat longer focal lengths. They have introduced a couple of re-engineered lenses specifically for digital capture, but they're damn pricey.

[Rollinhofuji]

Thanks Drew, someone had to say it.

[koh303]

Isnt the D800 about 3k USD? Is the Pentax around the same minus lens? (I'm assuming it's integrated back)

There is some promotional on the 645D making it close to 4800$ (i think).
In any case as my old professor Kenny Lester used to say:
You can't compare small pixels to large pixels" (comparing full frame 35mm slr to MF digital backs of equal or even lesser MP count)

[Greg Miller]

I want to scan artwork in the most professional way possible. After some research it seems that this old Betterlight Scanback and a 4x5 camera is still 'state of the art'.
Is this true? Are there alternatives? Also what about macro lenses on a Canon 5d? Are the results much worse?

The main question...
If you had no equipment and wanted to start scanning artwork what equipment would you purchase?

I do a lot of stitching, which in general is not that much work and generates very high quality results. But for someone who wants to "scan artwork in the most professional way possible", I will agree with Drew and state that this is not a good way to go. Even if you are shifting horizontally and vertically (as opposed to rotating), your rig would have to be exactly parallel to the artwork, be exactly level, have a perfectly linear lens with zero barrel/pincushion distortion, and shift exactly parallel to the artwork to avoid awkward overlaps of adjacent images which would create the need for creative PS work to correct. thereby destroying any semblance of faithfulness to the artwork.

Additionally, I have a D800e, which generates files of about 7320 pixels on the long side. If you want to print at 300 dpi, and not interpolate, you will be limited to artwork no larger than 24" on the long side (unless you resort to stitching). A 5D would mean even smaller art work.

[astroanalyst]

Additionally, I have a D800e, which generates files of about 7320 pixels on the long side. If you want to print at 300 dpi, and not interpolate, you will be limited to artwork no larger than 24" on the long side (unless you resort to stitching). A 5D would mean even smaller art work.

That is interesting thank you....it seems the unanimous decision is to go MF.

[koh303]

a review of the pentax 645 was just posted on DPreview.
I also go some pricing for various lenses the other day, not bad, but not that cheap either.

[astroanalyst]

Thank you.
Here is the link:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/15/hands-on-with-the-pentax-645z

[Kodachrome25]

Odd that no one has mentioned the most productive and cost effective solution: Hire a professional photographer.

[NancyP]

The other relatively cost efficient scheme for the DIYer would be a home-built copy easel with built-in restriction on camera sensor movement off parallel wrt the easel plane, providing orthogonal-to-artwork x y z axes but no tilt/yaw/roll.

[Pics2]

Nobody mentioned multishot digital backs. People using both MS backs and standard MF digital backs claim that MS gives much better results. Even the older and realtivly cheap one Hasselblad H3D 39MS. Newrer Hasselblads are H4D 50MS and 200MS and H5D.These backs make four exposures and the most professional ones like Sinar Exact 16 exposures. Here is a good explanation
http://fstoppers.com/sinars-new-medium-format-back
Also, keep an eye on Leaf Aptus and Credo backs, especially Credo, which are cheaper version of Phase One backs.
In my opinion you don't need any camera movements ability here. If the artwork is yours, I'm sure you can take it down from the wall and put it in desired position that exzcludes need for movements. If you intend to use MF I recommend 120mm macro whatever brand you choose.

[Adamphotoman]

I have a Betterlight Super 6KHS, a D800, a D800e and I am currently testing a Phase One.
I capture artwork for a living. What I can say is that the Betterlight still produces better images. One needs to light the original with HID copy lights and pola filters, zigalign, shoot a SG colour chart, shoot an oversized white card, map out all the brightness levels of every pixel with Equalight software, apply that math to both the image file as well as the SG chart, and finally build a colour profile.
I compare files from each of these cameras carefully using All the above steps.
For a painter the Betterlight still has the best colour, tonal gradations and sharpness.
The best lens happens not to be enlarging lenses or apo ronar type copy lenses but the Apo Sironar S.

BTW Rencay took over Anagram.

[koh303]

The best lens happens not to be enlarging lenses or apo ronar type copy lenses but the Apo Sironar S.

BTW Rencay took over Anagram.

Could have told you that without the scanback. Thanks for the rencay note.

[evan clarke]

Ha..Film is the standard.

[aluncrockford]

For copying art work the standard way was to cross polarise, e.g. polarising filters over the lights and circular polariser over the lens, rotate till all the flare goes.
On the digital front a second hand P45 with a v hasselblad is probably the best and most cost effective solution, I did shoot with the phase one scanning back it was perfectly fine, but the problems outweighed the benefits

[David Lobato]

The new Pentax is the 645Z.

[Thom Bennett]

We use LEAF Medium Format Digital Backs mounted on Sinar P2's to photograph paintings: http://www.rauantiques.com/fine-art/paintings/

One thing to think about if you are thinking of shooting film is that Polaroid and Fuji quit making 4x5 instant film so having a quick preview is no longer an option with film. I would say the way to go for any level of commercial copy work would be with MFDB's; either Phase, LEAF, etc., on a view camera. The benefit is that you get Live View with which you can easily assess your polarization, composition, etc. The Live View screen on my computer is about 8x10 and, even though it is in black & white, one can easily see the effects of the lighting.

[koh303]

....Polaroid and Fuji quit making 4x5 instant film

I guess i should tell the fuji rep to not sell or market any FP100c...

How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well.

Regardless of the above - you are correct, there is no comparing digital capture with any film capture in this day and age.

[StoneNYC]

I guess i should tell the fuji rep to not sell or market any FP100c...

How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well.

Regardless of the above - you are correct, there is no comparing digital capture with any film capture in this day and age.

Get the rope!! :)

[Thom Bennett]

"How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well."

Oh, not talking about color calibration, just checking the lighting. I thought the 4x5 was gone and only the 3.25x4.25 was available.

[StoneNYC]

"How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well."

Oh, not talking about color calibration, just checking the lighting. I thought the 4x5 was gone and only the 3.25x4.25 was available.

It's available for import from japan (the 4x5) but still the 3.25x4.25 is big enough that you can see what's happening.

