A few scanner facts

[Paul Schilliger]

Having been asked many times, I thought I would share a few scanner facts from my experience with different scanner types. Feel free to ad your own links and remarks.

Scan samples

[Ted Harris]

Paul, some beautiful scans and they do a very good job of showing the results you can get from high-end scanners as opposed to those we seem to focus on here. I would love to see some original 4x5 transparancies of the type you are working with scanned for comparison on a couple of the high end scanners and on those such as the Epson 4870, Microtek i900, etc.



I know that when I am going to print large for resale I still send the scans out to my printer na dhave him do the scanning on his drum scanner before printing.

[JohnnyV]

Below is a page with many comparisons of scans. The reader has to draw their own conclusion.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

My scan is on the page - look for my name: John Vitollo

The image was shot on Velvia with an RZ 6x7 and scanned on my Howtek 4000 drumscanner. I have that image hanging on my wall printed with an old Epson 7000 printer at 24 inches wide and can just barely see the grain if I put my nose to the print. I'm probably seeing more of the ink dot than I am of the grain of the film. It's sharp as a tack too.

Also I moderate Yahoo's ScanHi-End list for highend ccd scanners - like the Nikon 9000 and Eversmart and of course PMT drumscanners. I've been using the Nikon 9000 lately and the scans are really nice...just have to use wet mounting as the scanner has a depth of field problem...as sometimes a corner or three is out of focus.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/

[Ted Harris]

Johnny,



Thanks, I ahve looked at this page before and it really doesn't answers the question for us here. The need is for comparisons between the newer/later model flatbed scanners at ~1000 or less (e.g. Epson 4870, 3200, Microtek i900, 1800f) and the 'higher end scanners' for 4x5 and 8x10 transparancies and negatives. All the scans on the page you nted, unless I missed something, are from MF or smaller material.

[Leigh Perry]

How about a scan-around? A suitable transparency is mailed between volunteer scanner owners. Each person does their best scan, publishes the results, and posts the transparency to the next volunteer. All scans end up on a comparison page on www.largeformatphotography.info. This would be more representative than the comparisons Johnny cited because the same image would be scanned each time.

The transparency gets an international holiday, and we get to see it scanned by every scanner known to mankind (or at least to the LF community).

Is anyone interested?

I can put my hand up for the Epson 3200 (no shortage there) and an Imacon Photo (a friend's -- scans are done in two strips).

[Paul Butzi]

Scan-around - count me in. I have a Microtek ArtixScan 1800f.

It would be interesting to see unit to unit variation, too, so I would encourage other 1800f owners to pipe up.

[Henry Ambrose]

I'll play. Epson 1680, Leaf 45.

[Ted Harris]

I'm in with thee Microtek i800.

[Ted Harris]

Whoops,

I'm in with the microtek i900! Can scan with Siverfast Ai, Vuescan and Microtek's software.





Software variations are also importantt

[Michael Mutmansky]

Hey,

I can contribute scans done on an Optronics Colorgetter Falcon drum scanner, both dry mounted and wet mounted.

One of the real issues is the resolution of the scan. At lower resolutions, the 'smear' that many low-end CCD scanners do is not as apparent, and at high resolutions, the files will be very large to deal with. Sharpening will also need to be turned off (for real!, for the Imacon devices out there)

Someone will need to make some determinations about all the possible variables so the scans are as compatible as possible for the greatest comparison benefit. Also, the slide should be sent around with a reference file that indicates the general color balance and contrast that is desired in the scan.

---Michael