Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 270

Thread: Professional flatbed scanners?

  1. #151

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Lockrey View Post
    I agree with you in principle to be sure. But for what I primarily do, copy art work for artists, these prosumer scanners meet the requirements. Black paint is just so black and white is as white as the paper. If I get a demand for scanning 8mm film to make prints, 5600dpi will be what I need.
    And your specific application is nothing like what most people on this forum are trying to do with their scanners. For many of them, concerns about delivered sharpness and DMAX are very valid.
    Platinum/palladium, gum bichromate
    and photogravure printing

  2. #152

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,055

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian K View Post
    Greg don't get caught up in dpi, actually ppi, the difference in density and tonal range is significant and if the artist's whose work you scan do contunuous tone images with a great deal of subtlety, some of those subtle tones will be lost. That was the case with scans of my own prints on the Agfa Duoscan 2500 and the Microtek 9800xl.
    Brian,

    I think this can be described as delicateness of tone. That's what the fines prints show and it's a combination of perfect stepping movements and accuracy in recording delicate lighting, textures and shadows that bring imbed feelings into a print.

    The whole purpose of the very best prints is to evoke passion and allow the close study, nose in the print, as one admires the seamless beauty.

    For that, going from $750 to either $2,000 or $4500 for a used high end scanner seems reasonable, as long as one has work in that class to scan!

    Asher

  3. #153
    Greg Lockrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Temperance, MI
    Posts
    1,959

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian K View Post
    Greg don't get caught up in dpi, actually ppi, the difference in density and tonal range is significant and if the artist's whose work you scan do contunuous tone images with a great deal of subtlety, some of those subtle tones will be lost. That was the case with scans of my own prints on the Agfa Duoscan 2500 and the Microtek 9800xl.
    Thanks Brian, I'm not caught up in dpi/ppi I understand what is necessary. I know what you mean about subtlety of tones. So far, knock on wood (see me knock on my head), I haven't run into this issue with the artists I deal with. I scan 48 bit wherever possible vs. the 24 bit I see that BGSU does with their Creo. Apparently they think that it's enough since they are using that very high end scanner. Again 95% of what I do is reflective art and whenever I do transperancies 2 1/4" on up is my norm. I can definitly see a need for improvement at the 35mm level which I don't get any volume at all. If I get sufficient requests, I'll look towards a dedicated film scanner.
    Greg Lockrey

    Wealth is a state of mind.
    Money is just a tool.
    Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.



  4. #154

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    682

    Thumbs up Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian K View Post
    I posted a link that gives excellent head to head comparisons of scanners, maybe you should check it out.

    As for the very off topic stereo system discussion, it's been about 10 years since I was an active audiophile, and I've heard very good $5 and 10K systems, but head to head with the higher end systems you will hear a huge difference. And it has to be head to head, that is both systems in the same room playing the same material one after the other. It seems that people don't necessarily have a very good memory for sonic differences. All one can usually carry from one listening experience to another done on a different day in a different environment, is to listen to a recording that you know extraordinarily well and try to remember certain subtle details that you are accustomed to hearing and see if they are missing in the system being tested, or if you hear new details that might have been missing from your reference system.

    And the plain truth is that people have varying degrees of hearing acuity and many people have hearing loss in certain frequencies. Someone with hearing loss in the upper frequencies might think that a shrill screechy sounding system has details in the highs, whereas someone with good hearing might find the same system painful to listen to.
    I didn't cick on the list, but I did see a scanner test from this LF board I believe that has a few drum scanners/flatbeds and a few consumer flatbeds. It's a nice test, but it's no different to me than the online publications of the Canon 1DS 11MP camera resolving more information than MF when another has compared the Nikon D2X and has shown a remarked difference. Another showed the Canon 5D being worst than MF. How many of the "money makers" does one need to prove one side vs. the other side???