[alan-salsman]

after months researching this subject,my studio is full of art being prepared for shipment .It will be reproduced in house on a better light scan back.The agencies I have talked two still consider the better light back to be state of the art.Their second choice is a drum scanned 4x5 e-6.Thay do not want any other type of file for fine art reproduction. I think it also depends on what you are going to do with the art, that is what are the clients expectations .Since I want my work reproduced on the highest level in preparation for on line sales I had to resist the urge to use my 4x5.

[Mark Sawyer]

Used Leica S2's are down to about $7,000. I think I'd go that way, but of course, that's me. Different tools for different people...

[Adamphotoman]

The Betterlight will still give the best results. Most other systems will flavour your files somewhat - kind of like a colour cast from film and / or processing. Sadly, some clients are insisting on faster cheaper solutions. So stitching DSLR and medium format files has become common place.

[gfsymon]

If you want to know what is the best you can currently get, then it is multi-shot MF. I've worked for many years with Eyelike multi-shot backs, made by Jenoptik (Carl Zeiss Jena of old). They no longer sell to the general public, but still make backs for Sinar. A 50 megapixel, 16-shot back from Sinar will beat anything else you have. We're talking a 200 megapixel *non-interpolated* file, in pure RGGB, just like a drum scan. The software will correct uneven lighting and will make the most accurate colour currently possible. Sinar even make a dedicated motorised repro camera these days.

[Adamphotoman]

For current availability Rencay scan backs are still being made ... at many many times the price of Betterlight's - Super 8K HS. Note: I believe that they use the same Kodak sensors as the Betterlight. Betterlight has stopped manufacturing although Mike Collette still provides service.

The MF workflow can make more economical sense today especially as they have come down in price.

10 years back it was way too expensive to go with a MF solution at $50 K plus.

Betterlights require a lot of light. They are light pigs. The Northlight 900 units that I use deliver all the light that I need without too much heat and no flicker issues. UV filters protect the art. Polarizers can be fitted to the lights. The process is time consuming at 10-18 minutes a scan but I can still capture 20 similar paintings in a day. I have a handy Polarizer Alignment Card which helps with cross polarizing. A colour profile needs to be made for the crossed polarizer at it's exact same setting to tame contrast. For this an SG card is much better than the classic version which only has matte patches.
For lightweight long pieces of artwork or for imaging panoramic images I use the camera in pano mode. I pull the artwork across a long aluminum framework using the pano - adapter's motor and software interface keeping the camera and sensor stationary. Kind of a poor mans Cruze scanner.

I still get more accurate results with the Betterlight than with the iQ250 that I have finished testing. The Phase is a joy to use and I would choose it in a heartbeat if I were doing product, architecture, and lowlight shots. For artwork at a fraction of the cost I still choose the Betterlight.

[Tin Can]

I read the thread, but still don't know why you are doing this.

I do a lot of copy work of pencil and paper drawings for a very good emerging artist. He really only needs high quality small jpegs for submission online. I do my best to make it all square, color correct and he and his galleries are very happy with what I do.

But, I keep warning him not to let full resolution images loose on the Internet. His stuff looks digital, but is all one off, hand made. His market is selling his signed originals.

If you are scanning for reproduction sales, yes you need the best these other posters have described. If not, you are wasting time, money and possibly creating a copyright nightmare for the artist. I use a DSLR on an enlarger copy stand with polarized lighting. I printed one of his images so he could see what danger he was in. I have also produced two high end small sample books for him to carry with him. He and his customers love the sample books and he doesn't need to lug giant paper drawings around.

We shoot another 50 next week.

[Adamphotoman]

Randy,
I am in the business of making full sized prints. These could be printed as large as 7 foot by 12 foot, So I do need resolution. I downsize images for them for the web.

My artists that only need images for web get work generated from a D800. They get folders with raw files, full sized tiffs, card sized tiffs with colour corrected hard copies and web sized jpegs.

Even when I image with a DSLR I zigalign, I shoot a white card, I equalize, and I profile.

Grant

[Tin Can]

Hi Grant,

Now, I understand your needs better, I like to get the whole story.

Thank you!



Randy,
I am in the business of making full sized prints. These could be printed as large as 7 foot by 12 foot, So I do need resolution. I downsize images for them for the web.

My artists that only need images for web get work generated from a D800. They get folders with raw files, full sized tiffs, card sized tiffs with colour corrected hard copies and web sized jpegs.

Even when I image with a DSLR I zigalign, I shoot a white card, I equalize, and I profile.

Grant

[alan-salsman]

grant-your are close to home. What is the name of your business-web sight.pm me if necessary, I would like to see your rates and type of reproductions you are doing. thanks alan

[Adamphotoman]

Hi Alan,
www.akphotos@shaw.ca
phone me
1 250 732 2296
If you are close we can absolutely work something out, but know that my prices can vary depending upon the art. So I prefer to talk to the artist and find out a bit about the art before I put my foot in my mouth.

What I mean...An artist recently emailed me. I gave them a range of prices. Then they brought in a glass mosaic with dark shiny irregular surfaces including an iridescent element and gold leaf. Well that meant a whole lot more work than and a different approach than imaging watercolours, or pencil drawings, or an impasto -pallet knife oil painting. Although time is money I had to stick to my original figures but spend extra time. A lot of questions need to be asked...such as does the artist need the paint texture to show up or do they want it to be diminished.

Note: that even with the Betterlight I have had to stitch a number of captures together to get a giga-pixel sized file.

In the end it is all about the right piece of equipment for the application. Mike Collette inventor and owner of Betterlight recently told me that anyone can purchase equipment. He then went on to say that I had something better behind my lens. I thought he was referring to the Super 6 K HS, but he was talking about the operator.

Grant

[alan-salsman]

I sent Grant a very difficult piece of art to reproduce. many layers of color including metallic and fluorescents, plus a lot of texture created by several different methods. His reproductions were flawless and he is a stand up person to do business with. next month I will commit 7 more pieces into his very capable hands. I chose this route after months of research. At first my intention was to photograph the art with a 4x5.but I realized that would in tale a steep learning curve and I was not willing to commit the time required. After speaking with several people that reproduce art, their concusses was that the work should be done with a betterlight scan back. I am very pleased to have found a operator that knows how to get the most out of the equipment-Alan

[Adamphotoman]

Thank you Alan so much for the kind words,
I will always bring my experience, equipment and knowledge to bear on any project that you throw at me. I aspire to be world class always.
Grant

[peter ramm]

Has anyone tried the current generation of linear scanners like the Uberscan?

http://colourgenics.com/?category/Uberscan

I did a lot of "archival" scanning years ago and area detectors never could get around the dynamic range limitations imposed by lens flare, adjacent area sensor interactions, etc. I always found that spot scanners (e.g. drum) are best, followed by linear and then area. Within area scanners, there are all sorts of issues with DSLR or MF acquisition if stitching is involved. Never seen those solved completely. Here's another vote for MS tech, by the way. It was hard to give that up when I went to the Phase back.

Of course, drum mounting art work is problematic so compromises must be made. If time and convenience are not the major factors, linear scanners are probably the starting point there.

Have not worked with the latest gen Phase equipment but, unless they do something strange with masking I would think the fundamental physics still apply. You are just not going to get a 4D range out of an area device. That may not matter in most cases but the archival applications care.

Again, I have no direct experience with the latest camera vs scanner equipment and would be interested in comments from people who have made those comparisons.

[evan clarke]

HaHa Tmy is the standard..

[StoneNYC]

HaHa Tmy is the standard..

TMY?? For fine art color reproductions? Hah!

[Adamphotoman]

The Betterlight is a Trilinear Scanner and one can use either the 10 stop curve or the repro curve.
Try to put a 4'X12' painting with 1/2 inch texture on a drum scanner.

This type of capture technology requires the best operators to get the best results. These units are Not Forgiving in the least, however, if one pays attention to all the steps, one will be rewarded with simply the best.

[Adamphotoman]

The Super 6K HS uses a 14 bit analogue to digital converter. This makes 14 stops dynamic range a potential, however this is only achieved in laboratory conditions. This means using the devise in a deep freeze.
In the real world the devise will still realize 11.5 stops throughout most of it's useable range. [without freezing]...
With film, a drum scanner needs an optimum start point. This translates to a a perfect exposure with film. However, the over exposure and under exposure end points [in film processing] will reduce dynamic range. From film to digital a modest reduction of dynamic range, film grain, is expected.

MF cannot compete with LF scanning with regard to pure RGB values. A secret spice is always introduced in software intervention. The newer technology can surpass scanning backs for instant capture, however, the much larger capture wells in scanning will give much smoother tone gradations and with proper user interaction better sharpness.

[Math]

If you're going to do artwork, nothing much beats a D800E with some macro lenses for it's price. Sure is a whole lot better than a betterlight back.

[Drew Wiley]

That was a joke, right?

[StoneNYC]

That was a joke, right?

+1

[Peter Mounier]

I think he means the price is a whole lot better.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, but is the Light Better ?

[8x10 user]

+1 for sinar multishot

Even with my old 22mp version I can make a 200MP image in 64 shots that would match or surpass a betterlight scan.

It uses the same 9 micron kodak CCD technology but mine has an active peltier cooler and can be used at ISO 25. Both are light hogs but with the one I use 22 million sites receive light at the same time versus 24,000 on the betterlight. Its the lower iso and peltier cooler that would IMO give the multishot sinar solution an edge.

Both have very good software for reproduction purposes.

As for the new Sinar exact. It should also be very good for flat art. I dont think the extra resolution would be attainable with 3d objects due to the diffraction/DOF issue.

I believe the new cruise scanners still use the same old Kodak Trilinear sensors. There was a version of the trilinear sensor with a peltier cooler that was sold for use in the Eversmart Supreme and Imacon 949 (Hasselblad X5) scanners. I do not know of it being used for a fine art scanner or copy camera.




If you want to know what is the best you can currently get, then it is multi-shot MF. I've worked for many years with Eyelike multi-shot backs, made by Jenoptik (Carl Zeiss Jena of old). They no longer sell to the general public, but still make backs for Sinar. A 50 megapixel, 16-shot back from Sinar will beat anything else you have. We're talking a 200 megapixel *non-interpolated* file, in pure RGGB, just like a drum scan. The software will correct uneven lighting and will make the most accurate colour currently possible. Sinar even make a dedicated motorised repro camera these days.

[8x10 user]

Also it should be noted that when Sinar talks about megapixels they mean the total # of pixels in the final image. Betterlight uses the total amount of pixels multiplied by 3 for the Red Green and Blue channels. This is to differentiate between their pure RGB pixels and the ones created with single shot sensors that interpolate data from a bayer grid.

So a 384 "megapixel" betterlight back actually captures 128 megapixels. This is in "enhanced mode" where the scan is over sampled in one direction; scanning the space in between pixels. In normal mode the Super 8k HS is actually an 85 megapixel scan back.

Sinar 16-shot mode also oversamples only in two directions. That is how a 50 megapixel sensor is able to produce a 200 megapixel image with pure RGB data for each pixel site.

[Daniel Stone]

If only there was a Foveon-style digital sensor in either FF 645, 6x7 or 4x5 sizes, imagine the possibilities!

TBH, I'd love to see a slip-in(like a traditional film holder) digital "magazine" that could be used like a traditional film holder. It would have shallow pixel wells(better for movements w/o "needing" the required LCC calibration shots like current MFD backs do when using off-axis movements like rise and/or shift, especially with wide angle lenses. There's a fellow that's designing/perfecting a single-shot digital back for 8x10(then 4x5 later, both color and b/w IIRC) cameras:
http://www.largesense.com/

I'm not aware of his pricing schedule, or other details like RAW file support, technical support, software, etc., but it looks promising to say the least!
I enjoy using film for MY photography, and generally work with exposures in the 1/125-30s range. So rather broad, and I'd need a capable "brush" to be able to do said photography unencumbered with the needs of a computer/tablet with all of the cables, batteries, etc necessary for its operation. A wireless tethering solution to a lightweight tablet via a proprietary wi-fi connection(ala Phase One's tethering solution, where RAW files are written to a CF card, jpeg files are transmitted via the wireless connection to the tablet/computer). To me, this would be a great solution, and if it could have similar dynamic range and grain structure to current color neg and b/w emulsions(Portra, Ektar and Tmax are my personal favorites), I really do think it could be an instant hit with photographers of all price ranges. Of course different resolutions and expanded capabilities could vary with different models, but being able to access hi-fidelity single-shot capture, like is capable with film(vs scanning backs, or multi-shot/stitching workflows) would really open up new territories that current tech cannot replicate unless more time is dedicated to such.

Do I see this actually happening? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the hardware, but I do know, and fully understand that if there's enough money laid out on the table and there is a manufacturer capable(let alone willing) to design, fabricate and support/develop a chip(or series of sensors) capable of developing such tech, albeit economically, I think there are enough people willing to try. Money talks, bullsh** walks as they say. For those of us who like FLEXIBLE tools in our arsenal, I'd like to see this happen, as I'm sure many others would.

A digital 4x5 full-frame chip, 50-80mp of single-shot capture, 16bit information... Man, I'd be on cloud 9. If it was affordable that is...

-Dan

[8x10 user]

Well there are certainly issues of diminishing returns with medium format digital. The higher resolution backs require a larger aperture -due to diffraction, which limits depth of field. Many MFD that I have spoken to have downgraded too lower resolution / more affordable backs because of the need of more depth of field. We already have plenty of lenses that are diffraction limited at F/16-F/22 we just need the sensors to utilize a larger image circle.

I use a 22mp MFD back for my digital needs. When doing close up shots I often shoot at F/16 due to DOF issues. A higher resolution back or a "sharper" "HR" lens would be no use to me in a practical sense. Newerbacks have better high ISO performance but at iso 25-50 my back is still "king".

[Adamphotoman]

If I want to stitch an art work I can stitch 20 Super 6K HS 216 megabyte files together with 30% overlap to create a file to print massive prints. i am talking 20-30 foot long prints.
If I use a pano adapter I can make a 180 degree pano in under a minute. Shooting with MF lenses I shoot at 1/400 sec line time and I can capture 100 sailboats in motion. Try that stitching. Boats JUST DON'T stay still!
This creates a 1 1/2 gigabyte file without stitching. I can print 20 feet. A wide angle phase back or a multishot back would be at a disadvantage here. Good luck with that.

In the end it is still all about light.

One should be able to see the glow and shimmer from metallics and at the same time peer into the depths of dark shinny oils. One should have the sense of smelling the paint and have the feeling that the Fine Art Repro will get under your nails if you touch it. This can only come from the operator.
& Not the Equipment.

[8x10 user]

Well of course technique comes into play when reproducing artwork. Even the big automated machines from Cruse and Metis take this into account; adjusting the angle/proportion of the light to bring out physical details or adding polarizers to remove glare. Having everything well aligned and centered is also important.

Stitching can be done with many capture methods. There are ways to do stitching in the image circle (quad stitch) with medium format backs, and of course stitching can be done by pivoting the camera around its nodal point, or by moving the subject or the camera around (keeping the distances the same, a better method). I actually did a multi gigapixel reproduction for a family member a few years back by using a Nikon D2x with a VR macro lens and a foba camera stand to move the camera around the subject while keeping the distance the same. The final image quality was excellent.

But we were talking about the integrity of the capture method. A multishot system that captures each pixel in red green and blue and has the same or perhaps higher integrity per pixel then a trilinear sensor based scan back depending on the iso. Again the CCD technology in a 8 year old Sinar multishot back is identical to the CCD technology used in the betterlight system... Both use the same era Kodak CCD's. The betterlight does not have a peltier cooler and is limited to isos of 100 or 125 and up. Per pixel the 25 iso sensor is going to have less noise and more integrity. The newer Dalsa based multishot backs will have lower noise at higher iso's. There are other factors including image size. I would think that a 200mp Sinar back would require a sharper lens to achieve its resolution capabilities. The newer lenses should be able to keep up but will not cover the betterlight format.

A betterlight super 6k HS has an actual native resolution of 48 megapixels, the sinar exact can produce 4 times as many pixels in less then a minute.

Sinars software is not as good for everyday purposes as Phase one's. Phase makes an excellent RAW convertor and they it be the best at interpolating data from a bayer grid. For repo purposes Sinar's software is very good. The back can be profiled in the software with a 200 + patch target. Each sensor is factory calibrated and adjusted. The user is then able to perform three types of calibrations in the software. One is done with a white translucent sheet that is placed in front of the lens. This calibrates the sensor, any movements that are applied in the camera, and the lens to the exact aperture/focus location that is being used in the shot. A second form of calibration includes scene calibration which levels the entire scene automatically removing any hot spots in the lighting. A third form of calibration is to make sure the piezos are fully calibrated. The last time I calibrated my back for 16-shot use, the software told me the results were accurate to ~ 200 nano meters which is smaller than the wave length of most visible light. I have not used a betterlight back but I would think their software is also very good for reproduction purposes.

Now that Sony is making MFD CMOS sensors, perhaps Mike can have them make a large CMOS tri linear sensor to produce a new line of scan backs with lower scan times and less noise. The CCD technology in the betterlight back is 20 years old. Not to say that it is low quality or lacks integrity but there are other high integrity methods out there.

[8x10 user]

Another notable approach is the one taken by Mega Vision. They use a black and white sensor that creates a color image by using a color wheel or colored lighting. It can capture work with more colors then RGB. Of course we can only see in RBG so multi spectrum imaging is not necessary for reproducing artwork for the human eye.

[Adamphotoman]

All I know is that I make a very good living using the BL.
Most of my old and all of my new clients will not accept anything but a BL scan.

My Phase experience and the Multishot all sit in a closet. [I should sell them] It is the real world after all.

Maybe in another 10 years the single shots will be good enough.

BTW
The Japanese accepted Mega Pixel Count does not make a Super 6 K a 48 Mega Pixel Instrument. Maybe in Monochrome.

