Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Thanks greg - I'll keep that in mind for the next PC. I am hoping that the latest high-end Macbook Pro's will handle these large images better.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gregmo
You really should max out your RAM capacity...it will help a lot. I'm running 32gb on my Win 8 pro OS which works fine & some of my files start at 6GB before edits.
Depending on your SSD size, you might want to add an extra or more HD's for the scratch disk.
Yeah I agree. Like Pali, I am running a quad core i7 at 3.0ghz (old first gen i7 from five years ago), Win 7 x64, but I have 24GB of ram. Photoshop x64 regularly uses 12GB+. No problem handling 1.5GB 4x5 scans. 500GB SSD doesn't hurt either.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Netsoft2k
Thanks greg - I'll keep that in mind for the next PC. I am hoping that the latest high-end Macbook Pro's will handle these large images better.
Adobe's recommendations for scratch disks...
The following guidelines can help you assign scratch disks:
For best performance, scratch disks should be on a different drive than any large files you are editing.
Scratch disks should be on a different drive than the one your operating system uses for virtual memory.
RAID disks/disk arrays are good choices for dedicated scratch disk volumes.
Drives with scratch disks should be defragmented regularly.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dhirsch
Since I know that some members in this forum are interested in high quality scans I though I'd share the results from recent works I had scanned by Castor Scan in Italy.
To say the scans blew me away would be an understatement.
I usually use Kodak iQsmart3, which is certainly a good scanner and have had drum scans made before, with ICG 370 and 380 scanners.
These scans are, in my opinion, superior in every aspect. Sharpness, resolution, rendition of film grain, depth of color, color balance and dynamic range. Also there's a certain "smoothness" (for a lack of a better word) to the image, which, especially when printed gives the picture a very analog look (like a c-print), which I rarely see with scans.
You can see the picture here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/castor...n/photostream/
This is a crop from the full resolution image:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/castor...n/photostream/
The technical details -for those who care :p
8x10" Kodak Portra 160 @ 100
Dainippon Screen SG-8060P Mark II Scanner
Original scan dimension 20508x25747 pixel, 16-bit.
Current inkjet print size 127x160 cm / 50x63 Inch (obviously the file would allow for much more)
I might be missing something here, but this looks to be highly oversharpened. Then of course you see "film grain" and very high micro contrast, noise and other aberrations, but there is no way to tell how sharp/correct the scan actually is. In a nutshell, i cannot compare this to a flatbed scanner, but can compare to an imacon scanner of smaller negatives, in which case it is as good, but perhaps does not justify the cost of the machine. As the largest an imacon will scan is 5X7, in this case, that point is moot. Still, be these good scans as they may, they look like scans, no like prints.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
No sharpening whatsoever was used.