High end scanner options - What's out there?

[Theodoros]

OK... I'll bite... but I'm afraid you can't have larger than that (for obvious reasons)... The painting is of 48 square feet...



The horse head...



Sorry about the size guys... rights prohibit me to post larger.

[8x10 user]

I don't think that the phase one back allows for the LUT to be replaced in the DAC or for the signal to be altered prior to digitization. This is why I feel that high end CCD and drum scanners should provide better quality with negative films. For slide film the high D range and low noise of MFD should be able produce very nice results. Especially with the right lens. Good lighting, ect. Quality wise I expect current phase one technology to be closer to the old Sinar Multishot CCDs, only the latter absolutely requires low iso. Sinar multishot at iso 25-50 has stellar image quality; they took kodaks best deep well CCD chip and added a pelter cooler and a piezo electric microstep device that is accurate to 200 nanometers (as per my last calibration).

Digital Transitions provides a reproduction system based on PhaseOne digital backs that is aimed at museums and other large organizations. Though their backs are not multi-shot, perhaps they might be willing to do a scan of a negative which can then be sent on to a recognized expert commercial scanner operator and Theodoros to let us see a comparison? Or what about using the targets provided by SilverFast/Faust, etc?

Kumar

[Theodoros]

Digital Transitions provides a reproduction system based on PhaseOne digital backs that is aimed at museums and other large organizations. Though their backs are not multi-shot, perhaps they might be willing to do a scan of a negative which can then be sent on to a recognized expert commercial scanner operator and Theodoros to let us see a comparison? Or what about using the targets provided by SilverFast/Faust, etc?

Kumar

Digital transitions is Phase One's larger dealer in the world. They also sell Sinar/Leica & Hasselblad, but if you have a look in their web site, it is easy to conclude that they underestimate the presentation of the rest in favor for Phase One (obviously more profit)... Now Hasselblad and Sinar do support multishot captures, but Phase One does not (neither their software). But because museums and institutions are major customers for digitization work, Phase one came up with the "caltural heritage" software which is a "hi end" approach to colour profiling... Then, they coorporated with Digital transitions as to offer a "complete solution" (based on the Caltural Heritage software) that would be easy for museums to use... The aim is to sell on institutions, libraries and museums (a huge market) which has been dominated by Sinar and Hasselblad over the past decate and a half (because of multishot).

It is a clever marketing move as to overcome the abscence of multishot capability out of Phase One (and Leaf) backs, based to work for success on the ignorance that institution representatives have on technological aspects... One will be a hundred light years ahead if he uses an old multishot back instead... There are some institutions in the US that bought into the system, but this doesn't mean that they abandoned their older investments on multishot backs from Sinar and Hasselblad... The project is in reallity a P1 (marketing) project... Digital transitions was "(kind of) hired" because they could "open doors" with the institutions having sold them multishot stuff out of Sinar and Hasselblad over the past 15 years...

[Oren Grad]

Please describe what setup would be required to use a multishot MFDB for "scanning" 4x5" and larger sheet film.

[Daniel Stone]

Oren, TBH, I think you might be better served by sending your film to get drum scanned by a professional operator. But that's just my opinion
-Dan

[B.S.Kumar]

Theodoros, I'm not particularly interested in the "marketing" aspects. While I have not dealt with museums directly, I know people who have, and there are many obvious / not-so-obvious reasons why a particular organization may or may not choose to buy a particular system. Apart from the technical reasons, there are also questions of budget, workflow, etc. There are also many behind-the-scenes reasons, which may not be known to people outside the fairly tight network. Let's not go there.

DT says their solution with the new backs is superior to multi-shot. You say your system with multi-shot is superior to a drum scanner. I (and others) simply want to see a comparison among the three systems.

I own a Sinar 54H and a Betterlight 6K-2. I must confess to never having had a reason to use the multi-function capabilities of the Sinar. The sensor in the Betterlight is supposed to be the same as that used in the Creo iQSmart series. There are some people who use the Betterlight to scan film.

Kumar

[Theodoros]

Theodoros, I'm not particularly interested in the "marketing" aspects. While I have not dealt with museums directly, I know people who have, and there are many obvious / not-so-obvious reasons why a particular organization may or may not choose to buy a particular system. Apart from the technical reasons, there are also questions of budget, workflow, etc. There are also many behind-the-scenes reasons, which may not be known to people outside the fairly tight network. Let's not go there.

DT says their solution with the new backs is superior to multi-shot. You say your system with multi-shot is superior to a drum scanner. I (and others) simply want to see a comparison among the three systems.

I own a Sinar 54H and a Betterlight 6K-2. I must confess to never having had a reason to use the multi-function capabilities of the Sinar. The sensor in the Betterlight is supposed to be the same as that used in the Creo iQSmart series. There are some people who use the Betterlight to scan film.

Kumar

I would have no hesitation as to use a scanning back to scan film, they are tricolor "true color" devises just like multishot backs are and thus they luck artifacts and maximize DR. The thing is that they need larger circle lenses as to do so and this leads in lower resolving power (of the lens). Additionally, it is difficult to stitch some shots as to increase the resolving power on the film's surface. Still, the results should be comparable with the better of drum scanners.

[Theodoros]

Please describe what setup would be required to use a multishot MFDB for "scanning" 4x5" and larger sheet film.

Hi Oren,

I would suggest one to convert an Old view camera so that he uses one of its standards as film carrier and then use an old Rollei 6008 with a Sinarback 54H mounted on the view camera's rail and aligned with the center of the image area to be scanned. Then he can use a bellows mounted on the lens filter thread and the standard that the "film carrier" is fitted on and then use a diffusor behind the film and a lightbox to backlight the film area... It takes some self involvement, but IMO it would make an ideal dedicated copy device that would be as sturdy and accurate as it is needed for the job.

I would then recommend for one to use the standard's focusing as to accurate focus on the film surface by using the Sinarback's LV mode (the Sinar software offers a focusing scale that makes it easy for one to focus extremely accurately) and then he can easily stitch several (multishot) shots by using the standard's shift and up/down movements as to move the film surface and keep the lens constant. The suggestion is not what I use, but it is what I plan to do as to maximize the efficiency/flexibility/accuracy of the process.

Let me add this though which is a suggestion that one should check... If one uses an old 16x multishot back and scans film by stitching several multishot shots at 1:1 magnification (film area "scanned" equal to sensor size), he may realize that shooting larger than 6x8 (or 6x7, or 6x9) image areas doesn't offer anymore quality benefit. This, should be because of the lower lens resolution out of the lenses used to capture larger image areas which is then revealed by the "scanning" method. It maybe that if one uses one of (the few) "digital" lenses that can cover 5x4 image areas for the capture, there maybe a slight advantage over 120 film (again shot with a high resolution lens but dedicated for smaller image areas) but even in that case, the advantage is (IMO) insignificant to consider... Certainly there will be no advantage if one shoots even larger that 4x5...

[Peter De Smidt]

Theodoros, you don't have a test negative scan to show us?

Speaking as someone who's investigated this a bit, I'd be worried about alignment and freedom from vibration using a camera rail. I have a P2. Imo, it's not up to the task. Any vibration in the system is clearly visible in the results, and that's with lowly dslrs, and not the rarefied equipment that Theodoros is talking about. Moreover, the gearing of a P2 is terrific for film, but it's not fine enough to be ideal for use with digital backs at normal distances. Hence, Sinar gave us the P3. All of this is magnified greatly at 1x. The slop in the zero position alone would be difficult to overcome.

[B.S.Kumar]

The people who are using the Betterlight to scan film are not using a camera the way Theodoros suggests. They are using large, heavy copying stands or adapted 8x10 enlarger columns. My own attempts to use a Sinar P/P2 for this purpose have convinced me that the gearing is not fine enough for digital backs - even those with "huge" pixels like the 54H or Betterlight.

I think we need to see some comparison samples.

Kumar