If you can interpolate a pixel shift in a Multishot to add up to more Megapixel,
then you should be able to add all the trilinear pixels up.

[8x10 user]

Subsampling / over sampling is not the same as interpolation. I learned about the benefits of oversampling first hand when operating drum scanners.

Betterlight uses over/sub sampling in one direction and then interpolates in the other to create their enhanced resolution option.

Multishot systems capture each pixel location in red green and blue, its pure data without interpolating just like the Betterlight. So by Betterlight MP ratings the Sinar exact would be 576 megapixels.

I dont know much about it but Sinar has a new system which combines their multishot technology with color filters for an even greater level of color accuracy.
http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/products/ctm/

[Adamphotoman]

The Sinar back is impressive especially for the smaller 36X48 sensor size, however this means a smaller micron size for each receptor. This also means one needs lenses with higher resolution. The smaller well also impacts colour accuracy. The native sensor travel of the Betterlight is 72X96mm or 4X larger capture area. The Super 6K has a 12 micron photo site while the higher res Super 8K has a 9 micron photo site. Pros and Cons. The Sinar Exact sensor has even smaller photo sites. Meaning diffraction limitations which impacts depth of field.
Each system has strengths and weaknesses. The Sinar Exact is $30K versus $15K

I would say the Betterlight is still my first choice with Fine Art Repro. For other types of photography such as installation product and moving subjects the MF solution is the way to go.

Most of the time I don't need more megapixels just better ones. When I do need more megapixels I can stitch using a moving wall or I can move the art using the pano adapter.

In the near future the MF will not only catch up to Betterlight's image quality but will surpass it. The Betterlight still has some years left.

[Adamphotoman]

Back to the original post:
"I want to scan artwork in the most professional way possible. After some research it seems that this old Betterlight Scanback and a 4x5 camera is still 'state of the art'.
Is this true? Are there alternatives? Also what about macro lenses on a Canon 5d? Are the results much worse?

The main question...
If you had no equipment and wanted to start scanning artwork what equipment would you purchase?"

What is your budget?

Betterlights can be purchased for about 1/2 to 2/3rds the orig price...

Still the best for now but what do you really want to do with he images?

[gfsymon]

One of the problems with the Betterlight, is that there are no 5x4 lenses designed for digital use. Film allows for a depth-of-focus that is far greater than that required for a CCD, which is to all intents and purposes, completely flat. What this means is, for a CCD, maximum sharpness demands that all three colours of light (RGB) be focused at the same point on the 'film' plane. With film based cameras, this is far less critical, because if one layer is sharp, it's 'good enough'.

I agree with you about the cost advantage, but your suggestion of a 'moving wall' fails to understand the problems of parallax for stitching. You could use your Betterlight for stitching accurately, by doing something similar to the now ancient Sinar system called 'macro-scan', which moved (with a motor) an MF sized back around a 5x4 camera to give a perfect 4 frame stitch ... So you could use a 10x8 for your Betterlight and use rear lateral and vertical shift to give you a correct stitch, but 10x8 lenses are all film based too.

Whilst the Betterlight clearly has the *considerable* advantage over single-shot MF backs (especially Kodak chipped backs) of having all 3 colours independently scanned and thus does not require colour-interpolation, it looses this advantage when compared to MF multi-shot, which doesn't use colour-interpolation either.

It looses another too, which is moiré. Small pixel wells are not all bad. As they've become smaller, so has moiré become more rare. In fact, Jenoptik's micro-scanning (for 4 and 16-shot) (Jenoptik make Sinar's backs) was developed specifically to eliminate moiré, which it does completely in 16-shot and in 4-shot, although it can theoretically be seen sometimes in 4-shot (I never have in 16 years using them).

So I think your claim that Betterlights are 'still the best for now' is overstated. In fact, since I happen to know, at museum level, the most absolutely critical demands use the Sinar system. This is not only for their colour and extremely high resolution (200mpx) but also for specular highlights which are messy on single-shot by comparison (when being discerning). However, please don't think I'm knocking the Betterlight, which you have clearly managed to use very effectively, but the question was; what is the current 'state of the art?' and it isn't a Betterlight.

[Adamphotoman]

The question was "Is Betterlight Still the Standard?" and if you had no equipment what would you buy?

Betterlight may no longer be State of the Art but The Sinar Multishot has not yet been adopted universally.
Nor can it make gigapixel panoramas without stitching. Nor can it make rollouts at all.
Betterlight scanning backs are no longer being made so it is not current, but as Alan Salsman found out many institutions will not accept other digital image solutions. Therefore it is still the standard.
For now. Soon another standard will be adopted. And then one will be able to buy Betterlights for less$ and still have world class capture.

Yes the Sinar Multishot is State of the Art...A complete Sinar repro kit will cost many more $ though. Closer to 60K. As software improves it can correct for noise & colour. Software and digital lenses help to make the smaller wells acceptable, but software cannot completely change the laws of physics. And few of us individuals can afford the Sinar Exact.
I can shoot rollouts and panoramas. I also use stepping motors to pull art across a stationary camera.

Rodenstock makes a 180mm Apo Sironar Digital. Sinar Sells a 210mm Sinaron Digital lens.
When one uses the panoadapter MF lenses can be used, which brings many more digital lenses into play.
Betterlights larger wells do a very impressive job of capturing subtle tone graduations. However it is not a system easy to use or to master.
As well size gets smaller digital lenses are being designed and manufactured as they are absolutely needed.
Apo Sironar S lenses are quite capable with the larger micron size of the Super 6 and 8K.


Dozens of museums still make use of Betterlights. Ben Blackwell goes all over the US working for museums and Art Galleries. The Royal Museum in our capital city uses a Betterlight. So does the university library.

Parallax is only a problem when the gear is not used properly or if lenses with a distortion are used. Ron Finley , Randy Hufford , John Castonovo , Craig Yorke all use custom gear to move the art. No Parallax issues if done right. Randy teaches and sells moving walls.

Moire has never been a problem with the Betterlight.

[8x10 user]

I have heard that the best lens for art repo with betterlight is the 210mm Apo El Nikkor. If you wanted to stitch in an 8x10 image circle then the 480mm Apo El Nikkor would be the lens of choice but it would be near impossible to find and would cost as much as the scanning back or more. For reproduction of small items (around 1:1) the "Printing Nikkor" is considered to be the best. This lens was made to produce the distribution copies of movies from of the original masters.

The 180mm Sironar digital and Apo Sironar S should also be top notch. I once used a 240mm Sironar S with a 9 micron phase one back and the results were very sharp. The 90mm might cover and is technically an HR but I think the perspective would be too wide. One betterlight user that I met, swore by the Apo Ronar. He had a giant but very old (originally multi hundred K) motorized horizontal copy camera that he converted for use with his backs.

The "macro scan" will not work with anything newer then the 54h. Its on my wish list. It will also allow me to properly use the asymmetrical tilts on my P2. The macro scan was designed for smaller square backs and many pixels will be loss due to overlap. I have calculated the maximum number of pixels possible with the macro scan to be 190 something megapixels (I cant remember right now).

The betterlight is certainly a respectable device for Art Reproduction. Pulling artwork around a stationary camera is a very good approach... It allows you to use more of the center of the image circle which is the sharpest part. Basically you have made yourself a cruise scanner at a fraction of the cost. Your setup might be better then a cruise in a few ways. A horizontal setup allows for a longer focal length lens which will yield a better perspective.

I have not used betterlight first hand but it does seem like Sinars software might be a little bit better for repo since it can calibrate using either the regular or the large number of patch gretag targets. It seems like betterlight users have to do manual grey balancing using a gretag target and/or they can profile outside of the software like any other camera or scanner. It seems like betterlight does not have an integrated software solution to balancing the hot spots from the lighting or natural light fall of from the lens so this too would need to happen in post. These are two more areas where the knowledge / skill of the operator would make a difference in the final product.

When shooting multishot you need a very low vibration system. Multishot will not work with copal shutters so you need to use a electronic shutter solution or hasselblad. The quality of ones flash lighting might become a concern. Newer flash generators will give you control over the color temperature. Balancing both of your lights is important and fresh flash tubes are more consistent than old ones. New flash tubes are pricey.

Its possible that the millions of tiny filters used in bayer grid based systems might have more inconsistencies then the 3 larger filters used in a trilinear sensor.

[Adamphotoman]

Ron Finley and Randy Hufford both use Apo Ronars for stitching with their moving art walls as they have very little distortion. They were very good for map making. I use a modern [coated] 360 and a straw coated 480mm. I have tested a number of other lenses. and the Apo Sironar S actually has a flatter field than the Apo Ronar process lenses. Note the Apo Ronars only behave like a flat field lenses when stopped down. In fact they are only apos when stopped down.
Several softwares allow for correcting uneven light. One is Equalight which also corrects for lens fall off.
One thing that the Viewfinder software can do is to adjust exposure in 1/100 of a stop. It allows for panos and for rollouts. Betterlight also sells Color Sage software. I use In Camera's profiling software and Edit lab to tweak a profile. 900 watt Northlights are flicker free HID lights and provide me with more control than a Cruse Scanner operator has at their disposal. I can't tell you how many times I had to rescan artwork after after bad Cruise scans. When I want to show both texture and metallics in the same shot I can. This does necessitate putting more light from one side and evening it out in the software.

[8x10 user]

Have you tried the Apo Ronar Cl line of lenses? Which view camera do you use with your betterlight?

[Adamphotoman]

Yes my 480 is a CL. I am fortunate that I do not need shutters so barrel lenses are fine. The 360 was supplied in a shutter and is multicoated.

I use 3 view cameras. A Sinar P and Norma front. It is a hybrid. Then I have a complete Norma for travel and a complete P as well with an 8X10 back which I don't use.

I also have 2 Stainless Steel Globuscope 4X5 which I use for pano and for pulling artwork. These are fitted with Mamiya and Bronica 645 lenses. Because the MF lenses are designed for a smaller image circle they are very sharp and faster than 4x5 lenses. This rig only works with the pano adapter.

[Adamphotoman]

Here are my Norma and Hybrid. The Norma is outfitted with a 180 mm Apo Symar and the Hybrid with a 480 Apo Ronar CL

[Adamphotoman]

And the Globuscope which is attached to the camera mount for the pano adapter.
Also a Pano from the unit

[Racer X 69]

I guess i should tell the fuji rep to not sell or market any FP100c...

But that is 3.25 x 4.25", not 4x5".

[StoneNYC]

But that is 3.25 x 4.25", not 4x5".

FP100C45 is the 4x5 version, it's also still made but only in Japan I believe.

[Racer X 69]

FP100C45 is the 4x5 version, it's also still made but only in Japan I believe.

If it is not available anywhere but Japan then it is useless. Why would it be manufactured but not sold everywhere?

[StoneNYC]

If it is not available anywhere but Japan then it is useless. Why would it be manufactured but not sold everywhere?

That's what Fuji does, and many Japanese companies, for example Velvia50 is still made in sheet film but also only sold in japan. You can get it direct from a Japanese retailer you just have to have it shipped from japan which can be costly.

It's not useless it just means if you want it you have I make extra effort. I'm simply saying it's still available, it's your choice to make the effort or not to use it.

[Racer X 69]

That's what Fuji does, and many Japanese companies, for example Velvia50 is still made in sheet film but also only sold in japan. You can get it direct from a Japanese retailer you just have to have it shipped from japan which can be costly.

It's not useless it just means if you want it you have I make extra effort. I'm simply saying it's still available, it's your choice to make the effort or not to use it.

So is there a Japanese retailer that speaks English and will ship it to me? If so can you point me in the general direction?

[StoneNYC]

So is there a Japanese retailer that speaks English and will ship it to me? If so can you point me in the general direction?

There is, with very reasonable shipping costs, however, before I give you this information I want you to understand that by ordering from Japan directly and ordering something not through a US retailer you are ultimately going to harm the US market when it comes to access to films.

This is a decision that wait on me heavily as a look at what's happening in the big shift from selling worldwide to selling only in Japan.

