PDA

View Full Version : Hasselblad X5 vs. Drumscan for 4x5"



Mark_Se
26-Jun-2011, 11:48
I need a large print ( 50" x 35" ) from a 4x5" negative for a group exhibition. Do you think a hasselblad x5 is good enough for that size? I read that it is only 2045 dpi when scanning 4x5" film?!

Frank Petronio
26-Jun-2011, 12:44
That's still 200 ppi when printing 50", not exactly horrible.

All you can do is test and see where your personal threshold of what is good enough truly is... but for a one-off special occasion, why not spend a few bucks and get a really good scan from someone like Lenny here on the forum?

Mark_Se
26-Jun-2011, 13:27
thanks, I live in europe and the few labs in my city that still do drumscans charge about 150€ for a scan. I`m not sure if the difference is worth the price.

Nathan Potter
26-Jun-2011, 14:21
Check the quality of the negative before committing to a scan at greater than 2000 spi.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Ken Lee
26-Jun-2011, 17:11
2000 spi is 80 lines per mm. The best Large Format Lenses (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html), on the finest grain film, will almost reach that number in the center of coverage, but less toward the extremes. With coarser grain and a lens that is less-than-best, the numbers go down. So as Nathan so clearly articulated, scanning at higher resolution becomes... questionable.

It all depends on the intended viewing audience and viewing distance. If people are experts who will put their noses up against the glass and complain about tiny flaws, then a 10x enlargement from just about anything will likely disappoint, no matter what kind of scanner you use. If the people will be viewing from a good distance, and are they are a typical audience, they'll be happy, and so will you. Most don't look at the photo, they look at the subject.

Bob McCarthy
27-Jun-2011, 04:53
Ken, isn't resolution measured in line "pairs" per inch or equivalent, so 80 should be 40. Scanning at higher settings are viable.

Other than that, I agree with everything else you say.

If your using fine grain film, with appropriate processing, with good lenses at optimum apertures, your print will be technically fine for all but the most ardent pixel peepers. And then they will be way too close to see the overall print.

Bob

timparkin
27-Jun-2011, 06:12
thanks, I live in europe and the few labs in my city that still do drumscans charge about 150€ for a scan. I`m not sure if the difference is worth the price.

Hi Mark - I've got a comparison of Imacon and Drum scan on my services website (http://www.cheapdrumscanning.com) in the "Why Drum Scan" section. An Imacon will get the job done but the resolution won't be the main problem. I've found coloured edges and halation to be the main issues.

Also - there are a couple of places that do low cost drum scans - myself, Tristan Campbell (http://www.tristancampbell.co.uk/drum-scanning/default.aspx) and David Whistance on the Isle of Wight (http://events.onthewight.com/venues/david-whistances-studio). My prices for a good 4x5 scan are £15 + VAT for which you get a raw scan and do the spotting yourself (although my scans start out very clean through the use of a dust booth for mounting).

The full imacon comparison is here..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/scannercomparison

and there are some comments on a scan challenge we did recently here..

https://picasaweb.google.com/tim.parkin/Scanning

Tim

timparkin
27-Jun-2011, 06:15
Ken, isn't resolution measured in line "pairs" per inch or equivalent, so 80 should be 40. Scanning at higher settings are viable.

Other than that, I agree with everything else you say.

If your using fine grain film, with appropriate processing, with good lenses at optimum apertures, your print will be technically fine for all but the most ardent pixel peepers. And then they will be way too close to see the overall print.

Bob

Not sure about the math but I know that the 'extra' you get beyond 2000dpi scan is very low contrast and barely discernable. However, the oversampling does seem to give smoother results on things like diagonals where stairstepping may be exhibited. I do scans at 2000dpi for most customers as they are unlikely to see the results in a print unless they are working at 10x or more *and* they will be printing on a very smooth paper at high dpi *and* people will be nosing the print who have the skills to know what to look for .... and possibly if you are exhibiting with another print of the same subject sitting next to it scanned at 4000dpi *and* they're labelled as such! ;-)

engl
27-Jun-2011, 07:03
2000 DPI is ~80 lines per millimeter, or 40lp/mm. The best large format lenses are good for up to 80lp/mm, and most decent ones get to 68lp/mm at F22.

To resolve 80lp/mm, 4000DPI you will want at least 2x oversampling, so 8000SPI. Beyond this, if you want to maintain the same detail on the diagonal and not just along the XY axi, you will need ~11300SPI.

But all that is just in theory. In practice, the highest frequencies are at very low contrast and won't be missed. Focus is not perfect, "average" lenses are used, holders/film are not flat, there is vibration, high frequency detail is lost to diffraction, DOF at very small CoC criteria is very small, and viewers don't all put their nose up to 50" x 35" prints. Many negatives will probably not benefit from being scanned at beyond 2000SPI, especially if shot at very small apertures. A great negative will benefit from 4000SPI.

Ken Lee
27-Jun-2011, 08:45
Oops - You are right !

Thank you !!

Ken Lee
27-Jun-2011, 08:58
I do scans at 2000dpi for most customers as they are unlikely to see the results in a print unless they are working at 10x or more *and* they will be printing on a very smooth paper at high dpi *and* people will be nosing the print who have the skills to know what to look for .... and possibly if you are exhibiting with another print of the same subject sitting next to it scanned at 4000dpi *and* they're labelled as such! ;-)

Brilliant !

Ken Lee
27-Jun-2011, 08:59
In practice, the highest frequencies are at very low contrast and won't be missed. Focus is not perfect, "average" lenses are used, holders/film are not flat, there is vibration, high frequency detail is lost to diffraction, DOF at very small CoC criteria is very small, and viewers don't all put their nose up to 50" x 35" prints. Many negatives will probably not benefit from being scanned at beyond 2000SPI, especially if shot at very small apertures. A great negative will benefit from 4000SPI.

Also brilliant - Thanks !

sanking
27-Jun-2011, 12:26
OK, I have not tested an Imacon X5, but I have tested the older models (Flextight Precision) that scan 4X5 at maximum resolution of 2040 spi.

Someone will probably hit me on the head for saying this, but IMHO you can get just as good a scan with 4X5 with the Epson V700 as the Imacon, if you fluid mount, shim the mount for best plane of focus, and scan at 6400 spi. Then as soon as you are finished with the scan reduce resolution to about 2400 spi. You can get in real life aboutr 2300 spi of effective resolution with the V700 if you get it all right and scan at 6400 spi.

With smaller film formats there is no question but that the Imacon will give much better results than the V700.

Sandy

timparkin
27-Jun-2011, 16:44
OK, I have not tested an Imacon X5, but I have tested the older models (Flextight Precision) that scan 4X5 at maximum resolution of 2040 spi.

Someone will probably hit me on the head for saying this, but IMHO you can get just as good a scan with 4X5 with the Epson V700 as the Imacon, if you fluid mount, shim the mount for best plane of focus, and scan at 6400 spi. Then as soon as you are finished with the scan reduce resolution to about 2400 spi. You can get in real life aboutr 2300 spi of effective resolution with the V700 if you get it all right and scan at 6400 spi.

With smaller film formats there is no question but that the Imacon will give much better results than the V700.

Sandy

I've tried this and although you can get the resolution you talk about, you don't get the shadow detail. The best shadow detail I could get was by multiscanning a film hanging in the holder (i.e. with no touching surfaces). 4x multipass at 6400 dpi and then dramatic noise reduction worked fairly well. Still not a patch on a good Imacon.

Wet mounting gave horrible results in the shadows for some reason and dry mounting to newton glass was almost as bad. (see here for a comparison of a straight v750, a multipass at 4800dpi + noise reduction and a drum scanner - http://cheapdrumscanning.com/why-drum-scan/shadow-detail/)

Here is another example with a sample of an imacon as well.. https://picasaweb.google.com/tim.parkin/Scanning#5525576875619748370

Note that the 7500 in the above example is a colleagues who doesn't scan transparencies and hence isn't colour correct.

