Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Drum scanner doubts

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    I'll add my 2 cents here. First of all, a Tango is not a Premier. I hired someone to do a scan on a Tango, an experienced operator and got a scan that wasn't as good, quite visibly I might add, than the Howtek 4500. (The one I purchased right after I figured out how much it was going to cost me to do all the scans I wanted.) I will say there are likely a couple of people that can get quality out of a Tango that others can't. There is some hot-wiring they can do, apparently. Cramer sent me a test neg a while back and the Premier blew away the sharpness of his Tango.

    I think the major difference isn't the aperture itself. The Premier can do 3 microns. However, there isn't any film (non-military) that can scan that low without showing grain anti-aliasing. That said, the mechanisms to support a 3 micron result require twice the "sharpness" required to do a 6 micron scan. The Premier moves over a 64,000 of an inch with each pass (turn around the circumference). Every part of the process, from the lead screw, to the components in the optics box have to be better made, have higher tolerance.

    Given this, I entirely and totally reject all notions of there is only so much detail in a particular image based on film format, fstop, etc. It simply hasn't borne out in my testing. Every test that indicates that there is no more detail than 4K, for instance has been done with a scanner with limits at that level.

    The other aspect is "how to scan" an image. Most folks in labs are going to give you a top and bottom that isn't clipped and let the scan run... WCI's and NancyScan's business model is one of volume, get the project out the door. In my opinion, setting white and black points isn't how to scan an image, certainly not in b&w. Other folks make the image look like they want the print to be. That isn't right either. If you want to be successful at scanning, you have to give the photographer the capacity to make the print they want. A lot of film compress the midtones, or a certain section of the midtones, lighting affects it, etc. Certainly it should give the ends a wide berth, but it should also separate with micro adjustments, each area of the midtones so that the printer can grab these sections with a mask and manipulate them to get the desired effect. The better a printer someone is, the more subtle their vision is, the better a scan you will get.

    Further, I say screw resolution. It's too easy - for any drum scanner (and not consumer machines). Especially when printing with an inkjet. I can do a scan with any size film that will show the edge of a building sharp, at say 16x20. I don't bother opening up the lens to a wider aperture because the difference is so minimal it's silly, IMO. I'm building an iPhone app, as many of you know, and I didn't bother with a depth of field, or hyperfocal distance calculator, because I think its a waste of time. Close the lens down and get some depth of field! Use a loupe to see if things are in focus.

    The real meat of a great scan is whether or not you can deliver all the tones of the original scene, and separated out so that you can print it. That's the hard part.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    30

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post

    I think the major difference isn't the aperture itself. The Premier can do 3 microns. However, there isn't any film (non-military) that can scan that low without showing grain anti-aliasing. That said, the mechanisms to support a 3 micron result require twice the "sharpness" required to do a 6 micron scan. The Premier moves over a 64,000 of an inch with each pass (turn around the circumference). Every part of the process, from the lead screw, to the components in the optics box have to be better made, have higher tolerance.

    Given this, I entirely and totally reject all notions of there is only so much detail in a particular image based on film format, fstop, etc. It simply hasn't borne out in my testing. Every test that indicates that there is no more detail than 4K, for instance has been done with a scanner with limits at that level.


    Lenny
    have to disagree with you over this.

    I had captured a good contrast scene with Canon 24mm 1.4L lens with EOS 3 body, mirror locked, tripod mounted, Provia 100F and did a 4000dpi scan over my Howtek D4000 just yesterday.

    The drum scanner did amazing jobs but however it still failed to capture a tiny piece of information on the film. As I examined the film under microscope, some parts of the film still hold slightly more details than the 4000dpi drum scanner can see, especially the part where it has really high contrast, such as small banners with white backgrounds, in which I can figure out the words under microscope but not so with drum scanning picture. I supposed for a good 35mm color film, with superb lens, you might need something at 5400~6000dpi range to capture EVERYTHING... but 4000dpi drum scanning is good enough to live with as it blows away any CCD scanners.

    I supposed with the newest t-max B&W film, you might need a drum scanner at 8000dpi to capture 100% details, as t-max holds even more details than Provia 100F.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    775

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    ...

    Given this, I entirely and totally reject all notions of there is only so much detail in a particular image based on film format, fstop, etc. It simply hasn't borne out in my testing. Every test that indicates that there is no more detail than 4K, for instance has been done with a scanner with limits at that level. ...
    This has been my finding as well after testing various scanners and after doing tests with my Howtek HR8000 at various resolutions.

    My philosophy of scanning has always been to ignore how much resolution is actually on the film itself. My goal is to reproduce the piece of film as accurately as possible and translate that information into a print. So if I scan a crappy holga negative, I still want to faithfully reproduce the grain (or dye clumps) of the film onto a print.

    In short, I want my lens or photographic technique to be the limiting factor in the resolution of my prints, not the scanning or printing. Really a drum scanner is the only way I've found to accomplish this (short of a darkroom contact print, of course, but this is a digital discussion).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    ...
    Further, I say screw resolution. It's too easy - for any drum scanner (and not consumer machines). Especially when printing with an inkjet. I can do a scan with any size film that will show the edge of a building sharp, at say 16x20. I don't bother opening up the lens to a wider aperture because the difference is so minimal it's silly, IMO. I'm building an iPhone app, as many of you know, and I didn't bother with a depth of field, or hyperfocal distance calculator, because I think its a waste of time. Close the lens down and get some depth of field! Use a loupe to see if things are in focus.

    The real meat of a great scan is whether or not you can deliver all the tones of the original scene, and separated out so that you can print it. That's the hard part.
    How true, and well said!

    In general though, and back to the OP's question, while I wouldn't say that drum scanning is particularly difficult, it does require skill and knowledge, not to mention equipment that's in good shape. A Howtek 4000 can do great scans in the right hands. Any online comparison is relatively useless if it was done by different people with different knowledge and techniques.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by zhengjdc View Post
    have to disagree with you over this.
    I supposed with the newest t-max B&W film, you might need a drum scanner at 8000dpi to capture 100% details, as t-max holds even more details than Provia 100F.
    zhengjdc,
    I am absolutely certain that I am not right about everything... disagreement is welcome.
    I haven't used a 4000, I had a 4500 when I started this, but now have a 8,000 ppi Premier. Last month, I was blown away at a print from a 6x7 neg (Ilford Delta) where I could read a speed limit sign from about half a mile away. It was a test I did against an 8x10, they both read the letters equally, altho' at 40 inches, the 6x7 was starting to show a mild "grainy" look vs the 8x110 which had full texture....

    I think that the reproduction of small details is controlled by a lot of factors. It's hard to beat a microscope... Someone earlier stated something about a well-tuned machined, working perfectly, etc. I've had to have a PMT replaced - what might be the effect of that, or two out of three of them, for example. There is also some skills required, or at least having one's own scanner and being able to scan something multiple times until the right approach is taken... for the image.

    I think the issue here is that if one controls the process from end to end that the bottlenecks will begin to emerge. Mine seems to be at the printer. It is only so capable. The scans are sharp, and deliver more than the printer can handle. During the process, however, I have also discovered my own aesthetic. I am interested in light, how it layers, what it means, and reproducing an experience. I like depth of field, but care little about absolute sharpness. I'd rather have 95% sharp with everything in focus than let areas go unsharp to have that critically sharp area. This is a personal decision, or set of decisions, and there are lots of other folk who follow a different philosophy and do great work.

    I have just started to print on lightweight Kozo, a translucent paper at 70 gms and I'm having a blast. The light appears to pass thru the paper and bounce back of the white mat and the print is delicate like a carbon print, and luminescent. I'm having a blast with it.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    zhengjdc,
    I am absolutely certain that I am not right about everything... disagreement is welcome.
    I haven't used a 4000, I had a 4500 when I started this, but now have a 8,000 ppi Premier. Last month, I was blown away at a print from a 6x7 neg (Ilford Delta) where I could read a speed limit sign from about half a mile away. It was a test I did against an 8x10, they both read the letters equally, altho' at 40 inches, the 6x7 was starting to show a mild "grainy" look vs the 8x110 which had full texture....

    Lenny
    If you compare 6X7 cm to 8X10 inches with the same film the print from the larger film will always look like it has more texture. Next time you do this test you might consider using a slower, finer grain film in 6X7 cm to compare to Ilford Delta. I believe Fuji Acros would be an improvement over Delta 100 for 6X7 cm, if not try Rollei Pan 25, or Rollei Ortho 25.

    Yes, use of either of these films will call for special developers and some experimentation to get it right. But maybe worth the trouble considering how much you can save on weight and size of equipment. Perhaps this is not important if working from a car, but for travel it sure is important to me.

    Sandy
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  6. #26
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Miami Beach, FL, USA
    Posts
    660

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by zhengjdc View Post
    have to disagree with you over this.

    I had captured a good contrast scene with Canon 24mm 1.4L lens with EOS 3 body, mirror locked, tripod mounted, Provia 100F and did a 4000dpi scan over my Howtek D4000 just yesterday.

    The drum scanner did amazing jobs but however it still failed to capture a tiny piece of information on the film. As I examined the film under microscope, some parts of the film still hold slightly more details than the 4000dpi drum scanner can see, especially the part where it has really high contrast, such as small banners with white backgrounds, in which I can figure out the words under microscope but not so with drum scanning picture. I supposed for a good 35mm color film, with superb lens, you might need something at 5400~6000dpi range to capture EVERYTHING... but 4000dpi drum scanning is good enough to live with as it blows away any CCD scanners.

    I supposed with the newest t-max B&W film, you might need a drum scanner at 8000dpi to capture 100% details, as t-max holds even more details than Provia 100F.
    4000dpi should enough to start seeing some of the grain.

    Could you clarify the following?
    Mounting fluid used,
    Auto or Manual focus,
    Emulsion facing in or out,
    Aperture (scanner),
    and Software platform.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    775

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by zhengjdc View Post
    have to disagree with you over this.

    I had captured a good contrast scene with Canon 24mm 1.4L lens with EOS 3 body, mirror locked, tripod mounted, Provia 100F and did a 4000dpi scan over my Howtek D4000 just yesterday.

    The drum scanner did amazing jobs but however it still failed to capture a tiny piece of information on the film. ...
    Unless I misread his post, Lenny is saying that folks who say film is limited to 4000dpi or less are using scanners that are not capable of higher resolution. Therefore they can't really say for sure if a higher resolution scan would provide more real information.

    So I think you and Lenny are both in agreement. You both are saying that, while 4000dpi is great, film actually has more information than can be captured at 4000dpi.

    And if you have a scanner (Like Lenny's Aztek) that can scan at a true resolution of higher than 4000dpi, you will see an advantage.

    At least I think that's what you are both saying...forgive me if I'm wrong.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    I have taken up wet scanning of 4 x 5 transparencies on an Epson flat bed and could not be more please with the results. The average file is a bit on the gigantic size (1.4 gigs) but the end result is very pleasing and I frankly can see no improvement when looking at prints made from drum scans that I paid too much $$$ for. Don

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    775

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Just curious Don if you don't mind--Which epson are you using? How large are the prints you're comparing? And who did the drum scans?

  10. #30
    Format Omnivore Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    2,997

    Re: Drum scanner doubts

    Quote Originally Posted by zhengjdc View Post
    The drum scanner did amazing jobs but however it still failed to capture a tiny piece of information on the film. ... ... . I supposed for a good 35mm color film, with superb lens, you might need something at 5400~6000dpi range to capture EVERYTHING... but 4000dpi drum scanning is good enough to live with as it blows away any CCD scanners.
    Why My Gigabyte Film Scans Might Not Be Good Enough, by Ctein.

    It's an interesting blog post with comparative scans of the same image crop.

Similar Threads

  1. Scanview 5000 drum scanner
    By tor kviljo in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 23-Sep-2012, 14:06
  2. Scanner comparison: Epson 4990 scanner added
    By Leigh Perry in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2006, 05:35
  3. I have purchased a Screen 1045i drum scanner!!!
    By Eirik Berger in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2005, 07:37
  4. Drum scanner: lines appeared
    By Paul Schilliger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3-Sep-2000, 12:49
  5. A drum developer?
    By Jeff Hall in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2000, 12:59

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
  •