I know that you are just a "drop in the bucket" just like I am, but the bucket of E-6 buyers especially for sheet film are very small, and even a loss of 10 boxes that you and I might not purchase from a US retailer could be enough purchase loss to pull out or the US market.

I absolutely love Velvia50, truly, and I was so sad to hear it was going away, I bought THE LAST box of 4x5 that freestyle ever sold.

Now that I have only 10 sheets left, I had to decide whether to order from this Japanese retailer (which I searched for a month to find) or to buy from a US retailer, decision came down to the fact that if I'm not buying from a US retailer, what Fuji "sees" is that "no one" in the US market is interested in buying their film and they will completely stop selling any of it to US distributors. They don't see the chain or the connection between US buyers buying from Japan directly, they only see that the Japanese distributors are selling more film and the US market distributors are selling less and eventually they will just stop exporting it at all, possibly even before they stop production of it.

So I encourage you to consider using Velvia100 instead, it's a very good emulsion, has a better reciprocity failure rate by a long stretch then Velvia50, with just as good grain.

That said... I don't believe knowledge should be hoarded over, even if it took hard work to attain. So here.

http://www.uwdigitalcamera.com/

He speaks English, find the email on the site and email him asking for what you want and prices and shipping info, he will reply giving you a list of the prices, it's cheapest if you buy about five boxes at once as he gives a discount and have them shipped, but any more than that and he has to split them up because the shipping boxes can only be so big.

Something about export regulations etc.

But again, I encourage you to use US distributors whenever possible.

Good luck!

[Tin Can]

wow

[Adamphotoman]

Wow!!!!!
Digital Hardware is now Fuji Film?

[StoneNYC]

Wow!!!!!
Digital Hardware is now Fuji Film?

Fuji does make digital products ... ;)

[gfsymon]

The question was "Is Betterlight Still the Standard?" and if you had no equipment what would you buy?

Actually, it wasn't.

It was : "I want to scan artwork in the most professional way possible. After some research it seems that this old Betterlight Scanback and a 4x5 camera is still 'state of the art'.
Is this true? "

This is what I was replying to. Not, 'which is the best value', or 'which best fits my budget' etc. etc.

[Racer X 69]

wow


Wow!!!!!
Digital Hardware is now Fuji Film?


Fuji does make digital products ... ;)

Yeah, well, sometimes things stray a bit.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h194/racerx6948/Forum%20How%20To/277.jpg

Please forgive us.

[Adamphotoman]

To 8X10 user,
To answer your question about the CL Apo Ronar. I will give you an analogy. It is a bit outside Large Format but this it is about Digital Hardware after all.

Olympus 4/3 format makes Super High Grade lenses...digital lenses if you will...
They are absolutely needed for the smaller sub miniature format to behave equally or as well as Canon and Nikon [full frame] offerings. Olympus high grade lenses are superb and they make the sub miniature format proud. Backpackers love the small light weight alternative to heavier equipment. Without the [[[Better [high grade] lenses]]] the 4/3 format would fall on its chin...crash and burn! This is because the tiny photo sites or wells absolutely require lenses with equally matched or higher resolution...or they will not live up to expectations.

OK back to the CL Apo Ronar.

This is a very fine example of a lens that has outstanding performance and characteristics with LARGER formats such as 4x5 and larger It also performs well & with respect using scanning backs.
The issue is that the lens needs to be stopped down to perform. Usually to almost outside the diffraction limits of the Betterlight back but still close enough to walk proud. F16.5 - f22

I would not use this lens with a one shot Phase back or with the multishot as their photo sites are far too small to make proper use of the fine Apo Ronar.

Don't get me wrong. I respect Apo Ronars.

The almost 645 MF [full frame sensor] absolutely requires expensive stunning lenses to behave well ... and they are sub medium format sized smaller than 2 x 1 1/2

only large format when 4 are tiled. Something similar to tiling 12 D800 images

[Bob Salomon]

One of the problems with the Betterlight, is that there are no 5x4 lenses designed for digital use. Film allows for a depth-of-focus that is far greater than that required for a CCD, which is to all intents and purposes, completely flat. What this means is, for a CCD, maximum sharpness demands that all three colours of light (RGB) be focused at the same point on the 'film' plane. With film based cameras, this is far less critical, because if one layer is sharp, it's 'good enough'......

The following Rodenstock digital lenses all cover the Betterlight sensor at infinity:

135mm 5.6, 150mm 5.6 and the 180mm 5.6 Apo Sironar Digital.

If you are not shooting at infinity then these following Rodenstock digital lenses will cover the Betterlight's imaging area:

70mm 5.6 HR-Digaron-W, 90mm 5.6 HR Digaron-S/W, 45mm 4.5, 55mm 4.5, 105mm 5.6 Apo-Sironar Digital, 120mm 5.6 Apo Sironar Digital

So there are digital lenses that cover Betterlight's image area. Depends on focal length needed and image ratio used.

We sold many Rodestock 180mm Apo Sironar-S to Betterlight for use with their backs. Most were used on Linhof Kardan re 45 monorail cameras.

[Adamphotoman]

Thank you Bob,
for chiming in.
I knew there had to be more capable lenses for the Betterlight. I happen to favour the Rodenstock lenses over the S/F & N companies, however there are a few good lenses from those companies as well.

It is interesting that as the resolution went up on the different Betterlight models the micron size of the pixels became smaller and more and more demands are made on glass.
The Super 10 K has the smallest photo site size of 7 microns. BTW Betterlight made only 13 of these. Mike ended up using the Super 10KHS to test lenses and it was a very good lens tester indeed. in fact the 10K was so good that it was able to show just how poor or inconsistent lens production could be. And this is precisely why Betterlight chose the 180 mm Apo Sironar S to sell with their units. My personal favourite is the 210mm Apo Sironar S. I am also fond of the digital 180mm.

The reason that Museums are switching to instant capture is 2 fold.
1st a lack of experienced Betterlight operators. The instant capture devices will give a better result when compared to a Betterlight in the hands of an UNQUALIFIED technician.
If one is quite capable using both types of capture devices then the instant capture is getting quite close. But in the hands of really poor technicians then both rigs are quite capable of awful results.
2nd the Instant capture has an edge up on pure production. Meaning one can be more productive with it. Time is money after all.

