Hi-End flatbeds, Iqsmart, Plateau, Cezanne, Lanovia,etc...

[Daniel Stone]

Seeing that most hi-end flatbed scanners such as the Kodak IqSmart line, Aztek Plateau, Fuji Lanovia, Heidelbergs, etc... have been discontinued, how many of them would you consider a high quality, long term option as a counter/complement to a DPL8000 drum scanner? Preferably one w/ service availability for a while, bulbs, etc...

Reason for my asking is I've found a "deal"(IMO) on an Aztek Plateau, but wanted to consider the options of other scanners before considering going into flatbed territory. I know its a crapload bigger than an Epson, but I like what I've read in terms of its capabilities.

I'm not interested in Epson 10000xl's, 750's, etc... I want a big platen to mount upon, and I want the ability to wet-mount up to 11x14 chromes/negatives(both color and b/w). 16bit files are a MUST. Window's compatibility is preferable, as is a Firewire/USB connection.

My drum scanner can only handle up to 8x10(DPL8000), but for 11x14's(someone I've assisted used to shoot a boatload of 11x14 commercially before going all digital) I'd need something with ability to handle larger. He's looking to digitize his 25+yrs of LF/ULF film, as well as boatloads of MF color neg/bw. Also for scanning prints(11x14 usually the biggest) w/o having to stitch multiple files. Mostly film however, prints(platinum and azo/silver gelatin contacts) would be about 10% of total workload.

thanks,

-Dan

[Clive Gray]

I know you asked about flatbeds but Are you aware of the Howtek 7500 drumscanner ? I forget the exact specs but the large drum is more than capable of 11 x 14 and its 5000dpi over the entire area.

[Daniel Stone]

Hey Clive,

I definitely know about the 7500 drum scanner, but its just too big for me. I know I can scan prints and the like with it, but I like the flexibility of the flatbed, especially the Aztek(which I mentioned in my original post).

So as a complement to my drum scanner I'm looking for a flatbed only that can handle larger media.

thanks

Dan

[Drew Wiley]

You might e-mail Joseph Holmes. He seems particularly knowledgeable about the pros
and cons of specific models. But finding a deal on a flatbed like a later Creo which will reasonably equal a drum scan is fairly unlikely.

[Daniel Stone]

Hey Drew,

I'll contact him. I'm not looking to "equal" a drum scan, but just have some more options(such as wet mounting). IMO, not everything REQUIRES a drum scan. I'll only drum scan the shots I want to go LARGE with, like over 16x20 from any size. TBH, that isn't much RIGHT NOW. However, after doing some "pseudo" wet-mounting on the glass bed of my Epson 1680, I'm assured that this is the best way for Flatbed scanning, especially from smaller formats under 4x5.

-Dan

[John Brady]

I can try to answer questions about the Creo iq2, I have owned mine for about 4 years when I purchased it new. Way easier to use than a drum with outstanding results.

You can fluid mount on it but I never have, never felt a need. I scan 8x10 transparency and t-max film. I think it handles up to 12x18 or so.

Feel free to pm me or e-mail any questions.

www.timeandlight.com

[8x10 user]

The Aztek can only do 4x5's and smaller at high Res. For 11x14's you want an XY stitch scanner such as a Creo. Get a Pro II, or if you want to go for the highest quality look at the select or even supreme lines. There are a few third party sources for service and support for Creos scanners... I can recommend the Eversmarts place.

[George Pappas]

I can also vouch for the Creo IQsmart2. I purchased on used from Ryan Newton, who does refurbishment and maintenance. You can find him on Ebay and at Eversmarts - he is knowledgeable and reasonable to deal with.

The scanner has a large platen, the software runs on Mac Snow Leopard, and it delivers outstanding scans. I scan 8x10 down to 35mm and have excellent results with hit.

I did a side-by-side comparison with a Drum, Imacon, Creo, and Epson scanner earlier this year; my results showed that the Creo was equal/superior to the Imacon, vastly superior to the Epson, and for all practical purposes, equal to the drum scan which was made by Cone Studios.

I don't know about the Aztek you are looking at, but the Creo line is definitely worth exploring. Of the older Creo-Scitex Machines, the Eversmart Supreme is the best - it clocks in at approx 9-10k used these days.

[Daniel Stone]

Hey all,

Well, I need to get my drum scanner project up and running first and foremost. I'm going to be sending my DPL8000 into Aztek in the next month(once I've had some invoices pay off ;)) and I'll be up and running in that regard full-bore.

However, I've been talking to some long time pro shooters here in Los Angeles, some that used to shoot 11x14 back in the day(some up into the late 90s)! ALL have been interested in having me do scans for them once I'm up and running, primarily for archival purposes, or for printing of their work for gallery/personal use. However, being able to handle ALL their various formats from 1/2 frame 35mm(18x24mm) to 11x14 sheet film will help give them "peace of mind" IMO(and all but one of them has said that too) will give me the "edge" over commercial labs(which will charge more than I will per scan, and with less quality). Also, knowing the person who is handling your film, of any size or format, IMO, will give me a business edge vs handing it over to some counter person at a commercial lab/shop. Similar to how many shooters used to have a printer they requested to print their work(if they didn't do it themselves). The scanner operator learns to anticipate and/or calibrate their scanning to tailor the needs/wants of their client, and deliver a file that needs heavy retouching and/or color/density correction. Getting it right in the scan is my goal, as much as possible.

One of the aforementioned people used to own a Eversmart Supreme, but sold it when he went all digital about 8yrs ago. Now, he's been looking at doing it himself, but he doesn't have the time. Money to pay someone else who he can trust with his life's work, yes, but time(since he's still actively shooting commercial work) is another matter. That's where I can come in.

George:
I've actually contacted Ryan(http://foreversmarts.com/) last night, and will be talking with him today about if a Supreme II is the right tool for my intended workflow. Looking at the specs vs the Aztek Plateau(and after a few people recommending it quality-wise over the Plateau), it might be the better option. However, they're still a shiny penny to acquire, even used/refurb'd! Wet-mounting is an ABSOLUTE MUST for me, all formats up to 11x14. Since color negative, chrome and b/w neg/slide will be done, I need to be setup to scan pretty much damn near everything. From prints to 35mm film, everything...

However, this investment will be considerably more expensive than my drum scanner so far(I'm in it less than $1400 total, scanner, drums, mount station and lots of mounting supplies). Not including the upcoming PM service at Aztek. All in all, I think it will be a nice "cottage industry" I might be able to carve out for myself with people I've assisted, or met through other assistants. I'm not counting my chickens before they've hatched however ;). I want to be up and scanning for others by the end of 6mo from now(so June), and will be taking the next few months to perfect my mounting technique, and getting used to the software and its capabilities. I'm looking forward to this journey!

-Dan

[8x10 user]

Oh yeah... Be careful when buying used scanners as it is almost impossible to know if there are flaws in any of the components without knowing how to take the scanner apart (should only be done by a tech). There is a big difference between a used scanner from a reliable known source such as one from a college and one that might find its way to a "junk dealer" on ebay. Even among professional retailers you need to know the difference between a broker, a dealer, and a third party re-furbisher tech.

A broker merely facilitates a transaction between to parties who may not know each other. Often a broker will work as an escrow service between the parties. As a buyer you will likely receive the item then you will be ask to inspect / test the unit and if you are satisfied the broker will release the fund to the seller minus what he charges for his services. This is much safer then ebay but these machines will work "ok" even with serious flaws to the machine such as deep scratches in the mirrors. The process requires that you are able to accurately gauge if the machine is in perfect order or that you settle with "seems good enough".

A dealer purchases the equipment himself and then attempts to resale it for a profit. He may or may not be able to gauge and individual scanners condition based on his/her experiences with other individual scanners. I'm sure many dealers are honest and do provide a useful service to the world, but there may be less honest used car style equipment dealers that you might need to watch for. Reputation and guarantees are important when looking at dealer options.

A refurbished scanner has been taken apart, has had any bad parts replaced, is tested for quality, and should have fresh wear / consumable parts installed. You can get lucky and you might find a scanner that is in as good of condition as when it was purchased but buying from a re-furbisher / tech is the only way to be sure that your getting a scanner in peak condition. A tech's reputation and guarantees are also important.

[SURF]

However, I've been talking to some long time pro shooters here in Los Angeles, some that used to shoot 11x14 back in the day(some up into the late 90s)! ALL have been interested in having me do scans for them once I'm up and running, primarily for archival purposes, or for printing of their work for gallery/personal use.
...
Getting it right in the scan is my goal, as much as possible.


"Printing of their work for gallery/personal use" and "getting it right in the scan is my goal, as much as possible" are different.

