View Full Version : Cezanne Elite Chrome Test
I tried some chromes tonight to see how the Cezanne Elite handled them. The following images are derived from the main tree image. Note that the file was captured in 16 bit from 4x5 Velvia to a 1.32 gig file. The image was processed in ColorGenius at scan time. The original image is not sharp and while some of this may be due to CCD vs PMT my guess is I was using a really poor lens and didn't have good proper focus. This image was from my early days. The two tiles are from the main image at 100% before I resized to 96 dpi and applied unsharp mask to the image; 20% 2.0 pixel 0 threshold. They are presented here to inspect for grain and noise. The main image was saved with a jpeg compression of 50%.
Sandy would you be up for scanning this image on your drum scanner for comparison?
Joe
Scott Rosenberg
3-Dec-2007, 22:54
joe, please take no umbrage by this, as it is merely a friendly suggestion, but if you are going to go to all the trouble of conducting a round-robin scanning experiment, why not start with a critically sharp original?
also, doesn't sandy (if you mean king) have a creo eversmart pro, and not a drum scanner?
just a suggestion, admittedly an unsolicited one...
joe, please take no umbrage by this, as it is merely a friendly suggestion, but if you are going to go to all the trouble of conducting a round-robin scanning experiment, why not start with a critically sharp original?
also, doesn't sandy (if you mean king) have a creo eversmart pro, and not a drum scanner?
just a suggestion, admittedly an unsolicited one...
I'm working on it Scott, I have lots of film that I am revisiting. The one thing to note about this image, if the scanner was producing a lot of noise it wouldn't matter if the image was sharp or not the noise would be there. Once I find a nice crisp image I will post the results in this thread. I don't have a lot of chrome. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Joe
Ted Harris
4-Dec-2007, 06:01
The original image is not sharp and while some of this may be due to CCD vs PMT my guess is I was using a really poor lens and didn't have good proper focus. This image was from my early days. The two tiles are from the main image at 100% before I resized to 96 dpi and applied unsharp mask to the image; 20% 2.0 pixel 0 threshold.
Joe a couple of points and questions:
1) Did you look at the film on a light table with a good quality loupe before you scanned? If so, what did that tell you about sharpness?
2) You noted that the file was 16bit. At what spi were you scanning?
3) How did you resize? The routine you use here can have major effects on the final image.
3) If you were sharpening a file with a resolution of 96 ppi then your sharpenoing routine is not one that would get you the best results not to mention that smart sharpening is a much better way to go.
To add to what Scott said, a scanning round robin is going to tell you little that you can't already find out from mother sources. The Scanner comparison that is on the Large Format Home Page is probably as good as it gets for comparisons of this type and it is not perfect. You have no real idea of the skill of the other scanners, don't know if they rigorously followed the same routine, know nothing about the quality of their hardware, etc. Nor, for that matter, do you really know about the condition of your own equipment.
Finally, small JPEG's of scanned images give us only the barest of bones to use as a guideline as to what the actual image looks like.
The original image is not sharp and while some of this may be due to CCD vs PMT my guess is I was using a really poor lens and didn't have good proper focus. This image was from my early days. The two tiles are from the main image at 100% before I resized to 96 dpi and applied unsharp mask to the image; 20% 2.0 pixel 0 threshold.
Joe a couple of points and questions:
1) Did you look at the film on a light table with a good quality loupe before you scanned? If so, what did that tell you about sharpness?
2) You noted that the file was 16bit. At what spi were you scanning?
3) How did you resize? The routine you use here can have major effects on the final image.
3) If you were sharpening a file with a resolution of 96 ppi then your sharpenoing routine is not one that would get you the best results not to mention that smart sharpening is a much better way to go.
To add to what Scott said, a scanning round robin is going to tell you little that you can't already find out from mother sources. The Scanner comparison that is on the Large Format Home Page is probably as good as it gets for comparisons of this type and it is not perfect. You have no real idea of the skill of the other scanners, don't know if they rigorously followed the same routine, know nothing about the quality of their hardware, etc. Nor, for that matter, do you really know about the condition of your own equipment.
Finally, small JPEG's of scanned images give us only the barest of bones to use as a guideline as to what the actual image looks like.
spoken like the pro you are Ted
the spi is 3600, I will investigate the image on the light table but I know it's not sharp because I scanned new 4x10 test images on Bergger 200 using a 210mm macro that are crystal clear, I can hold this image to the light and see it is soft, bad first choice
I resized using bicubic sharper
I did notice that the MAC I'm running is SLOW!!! while it may be fine for scanning images, post processing using curves takes forever, post processing using AI (whatever that means) has little impact which tells me it is a scanner adjustment or a very simple post process
Yes, the test in the forum is excellent but Screen and newer Imacons are not featured. The goal of this exercise for me was to see that scanning chromes (checking for density and noise) is indeed possible though I will most likely only shoot negative materials
Brian Ellis
4-Dec-2007, 10:44
I see these kinds of tests all the time, several here recently. I haven't wanted to ask this question because the people making them all seem to have ultra-expensive equipment and generally appear to know more about scanning than I do. But Ted's response has prompted me to ask the question so, without intending to disparage anyone's tests including these, here it is:
why do I care what a small segment of one scan looks like compared to a small segment of a scan from another scanner, or for that matter why do I care what a scan of the entire image looks like compared to one from another scanner? Isn't how the print looks the only thing that matters? Do I really care, for example, that one scan has more noise than another or that one produces better contrast than another or even that one looks sharper at 100% view than another, if in each case I can make essentially identical prints from them with Photoshop or Noise Ninja or some other tool?
I can understand that for a pro doing his or her own printing, where time is money, there's an advantage to getting a scan that requires as little subsequent processing as possible but I'm not a pro and I spend a lot of time on each print that I make anyhow, so adding another five or ten minutes to eliminate noise or sharpen the print or fix whatever other "defect" exists in my scan as compared to another scanner that wouldn't have produced that "defect" doesn't matter to me. Of course if one of the two scans is so "defective" that no amount of processing can fix it, that's another story. Anyhow, as I say, I don't mean to disparage these kinds of tests, I just don't see the point of most of them.
why do I care what a small segment of one scan looks like compared to a small segment of a scan from another scanner, or for that matter why do I care what a scan of the entire image looks like compared to one from another scanner? Isn't how the print looks the only thing that matters?
if your scanned image sucks imagine what the print will look like
as far as posting this here, probably wasn't a real good idea, but then again i'm just a hack anyway
why do I care what a small segment of one scan looks like compared to a small segment of a scan from another scanner, or for that matter why do I care what a scan of the entire image looks like compared to one from another scanner? Isn't how the print looks the only thing that matters? Do I really care, for example, that one scan has more noise than another or that one produces better contrast than another or even that one looks sharper at 100% view than another, if in each case I can make essentially identical prints from them with Photoshop or Noise Ninja or some other tool?
I am with you 100%, Brian. For these tests to be useful, there has to be a strong corelation between how a scan looks on the screen and how the resulting prints look on paper. While there certainly is a corelation, there are so many other variables (sample variations, print size, printer and ink, paper, nature of image, etc.) that really make many of the stated or implied conclusions quite dubious. Furthermore, while a set of tests could be valid for one person, the conclusion cannot universally be applicable to others.
My first chrome test was excessively noisy supporting Sandy King's premise that a drum scan is superior to a flat bed scan. This test proves otherwise (for me). It was not meant to be conclusive nor do I really care if anyone approves of its presentation though I will no longer do so as it creates great irritation for the readers of this forum.
Brian Ellis
5-Dec-2007, 10:16
My first chrome test was excessively noisy supporting Sandy King's premise that a drum scan is superior to a flat bed scan. This test proves otherwise (for me). It was not meant to be conclusive nor do I really care if anyone approves of its presentation though I will no longer do so as it creates great irritation for the readers of this forum.
If this is addressed to me, I'm very sorry if I offended you, I certainly didn't mean to and I tried to make it clear that in asking my question I was simply seeking information, it certainly wasn't intended as a back-handed way of disparaging your tests or any other similar tests.
If this is addressed to me, I'm very sorry if I offended you, I certainly didn't mean to and I tried to make it clear that in asking my question I was simply seeking information, it certainly wasn't intended as a back-handed way of disparaging your tests or any other similar tests.
it's not about you Brian or any other forum member - in general I am not the person to be conducting precise evaluations of equipment, lesson learned. I did want to share some of my findings but will refrain from doing so because this is not the right context to be learning my craft.
My first chrome test was excessively noisy supporting Sandy King's premise that a drum scan is superior to a flat bed scan. This test proves otherwise (for me). It was not meant to be conclusive nor do I really care if anyone approves of its presentation though I will no longer do so as it creates great irritation for the readers of this forum.
Joe,
Some may find your test results interesting, even if they don't prove anything one way or the other. So long as your results are on topic it should not matter if someone else approves or not.
However, you should note that I use a Scitex EverSmart Pro scanner, which is a flatbed, not a drum scanner, and so there would be no purpose for me to scan your slide if the purpose of your test was to compare your Cezanne to a drum scanner.
Sandy King
Joe,
Some may find your test results interesting, even if they don't prove anything one way or the other. So long as your results are on topic if someone else approves or not.
However, you should note that I use a Scitex EverSmart Pro scanner, which is a flatbed, not a drum scanner, and so there would be no purpose for me to scan your slide if the purpose of your test was to compare your Cezanne to a drum scanner.
Sandy King
Sandy,
I thought you had a flatbed AND a drum scanner. I did find a much sharper image scanned on a Imacon 646 which I can compare to the Cezanne but I think I have had my fill in this line of work. I'd rather work on imaging not testing. By the way the sharper image is still pretty soft with the Imacon scan however at print size it is undetectable. Thanks for writing.
Joe
Sandy,
I thought you had a flatbed AND a drum scanner. I did find a much sharper image scanned on a Imacon 646 which I can compare to the Cezanne but I think I have had my fill in this line of work. I'd rather work on imaging not testing. By the way the sharper image is still pretty soft with the Imacon scan however at print size it is undetectable. Thanks for writing.
Joe
I don't have a drum scanner. I have an EverSmart Pro flatbed, and an old LeafScan 45, which is neither a drum scanner nor a true flatbed. I use the EverSmart for scanning LF and ULF film, and the Leaf for 35mm and medium format.
Neither the EverSmart nor the Leaf has the dynamic range of a drum scanner, but this is not important in my work since I am scanning only negatives. With a drum scanner (or an EverSmart Supreme or IQSmart3) I could pull a bit more detail out of my MF negatives than with the Leafscan 45 so I do have my eyes out for one, but would only buy in my pick-up area (Charlotte/Atlanta etc).
Sandy King
audioexcels
6-Dec-2007, 07:33
I don't have a drum scanner. I have an EverSmart Pro flatbed, and an old LeafScan 45, which is neither a drum scanner nor a true flatbed. I use the EverSmart for scanning LF and ULF film, and the Leaf for 35mm and medium format.
Neither the EverSmart nor the Leaf has the dynamic range of a drum scanner, but this is not important in my work since I am scanning only negatives. With a drum scanner (or an EverSmart Supreme or IQSmart3) I could pull a bit more detail out of my MF negatives than with the Leafscan 45 so I do have my eyes out for one, but would only buy in my pick-up area (Charlotte/Atlanta etc).
Sandy King
I just saw a test done a while back that included the IQsmart. Every image is very grainy (oversharpened?), and it does poor at pulling out the shadows by comparison to some of the drum scanners in there like Howtek and Crossfire...at least this was my own analysis. Also, I didn't think the Supreme looked much different than the IQ3...Drum scans were all "very smooth" and also showed plenty of detail/sharpness...but they could obviously use some more sharpening to get to that threshold where grain starts to show up. The flatbeds from Epson and Microtek look horrid by comparison...smooth like the drum scans (not enough sharpening to them either), but the detail is very congested/pasted looking by comparison to the smooth, but well defined drum scans.
I personally like seeing threads from jetcode and his Cezanne. It's helpful to post something and ask questions about what could be going wrong or what could be done to help improve upon getting the most out of that scanner. I know Ted has both the IQ3 and Cezanne and I assume he feels that both are similarly good...I like seeing these threads on the flatbeds and reading more about different people's adventures into the world of nailing down the scanning process=a very critical component in what can and cannot be achieved, and also getting impressions from more than a few sources=much more beneficial than one person's claim about one device being superior than another and by such and such an amount, etc. etc.
Cheers!
Ted Harris
6-Dec-2007, 08:26
What is the test you saw where the results from the IQ3 where eery image is "grainy?" Could be oversharpening, could be improperly developed film, could be an inexperienced operator. If you look at the scans from several drums and several high-end flatbeds in the scanner comparison on the LF Home Page you won't see much if any difference. Those of us that have been participating in that set of tests generally think some of the bad scans from supposedly good scanners are mostly operator error.
Gordon Moat
6-Dec-2007, 11:23
None of the high end scanners are easy to use, nor are drum scanners. The skill of the operator can be the largest factor, and there is a learning and experience curve in using the software, despite how good well developed. Anyone who buys a high end scanner expecting it to be the magical answer to their needs is in for a rude awakening. Learning to get the most out of these things is just like any other tool. While initial results might be quite good, the possibility of doing poorly and getting things wrong is very real.
It would not surprise me to see a so-so result from nearly any scanning test, of nearly any scanner. All are operator dependent, and there are more wrong combinations of settings than there are optimum settings. Compare this to D-SLRs, or medium format digital backs; maybe a good JPEG can pop out of these, but when you do RAW it switches into the skills of the person doing the RAW conversion.
I seriously doubt you could see grain, especially not from JPEGs posted in an on-line test. However, you could be seeing the results of noise, which can be a consequence of getting the settings wrong in software. I have used a few Creo scanners, and oXYgen, and they are certainly not user friendly for the inexperienced; though if you are familiar with certain scanning software and techniques, this combination is quite good.
My suggestion to anyone seriously interested in a Creo is to send your film to Kodak/Creo for a test scan. That way one of their skilled operators can show you the potential of these scanners. Then take the same piece of film, and find a skilled business with an ICG or some other high end scanner, and have them generate a file for you. On-line or magazine reviews are not a bad start, but when it comes down to it, the limited time and experience of many reviewers only gives you a short overview of the capabilities. Definitely investigate and read as much as possible prior to throwing lots of money at a scanning system.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
Ted Harris
6-Dec-2007, 12:51
I'll add a hearty amen to Gordon's post and a further note that you need to know a great deal about the folks doing the online review. Just like the rest of the info on If you are seriously considering the purchase of an IQsmart Scanner I'm happy to discuss the options with you and perhaps even do a test scan. PM me first please. I have done this for a few folks here on the Forum over the past months.
Your best bet is to do what I did before I purchased my Cezanne. I found a a prepress house within an hour of my studio and arranged to spend a half day with their scanner operator. I drove up there, spent a few hours watching him scan for his work and had him do three scans of my work as well. That clinched my decision.
My occasional blatant self promotion here .... don't forget you can come and spend a day or two with me here for one-on-one instruction and try out the IQsmart3 or the Cezanne or the new Microtek M1 for that matter. We will also have an IQsmart 3 at the Foto3 Scanning and Digital Workflow Workshop.
None of the high end scanners are easy to use, nor are drum scanners. The skill of the operator can be the largest factor, and there is a learning and experience curve in using the software, despite how good well developed. Anyone who buys a high end scanner expecting it to be the magical answer to their needs is in for a rude awakening. Learning to get the most out of these things is just like any other tool. While initial results might be quite good, the possibility of doing poorly and getting things wrong is very real.
No doubt there is a lot to learn and know about scanning.
I somewhat disagree with your statement above in that I've been able to get some really decent scans in a minimal amount of time. I plan on spending an hour or two with Ted by phone to get the inside on ColorGenius and some workflow issues but pretty much the scanner delivers rather well with minimal fuss. An example was a Bergger film test I did recently. I placed a really sharp well developed negative on the bed and scanned it with absolutely no settings and it came out great. Color is a different story however I have decided that the best place to do color work and curves if necessary is on my PS machine which is far more capable then the 733Mhz G4 I have attached to the scanner. Since I believe that ColorGenius and Photoshop are essentially the same type of tool I would rather do the post processing in PS. I do need to speak with Ted to see what controls if any in ColorGenius affect the scanner directly.
Joe
My occasional blatant self promotion here .... don't forget you can come and spend a day or two with me here for one-on-one instruction and try out the IQsmart3 or the Cezanne or the new Microtek M1 for that matter. We will also have an IQsmart 3 at the Foto3 Scanning and Digital Workflow Workshop.
You also give away a lot of information for free which helped me in my decision to purchase a Cezanne. You won't hear me grumble regarding your self promotion.
Gordon Moat
6-Dec-2007, 13:05
Hello Joe,
Everyone is a bit different in this. I have absolutely no trouble quickly getting to grips with any software, especially scanning software. Many people do not have that easy a time with these things. It would be misleading (I think) to suggest that somehow it is easier, despite our positive experiences. I think PhotoShop (any version) is ridiculously easy to use, and I feel the same about InDesign, Quark, Illustrator, Avid, Final Cut Pro ... nearly everything except 3D software ... in fact I have rarely ever opened a book or instruction manual for any of these, yet I can accomplish anything within the limits of my imagination. If I told people it was really that simple and easy, quite likely a few would agree ... and lots more would be pissed at me.:D
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
Hello Joe,
Everyone is a bit different in this. I have absolutely no trouble quickly getting to grips with any software, especially scanning software. Many people do not have that easy a time with these things. It would be misleading (I think) to suggest that somehow it is easier, despite our positive experiences. I think PhotoShop (any version) is ridiculously easy to use, and I feel the same about InDesign, Quark, Illustrator, Avid, Final Cut Pro ... nearly everything except 3D software ... in fact I have rarely ever opened a book or instruction manual for any of these, yet I can accomplish anything within the limits of my imagination. If I told people it was really that simple and easy, quite likely a few would agree ... and lots more would be pissed at me.:D
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
Agreed Gordon - I am in the middle of reading Real World CS2 and there is a lot of very useful information there. Complex software really needs to be understood thoroughly and it appears there are different levels of user built into the tool. In ColorGenius there is are Easy and Manual Fine Adjustment windows. I like it. The pro's can fine tune to their hearts content and the beginner can bring up something quite useful quicker. Of course it helps to have a calibrated system so the complications do not cease that's for sure.
Joe
audioexcels
6-Dec-2007, 17:31
What is the test you saw where the results from the IQ3 where eery image is "grainy?" Could be oversharpening, could be improperly developed film, could be an inexperienced operator. If you look at the scans from several drums and several high-end flatbeds in the scanner comparison on the LF Home Page you won't see much if any difference. Those of us that have been participating in that set of tests generally think some of the bad scans from supposedly good scanners are mostly operator error.
It's on the list of scanners tested by this LF group. It looks quite amazing detail wise, but completely washed out with grain. Some may call this "getting into the film's grain"...I call it an ugly image if it was printed like that. It would be nice if the person that puts up these samples did a proper wet-mount, sharpening, etc. with the Epson scans...and also did some more sharpening to the drum scans. I.E. When you compare the IQ3 to the Drum scans, in spite it (IQ3) is heavily pixelled/grainy, it is way sharper. I'd like to see both Epson being wetmounted and perfected by as good of an operator that has worked with them, and then these Drum scans with extra sharpening to see what happens when you put the grainy IQ3 next to these other scanners that will look a lot sharper, while becoming equally grainy...this, IMHO, would be the only fair way of knowing anything about these scanners and what they can do, though it is quite clear that the Epson is either way off-centered/mis-aligned or is simply complete smudge and ill-defined by comparison to any of the other drum/high dollar flatbeds...
Kirk Gittings
6-Dec-2007, 20:16
In an ideal world, with some kind of real budget, it would have been great if one well trained individual could have tested all these scanners, but that was simply not possible. They were done by a variety of volunteers, with varying experience, all over the map. Even in a few other countries if memory serves me right. Also, as we all know many of these scanners vary within production runs so idaelly one would want to test a couple of each model even. As well some were new and some well used.
So it is what it is. I commend those people who volunteered to contribute to this well intentioned comparison, but ultimately it is a useful, but rough, comparison with many inherent flaws.
audioexcels
6-Dec-2007, 22:50
In an ideal world, with some kind of real budget, it would have been great if one well trained individual could have tested all these scanners, but that was simply not possible. They were done by a variety of volunteers, with varying experience, all over the map. Even in a few other countries if memory serves me right. Also, as we all know many of these scanners vary within production runs so idaelly one would want to test a couple of each model even. As well some were new and some well used.
So it is what it is. I commend those people who volunteered to contribute to this well intentioned comparison, but ultimately it is a useful, but rough, comparison with many inherent flaws.
Yeah...I didn't mean to make any deal about the scans provided. I find the tests to be helpful, actually, because even if the low priced flatbeds are not the best scan and even the higher priced ones aren't the best scans, you still get a "general" idea of what one can expect. I was entirely wiped off the web before I was able to edit my last post to Ted. I was clicking save and the internet went out on me right then. So my post would have been mostly deleted as he asked what I was questioning, and you now have as well.
I appreciate it Kirk and also Ted. Thanks guys...and uhhh...I don't mind having someone available for some $20 scans;)...I'll even send 2000 DVD's per every 20 scans:)!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.