Imacons can get into the shadows but they end up with a lot of 'pattern noise' which is difficult to remove. Drum scanners do better and have a little noise but it's properly random and so is less 'ugly' and reduces well.

sanking
27-Jun-2011, 18:58
Wet mounting gave horrible results in the shadows for some reason and dry mounting to newton glass was almost as bad. (see here for a comparison of a straight v750, a multipass at 4800dpi + noise reduction and a drum scanner - http://cheapdrumscanning.com/why-drum-scan/shadow-detail/)



My experience in fluid mounting with the Epson has been quite different. I was very pleased with the results. I don't have any direct comparisons to share but the in the few personal comparison tests I made, scanning B&W negatives, the Epson V700 gave me scans that were just as good as the Imacon Flextight Precision II (or was it III).

I don't shoot or scan transparency materials, and am not comparing the Epson V700 to either drum scanners or high end flatbeds. Just saying that for scanning 4X5 B&W negatives I find the Epson V700 gives a lot of value for the money compared to one of the older Imacons.

Sandy King

Ed Richards
27-Jun-2011, 19:07
Sandy,

Have you tried just putting AN glass on top of the negative on the fluid scanning glass, without any fluid? I would like to hold my film - TMY-2 - flatter, but do not want to mess with fluid mounting. (I do not have a full darkroom or other well ventilated space where I can use scanner fluid.)

sanking
27-Jun-2011, 19:14
Sandy,

Have you tried just putting AN glass on top of the negative on the fluid scanning glass, without any fluid? I would like to hold my film - TMY-2 - flatter, but do not want to mess with fluid mounting. (I do not have a full darkroom or other well ventilated space where I can use scanner fluid.)

Ed,

Why not just replace the glass that comes with the Epson fluid mount holder with AN glass? Then you can place the negative on the glass, emulsion side up or down as you prefer.

Sandy

Ed Richards
27-Jun-2011, 20:13
Sandy,

I though it was bad practice to scan through AN glass, especially if you have AN glass on top to hold down the film.

sanking
27-Jun-2011, 20:21
Sandy,

I though it was bad practice to scan through AN glass, especially if you have AN glass on top to hold down the film.

Ed,

I am confused. Is this not what you were proposing?

My suggestion was to avoid the use of AN glass on top of the negative, and replace the glass of the Epson fluid mount with a piece of AN glass.

So, your path, as I understood it, was,
1-CCD
2-Glass of scanner bed
3. Glass of Epson fluid mount holder
4-Negative
5-An glass placed on top of negative
6. Scanner light

My suggested path is,

1. CCD
2. Glass of scanner bed
3. AN glass, AN side up
4. Negative
5. Scanner light

Hope this makes sense.

Sandy

timparkin
28-Jun-2011, 01:08
My experience in fluid mounting with the Epson has been quite different. I was very pleased with the results. I don't have any direct comparisons to share but the in the few personal comparison tests I made, scanning B&W negatives, the Epson V700 gave me scans that were just as good as the Imacon Flextight Precision II (or was it III).

I don't shoot or scan transparency materials, and am not comparing the Epson V700 to either drum scanners or high end flatbeds. Just saying that for scanning 4X5 B&W negatives I find the Epson V700 gives a lot of value for the money compared to one of the older Imacons.

Sandy King

I should have been very clear in saying that I was referring to the very deep shadows you see in some transparency materials (such as Velvia - not so much for films like Provia). For black and white, the only issues I have seen is some halation (very bright edges bleeding into dark edges) and edge blurring (very bright areas getting 'bigger'). But the problems displayed are a *lot* less than those when scanning colour transparency..

Tim

David Higgs
28-Jun-2011, 04:11
my 2p

I can print 36 inch gallery prints from B+W and colour neg films - using scans from a V750 (4x5, or 6x12). Thats with lots of practice, best technique - dry mounted, shimmed etc. They aren't quite as good as drums, but only I can tell in the print, the gallery/customers/my printer can't.

However I can get nowhere near with transparency film, I've tried lots of different techniques, wet mounts etc and send my transparency film out to be drummed (by Tim infact) - even upsizing them from a 2000dpi scan to mural size they look perfect.

That seems to reflect the experience of both Sandy and Tim? I find its transparency film that the Epson really struggles with. I now just wish I could get that Velvia look with colour neg film, but that's a whole new subject.

Ed Richards
28-Jun-2011, 09:36
Sandy,

Got it.

Ed

Drew Wiley
28-Jun-2011, 16:25
I'm getting a little out of my league here, but I did sit down at Ctein's workstation
once to view side-by-side comparisons of scans and prints from scans: fluid mount versus AN glass versus no glass etc. This happened to be 6X7 color neg Nikon
Coolscan work, but nonetheless a good test due to the high degree of magnification
involved in the final prints. The fluid-mount samples won hands-down.

pdmoylan
24-Jul-2011, 10:21
Is there a bulletin board for those members who offer LF scans and prints (color and B&W)? As more labs close their doors (Rieger Imaging in MD) I would appreciate those who offer this service, identifying the scanner or printer used, some sample results, and prices.

Professional
27-Jul-2011, 17:26
I am waiting the winter in my country so i can shoot LF more this time after my only 5 sheets before, i did shoot 5 sheets before including 2 Velvia 100F sheets, i scanned them and they came out fine and great, i really don't know why i always hear that scanning slides or positive films such as Velvia is not good with flatbeds, i feel very very very sad that i don't have a drum scanner so i can compare with my V750, but the 120 rolls i did before and scan them came out beautiful, only one roll of Velvia 50 was bad due to bad exposures i did, maybe i may say i need a drum scanner to make it better, but i really don't like the shots all even if they are drumscanned, but all other fine slides are nicely scan with my V750, for print size i may think again, but as a scan and result alone, why i will get better colors or scans by drum scanner for slides over flatbeds? resolution will be better, sure, but how much difference in colors?

I will shoot more LF and scan later and post somewhere here and see, also i have few color neg rolls that i scan and blown away of the color, people think i was using Velvia film not neg.

Professional
27-Jul-2011, 17:28
Is there a bulletin board for those members who offer LF scans and prints (color and B&W)? As more labs close their doors (Rieger Imaging in MD) I would appreciate those who offer this service, identifying the scanner or printer used, some sample results, and prices.

Do you ask this from a specific scanner? I am willing to scan by my Epson V750 free, 120 format up to 8x10, but shipping and taxes is upon the person, if that is not the case then i am sorry i can't help now, but i still look for to buy a drum scanner, then i can do scan free, but i will not pay for shipping/online expense if there.

Good luck!

Lenny Eiger
28-Jul-2011, 09:19
I need a large print ( 50" x 35" ) from a 4x5" negative for a group exhibition. Do you think a hasselblad x5 is good enough for that size? I read that it is only 2045 dpi when scanning 4x5" film?!

A lot of folks have said basically that it doesn't matter what you scan on. As I am sure everyone will expect, I can't agree. I have scanned with a 750 and I can't see how it can't match a drum scan at any size. The X5 is better, of course, having a better lens. However, the fact still remains that the top of the line in scans is the drum scanner. If you are putting your work in an exhibition, you may want to try one out.

That said, all the talk is about resolution. While I think the 750 is very blurry, and needs very creative "over-sharpening" to make a good image, I no longer think that resolution is the question. I'll take depth of field and lose the 1% of extra sharpness every time. I think the issue is tonal reproduction, how much richness one can get out of the print. I like that a drum scanner starts with everything sharp, no sharpening required and I like that the PMT is extremely sensitive. It's not to be beat...

Lenny