Sharing drum scan quality
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)
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dhirsch
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 own a few drum scanners and flat bed scanners and have heard great things about the IQ Smart 3.
The IQ Smart should have a maximum optical resolution of at least 5000dpi and I was wondering if you scan a sample of the 10x8 at more than this, what does the result look like? (i.e. try scanning the head at 6000dpi).
Would you be willing to share the results? I only ask as the resolution of the drum scan you are showing is about 2300dpi, obviously that isn't stretching the scanner much (I know the 8060 is a great scanner so this isn't meant to knock it)
Tim
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)
It's a beautiful scan indeed. I recently acquired a Scanmate Scanview 11000 that I just got up and running fully last week. The scans have been amazing and everything you mentioned about the drum scans being superior is holding true for me also. The scanner has brought new life to some of my older photos and I can finally say I know what film grain looks like :)
Happy to share scans (even at 11000 DPI) if anyone wants to see them.
Pali
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Agree with Tim. 2000 dpi is not "pushing" the scanner. Also the grain in that emulsion being so small compared to the resolution does help, not to mention the Apo-Sironars are amazing performers.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Thanks for the replies guys.
First, let me say I'm a practical guy. For me it's all about the pictures and not so much about pushing a scanner to it's maximum physical ability.
The scan has about 2500 dpi, which would print 173x217 cm, which is considerably larger than what I actually need. When I do my own scans on the iQsmart I actually scan at about 1600dpi.
Obviously if you want to blow up a small neg like 35mm or 6x7 you'll need those super high resolutions, but I was never into that (making a 6x7 print more than 1 Meter long for example) in neither the analog or the digital realm.
So to me it never occurred to make a scan that will yield a size like 3,3x4,2 Meters - which would be the result of a 5000 dpi scan from 8x10.
Having said that, Tim- I'm happy to scan a crop on the iQsmart at that resolution and share with you. I can do it in about two weeks.
On Castor Scan's flickr page (same on found in my links above) you'll find 35mm and medium format scans that show very high resolutions, if you scroll long enough :-)
I don't think he normally scans 8x10 at more than 2500-2700 dpi.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Not as impressive as the OP scan but I attempted a hi-res scan myself after receiving the wet mounting fluid this weekend. The gigpan link below is for the same image that I have shared previously but this was made at 5000 DPI from Velvia 100 4x5 slide.
The biggest challenge with this scan is that the file size was 1.6 gb tiff file that was extremely slow to process in Photoshop. Photoshop struggled to save the files and kept giving me 2 gb file size limitation warnings. The scan is 465 megapixels but I would say the effective resolution of the image is approximately 70-80% of the original.
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/cccf725c...d51b90b42c125f
Pali
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Netsoft2k
Not as impressive as the OP scan but I attempted a hi-res scan myself after receiving the wet mounting fluid this weekend. The gigpan link below is for the same image that I have shared previously but this was made at 5000 DPI from Velvia 100 4x5 slide.
The biggest challenge with this scan is that the file size was 1.6 gb tiff file that was extremely slow to process in Photoshop. Photoshop struggled to save the files and kept giving me 2 gb file size limitation warnings. The scan is 465 megapixels but I would say the effective resolution of the image is approximately 70-80% of the original.
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/cccf725c...d51b90b42c125f
Pali
a couple of tricks you can use--first, when they're that big you have to save as a .psb (large document format) and the other thing you can do if the files are onerous and you have to do a lot of retouching, is to save out a smaller file, build your layer masks and adjustments on it, and then copy those layers onto the larger file and use the transform tool to make them the same size.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Netsoft2k
Not as impressive as the OP scan but I attempted a hi-res scan myself after receiving the wet mounting fluid this weekend. The gigpan link below is for the same image that I have shared previously but this was made at 5000 DPI from Velvia 100 4x5 slide.
The biggest challenge with this scan is that the file size was 1.6 gb tiff file that was extremely slow to process in Photoshop. Photoshop struggled to save the files and kept giving me 2 gb file size limitation warnings.
Pali
How old is your computer? How much RAM is in your machine?
I save large files as a PSB (large document format).
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
andy
a couple of tricks you can use--first, when they're that big you have to save as a .psb (large document format) and the other thing you can do if the files are onerous and you have to do a lot of retouching, is to save out a smaller file, build your layer masks and adjustments on it, and then copy those layers onto the larger file and use the transform tool to make them the same size.
That's a great tip on using small files with adjustment layers. Never knew Photoshop had a different format for large files but then again, I never needed to save a file of this size before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gregmo
How old is your computer? How much RAM is in your machine?
I save large files as a PSB (large document format).
I am using a Win7 64bit desktop PC that has Intel 3.0 GHz Quad processor and has 6 GB RAM. I am sure it could do with more RAM but the OS and Photoshop temp disk is on a SSD so I would think that RAM is not holding back too much.
Re: Sharing drum scan quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Netsoft2k
That's a great tip on using small files with adjustment layers. Never knew Photoshop had a different format for large files but then again, I never needed to save a file of this size before.
I am using a Win7 64bit desktop PC that has Intel 3.0 GHz Quad processor and has 6 GB RAM. I am sure it could do with more RAM but the OS and Photoshop temp disk is on a SSD so I would think that RAM is not holding back too much.
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.
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.