Do not forget to look here about some unknown aspects of "getting it right" in the real world. Owning myself Eversmart pro it do not make me think that Eversmarts, Screens, Imacons, IQsmarts are great for getting it right.

All info is here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=79256

For getting it right I use Scitex Smart 342. It's not great in terms of resolution but it scans right. The sad thing you can not get high resolution for 8x10 even stitching. Only up to 5x7.

For "printing of their work for gallery use" all that scanners are good. Nobody will notice if the faces had changed.

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Surf(I really prefer REAL names, but oh well),

I understand where you're coming from. Yes, it would be terrific if all scanners could be PERFECT, but the fact of the matter is, all are not. I'm not reproducing maps here, or doing exact scale work where very minor distortion is absolutely unforgiveable.

I'm just looking for the BEST, most cost effective option in the long run that will allow me to wet mount, scan up to 11x14 transparent materials, and lastly, is pretty quick. I'm planning on wet-mounting the majority of film to be scanned, and taping the overlay material down to the bed(glass platen).

Lastly, I'm not NASA or building macroscopic motors here ;), but I do require the best results possible, and preferably, with a somewhat ready supply of parts and/or service available for my chosen equipment.

-Dan

[SURF]

I understand where you're coming from.

Nope Dan. You don't. Just happened that I have noticed that while scanning the negatives with dear faces. OK-OK. I see your point. Having good drum scanner by hand you always can scan right those dear faces. But I had no such then and it was not a great situation.

Have a look at the video. The girl is doing what you want to offer to your clients. It can be any Eversmart BTW, not only Jazz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvXW7ZG2b6o

Regards
Al

PS. Otherwise I found Eversmarts perfect.

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Al(Surf),

Sorry, I miss spoke :). Yes, I DID NOT know where you're coming from. I'm no engineer, just a photographer(and budding businessman I guess as well ;))

What she is doing is approximately what I'm looking to do. I do like her(their) masking technique to speed up production, very ingenious! Is this something that Creo/Kodak made, or was it made by them? Anyhow, I've bookmarked that video for future reference, I appreciate your sharing.

Many of the people I'm looking to scan for are fashion/lifestlyle/people photographers. So I don't think many of those faces are "dear", but nonetheless, very important to get fine details such as hair, clothing details, etc... bang on from the start. Fluid mounting was my way of helping to keep things from moving around. I noticed that the young woman in the video taped each frame down to the bed, I'd imagine that'd keep it from moving during the scanning process? Well, it would help keep it from spinning in the fluid.

They have a FEW scanners it seems, but then again, they're a museum :). I'd be just a smaller personal 1-on-1 service bureau of sorts... So less "volume", where every frame wouldn't be scanned, but who knows?

-Dan

[sanking]

What she is doing is approximately what I'm looking to do. I do like her(their) masking technique to speed up production, very ingenious! Is this something that Creo/Kodak made, or was it made by them? Anyhow, I've bookmarked that video for future reference, I appreciate your sharing

-Dan

Scitex/Creo/Kodak did market masks for the Eversmart scanners. Some of these came pre-cut for specific formats, others were plain and cut be cut by the user to mask any format desired. The masks fit over registration pins and most of the ones I have seen were also marked with lines that correspond to the cm lines on the scanner glass.

One of the advantage of scanners like the Eversmart and IQ is that they have an XY stitcher that automatically combines scan strips. The scanner itself works like a lawn mower, scanning in rows, then the program stitches the scan. This allows you to scan any size original at full scanner resolution. Of course, in practice it takes a huge amount of processing power to scan a 11X14 negative at 5200 dpi.

Sandy

[SURF]

Is this something that Creo/Kodak made, or was it made by them?

Hi Dan,

Yes Scitex/Creo/Kodak made oil mounting stations. Good news are that Eversmarts do not need oil mount. Nobody knows why. Except the film is scratched. Jazz scanner is different. It owns different bottom glass.

Best luck
Al

[SergeyT]

Good news are that Eversmarts do not need oil mount. Nobody knows why.

They just were sold with black-bordered base glass. But it does not mean oil mounting won't be beneficial.
Oil mounting stations came with the purple-bordered glass. So with the station (and hence, two different base glasses) one has the flexibility of using a more optically clear black-bordered glass for dry mounted material or scratch and chemistry resistant purple-bordered base glass for oil-mounted material.


Jazz scanner is different. It owns different bottom glass.

True and apparently due to cost reduction considerations. Black-bordered base glass is ~2x more expensive than a purple-bordered one.

[sanking]

They just were sold with black-bordered base glass. But it does not mean oil mounting won't be beneficial.
Oil mounting stations came with the purple-bordered glass. So with the station (and hence, two different base glasses) one has the flexibility of using a more optically clear black-bordered glass for dry mounted material or scratch and chemistry resistant purple-bordered base glass for oil-mounted material.

True and apparently due to cost reduction considerations. Black-bordered base glass is ~2x more expensive than a purple-bordered one.

The black-bordered glass that came as original equipment on all Eversmart scanners except for the Jazz has an anti-reflection coating, like on lenses. You can fluid mount directly on the surface of this glass but you may scratch the coating with clean-up if you are not careful. The Jazz has a simple glass with no coating so there is less risk with fluid mounting as there is no coating to scratch.

I bought an oil mounting station for the Eversmart that came with a base glass. The coating was a bit scratched but this makes no difference if you are fluid mounting because the fluid fills in the scratch. I don't use the station much, instead I have taped litho tape on the bottom of the glass and fluid mount with that reference. Saves a lot of time compared to using the oil station.

Is there an increase in scan quality when fluid mounting with an Eversmart? Yes, but unless you plan to make very big enlargements I don't think you gain very much sheet film. With the Eversmart the scan quality is improved by the anti-reflection coating, and the top glass is spring loaded so it holds the film flat, so if your focus system is working well you should get excellent sharpness over the entire area of the scan.

The Eversmarts are superb scanners with results pretty much on par with drum scanners for B&W and color negative film, assuming you compare IQ at the same resolution.

Sandy

[Evanjoe610]

Hi Sandy,

What is a fair price for one to pay for the SCITEX/CREO Oil Mounting Kit?

I will be visiting one of my friend who is liquidating his PrePress shop and he has some leftover items for their Eversmart Supreme and Pro II.

I'm hoping to pick up whatever s still available...

Evan

[sanking]

Hi Sandy,

What is a fair price for one to pay for the SCITEX/CREO Oil Mounting Kit?

I will be visiting one of my friend who is liquidating his PrePress shop and he has some leftover items for their Eversmart Supreme and Pro II.

I'm hoping to pick up whatever s still available...

Evan

I paid about $500 for my Scitex/Creo mounting station, which came with a second base glass that has some scratching of the anti-reflection coating. One in perfect condition might be worth up twice that.

The mounting station is not absolutely ecessary for fluid mounting, but a second base glass would definitely be useful as the clean-up after fluid mounting will eventually scratch the glass.

Sandy

[Evanjoe610]

Sandy,

That's good to regarding a Second glass. Would the original glass that is currently on the scanner, be consider as a second glass for the Oil Mounting Kit? Or should it be an actual separate glass that could be interchangeable for the scanner and also used for Oil Mounting kit?



I see what comes with the Oil Mounting Kit and what other accessories I could get from him.. What comes with the kit? If I'm missing any items associated with the kit, where can buy it as a replacement?

[sanking]

[QUOTE=Evanjoe610;823333]

Evan,

You could own just one glass and use it for regular dry scanning or for fluid mounting. The problem is that with fluid mounting you have to clean the glass a lot, and this could cause scratches of the anti-reflection system. This might degrade slightly the quality of a dry scan. The black glass has a coating, purple does not.

I don't know what is normally included with the oil mounting. I got a holder with ruler lines and an extra glass.

Sandy

[paulr]

Why do you suppose the high end flatbeds are a dying breed? I'd think digital camera technology would make them continuously better and cheaper. Seems they've left a big whole in the market.

[rdenney]

Why do you suppose the high end flatbeds are a dying breed? I'd think digital camera technology would make them continuously better and cheaper. Seems they've left a big whole in the market.

I suspect they were originally made for service bureaus to support prepress activities, mainly to allow film, some of it in the files, to be scanned for publication. The longer stock and press photographers use digital cameras, the less anyone will need these services.

The other thing is that it is not digital technology that makes these high-end flatbeds better than an Epson, but rather their mechanical precision and the optical quality of their sensors.

But I think there are other possible approaches that would take advantage of modern digital camera improvements, and those have been explored in Frank's thread on making a better scanner.

Rick "wondering what will happen when a magazine wants to publish old film images and can't a product to do it" Denney