Scan the ULF neg

[sanking]

Sandy, how about some details on the support issues? Your talking about your Eversmart Pro, correct?

Ted, don't get me started on the support issue, please. Basically it is useless unless you have a support contract with them. No one will even talk to you about any technical matter unless you spend something like a minimum of $200 for a support call. When I got my scanner I tried to find out if there was any way to make it work with oXYgen, which would allow high bit saves. All I wanted was a simple yes or no answer. I eventually found the answer, but no thanks to Kodak.

I understand this is the old Scitex way of doing business, adopted by Creo and then Kodak. But it does not work for folks like me.


Sandy

[jetcode]

I hear you, Sandy. Now I have to google to find info for these EverSmart or Ceanne Elite .Where can I get those? Are these scanner cost and an arm, a leg and a body too? Thanks again. TT

I purchased a Cezanne Elite shipped to my doorstep for $5900. Like Sandy said. I find that the scans are everything I will ever need from a scanner. In fact in my recent work my choice of film, Bergger 200, made a greater impact on the images then the lens I used or the scans I made at 3600spi.

[jetcode]

However, drum scan performance of over 5000 ppi is simply overkiil for 12X20 negatives, unless you plan to make billboard size prints that will be viewed at 10"-12".
Sandy King

I recently scanned a 4x10 image at 3600ppi (Cezanne Elite). Using a print resolution of 720dpi the image (cropped) is 3' long, at 360dpi 6' long and at 72dpi (100% on my monitor which provides great image detail including film grain) 30' long. The Elite is spec'd to scan up to 5300spi.

I suspect the high end drum scanners make a significant usable difference with smaller film formats.

[Dan Schmidt]

Dear Friends,
How do you digitize the file if you have a negative size bigger than 8x10. What would be the cost to scan the 12’x20’ negative excluding the cost of the print if I want the print size 4’x 8’. Any suggestions? Thanks. TT

I feel like Tri Tran was looking for an option which was not buy a scanner, but where to find an outfit that will scan the negative and find out about how much would it cost.

If you can't find someone who will do this with a negative, what about making a nice contact print and having a local graphics place with a decent large flatbed scanner scan the print? Then print enlargements from that.

[sanking]

I feel like Tri Tran was looking for an option which was not buy a scanner, but where to find an outfit that will scan the negative and find out about how much would it cost.

If you can't find someone who will do this with a negative, what about making a nice contact print and having a local graphics place with a decent large flatbed scanner scan the print? Then print enlargements from that.

You may be right in that Tri was looking for someone to scan his negative. If so he might contact Ted or Lenny or someone else who can make the scan.

Making a contact print and then making a digital file from the print is not a good option IMO because it will result in a great loss of detail and sharpness going to 4' X 8'. To make a print that size that takes full advantage of the negative will require a scan with resolution of at least 1440 ppi.

Sandy King

[Tri Tran]

You may be right in that Tri was looking for someone to scan his negative. If so he might contact Ted or Lenny or someone else who can make the scan.

Making a contact print and then making a digital file from the print is not a good option IMO because it will result in a great loss of detail and sharpness going to 4' X 8'. To make a print that size that takes full advantage of the negative will require a scan with resolution of at least 1440 ppi.

Sandy King

Thanks everyone for the great advises and suggestion.I called several graphic art lab and they all suggest to reproduce the contact print with digital scan back . I fully agreed with Sandy that it will lost some details vs scan at high resolution. But for high ticket item scan I don't think I have enough use for that machine especially 98% my works are contact print . The solution for me is better off paying somebody to do this kind of work as far as I go .If you know someone would do this kind of service please forward me the info off site is much appreciated.Thanks again and have a good one. TT

[Kirk Gittings]

Email Ted Harris on this forum. He can scan 12x17. So you will end up with a single stitch.

[Lenny Eiger]

Tri,

With all due respect to Lenny Eiger, I would suggest that you discard his advice re: the Howteck 7500. This is a very complicated piece of equipment and one that is difficult to keep going.

Much better in my opinion to look for one of the high end flatbeds, say EverSmart or Ceanne Elite. These units, though large, are much more reliable than drum scanners, and they provide way more performance than you will need for 12X20 scans for any size print up to 48" X 80".

Sandy

That doesn't sound like all due respect to me, telling someone to discard my advice. You are always welcome to disagree. Telling them to discard my advices suggests that I am giving people incorrect information, and that you know better. Apparently, you don't have a Howtek drum scanner, or any drum scanner, for that matter, so I don't know how you can speak to their complexity or reliabilty.

The 6500/7500 is not a complicated piece of equipment - certainly not any more than a high end flatbed. They are available as refurbished equipment, and they are currently supported by Aztek. It's easy to get a refurb drum, have a maintenance done, etc. It's also easy to mount an image and do a great scan.

I know this is a point in contention, partially because of Bill Gillooley's assertions that a couple of the top flatbeds can equal the output of a drum scanner. I respect Bill, and I know he believes what he says, but I don't believe it for a minute, and no one has been able to come up with any evidence to this effect. As far as I am concerned, a drum scan is far superior, sharper, PMT is clearly better technology.

I now have a Premier, which is a new machine, but I ran a Howtek 4500 for years and I never had to take it apart, or do anything special to it.

There was one other questions as to why one would need 5000 dpi on such a large neg. The 6500/7500 (same machine) had two drums. the smaller one did 5000 dpi, the larger one does only 2500. It's still a lot, but one doesn't have to use it all....

Lenny
EigerStudios

[sanking]

Lenny,

How plain can it be? I believe you are giving bad advice and should stop it. Suggesting that someone needs to make a scan of a 12X20" negative with a drum scanner for a final print of the size indicated by the OP (4' X 8') is ludicrous. Your answer to every scan question appears to be, get a drum scan. Well, a drum scan is not necessary for everything.

I have had scans made with drum scanners, I have worked with drum scanners, and I have spoken to numerous people about them and I feel every bit as qualified as you to comment about them. The comments I have had from people in the industry is that they are much more prone to breaking down than high end flatbeds.

I have never said that a top professional flatbed can output a top of the line drum scanner. In fact, I am absolutely certain that a Howtek 6500/7500 is capable of better absolute performance than the very best professional flatbed. But your suggestion that someone needs to scan a 12X20" negative with a drums scanner is simply absurd. Unless you plan to print at more than 8' X 16', in which case the proposition might make some sense. You really need to do some calculations about image quality before running off your mouth about the advantages of a drum scanner every time someone asks about a scan. Have you ever made a scan of a 12X20" or larger negative? I have made many, and your suggestion that a drum scanner is needed for the print size indicated by the OP is just flat false. And the file size is further severely limited by potential of your computer and software. A scan of a 12X20 negative on my EverSmart Pro at 3175 ppi, at 16 bit, gives a final file size of over 4.5 gig. Even half that much resolution (1600 ppi at 16 bit at 1.15 gig) gives way more than needed for a 4'X8' print. And files of 1.15 gig and 4.5 gig take a long time to process here where I work.

Sandy King

That doesn't sound like all due respect to me, telling someone to discard my advice. You are always welcome to disagree. Telling them to discard my advices suggests that I am giving people incorrect information, and that you know better. Apparently, you don't have a Howtek drum scanner, or any drum scanner, for that matter, so I don't know how you can speak to their complexity or reliabilty.

The 6500/7500 is not a complicated piece of equipment - certainly not any more than a high end flatbed. They are available as refurbished equipment, and they are currently supported by Aztek. It's easy to get a refurb drum, have a maintenance done, etc. It's also easy to mount an image and do a great scan.

I know this is a point in contention, partially because of Bill Gillooley's assertions that a couple of the top flatbeds can equal the output of a drum scanner. I respect Bill, and I know he believes what he says, but I don't believe it for a minute, and no one has been able to come up with any evidence to this effect. As far as I am concerned, a drum scan is far superior, sharper, PMT is clearly better technology.

I now have a Premier, which is a new machine, but I ran a Howtek 4500 for years and I never had to take it apart, or do anything special to it.

There was one other questions as to why one would need 5000 dpi on such a large neg. The 6500/7500 (same machine) had two drums. the smaller one did 5000 dpi, the larger one does only 2500. It's still a lot, but one doesn't have to use it all....

Lenny
EigerStudios

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

How plain can it be? I believe you are giving bad advice and I don't have a lot of respect for people who give bad advice.

The feeling is mutual. I believe you are giving bad advice. I don't choose to disrespect you over it as I don't think its necessary to get personal here. We are talking about things, and concepts like sharpness. Your answer is almost always a flatbed scanner. Preferably the one you bought.

I am in my 50's, have been doing photography since I was 9, have at least as much experience as you in every aspect of the sport. I have Masters degrees and everything else, and I am a serious artist (or at least I take myself seriously). I run a drum scanner every day, and I have for years. There is no reason for any disrespect, it is beneath you.

It's easy enough to direct a comment towards a person that with respect suggests that you disagree wholeheartedly, or that your experience has been quite different. That's healthy for everyone.

Suggesting that someone needs to make a scan of a 12X20" negative with a drum scanner for a final print of the size indicated by the OP (4' X 8') is ludicrous. Your answer to every scan question appears to be, get a drum scan. Well, a drum scan is not necessary for everything.

I'm sorry, if I was going to make an 8 foot print, I'd want to use a drum scanner. Plain and simple. I just made a 20 foot print - and you better believe I used a drum scanner, and at the highest setting. Do I think he needs one for a 40 inch from a 20 inch neg? No. But if I had 5K to spend and I had my choice of flatbed or drum scanner, it wouldn't be hard choice. Especially if we are talking about the low to mid range flatbeds. These things are with the reach of many people.

Does every amateur need a drum scanner? No, of course not. There are many people who want to print to 8x10 or 11x14 and never go any larger. They have a lot of choices.

I have had scans made with drum scanners, I have worked with drum scanners, and I have spoken to numerous people about them and I feel every bit as qualified as you to comment about them. The comments I have had from people in the industry is that they are much more prone to breaking down than high end flatbeds.

Maybe I have just been lucky. Haven't been down for a single day in 6 years. I know that there are a lot of scanners out there that are a lot older than mine have been, and some where someone is repairing things with parts from another and all... all to save a buck. It's great, if someone has more time than funds... and the desire to tinker a bit. And I don't think that you can be every bit as qualified as someone who actually uses a drum scanner unless you have one yourself. There's plenty to learn.

I have never said that a top professional flatbed can output a top of the line drum scanner. In fact, I am absolutely certain that a Howtek 6500/7500 is capable of better absolute performance than the very best professional flatbed. But your suggestion that someone needs to scan a 12X20" negative with a drums scanner is simply absurd. Unless you plan to print at more than 8' X 16', in which case the proposition might make some sense. You really need to do some calculations about image quality before running off your mouth about the advantages of a drum scanner every time someone asks about a scan. Have you ever made a scan of a 12X20" or larger negative? I have made many, and your suggestion that a drum scanner is needed for the print size indicated by the OP is just flat false.

Of course, no one "needs to" do anything. However, I've made a few 8 foot prints in my time. One thing I noticed is that every little detail is right there for everyone to see - even at half that size. I also noticed that unless there was a barrier in front of the image, every person walked right up to it and got as close as their eyes could focus. The concept of a viewing distance that people will adhere to in their own, is simply unrealistic. When people get that close to my work, I'd want whatever pixels they get to see to be as sharp and clean as possible.

There are plenty of calculations that one could do. Some times they work and some times they don't. I asked Phil Lippincott about the Nyquist theorem once. He just laughed and told me it just didn't work in real life... Now, I can't judge that one - I am not going to dismiss either Lippincott or Nyquist, both giants in their own way. However, I have noticed that some things that ought to work mathematically don't, maybe there's a few more variables not counted for, and results on the physical plane are a little different. Do I think you can make an 8 foot print from the flatbed - of course. Would it be better off the drum? I would be willing to bet it would... that's just my opinion, tho'. Depends on what someone wants out of the print.

Lenny Eiger