BTW,
although the Dicomed the predecessor to the Betterlight is 20 plus years old Betterlight is somewhat newer.
The Newer Kodak Super K chips are only 10 years old.

[Daniel Stone]

I see that Rencay(formerly Anagramm) is still in business? Grant, do you know anything about them?

http://www.rencay.de/en/rencay/startpage.html?changelang=2

[Tin Can]

Great name the 'superfineart'!

Everybody should quit now, the finest has been made.

Any idea what that costs?


I see that Rencay(formerly Anagramm) is still in business? Grant, do you know anything about them?

http://www.rencay.de/en/rencay/startpage.html?changelang=2

[8x10 user]

I like the focus projection idea that rency uses. It sounds they use the 8k kodak sensor and subsample in two directions (two passes) to create their giant file size.

It looks like cruze bought-up all of the 14k kodak sensors and that is what they are using for their newer scanners.

[Adamphotoman]

Daniel,
When I bought my Betterlight I also looked at Anagram. I am happy that I did go with Betterlight. The price was significantly better. The service and the BL forum for information exchange was wonderful.
I don't think that I would be as good a technician if I had to learn German and how to use the Anagram from across the pond.

Well that was then and this is now.

There is a fellow looking at bringing in the Rencay to the US. He is a former employee and educator.


www.alacartedigital.com
www.archetypeimaging.com

[Adamphotoman]

Talking to Larry Guyer this morning,
He is the former employee [at Betterlight] that I was mentioning.
The Rencay SuperFineArt model costs $43,000.00 plus shipping duties and taxes
The Rencay 6,000 X 13,000 pixel model is about 20 K cheaper

Feel free to contact Larry. He will be meeting with Rencay at Photokina mid month.

Also Rencay will be in New York in October at the photo show.

[Tin Can]

Way cheaper than I thought. Most likely a good deal for museums.

[NickyLai]

I like the focus projection idea that rency uses.

BetterLight has the Focus Magnification, a live chart to show the accuracy while the camera focusing is working. It works on any point you picked on the whole frame.

The software can be downloaded together with some pre-scanned files and manual to practice, or get a feel of it, WITHOUT a live scanning back setup. The link:

http://www.betterlight.com/manualsTutorials.html
http://www.betterlight.com/downloads.html

[Adamphotoman]

It has yet been confirmed just how good Rencay will be. Anagram was not quite as good but with the improvements that Rencay has made it may indeed be better.
The same goes for their camera and with their focus.
Time will tell.


Yes the Betterlight's focus verification in the Viewfinder works very well indeed. With a Mac one has an audible tone or a rising pitch which can help when one is a distance from the computer or if one is outside on location. Numbers and bar charts with a bathtub ring also all help to nail focus. One can use all three channels or just the green channel. Also camera alignment [internal and external] are paramount to achieving focus.

It does depend where you place the focus card in the picture area.

[Adamphotoman]

Rencay will need a US based repair service. It would be unfortunate if one had to ship a scan back to Germany if there ever was a problem with it.

[prohtex]

The image quality you get from a BetterLight system is absolutely unparalleled in the world of CCD sensors. The only way to describe it is, take a photo with your CCD based camera, open it in Photoshop, scale it to 50%. That level of pixel detail is what you get native from the BL back.

The good news is it seems there's a bunch of these on eBay with USB2 upgrades and not too $$ for what they are...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/141392210929

[Adamphotoman]

And Mike still services these.

[Bob Salomon]

Talking to Larry Guyer this morning,
He is the former employee [at Betterlight] that I was mentioning.
The Rencay SuperFineArt model costs $43,000.00 plus shipping duties and taxes
The Rencay 6,000 X 13,000 pixel model is about 20 K cheaper

Feel free to contact Larry. He will be meeting with Rencay at Photokina mid month.

Also Rencay will be in New York in October at the photo show.

Actually, they are planning to be in the German Pavilion at the NY show. Most likely either in or next to the Kaiser booth. The show will be at the Jacob Javits Center from Oct. 30th through Nov. 1st.

[Adamphotoman]

Quote!
The good news is it seems there's a bunch of these on eBay with USB2 upgrades and not too $$ for what they are...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/141392210929

This unit may be overpriced by about 1K.

The original rig is less expensive when offered as a USB2 controller. I suspect the unit was upgraded a couple of times. The newer sensor is good news.
The older control box is not much of a plus.The upgrades may have cost but should not be added to the VLUE.

[Adamphotoman]

Hi Larry,
Are there any caveats using the Rencay such as problems inserting it into a spring back. How does the workflow compare to the BL regarding Viewfinder software capabilities. Is it both Mac and Windows friendly?
Who will service?

[Adamphotoman]

These are not LF digital backs so please remove from the forum

[Adamphotoman]

The Rencay 8K is very much comparable to Betterlights Super 8K. One is really not any different. Except the Rencay is 10 K more expensive. The Super Fine Art Rencay is 40 K.

The Betterlight is thin enough to slide into a spring back. The Rencay needs one to remove the GG Spring Back and use the Graflock.
Software is Both Mac and PC for the Betterlight, but only PC for the Rencay at this time. Rencay does have plans to release a Mac version in the next year or two.

Betterlights are not in production but they are still being serviced.
Rencay now has Larry Guyer @ Archetype willing to bring them into the US. Servicing is yet to be established.



One thing that does set both these scan backs apart from the multishot offering or & film, is when complicated lighting and layered files must be made. It becomes quite difficult to shoot a number of 4X5 films with lighting variations, then scan these,
and keep everything for registration purposes and then to layer and keep everything aligned.

It is nice to have a full sized file aligned. The scan back is inserted and not touched for the remainder of the activity. Lighting can be changed, polarizers can be tweaked but not much changes in terms of registration.


If one needs to shoot 5 or 6 sheets of film then every time a film holder is removed and another inserted there WILL be a change in register. Even how the film is inserted into the holder and also into the scanner later.
Good luck...it can be done but it will take time.

Even with multishot.
If one needs to shoot multiple shots [5 or 6] with different lighting IE Pola filters, then everything will need to be aligned.