Page 35 of 62 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 620

Thread: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

  1. #341

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    270

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    I was wondering why you would want the mask in the trim area as the scanner may end up focuing on the mask rather than the film. However, I'm pontificating in the dark here because I do not know how the Cezanne focuses.
    Peter Y.

  2. #342

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,055

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    If your refering to the black light excluding rectangles we use to prevent flare as a mask here, we're on a different page.

    If you mean the orange mask build into the film emulsion, I put the clear edge in the trim area to somewhat neutralize the orange color.

    Edit: I neutralize the mask in Photoshop by turning it neutral grey. I do not attempt this in Color Genius (not even sure if it is possible with color wheel).

    Switching subjects again....

    BTW, I have found the light excluding black mask to be essential for small film, less so for sheet film. In fact putting the mask on top of hold down tray. appears to work well too and eliminates the small airgap caused by the mask between the upper plate and the film.

    bob
    Last edited by Bob McCarthy; 7-Nov-2011 at 12:38.

  3. #343

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    63

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    Hi Bob, Peter;

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter York View Post
    I was wondering why you would want the mask in the trim area as the scanner may end up focuing on the mask rather than the film. However, I'm pontificating in the dark here because I do not know how the Cezanne focuses.
    In my earlier tests, I ensured not to include the black mask overlay in my trim area, for the very reason you mention. There too, the resulting scans lacked the sharpness I associate with the Cezanne.

    Now, someone off list suggested that the black masking overlay shouldn't be used in combination with the transparent hold down tray. Instead:

    It should be placed on top of the film itself and the hold down tray left unused (I assumed this method cannot ensure good film flatness, as the masking overlay alone can't keep curled film very flat)

    or

    The film should be sandwiched between the scanning bed and the hold down tray, and the masking overlay placed on top of the hold down tray.

    Which is the correct method? The Screen manual seems to suggest that the film needs to be covered with the masking overlay and the hold down tray placed on top of that. With this method, I'm getting soft scans; or should I say, results which indicate that the hold down tray's anti newton rings texture is being picked up by the scanner and shows in the scans.

    Are there people here who do not use the masking overlay at all? If so, do you not get flares in your scans?


    Thanks for your suggestions.

    MD

  4. #344

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    63

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    Since I didn't have a USAF 1951 chart, I used an Arri image analysis focus chart imaged on a 5 ISO negative by a laser recorder. Here are two 5300 spi scans of a section of that chart, with and without the masking overlay between the scanning bed and the hold down tray.

    To me, it looks like the scan without the masking overlay (film sandwiched between scanning bed and tray) is not sharp, although it should be. I think. I can see what looks like the anti newton pattern interfering with the line patterns in the chart. Because I don't have another Cezanne to compare with, I'm unsure if what I'm noticing is normal.

    Comments welcome.

    I would be really grateful if someone would be willing to scan the chart. I could mail it to you. In that case PM me.

    Thanks
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails arriChart.gif  

  5. #345

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,055

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    I think I just picked up the disconnect, at least for me. I see your testing at 5300 spi which is so high in the rarified air to be almost unworkable unless everything is just so, and your negative is tack-tack sharp.

    A couple of thoughts.

    Color negative film is very complex and has a reputation for not being as sharp as transparency and B&W. I believe this rep is deserved. I also suspect its so low in contrast, at 5300 spi, the Cezanne struggles to nail focus and can be influenced by things like the antialias texture on the bed and clamp.

    Even with 35mm I rarely scan beyond 4000 spi. Even the best of scanner lenses are getting into a low mtf territory. The Epson users typically scan at 4000 (or more) spi and then downres to a lower number. Effectively this is oversampling and a form of noise reduction, and to a degree sharpening. But no data is being gathered over native, just smoother results. Epsons run about 2000 spi native resolution. Can never get more than that.

    Contrast the Cezanne, it runs out of gas at just over 5000 spi but at 5000 it is soft just like the Epson is at 2000. The better lenses and more accurate scanning bed buy you a lot of additional resolution.

    To the point, we shoot large format. I rarely scan over 2000 spi and at 2000 spi the Cezanne is smoking hot resolution wise, no reason to scan at a higher resolution, the lenses and scanning table are in the sweet spot, unlike the cheap machines which are on the ragged edge.

    That is why you buy a Cezanne in my opinion. Sure you can sharpen a Epson file to give the illusion of sharpness, at the expose of tone and artifacts. The Cezanne requires very little sharpening in comparison. You certainly dont need to oversample and downsize. And the final scan is just better, you get what you paid for.

