Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Sharing drum scan quality

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    29

    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
    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)

  2. #2
    Still Developing
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    579

    Re: Sharing drum scan quality

    Quote Originally Posted by dhirsch View Post
    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
    Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com

  3. #3
    Pali K Pali K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    MD, USA
    Posts
    989

    Re: Sharing drum scan quality

    Quote Originally Posted by dhirsch View Post
    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
    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

  4. #4
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    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.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    29

    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.

  6. #6
    Pali K Pali K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    MD, USA
    Posts
    989

    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

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    vermont
    Posts
    117

    Re: Sharing drum scan quality

    Quote Originally Posted by Netsoft2k View Post
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    140

    Re: Sharing drum scan quality

    Quote Originally Posted by Netsoft2k View Post
    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).

  9. #9
    Pali K Pali K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    MD, USA
    Posts
    989

    Re: Sharing drum scan quality

    Quote Originally Posted by andy View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    140

    Re: Sharing drum scan quality

    Quote Originally Posted by Netsoft2k View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Epson V750 BW Film Scan Quality (Bad?)
    By RedSun in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 4-May-2014, 07:38
  2. What should a high quality drum scan look like?
    By big_ben_blue in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 18-Jun-2010, 06:10
  3. Some thoughts on scan quality and inkjet printing
    By Per Berntsen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13-Dec-2006, 12:02
  4. Scan quality from Epsons?
    By Terence Patrick in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 19-Oct-2006, 21:53
  5. 4x5 chrome>Drum scan>Film recorder neg quality
    By Al Seyle in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 8-Sep-2000, 14:59

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •