Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any
Thanks
Printable View
Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any
Thanks
I suggest you join the Scan Hi-End forum on Yahoo. Ther was some discussion just a few weeks ago. Join the forum and do a search on EverSmart and you should find the messages. I don't know the answer to your question about the cleaner but there is someone on the Yahoo forum who used to work for Scitex and he has a lot of information about the EverSmart. I believe there is also a maintenance manual in the files section which descreibes how to open the scanner to access the mirrors, optics and CCD for cleaning.
Sandy
thanks good tip
This threads was dead a long while ago but it's worth linking to some other sources.
1) 1500/f is rayleigh's value - some consider that it's pessimistic (see Dawes limit)
2) Chris Perez's lens test have some lenses a 67lp/mm for f/22 and up to 80lp/mm at f/11 for the 110 SSXL
3) We did some pretty definitive tests of LF with some good lenses etc and had maximum 'detail' for a 5x4 on Provia as about 200 megapixels equivalent
4) However in visual comparisons, the 5x4 struggled to match the 80mp digital back with it's high contrast. Once you enlarged significantly the fine detail of the LF showed through, especially colour detail.
So a 5x4 and Provia could be seen as about 80-140mp equivalent in my opinion depending on the criteria used to compare.
Tim Parkin
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/
This is an extremely old thread! But I was reading and had to comment.Quote:
(I only use the scanner on its highest quality Max DR mode).
Do not do this. MaxDR mode should only be used in cases where it's obviously necessary, i.e. a black cat in a coal mine...polar bear in a snow storm...that kind of thing. It will burn out your CCD prematurely and not provide noticeable advantage for most films. This is not just me speaking, straight from Micheal Streeter himself.
Love my Eversmart Supreme II. It produces outstanding scans.
This is an old thread , yes and a good one.... I own an eversmart creo supreme (in service right now) and as life kind of turns things around if you wait long enough I am collaborating with another lab who is putting their new Phase One Cultural Heritage system in my shop.
So my thoughts or observations are as follows, I did test the Aztek, against the Creo and the Imocan years ago with surprising results.. nothing scientific I would say and open to debate, but the same medium format negative was scanned on three units to its best ability by each operator, the sharpening in all cases was turned off and only applied at final printing.
I balanced each image as closely as possible to each other and printed the files to 30 x 40 inches and made Cprints off my Durst Lambda.
We then showed the prints at normal viewing distance and good lighting to quite a large group of photographers over a long period of time. We asked them to rate the prints 1, 2, 3 - there was no indicators of which print came from which scanner.
We took about 100 people to sample -- Aztec 38- first votes Creo - 35 first votes Imocan - 27 votes
I then decided to buy the Creo and have been happy using Imocan and Creo ever since.
Now I can test the Phase One System against the Creo....... I have done preliminary tests of the Phase against the Imocan scanner and my gut (scientific no) tells me the Phase is better. When I get the Creo back from Service I will indeed do the same test again.
unfortunately the Aztek will not be in the mix as I do not know of anyone actively using one .
We are in the business of archiving old photographic projects , bringing them back to life out of storage containers, and actually showing them as silver gelatin, and PT pd prints on gallery walls.
The Phase One system allows us to scan at high resolution in seconds , rather 10 minutes each - this allows us to offer artists , galleries the ability to bring old film back to life.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...40#post1454940
my results 5 years ago were that it didn't seem the phase system had a way to keep the film as flat as a drum scanner – I don't doubt the capability to render from the phase is there, but I suspect that may still be true...let us know your results...
Speed of image acquisition should not be viewed as a notable advantage of one method over another. Especially in archival applications.
It is assumed that in order to acquire an image the source material has to be properly cleaned, mounted and positioned against the optical system and sensor.
How much time does it take to acquire, let's say, a 100 images at best quality with each system and how much time the operator spends in the process (vs the machine does)? Should the operator constantly "babysit" the process?