PDA

View Full Version : Scitex Smart 342L scanner modification.



SURF
5-Oct-2012, 12:31
Now the scanner has a higher resolution. It was possible to make an optical modification. One can see the USAF resolution target scans before and after.

I like this beast and I am very happy to give it the second life: it's optics stepped up to the highest league. (Mechanics was there already.)

Al

PS. Never scanned with such a big real optical resolution. It's great.

Kirk Gittings
5-Oct-2012, 14:38
Great...........................but how????

SURF
5-Oct-2012, 18:22
Kirk, it is unbelievable: scanner's own 110mm Rodenstock lens (used for 35mm scans), if extended, changes optical magnification 2 times. The scanning area was 48mm, now it is 24mm. It's optimal for 35mm. There is a space for that extension inside the scanner - I had to remove the reflective lamps tray only. Perhaps the scanner was designed with that option. Otherwise it's a miracle.

Best wishes,
Al

PS. I wish to talk with Smart 3XX creators. I think they have a lot of interesting stories to tell about how those great scanners were made.

MisterPrinter
9-Oct-2012, 04:01
That looks very similar, possibly slightly better, to what I get with iQsmart3, which I estimated to be about 5400pi.

I have a spare Scitex LFOV lens, it's a Rodenstock 108mm 5.6 p/n 11401962, and I might have a go at fitting that to a spare iQsmart at some point. I know the focal length will be different and it may need some jigging around but that's my nature. The iQsmart diagnostics make some reference to calibrating the butting targets but I can find no service manual for these scanners. If re-mapping the butting targets is possible then a lens swap might be possible as well as retaining the XY stitch - which would be great.

If anyone knows of a service manual I'm wiling to pay for it.

SURF
10-Oct-2012, 18:01
That looks very similar, possibly slightly better, to what I get with iQsmart3, which I estimated to be about 5400pi.


Yes. Modified Smart 342 is 5800 for sure. I guess 6000+ dpi.



I have a spare Scitex LFOV lens, it's a Rodenstock 108mm 5.6 p/n 11401962, and I might have a go at fitting that to a spare iQsmart at some point. I know the focal length will be different
BTW what is the lens in IQsmart? Scitex LFOV lens is from Eversmart family and they are useing moving mirror for optical magnification change.

IQsmarts and Eversmarts have serious geometrical problems (nearly all of them) and I have no final solution how to solve it. Yet.

PS. It is a good idea to play with flashlight, paper, rooler and lens to get maximum of all that stuff.

Regards
Al

asch
11-Oct-2012, 01:35
Have you tried to optimize the 67mm lens in the same manner?

coisasdavida
11-Oct-2012, 02:55
My Smart 340 died. Now I have 7 great enlarging lenses!

MisterPrinter
11-Oct-2012, 10:35
Yes. Modified Smart 342 is 5800 for sure. I guess 6000+ dpi.


BTW what is the lens in IQsmart? Scitex LFOV lens is from Eversmart family and they are useing moving mirror for optical magnification change.

IQsmarts and Eversmarts have serious geometrical problems (nearly all of them) and I have no final solution how to solve it. Yet.

PS. It is a good idea to play with flashlight, paper, rooler and lens to get maximum of all that stuff.

Regards
Al

Hi Al,

I don't know what's in the iQsmart3 yet, haven't taken one apart. I'm currently in rented accomodation whilst my house purchase goes through, the couple selling it are getting divorced and there has been delay after delay. I have no room to do anything here.

After I move the experiments will start.

I'm sure the scanners can be modified into something a little more interesting, and I have some ideas ranging from conversion to lead screws for enhanced linearity, improving the optics, and even mounting a second x-y system on top to allow oversize scanning/stitching.

Any ideas or information you have will be much appreciated, especially if you can point me to a service manual.

Regards,

Steve

SURF
11-Oct-2012, 22:54
Have you tried to optimize the 67mm lens in the same manner?

Yes and no. But I like the idea. It seems (only seems) that the extended lens will touch the mirror. The 89mm can be better.

SURF
11-Oct-2012, 23:33
Hi Steve! I have printed 35mm scans A2 and I am shocked. The size is right for 35mm. No compromise. The grain started to be small and smooth. I live less than two weeks with such a scanner. I have to rethink many things.

Regards
Al

Tobey69
15-Oct-2012, 18:50
hello.0.....

SURF
1-Nov-2012, 14:15
Well. I can say that the scanner is nice. It got the name - Smart-EX. I have compared it's scans with Eversmart Supreme scans. Scans of the glass USAF calibration target are better on the Supreme. The real films (BW and color) are slightly sharper on Smart-EX. Better focus?

SURF
16-Nov-2012, 08:07
Good news. Managed to install reflective lamps tray back in the scanner, though it took a lot of stareing at the thing and a lot of trimming of the metal parts of the tray. Now it is working again.

Compared SmartyEX (optically modified scanner) with Eversmart Supreme. The following is the USAF resolution target scanned on both. Eversmart Supreme is on the left. It is better on the glass target. On real films I prefer (slightly) SmartyEX scans. It is something magical appears when the scanner owns a great scanning geometry. May be it's only for me though.

D. Bryant
30-Dec-2012, 19:50
Good news. Managed to install reflective lamps tray back in the scanner, though it took a lot of stareing at the thing and a lot of trimming of the metal parts of the tray. Now it is working again.

Compared SmartyEX (optically modified scanner) with Eversmart Supreme. The following is the USAF resolution target scanned on both. Eversmart Supreme is on the left. It is better on the glass target. On real films I prefer (slightly) SmartyEX scans. It is something magical appears when the scanner owns a great scanning geometry. May be it's only for me though.

I own 2 Scitex 340 scanners, 1 fully functional and 1 for spare parts. Does anyone know positively that the Scitex 340 can be modified in this manner?

I appreciate the post by SURF but unfortunately I'm not groking the mod. due to lack of details.

Thanks,

Don Bryant

asch
31-Dec-2012, 02:58
Hi Don,

Yes, the modification works well. I just made the adjustment for the lens, not cut the tray.

You need some extension rings (39mm) to lean the lens close to the mirror. On my own, distance between the mirror and the front lens is visibly around 1.5cm 2.5cm. To find the better resolution you must proceed step by step, one adjustment then one scan to check if the position is better than before. I used a USAF 1951.
When you have found a correct position, you can also check it with the calibration software, only the focus data will work, other data are out of range.
Then, finally, in photoshop, you have to reduce the width by twice to retrieve the proper ratio.

Pascal

D. Bryant
31-Dec-2012, 04:34
Hi Don,

Yes, the modification works well. I just made the adjustment for the lens, not cut the tray.

You need some extension rings (39mm) to lean the lens close to the mirror. On my own, distance between the mirror and the front lens is visibly around 1.5cm 2.5cm. To find the better resolution you must proceed step by step, one adjustment then one scan to check if the position is better than before. I used a USAF 1951.
When you have found a correct position, you can also check it with the calibration software, only the focus data will work, other data are out of range.
Then, finally, in photoshop, you have to reduce the width by twice to retrieve the proper ratio.

Pascal

Thanks for the quick reply.

If I've understood properly this modification only affects scans for 35mm film format. Is that correct?

Where did you source the extension tubes?

Regards,

Don

asch
31-Dec-2012, 05:53
Yes, it's correct. But the modification should be made for the other lens, I don't try yet.

I found some tubes (L39, M39) on ebay. Just be careful to the outside diameter, a sufficient length to keep the axis accurate, and the side of the thread (for exemple, on this (http://cgi.ebay.fr/Macro-Extension-Tube-Ring-for-M39-39mm-/321048540257?pt=US_Filter_Rings_Holders&hash=item4abffbf461) tube, the thread is on the wrong side, you can't mount the tube within the lens mount of the carriage because of the protuberence).

Pascal

SURF
4-Jan-2013, 00:31
Hi Pascal,

Let us know about the results of experimenting with the other lenses. BTW I have made a calibration slide for 110 mm lens extended. Now interpolation table is perfect. (It is responsible for exact channels match).

Happy New Year!
Al

asch
4-Jan-2013, 04:19
Hi Al,

Sorry, my english is often crappy, I meant I haven't tried yet with the other lenses.

Regards,
Pascal

Claude HH
25-Apr-2017, 13:34
Bonjour
j'ai un scanner Scritex smart 342
celui-ci fonctionnant à présent avec MAC
je souhaiterai soit le faire fonctionner avec un nouveau MAC, à l'avenir
ou du moins avec mon PC

quelqu'un pourrait il m'aider

Merci

SURF
20-Nov-2017, 14:01
What are you talking about? :-)