    More on Medium format-I have also seen a person do a head to head test with the Nikon 9000 and an Imacon and the Nikon 9000 flattened the Imacon. I know a person that just started shooting with a Rollei 6002? and says he has never seen the level of detail/resolution/etc. fromm the 6cm X 6cm piece of film. His reference and camera he has used for a long time with "very expensive" lenses=the Canon 5D. Yes, he says it outresolves he 5D "handily", and this is from both scans (off an Epson V700) and in print. Some around here and I'm sure many others have tossed the LF equipment in the garbage since they see no differences in the 5D up to 20X24. Is it that the flatbeds can resolve "less" information and therefore are "better" for scanning 35mm and medium format film? I have always heard it is the opposite, and that the larger the film, the better the results from an Epson flatbed.

    On the off-off-topic of things. Why don't you have a look around the web for the Linkwitz Orion speakers and find a review on them. You will see "groups" that have been formed to discuss these speakers that reviewers and members of the group consider to be "as good as sound gets". Look at what it costs to build them and maybe you can see that the dollar goes a lot further than it did when you heard the 5-10K systems. I have heard many 5-10K systems you may be referring to and they sound like absolute garbage. I have heard 60-100K systems and they sounded like absolute garbage. It's not about the money, but how everything is put together. People will be in this hobby the rest of their lives trying to find this amp to go with their beloved speakers or just have the luxery to buy/sell every speaker they chose each year to buy. But how they all put their system together and "most importantly", the "limitations" of the speakers in the system.

    I know there is some scientific study that proves the human forgets sound after a second?...your point about forgetting and remembering sound.

    I can tell you this much, I remember "precisely" how my Subaru WRX Wagon with turbo mods felt, drove, handled, etc. I know exactly how my friend's crapola Toyota Celica from vintage 80? is like. I know exactly what it feels like being in an Acura MDX/TSX, Lexus SUV (ugly looking mid-sized thing), etc. etc...this is "precisely" what it is with music for me. I can go and listen to those Orions I mentioned above in "any" place and know "exactly" what to expect. I have heard them for 12 hours on 4 different occassions. Maybe it is true that I cannot say, ohhhh...the way the cymbol came out on the left side of such and such a musical passage sounded way better on your Orions than they did at Linkwitz's house, but I can say "precisely" what they can and cannot do, and "precisely" how I feel "after" I have listened to them. What "precisely" I feel "everytime" I listen to them goes unchanged regardless of where I listen to them. This is the same thing for the Maggie 3.6R's...I have heard them maybe 10 hours, but they are so entirely "easy" to know and remember...these 20K "modern day" horns I have heard for 10 or so hours..again, extremely easy to know and remember. I won't go on with my cars and speakers I have heard list. Lastly, I have heard a ton of diy type speakers/systems that demolish super $$$ systems.

    Again, every speaker, every car, everything has a limitation. "However", you can know exactly what a speaker's limitations are, irrespective of the room and conditions, and can know "exactly" what can be expected even if that speaker is being run of 100K tube amps and all the best cabling/room dampening/blah blah blah...Sure, the speakers will sound "much better" than when we heard them in their far from optimal conditions...but they will still have the "exact same sound" that is possible from them. And I'm not saying to go listen to a system where the speakers each are facing the wall and not properly setup

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    682

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    I am not kicking the Epson scanners. I have a 4990 on my desk and use it almost every day. And for prints up to about 15X21" from 5X7" negatives it gives very good results IMO. In fact, almost every print I am currently showing was made from a scan with either a 4870 or 4990. However, for anything beyond 4X the results from the Epson 4990 are generally not acceptable for me with most subjects.

    I don't fully understand your question about our logic in choosing certain systems. To be frank, there is probably a lot more chance and personal interest than logic in some of my own choices.

    Sandy
    That print size is plenty acceptable to me. That's all I needed to hear/know...though that print size is only 3X and not 4X. What I gathered from what you said is that the high end scanners are world's apart from the consumer scanners. "Logically" speaking, if someone tells me Fiji is world's apart from Alabama, what do you expect me to think??? Fiji is indeed a world's difference from Alabama and makes anyone wonder why "anyone" in their "logical" mind would choose to vacation in Alabama vs. Fiji....this is why I responded the way I did...In my "illogical and chance based mind", does it not seem logical to wonder why someone would have to PAY ME to go to Alabama (aka Epson) when I know I can go to my dream place in Fiji (high end scanner).

    It is good to know what print size you find acceptable, but do you still see the differences at this print size??? In other words, are the scans from your high dollar machine better even at only 3X enlargement, or even at 2X enlargement? This is where my point, and only point exists...if two scanners are world's apart, then why wouldn't one see this even at a 2X enlargement...10X14?

  6. #156

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    682

    Thumbs up Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    Ditto. I've owned and tested everyone of the top of the top of the line prosumer Epsons, Microteks and Canons as they have come out, except the Microtek 800i (?) including the 1800F. I have tested them wet and dry and with custom holders (Like the Better Scaning holder which is superb). Each generation has been slightly better than the last, for instance, the Epson 750 Pro is a good bump from the 3200 but only slightly better than the 4990. IMO I could never get a file for a 16x20 b&w print that resolved even as good as a Imacon scan and not even close to a good pro flatbed or dru scan. Above 16x20, IMO scans from the prosmer flatbeds were unusable. I am talking resolution, noise and DMax. That 16x20 boundary may not be apparent to my clients, but is obvious to me.
    So 16X20 is "exactly" alike the better scanners? This would correlate to Sandy's point of 4X enlarging maximum. Are there "any" differences at 4X enlargement, 3X, 2X???

    If I have an 8X10 sheet being scanned, can I use the 4X theory and get a 36X40 print that looks as good as one that was scanned on these high end scanners?

    I'm trying to figure out "precisely" where the "threshold" is...and more importantly, whether or not the differences in the different scanners shows up at the smallest (1X/2X/3X) enlargening sizes.

    For me, if there are no differences, I can put my 8X10 sheet film onto the scanner and have as large of a print at 4X than I would ever make and would never need a drum scanner.

    Hopefully these are helpful questions for others so they can let them know what they have been achieving with their Epsons/Microteks/etc. are or are not as good as a drum/high end flatbed scan even at lower enlargements, or if vice versa, they want a print that looks no different to a high end scanner at whatever determined enlargement value, then that is what they can expect, know, etc.

  7. #157

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,477

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    A 5D will probably easily beat the pants off the sharpest 6x6 film if that film is scanned on a consumer flatbed. Scan that film on a professional film scanner, starting with a Nikon 9000 on up, and it's a different story.

    Part of the reason I went from shooting mostly medium format to shooting mostly large format is that I can scan 4x5 with a lot less expensive and critcal equipment, i.e. an Epson 4990 works fine for normal print sizes w 4x5. It sucks for 6x6.

    I actually thought my old 6mp D70 was a close match for Epson flatbed scanned 6x6. It was that bad...

  8. #158
    Rio Oso shooter
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    184

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Mr. Harris put his finger on the advantage exactly on point. From what I have seen trannies have a lot more information in the shadows than I can possibly get with my Epson V700 and conversely print film just can not be scanned to their full potential with anything but a professional scanner. Sometimes it is not necessary to get all that information but for the professionals it gives them the option to work with the scan on the spot and time is money for them. For us down at the lower level sending out a really good sheet to a shop to scan is time consuming but sometimes necessary. I have seen a 16x20 print from a sheet scanned both ways and it is sometimes not easily explained other than to say it can be the difference between magical and "pretty good". I have been to a couple of shows some of the respondents have done and they are magical experiences that no monitor surfing on the net can show you.

    Richard Adams

  9. #159

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,731

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by audioexcels View Post
    That print size is plenty acceptable to me. That's all I needed to hear/know...though that print size is only 3X and not 4X. What I gathered from what you said is that the high end scanners are world's apart from the consumer scanners. "Logically" speaking, if someone tells me Fiji is world's apart from Alabama, what do you expect me to think??? Fiji is indeed a world's difference from Alabama and makes anyone wonder why "anyone" in their "logical" mind would choose to vacation in Alabama vs. Fiji....this is why I responded the way I did...In my "illogical and chance based mind", does it not seem logical to wonder why someone would have to PAY ME to go to Alabama (aka Epson) when I know I can go to my dream place in Fiji (high end scanner).

    It is good to know what print size you find acceptable, but do you still see the differences at this print size??? In other words, are the scans from your high dollar machine better even at only 3X enlargement, or even at 2X enlargement? This is where my point, and only point exists...if two scanners are world's apart, then why wouldn't one see this even at a 2X enlargement...10X14?
    When I wrote that the high end scanners are world's apart from the consumer scanners I was thinking in terms of the quality of the scan itself, not final output. I won't comment further on that because Michael Mutmansky already addressed the issue thoroughly in this thread. However, if I were to compare the files of scans made with the Epson 4990 at 3175 ppi with one made with the EverSmart at the same resolution there really is no comparison. The one made with the EverSmart will have almost twice the resolution of the one made with the 4990. That is what I meant by worlds apart.

    What format you use, how many magnifications you print, and the final output device would have to be considered to know if the very significant difference in the quality of the scans would make a real difference on the print. Final print quality is always determined by the weakest link in the chain. For MF the weakest link would nearly always be the scanner when comparing the Epson and EverSmart. About the largest print I would consider acceptable from the 4990 from MF (6X7cm) would be about 9X11", whereas a scan from an EverSmart can easily be enlarged to twice that size, or 18X22".

    However, not even the EverSmart at 3175 ppi can pull all of the detail out of my Mamiya 7 MF negatives since the lenses of this system easily resolve 90 lppm at best aperture and on a tripod. For that one would need about 5000 ppi of "effective resolution." So maybe I need a drum scanner after all, or an EverSmart Supreme.


    Sandy King

  10. #160

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,731

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by audioexcels View Post
    I'm trying to figure out "precisely" where the "threshold" is...and more importantly, whether or not the differences in the different scanners shows up at the smallest (1X/2X/3X) enlargening sizes.

    For me, if there are no differences, I can put my 8X10 sheet film onto the scanner and have as large of a print at 4X than I would ever make and would never need a drum scanner.
    I personally always first calculate the threshold on theoretical grounds based on the assumption that the threshold of human vision is 5 lppm when a print is observed at the optimum viewing distance of 10"-12". However, I want a little more than the very threshold, so I calculate for 10 lppm at final print size.

    Now convert the effective resolution of your Epson to resolution in lppm. Assuming you are getting real resolution of 1800 ppi, that amounts to resolution of 35 lppm, or 1800 ppi/25.4/2. If you scan a 4X5, you would have 35 lppm of detail , 2X gives you 17lppm, 4X gives you 8.5 lppm. The 8.5 lppm of 4X is below my threshold so I would not consider a 16X20 from a 4X5 negative acceptable. Some might consider otherwise. And of course, some subjects may not need this much resolution, but landscapes usually do.

    The thing about detail is that it is either there or not. You can increase apparent sharpness in processing, but you can not put real detail into a file if it is not there to begin with.

    Sandy King

Similar Threads

  1. Plane of Best Focus of Flatbed Scanners
    By sanking in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2006, 13:24
  2. Home Testing Flatbed Scanners
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2006, 11:42
  3. Flatbed Scanners -- or "Am I an Idiot?"
    By Jack Flesher in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 5-Dec-2005, 15:05
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27-Sep-2004, 09:59
  5. Any flatbed scanners avail for 8 x 10
    By jesskramer in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 29-May-2004, 16:25

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
  •