Ian,Originally Posted by IanMazursky
Are you still doing scanning and do you have anything to add now that 5 years have passed? Also what's your experience with making film from the scans or a digital file. How many line pairs/mm can the Durst system achieve in the transparency or the negative film?
Asher
Asher,
yes he does(his website):
http://www.prepressexpress.com/pages...ing/index.html
-Dan
Hi Asher,Ian,
Are you still doing scanning and do you have anything to add now that 5 years have passed? Also what's your experience with making film from the scans or a digital file. How many line pairs/mm can the Durst system achieve in the transparency or the negative film?
Asher
Yes, im running 2 drum scanners. An Aztek Premier and a Howtek 7500 with DPL Pro on both.
I never plan to give them up, one of those over my dead body situations
Ive been scanning a lot of 8x10s recently, lots of Kodaks new Portra 160/400 and Ektar 100.
Also some 12x20s, 11x14s, 7x17s and 8x20s. Its really a lot of fun to scan them, the detail is amazing.
I have a 12x20 Korona but everytime i can see/hold another format, makes me want to buy it.
I have 2 Durst LVT Rhino's and im getting the 16x20 LVT by the end of the year. Just need to make some room.
The LVTs themselves are more or less simple machines consisting of 20+ year old boards (good ones though) paired with excellent optics and super sensitive stepper motors and encoders.
The software is also simple, it like what it likes and rejects anything it doesn’t.
The calibration and filtering is complex and takes a lot of time to learn.
Once you have it down, the chromes or negs can be repeated within the film and processors tolerances.
The way the LVT images is not like an inkjet printer or lightjet. It uses a special aperture that looks kinda like this <> (without the space in the middle)
The individual pixels are interlaced so that even with a 50x loupe, you cant see them. I have a 50x here and its seamless a true contone with no discernible pixels.
I bet with a higher power loupe, you couldn’t find a pixel edge. I have seen lots of prints from the color negs ive made for some clients and they’re amazing.
The LVT can expose at different resolutions (RES 20, 40 80…). I only use the highest, RES 80, 80 PPmm (pixels per millimeter) or 2,032 PPI ( pixels per inch).
From the quick research i did, it may equate to 80 LPmm? Im not sure how the calculation the LP/mm from these numbers.
Some LVT backstory: Durst had very little to do with the LVTs. Kodak originally made them, marketed them and supported them.
Kodak sold the support contracts to Durst at some point along with most of the techs (i still cant believe you can sell people
A little while later, they sold the entire LVT line to Durst who didn’t do much with it, they did chop the legs off of a 1010 and that’s how we ended up with the Rhinos.
The Rhino is a 1010 just smooshed into a desktop unit.
Durst ended up in a legal battle with themselves, Durst US vs. Durst Italy (parent company).
I know it was wicked nasty and may have boiled down to Durst US making more money then Durst IT. Anyway in the end the entire LVT line was a casualty of the battle.
It was very sad, they had orders and support contracts. Now there is only one or two guys left in the world who know how to fix them.
Luckily one guy is 45 minutes from me! He's a great guy and i bought all 3 of my LVTs from him.
They are amazing machines but you do need a support guy, they can fail without warning due to aging chip and other things.
Ian,
I love the idea of keeping these machines going. Get the guy to write a service manual. If anything happens to him, you're in trouble, LOL!
For contact prints they would appear to be perfect. For enlarging that translation of pixels to line pairs would predict how large one can enlarge the 8x10 optically to be able to view at 2ft and it appear real still with sharp lines where they should be.
Asher
Hi Asher,Ian,
I love the idea of keeping these machines going. Get the guy to write a service manual. If anything happens to him, you're in trouble, LOL!
For contact prints they would appear to be perfect. For enlarging that translation of pixels to line pairs would predict how large one can enlarge the 8x10 optically to be able to view at 2ft and it appear real still with sharp lines where they should be.
Asher
Me too, they’re like my children. This is sad but ive named them all, this is a holdover from my pre press days when we named everything.
The tech is a great guy, he lives so close that if i need him, hes here. He has given me all of the basic info i need to keep it running.
The more in depth nitty gritty is stuff like replacing encoders and motors i cant do myself. In some cases you need a o scope or metering to figure it out. As far as i know, there was no user service guide ever formally written up, just a lot of scattered hand written pages only given to techs.
Each machine can be slightly different, updated boards, voltages, updated parts…that’s one of the reasons i bought 3, a just in case maneuver.
My bank account may never forgive me but i have piece of mind and that’s priceless.
Many if not all of the parts that can fail aren’t off the shelf or they just don’t make them anymore. He has a small stock but the trick is not to break it
Here is a good case, there is a chip that holds a lot of the programing data, its very temp sensitive (for whatever reason, they placed it next to a heat sync that is hot all the time!) and has a lifespan of about 10 years on time.
Wouldn’t you know it but ive blown it twice, they’re expensive to replace. So i spent a considerable amount of money and with his help bought a chip programmer and a lot of NOS chips from overseas. I was able to duplicate them onto new chips with new batteries.
His stock is original and near or past its lifespan, now he has a whole set of new ones. I did the same with a few of the other prone to fail chips.
We now can repair the $800 main board that was made by DEC Digital 20 years ago. That is a triumph considering the pile of dead ones he has that should be up and running soon.
