I was looking into drum scanning and came across this, it seems like a rather clever idea. using a phase one back and a really good lens attached to what seems to be an enlarger chassis.
https://youtu.be/r_dHTfYsqec
I was looking into drum scanning and came across this, it seems like a rather clever idea. using a phase one back and a really good lens attached to what seems to be an enlarger chassis.
https://youtu.be/r_dHTfYsqec
If you are willing to pay $50K+, then of course it will be worth it.
It's a good idea for people that is scanning documentation all day long, it's productive.Originally Posted by jesse1996
In my opinion it cannot compete aganist a bare flatbed in quality. A drum has no stray light in the system, a flatbed has some stray light, and this system will have (I guess) a lot, so I guess microcontrast can be way damaged in dense areas.
An IQ180 is $37000, it has to work multi-shot to get good image quality, and lens it also has to be very, very good.
Also IQ180 has only 53.9x40.4 mm, better try it before with a Nikon D810 with 36x24mm yet, and use PS with image stitching to emulate multi-shot, to get good results, and you'll get easyer a lens with high LP/mm in FF image circle than MF circle.
Phase One makes awesome gear. I've owned the P65+ and IQ260 backs. I also got to play with the IQ3 100 for a day and was really impressed. Though they claim that they're technical systems that they're selling to institutions are the best way to digitize film, I'm rather skeptical. I briefly tried to "scan" some color negs with my IQ260 using Rodenstock Digital lenses and the resulting files were of fairly poor quality.
If you want to give that approach a go, I'd start off with a Nikon D810 or a Sony A7r2. Their sensors give the Phase some close competition.
Pere, I'm not sure what you mean by multishot with n IQ180. Currently, only Hasselblad makes multishot backs.
CB
I had a quick glance at some results at a museum trade fair two months ago. They looked convincing, but couldn't examine anything very closely (nor did I want to as I wasn't there to inspect gear). I guess the rationale for this kind of setup from an archiving perspective is that it also serves to digitize other flat (or fairly flat) media. Additionally, I don't see why this concept couldn't yield exceptional images. Stray light could be blocked using a hood and very good reproduction lenses do exist.
Used 24mp almost full frame 645 MFd will run you about 3-5k.
Good macro lenses with extension ring will allow you to focus very close.
Positioning is a problem , if you solve that, then fixed focus shooting can be done very fast and so on.
Will you get better results than 35mm dslr scanning? yes. Will you be using jackhammer to put nail in board? yes.
Sorry, I was mistaken about IQ180, capabilities.
Well, also Sinar back can do multi-shot http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/prod...ution-86-h-en/ (manufactured by the other??)
With IQ180 it may be emulated in PS ...autoalign + stitching, but way better to use a flatbed !
Regards
Pentax 645Z on a Toyo fitted with a apo-nikkor process lens.
Thomas
I'm not sure a larger format sensor would do you any favors when it comes to scans. A smaller sensor with good noise performance would be well suited to this I think. Pentax makes a bellows scanning rig that allows up to 4x5. Both the K-1 and K-3 can do multi-shot in camera.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...t-film-quicker
That's the medium format version. The 4x5 one was just released.
But if we're talking about this kind of $...why not just a Hasselblad X5? Once you consider inverting, color balancing, and the inevitable dusting that youll have to do I'm not sure that DSLR scanning is really a time saver.
I agree with Pere, a drum scanner provides the least amount of optical distortion, light loss, between digital sensor (pixel) and negative/print. But if you are going to use a camera/lens setup then though there may be a benefit of medium format over FF, it would be dwarfed by the benefit of stitched photos from any sensor, even MFT, because the factor of pixels you can get in that way remove bayer aberrations. In other words, even the medium format camera is really only around 13 megapixels (15/4) if you want a full sample of RGB. A stitched image could easily reach 400MP which would be effectively 100MP of complete color information.
If I was going to scan with a camera I'd use the new Pentax K1, as Sperdynamite mentioned, which is 36MP with sensor shift technology, giving it a true 36MP, which would be 120MP of a bayer camera. Of course, for what a museum quality scanning company must use, the difference in price between a D810 and Medium format, is small. And the Medium format price/bragging rights keeps away any schmuck with a Caniikon
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks