scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

I know I know, no comparison, but:

Should I spring for a new v700 with the cash I have, or save my pennies for a used, cheapish Cezanne? And if I should wait around for the a Cezanne, whats a fair price I should end up paying for one with the accessories, software?

I want to scan 810 chromes, so I guess the question is, does 'buy what you can afford now' apply here, or is the v700 going to be too frustrating to be worth it?

Or, alternatively, anybody need a kidney: trade straight up for an iqsmart3?

Thanks!

[Gem Singer]

I scan 8X10 B&W negatives on an Epson 4990, at 1200dpi, by taping them, emulsion side down, directly to the glass, editing in Photoshop, and printing on an HP B9180 printer up to 12"x18".

If I want larger prints, I wet mount and scan the 8x10 negatives on my friends Screen Cezanne and make 16"x20" prints on his wide frame Epson printer.

I suggest purchasing a new Epson V750 and running it on Vue Scan.

The Cezanne is a great flat bed scanner, but it appears to be overkill for 16"x20" prints from an 8X10 negative. Of course, if you plan on making much larger prints, look for a Cezanne.

Previously owned Cezannes, in good condition, are pricey, scarce, and heavy weight. Shipping can be very expensive.

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

I thought there was some difficulty wet mounting 8x10" film on the v700 series, the wet mounting station isn't big enough to fit it, I know that much:

[Walter Calahan]

The wet mount tray for the V700/V750 is for 5x7 or smaller.

I scan my 8x10 on a V750 with the emulsion facing up and a plate of anti-newton ring glass over top. Works fine since I do not have the money for a Cezanne.

[Gem Singer]

You're correct Pfeiffer, an 8X10 negative or tranny cannot be wet mounted on the V700 series Epson scanners.

However, the procedure that Walter outlined will allow you to scan your 8X10 trannys directly on the V750's glass.

Including shipping, my friend paid slightly over $2,000 for his previously owned Screen Cezanne. I helped select and test it. We purchased it from a commercial graphic art company that had changed over to digital capture.

The company rep. stated that they bought it new and the original price was over $30,000.

[8x10 user]

Cezanne

[jb7]

I followed a few suggestions here, (V750)
and I tape the 8x10 to the underside of a piece of picture framing glass,
and suspend that on coins placed at each corner.

You will have to test to find the right focus height to suspend it-

According to those who actually know, it's possible to get more out of the shadows of a chrome with anything but the Epson, but I find it ok with negs...

[Frank Petronio]

I'd use an Epson for everything and, after proofing, you can always have your best work scanned with a friend's or service provider's higher end scanner.

At portfolio sizes, the Epson does fine. Even for the occasional large print, so long as you don't do a side by side comparison then the 8x10 film will still make it look better than anything other than a high-end scan.

I wouldn't want to tie up a lot of money into a high-end scanner that is no longer manufactured -- it would soon evolve to the point where I had to dedicate an older computer to run the software and buy a second scanner for parts and back-up, etc.

[Gene McCluney]

To make a 16x20 print (at 300 dpi) from an 8x10 original, you only need to scan at 600 ppi.

[Bob McCarthy]

I'd use an Epson for everything and, after proofing, you can always have your best work scanned with a friend's or service provider's higher end scanner.

At portfolio sizes, the Epson does fine. Even for the occasional large print, so long as you don't do a side by side comparison then the 8x10 film will still make it look better than anything other than a high-end scan.

I wouldn't want to tie up a lot of money into a high-end scanner that is no longer manufactured -- it would soon evolve to the point where I had to dedicate an older computer to run the software and buy a second scanner for parts and back-up, etc.

I don't know Frank, The used Cezannes are selling for a nickle on a dollar now days. An old Mac is easy to acquire on the cheap. They (Screen) are still in business and one can buy modern up to date software if one wants to spend a grand. The old software is very capable. Mine has required "0" maintenance.

For the price of 2 V750's one can have a very capable setup and scan once and archive forever.

For the cost of a couple of drum scans, one can own a great scanner. My log shows well over 100 high resolution scans in 2009, some for myself, some for friends and associates. What would that cost at a service bureau?

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

I bought my Cezanne for $900, with another $900 or so in costs to go pick it up, and another $100 for a G4 with maxed out ram to run it. Like Bob, I've made about 100 scans with it, mostly bw negatives, and the quality is excellent. So that means so far I've spent $20 per scan plus the time taken to scan the film. If something were to go wrong with the scanner, though, costs would escalate quickly. Buying a scanner like this is a gamble.