For contact prints, its just like a camera neg but made to your specs ie. contrast and retouching.
Enlarging them is easy, in most cases easier then printing from the camera negs. You can build in a lot of the color and contrast adjustments, especially the ones you cant do traditionally because of crossovers.
Ive seen some 30x40s and 30x60s from 6x12cm color negs i made on 160NC that look identical to the prints made by his camera negs.
Its pretty cool to think that a machine made over 20 years ago is still relevant let alone still works.
I have never done that kind of test but i would be interested to see the results. If you have a guide to how i can do it or a test pattern file, id love to give it a go. Please PM or email me if you have one.
I also have a Durst L1200 with a CLS501 color head that i can run a test with. I haven’t had time to print with it much but i would love to put her through the paces.
Although the L1200 can only do 4x5s, i can image 4x5s and 8x10s easily. I have also made a few tests of targets that i have scanned in on my howtek at 5000 ppi, they look pretty good without sharpening. Im not sure if that could yield a LP/mm?
Kodak/Creo IQ 2 or 3 can scan 11x14 film
Nov., 2011
Should you require extraordinary quality and larger than 11" X 14" transmissive scans, let me know. I am in the Greater Toronto Area. Max. Live-area is 13.8" X 18.5" in one super-high resolution pass. Anything larger... I scan in overlapping sections an electronically stitch. Cheers!
O.K., Ian, the scan of the 11x14 has been made and it's time to print.
You now plan to print by using some digitally controlled laser or LED. So what quality will we get? What lp/mm in a print at 5x enlargement can be achieved from a reasonably well exposed 11x14 100G Kodak transparency or Portra NC negative. Will this be noticeable better than a 7x enlargement from an 8x10 size tranny or negative of the same quality.
Asher
11x14 X 5(magnification) = ~55X70in print size
8x10 X 7(magnification) = ~56x70in print size
you'll probably see more "grain" in the 8x10 enlargement than in the 11x14 one, simply b/c its being magnified more(stretched) to its final size. However, a 7x enlargement for 8x10 even isn't going to show a lot of grain, unless the film as been pushed to hell in development.
Less magnification means overall better tonal quality in the final print.
Not to mention getting a run of 11x14 film made, if it wasn't already available. Then you have processing costs(minimal compared to scanning, PS'ing and final printing/mounting costs at the target print size)
Not very many labs have over 50" RA-4 machines these days, at least in LA...
-Dan
P.S. If you don't already have an 11x14 camera + top of the line lenses, why not just shoot it on 8x10 Asher? You're already set up for 8x10, getting scans for 8x10 is going to be MUCH easier than for 11x14, getting E-6 or C-41 film is going to be MUCH easier, and MUCH cheaper than 11x14, and at your suggested print sizes, 8x10 has worked for 1000's of commercial photographers over the past 50+ years of shooting chromes/negs. Yes, 11x14 color is a nice thing, but unless you got the dough(and serious dough if talking 11x14 color), but for most its just a pipe dream. I don't even know of a lab here in LA outside of the Icon that processes 11x14 E-6/C-41, so that might/could be a factor too. Mailing film back and forth to a NY lab isn't my idea of fun, just for test shots...
[QUOTE=DanielStone;803652]11x14 X 5(magnification) = ~55X70in print size
8x10 X 7(magnification) = ~56x70in print size
Exactly! I'm building to that final size and comparing end results.
you'll probably see more "grain" in the 8x10 enlargement than in the 11x14 one, simply b/c its being magnified more(stretched) to its final size. However, a 7x enlargement for 8x10 even isn't going to show a lot of grain, unless the film as been pushed to hell in development.[QUOTE=DanielStone;803652]
I was hoping for Ian to have direct experience as he scans that size. It's the feeling of the print that I'm interested in, the presence and aura which depend on a lot of factors but also the grain, sharpness, resolution and tonalities.
With my camera obscura, film size will be irrelevant except for getting enough light on a live subject. For 11x14, it's no issue with flash. I have enough lenses to cover that size. I'm just interested, for now, in the feelings of folk who actually use 11x14 and enlarge it.Not to mention getting a run of 11x14 film made, if it wasn't already available. Then you have processing costs(minimal compared to scanning, PS'ing and final printing/mounting costs at the target print size)[it's available if needed.
That's a pity! Are there some at least? The Icon I believe does it and since AandI as dropped out of film, The Icon has much more work and has been strengthened!
P.S. If you don't already have an 11x14 camera + top of the line lenses, why not just shoot it on 8x10 Asher? You're already set up for 8x10, getting scans for 8x10 is going to be MUCH easier than for 11x14, getting E-6 or C-41 film is going to be MUCH easier, and MUCH cheaper than 11x14, and at your suggested print sizes, 8x10 has worked for 1000's of commercial photographers over the past 50+ years of shooting chromes/negs. Yes, 11x14 color is a nice thing, but unless you got the dough(and serious dough if talking 11x14 color), but for most its just a pipe dream. I don't even know of a lab here in LA outside of the Icon that processes 11x14 E-6/C-41, so that might/could be a factor too. Mailing film back and forth to a NY lab isn't my idea of fun, just for test shots...
Asher
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks