West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

[Stephen Best]

The 16 bit Imacon scans are said to be 440 mb. Just by the numbers 484 mb 16 bit scans are needed for the Lightjet to print a 24x30 inch prints so maybe 440 mb is close enough? For a 360 ppi, 16 bit, Epson print 356 mb are needed for a 20x 24 inch print so these print sizes are theoretically where the Imacons max out for 16 bit scans.

A Flextight 848/949/X5 will give you about a 420MB 16-bit file from 4x5 after trimming. This translates to a 24x30 print (with a 1.5" border) at Epson's optimal 360ppi. I scan trannies on my 848 with no cropping/resizing and print with no driver resampling to an Epson 7800 ... the scanner and printer are a great match. The earlier Precision scanners aren't in the same league (I used to have one).

Higher resolution scans may help with grain aliasing but with the Fujichrome I shoot you don't even hit grain at 2040dpi. There's no point bogging down Photoshop if the driver is just going to throw away the excess resolution. Also, Epson drivers will croak with really oversized files.

[Lenny Eiger]

didnt insult but man are you full of shit, if you think 2040dpi, 16 bit 440mb Imacon 949 scans are junk then you deserve to pay wci's inflated prices

Thankfully, I have my own drum scanner. My first one, a used Howtek 4500 cost me much less than the Imacon (about 9K with mounting station, drum, software and all) and was very impressive. Much more than an Imacon can do. The Imacon is after all, a flatbed, it's sensor is a CCD rather than a PMT. It scans one full line at a time, rather than taking individual samples. For a flatbed, they are generally pretty good quality altho' they upset a lot of folks because many of their performance claims are based on theoretical values vs measured (or real world) ones.

And yes, I do know the formula for converting line pairs to dpi - one of my earlier comments was in too much haste - (line pairs x 2) * 25.4 if anyone else wants to know.

FWIW, I get a 1.7 gig file from a 4x5, scanned at 4,000 dpi. Of course, the number of megabytes is meaningless. It's the number of pixels. Across the 5 inch side I get 4,000 x 5 inches, which is 20,000 pixels. That means I can do a 16x20 at 1,000 dpi or a 32x40 at 500 dpi. I want to give myself the capacity to do the latter at higher than 360.

My own work is black and white and since black and white tonalities are much more sensitive than color, I want to have all I can get from my negative. I print with RIP so I don't have to worry about Epson driver issues. I initially used Cone inks, which I think are excellent but have moved on and am now mixing my own.

We all do everything we can to expose and develop correctly to get as much as we can in the capture step. Its my opinion, you can agree or disagree, that the scan is part of the capture when digital printing. To quote and extend an old adage, if it ain't there in the neg - or it ain't there in the scan, it won't be there in a digital print. Therefore, I think one needs to get as good a scan as they can.

There are lots of great drum scanners out there. Certainly, some are better than others, but they are all good, and all better than what one can get of an Epson Perfection flatbed, for instance.

If you get scans from someone else, it ought to be someone you can talk to, whether its West Coast Imaging, Bill Nordstrom, any number of others, or myself.. Then at least you can explain what you are after and get something that matches your aims rather than some generic thing... that may or may not.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[QT Luong]

I would like to hear about QT’s experience with the scans made in Mumbai. What equipment is used to scan the film, what resolution was possible, 8 bit or 16bit, and the cost.

Tango/Primescan, 8bit, 300MB. $8 for quantities > 1000

FYI, Bill Nordstrom used to send 200dpi to the Lightjet.

[JPlomley]

Then at least you can explain what you are after and get something that matches your aims rather than some generic thing

Tanya Stafford at Jainco Tech manages the scanning lab. She will scan exactly the way you want and will post the "pre-scans" to their FTP site for approval before doing the final scan. Not sure how much more interactive one needs to be. I've been exceptionally please with the 949 scans, they know I want no sharpening (-160 in the Flextight software), no burned out highlights (they monitor this closely) and good shadow detail but without augmenting noise. I doubt I could do a better job myself. Colors are spot on accurate for the E100VS and Velvia 50 chromes I have sent.

[Stephen Best]

FWIW, I get a 1.7 gig file from a 4x5, scanned at 4,000 dpi. Of course, the number of megabytes is meaningless. It's the number of pixels. Across the 5 inch side I get 4,000 x 5 inches, which is 20,000 pixels. That means I can do a 16x20 at 1,000 dpi or a 32x40 at 500 dpi. I want to give myself the capacity to do the latter at higher than 360.

I doubt there's any RIP/driver that can make meaningful use of these resolutions. Try downsampling to exactly 360ppi, output sharpening at this resolution then comparing the results. For smaller prints, Epson's driver will stage at 720ppi if you turn Finest Detail on. I use this for quarter size prints from my files but you're kidding yourself if you think you can see a difference on rag. Qimage (which I don't use) will also deliver 720ppi I believe. Anything higher than this just gets thrown away. Having more megabytes may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but unless you know how the data flows through the RIP/driver you may be doing more harm than good.

[Lenny Eiger]

I doubt there's any RIP/driver that can make meaningful use of these resolutions. Try downsampling to exactly 360ppi, output sharpening at this resolution then comparing the results. For smaller prints, Epson's driver will stage at 720ppi if you turn Finest Detail on. I use this for quarter size prints from my files but you're kidding yourself if you think you can see a difference on rag. Qimage (which I don't use) will also deliver 720ppi I believe. Anything higher than this just gets thrown away. Having more megabytes may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but unless you know how the data flows through the RIP/driver you may be doing more harm than good.

I have already done the 360 vs 720 test - years ago. I can see the difference in my setup, small as it may be. I am also almost positive that everything over 720 gets tossed. I use Ergosoft's StudioPrint, which I like very much. I am targeting the capacity to do a 40 inch print. 720 at 40 inches is 28,800 pixels. I am only using 20,000, which gets me 500 dpi at 40 inches. Since it's black and white, 6 dilutions, it IS better at 485 or so than it is at 360.

So it isn't about warm and fuzzy for me. I do know how to use my RIP. I know I am not doing more harm than good because I have done the comparisons. I use a RIP and I have way more control than you are imagining.

<vent>
On another topic - it's amazing to me that when people here find an opinion that is new, or different than their own, they automatically assume the other person is new at this and give them advice. Often (tho' not in this case at all) they are quite rude. I think it is a good thing to ask a question to find out the persons level of knowledge first before you make assumptions. As it turn out, I am using a more advanced system than the poster I am replying to. It's quite possible I am more experienced. It's also quite possible that he is getting fabulous results and making beautiful prints - I see no reason why would I assume any different.

I just think people ought to ask if someone has considered something before they jump to advise. Every few months I get on this forum and it's always been the same - there isn't a sense of mutual respect, or even respect for people that have been at this for years and years. I certainly don't have to be right about everything, but the conclusions I have come to - altho sometimes strong, or even too strong - have come from experience, not just parroting what others have said. Been doing this for more than 40 years....
</vent off>

[bob carnie]

All my work is at 400ppi, in fact the Lambda 76 will not work with the Harmon Digital Fibre Paper unless it is at 400ppi, Our Cibachromes are run at 400ppi as well.
I can see the difference *better* at 400ppi over the native 200ppi, as well I have seen scans from my Imocan compared to Repro Scans Tango and I do grudgingly admit that tango is better for certain applications. Most of my work that I am refering to is at 30x40 inch from medium size negatives/transparancies. I am with Lenny here on this one, Apples to Apples dead nut comparisons I do prefer for the larger gloss prints at 400ppi , tango scans or in his case Aztek scans, If I am printing inkjet on rag paper I see absolutely no need to go to a Tango Scan as the inks bleed and create a visual smoothness of tonality.
I scan daily on our Imocan but I would tend to defer to someone like Lenny who specializes in scans for a living for specific scanning needs. I control all aspects of my production and have the option to decide what my original input will be for any/all final output applications.Therefore for certain projects/photographers we do outsource to *real* drum scanning operations to get the results we require.
I believe it is all in the operator and his/her ability to look at the original, visulize what media it is going to be printed on and using good common sense to get there.
Just sending out images blind to operators who will bang out your scans for cheap prices may make total sense, but I do not think this is the best method for good scans for exceptional prints.

[Stephen Best]

On another topic - it's amazing to me that when people here find an opinion that is new, or different than their own, they automatically assume the other person is new at this and give them advice.

I'm sorry you took it this way, but maybe you should be careful of comments like printing 16x20s at 1000ppi as, by your own admission, such resolutions are self defeating. The intention is to give practical advice to others, not just throw around big numbers and imply how superior your approach is.

[Lenny Eiger]

I'm sorry you took it this way, but maybe you should be careful of comments like printing 16x20s at 1000ppi as, by your own admission, such resolutions are self defeating. The intention is to give practical advice to others, not just throw around big numbers and imply how superior your approach is.

I'm not suggesting you did anything horrible - it was just a comment and not particularly directed at you. However, if you re-read my post, I was very clear that I was looking for the higher size with the amt of pixels. Yet you're still giving me advice, telling me I should be careful. And I just have a bunch of experience, not the big inflated ego you want to suggest. Despite requesting some mutual respect, I'm not trying to impress anyone - I like the bigger numbers because they work for me.

As to a higher number of pixels to the printer - I don't see any degradation of quality from sending a larger file that gets dropped off to 720 at the printer. I suppose its possible with some other driver there would be, but there isn't on mine and I retain the capability to print it larger, and have a "Master File" with all my selections and adjustment layers, etc.

[Dave Jeffery]

"I believe it is all in the operator and his/her ability to look at the original, visulize what media it is going to be printed on and using good common sense to get there.
Just sending out images blind to operators who will bang out your scans for cheap prices may make total sense, but I do not think this is the best method for good scans for exceptional prints."

Thanks Bob! I would have resembled that remark. That's why I fish for input.

"visulize what media it is going to be printed on"

I had only considered trying to get scans made for the optimal printer input file sizes and I don't yet understand how the choice of print media effects how the film should be scanned.
I wrongfully assumed that with a high quality scan that only the color gamut reductions were an issue converting to print and that other desired effects and changes could be made in post. Hopefully I am not misunderstanding what you are saying.

Can anyone elaborate on this and are there some books or literature that I should read to get a better understanding of the process?

Thanks again Bob and others. The recent postings have been very beneficial. I'm slogging through "Color Management for Photographers" at the moment and need to do a lot more reading.

Looking forward to the leaves changing colors soon.