One thing to remember about the Cezanne, while it's an x-y positioning scanner with zoom and autofocus capabilities, it does not stitch negative or positive scans together. Thus, with 8x10 film, the 8000 element ccd will give a true 1100 spi in the direction from the front of the scanner to the back. From left to right, on the other hand, it is capable of about 6000 spi according to the Seybold report. (I hope I have the name of the report correct.) Thus, the true resolution of the scanner is a complex question. You could of course scan in strips and stitch them together if you need more real information, at the cost of added time.

IME wet-mounting on a Cezanne does not improve scan quality, which is a good thing, as not having to wet mount saves time, mess, and cost.

[Frank Petronio]

Wow I didn't realize how the price had fallen on them, I stand corrected.

[Bob McCarthy]

Using the batch proceedure you can break any size negative into stitchable files and since the film is not touched between strips, it stitches perfectly together. I mean Perfect!!!

The optical resolution is about 5000 dpi, pretty amazing if I might say so.

[Peter De Smidt]

As Bob points out, the batch scanning feature is very nice. It's very easy to precisely choose what area to scan, and you can work on the next scan while a scan is in progress. According to the Seybold report, the resolution approaches 5700 spi, at least it does when scans are limited to 1.5" strips.

[8x10 user]

[QUOTE=IME wet-mounting on a Cezanne does not improve scan quality, which is a good thing, as not having to wet mount saves time, mess, and cost.[/QUOTE]

Thats interesting, I found that wet mounting made a big difference on my Eversmart. I did some sloppy quick scans the other day and I noticed some newton rings as well as some other stuff. I guess it doesn't help that my Anti Reflective base glass is in bad shape.

Does the Cezanne have a special solution to newton rings?

[8x10 user]

I thought that the Cezanne was an XY stitch scanner... Since apparently it is not you might want to look for an Eversmart for 8x10 work because of the stitching capability. A drum scanner would work too but it can be difficult to mount an 8x10 on the machines with the smaller drums. Of course an 1100 PPI scan from the Cezanne might have more then enough detail for most of your uses.

Also, I guess with the Cezanne one should be able to scan in strips and then combine in Photoshop’s to achieve a higher resolution image.

I haven't used an Epson 750 but I'm under the impression that the professional scanners have many advantages in terms of scan quality. The Cezanne should have really low noise, a higher dynamic range, and stellar shadow performance.

Be patient when looking for a used scanner. There are good deals out there but they don't come everyday. Be cautious when purchasing without a guarantee, especially if the seller has never actually used the machine (junk dealers). There are many things that could affect the scan quality, while the machine turns on and appears to work perfectly. It is not unreasonable to ask for a sample scan or to test the machine in person.

[Peter De Smidt]

X-y positioning in scanners refers to the ability to achieve a full resolution scan anywhere on the scanner bed. The lens and sensor move in either the x or y direction to get into the appropriate position. Non x-y positioning scanners, on the other hand, only achieve the highest resolution in a specific area of the bed.

Stitching is combining two scans to make a larger file. Eversmarts can do this in the scanner, whereas with non-stitching scanners you'd have to do this in photoshop (or similar.)

As Bob pointed out, since the film in a Cezanne is held perfectly flat, and since the area scanned is so easy to specify precisely, scanning in strips and stitching in software is quite practical. It would be interesting to see if the overall process is done faster on an Eversmart or with a Cezanne/photoshop approach, since I'd expect the processing power of a current computer to greatly out do the internal processing of an older scanner.

One curious point is that according to the manual the Cezanne can stitch line art internally.

[Bob McCarthy]

FWIW, I do wet mount 8x10 as the hold down clamp is not large enough for 8x10. I generally do not see any difference resolution-wise between the wet mounting and dry mount with the exception of reduced dust issues with wet mounting.

My bed and hold down clamps are like new so i may be lucky with the unit I purchased.

As peter said, the only difference between the Creo and Cezanne is where the stitching occurs. Both are XY, and batch scanning is by manually selecting the width of each stitch (which is determined by resolution desired). One can designate 2 selections from the prescan which slightly overlap to be completed in one scan command and the combination can be assembled in CS3 in my case. Batch selection one is <scan-name>-l and batch selection two is <scan-name>-r. Select scan the batch and it outputs both files from single scan command.

no muss, no fuss

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob,

Have you tried AN, anti-glare glazing, or MC glass as the hold down plate for 8x10s? I've limited myself to 4x5 and smaller so far.

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob,

Have you tried AN, anti-glare glazing, or MC glass as the hold down plate for 8x10s? I've limited myself to 4x5 and smaller so far.

Peter,
no I have not. I bought this unit through Howell as you did. I was lucky as I was local to the company. I spent some time with Howell and while we paid a touch more (1500) I got every accessory they had including extra clamps. The bed on this one is damn near perfect, just some accumulated dust on the glass/frame interface. The main bed is blemish free.

I found out the base tray is made from the same acrylic as on the drum scanner and is to be handled appropriately. I have a wet mounting (thanks to Gemsinger) kit from Astek and have no issue whatsoever getting a good sandwich. An occasional mini bubble but nothing to cleaning up such a huge piece of film.

Guess what I'm saying is what I have works extremely well.

Bob

[Joerg Krusche]

Hi,

has any one tried the batch scanning and in a next step stitching of the strips such that you might scan 8x10 in 3 strips at 2000 dpi/ppi with some overlap ? .. I have a Fuji Lanovia .. also a XY-scanner .. thought of trying the above discussed approach but never did .. btw my wet scanning on the Lanovia which has a glass tray is very simple .. some film cleaner on the glass .. film emusion side down on the glass.. some film cleaner on the back side of the film .. mylar sheet on top .. wipe away the air bubbles .. the film is held perfectly flat .. no newton rings .. after the scan tear off the mylar sheet .. take off the film .. the film cleaner dries away in a few seconds .. it works. I do not know to which extent acrylic on the scanner might like film cleaner .. glass is inert.

best,

joerg

[Bob McCarthy]

Hi,

has any one tried the batch scanning and in a next step stitching of the strips such that you might scan 8x10 in 3 strips at 2000 dpi/ppi with some overlap ? .. I have a Fuji Lanovia .. also a XY-scanner .. thought of trying the above discussed approach but never did .. btw my wet scanning on the Lanovia which has a glass tray is very simple .. some film cleaner on the glass .. film emusion side down on the glass.. some film cleaner on the back side of the film .. mylar sheet on top .. wipe away the air bubbles .. the film is held perfectly flat .. no newton rings .. after the scan tear off the mylar sheet .. take off the film .. the film cleaner dries away in a few seconds .. it works. I do not know to which extent acrylic on the scanner might like film cleaner .. glass is inert.

best,

joerg

Not entirely sure I understand your question, but the Cezanne is not limited in any way. If your want to do 8 strips at 8000 spi you can, there is no limit other than being practical about time, memory, and capability.

With 4x5, I've done 4000 dpi without issue other than photoshop gets a bit lazy with such huge files. I did it for fun, it had no real purpose scanning at such a high level. Gotta tell you T-Max 100 holds up well at this spi.

As far as scanning fluid, I thought it best to follow the manufacturers recommendation, a replacement acrylic bed costs north of $1000.

As far as overlap, since the negative is not touched or disturbed in any way between scans of the strips, they match perfectly. So very little overlap is required. Since a 4x5 is not really 4 inches wide (a little less) two scans of 2 inches wide work perfectly

bob

[Joerg Krusche]

bob,

I understand you did the stitching in PS and it worked .. sounds good ! I heard that pano stitching programs did only like images from a globe ???.. I am totally ignorant in that area though .. well about limitation of Cezanne or equivaqlent .. these scanners are limited by their 8000 pixels across the bed .. and some loss in resolution if you compare at a given resolution both center and the sides.. so if you want more than 1000 ppi for 8x10 you need to stitch .. sounds good that it works ..thank you ! .. my wet scan practice is applicable to flatbeds that have glass trays .. not for acrylic ones. . drums on drum scanners do not like film cleaner either .. i.e. the fastest way of killing them.

best

joerg

[Peter De Smidt]

You probably don't even need to stitch. Put both on a canvas and move one until they match up. There's no parallax, wide angle distortion...

[Bob McCarthy]

bob,

I understand you did the stitching in PS and it worked .. sounds good ! I heard that pano stitching programs did only like images from a globe ???.. I am totally ignorant in that area though .. well about limitation of Cezanne or equivaqlent .. these scanners are limited by their 8000 pixels across the bed .. and some loss in resolution if you compare at a given resolution both center and the sides.. so if you want more than 1000 ppi for 8x10 you need to stitch .. sounds good that it works ..thank you ! .. my wet scan practice is applicable to flatbeds that have glass trays .. not for acrylic ones. . drums on drum scanners do not like film cleaner either .. i.e. the fastest way of killing them.

best

joerg

what your receding to called spherical and would be a problem. Most stitching programs support cylindrical stitching which works with multiple flat scans. CS3 is smart enough to figure it our without fail.

XY scanners are really suited to this approach. If scanning were still hot I could see screen including stitching in Colorgenius but as dead as the market is for scanners, I'm glad there still providing technical support. Screen may be the last one standing as Creo is discontinuing Pro level scanners. Don't know much about Fuji!

Bob

[Joerg Krusche]

Peter and Bob,

thank you for your encouraging me to try it !

Best,

joerg

[Bob McCarthy]

Re: post above. What your referring to is ...

I hate auto spell checkers....

Bob

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

This is kind of what I expected to hear, let the search commence! Thanks for all the replies!

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Pfeiffer,

The big question is can you find a Cezanne local enough to you in good shape and for a decent price and with all the accessories that you want such that it's worth taking a risk on one? If you can, by all means, go for it. We have a number of experienced users here that can help out.

Make sure that you have the space. A Cezanne is 5 ft wide.

[Vertex Ninja]

Hi,

has any one tried the batch scanning and in a next step stitching of the strips such that you might scan 8x10 in 3 strips at 2000 dpi/ppi with some overlap ? .. I have a Fuji Lanovia .. also a XY-scanner ...

For some reason I thought the Lanovia stitched just like the Eversmarts? So it's really just like the Cezanne then? Not a bad thing, just never knew.

[emo supremo]

This has nothing to do c Cezanne but I'd like to share this url with you because I was toying with the idea of buying the V700 or the V750. The side by side photo analysis (relative to Nikon 9000 as the reference) was, for me, the best info source on the web todate.
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm

[8x10 user]

I'm sure that there are some other differences between the Cezanne and lets say an Eversmart Supreme. Here are a few that I can think of.

1. Cezanne uses an acrylic bed while the Eversmarts is glass.
2. Cezanne uses a "Zoom" lens while I believe the Eversmart uses a fixed focal length lens and mirrors to control the magnification ratio.
3. There is a cold mirror in the Eversmart that reflects IR away from the sensor.
4. Some Eversmarts such as the Supreme have an actively cooled CCD for extra low noise
5. Some Eversmarts such as the Supreme have a pure 16-bit A/D convertor, while the Cezanne is 12(?), and 14 for the Elite

There are probably many other differences that I don't know about.

Also the Seybold report is not conclusive for me. The tests were done before OxygenScan even came out, and I question the criteria that the scanners were judge on. As with all scanners there is a learning curve to figure out how to produce the best scans. Too many factors were considered when doing the tests. A large part of the criteria had to do with colors, tonality, and sharpening, which are of course subjective and controlled by the operator. The raw data from the Eversmart is logarithmic and would not look right without being corrected or applying the correct Icc profile. I'm not sure what they saw when using the old software because I have only used OxygenScan. It is possible that if they operator had more experience with the scanner/software that he or she would have been able to produce a scan that fit the criteria better.

It is possible to have an Eversmart set to do hardware smoothing without knowing it.

Newer versions of oxygen scan are said to increase the D-max of the scanner.

If I were in control of the testing process I would have done a “Raw” wide gamut scan on both machines with no sharpening. Then I would compare them after making an extended range ICC profile as described on Don Hutchinson’s website. This would isolate more quality related criteria.

Another thing to consider is that just like lenses scanners vary somewhat from sample to sample, especially if they are used.

I suppose the non-image quality related criteria are important to many users but I would keep the software review separate, and I would consider that there are other scanning workflows such as the method that Don Hutchinson describes on his website.

Maybe I could run some comparison tests against someone’s Cezanne at some point. I’m sure the Cezanne is also fine scanner and I would be interested in seeing how they compare for myself.





FWIW, I do wet mount 8x10 as the hold down clamp is not large enough for 8x10. I generally do not see any difference resolution-wise between the wet mounting and dry mount with the exception of reduced dust issues with wet mounting.

My bed and hold down clamps are like new so i may be lucky with the unit I purchased.

As peter said, the only difference between the Creo and Cezanne is where the stitching occurs. Both are XY, and batch scanning is by manually selecting the width of each stitch (which is determined by resolution desired). One can designate 2 selections from the prescan which slightly overlap to be completed in one scan command and the combination can be assembled in CS3 in my case. Batch selection one is <scan-name>-l and batch selection two is <scan-name>-r. Select scan the batch and it outputs both files from single scan command.

no muss, no fuss

bob

[8x10 user]

Also I don't know what the procedures were for the Eversmart test. Fluid mounting is important for maximum quality on an Eversmart.