    Test your 5000 at 2000 spi. You might like it a lot better.

    bob
    Last edited by Bob McCarthy; 8-Nov-2011 at 12:40. Reason: spi spi spi

  6. #346

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,055

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    Quote Originally Posted by mdala View Post
    Since I didn't have a USAF 1951 chart, I used an Arri image analysis focus chart imaged on a 5 ISO negative by a laser recorder. Here are two 5300 spi scans of a section of that chart, with and without the masking overlay between the scanning bed and the hold down tray.

    To me, it looks like the scan without the masking overlay (film sandwiched between scanning bed and tray) is not sharp, although it should be. I think. I can see what looks like the anti newton pattern interfering with the line patterns in the chart. Because I don't have another Cezanne to compare with, I'm unsure if what I'm noticing is normal.

    Comments welcome.

    I would be really grateful if someone would be willing to scan the chart. I could mail it to you. In that case PM me.

    Thanks

    This is interesting. I dont sense the difference is resolution, but contrast. You may be right about the anti-newton pattern. I dont think you will ever see any difference in a print, however.

    I wonder how wet mounting would change the result?

    bob

  7. #347

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    You can post in the classifieds here, and/or try Ebay, Craigslist...

    Condition is very important. Does the bed have scratches? How Old are the bulbs? Is the calibration strip in good repair? What accessories are included? What is your location? (I'm not asking you to answer those questions here, but those are some of the questions that you would want to answer.)

    I paid $900 for mine, which included Color Genius V1. That doesn't include travel costs to pick it up, which were considerable.

    The software included isn't that desirable. Color Genius would be better.
    This scanner has had *very* little usage, at least for the past 6 yrs. We are talking once-a-year usage. It wasn't used for negatives or transparencies. There are no scratches on the bed. The bulbs are at least 4 yrs old (but hardly ever used). We also have a sealed package containing a couple of new bulbs. I couldn't find a calibration strip. It also comes with 3 masking sheets and 2 retaining plates, the standard tray, and the manuals. We are located just north of Indianapolis. Unless there is some interest in this forum, I'm going to list it on Ebay in the near future for $500.
    Any other thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.

  8. #348

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    63

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    Hi Bob,

    thanks for taking the time to write.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy View Post
    I think I just picked up the disconnect, at least for me. I see your testing at 5300 spi which is so high in the rarified air to be almost unworkable unless everything is just so, and your negative is tack-tack sharp.
    I regularly drum scan medium format at 6000 spi and that resolution isn't "so high in the rarified air to be almost unworkable". Films like Ektar 100 produce beautiful 50 inches prints when scanned at that resolution. I don't see how 5300 spi from the Cezanne would be an issue. The only issue I'm having now is that the Cezanne doesn't seem to focus properly..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy View Post
    Contrast the Cezanne, it runs out of gas at just over 5000 spi but at 5000 it is soft just like the Epson is at 2000. The better lenses and more accurate scanning bed buy you a lot of additional resolution.
    The earlier comparison scans I made between the drum scanner and the Cezanne show that, resolution wise, the Cezanne holds very well at 5300. Dynamic range is where it is lacking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy View Post
    To the point, we shoot large format. I rarely scan over 2000 spi and at 2000 spi. Test your 5000 at 2000 spi. You might like it a lot better
    You must have assumed I was scanning large format at 5300spi on the cezanne. That's not the case. I would scan at a lower resolution if the originals were 4x5 or larger.

    MD

  9. #349
    Peter J. De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,210

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    According to the Seybold report, the Cezanne can capture detail up to at least 5700 spi, which was the limit of their ability to test. I regularly scan at 6000 spi for 35mm film. While I would never need that big of a file, as I wouldn't print larger than about 12 inches on the long dimension with 35 mm film, it does produce a scan with finer grain than the other options that I tested.

    Here are two ideas.

    One: use blue painter's tape to tape down the negative. Use a piece the length of the long side of the negative. With curly negatives, tape the negative flat under some tension. Scan. Is is better than with the hold down sheet?

    Two: get a piece of acrylic bigger than the negative, with thicker being better. Place the negative emulsion down on the scanner platen. Now place some masking material with an appropriate opening over the negative. Place the piece of clear acrylic on top. The negative should only touch the acrylic at a small place, if any. Scan. Do you get Newton's rings? If so, then this won't work, but you might not get them. Is the scan sharper?
    "No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit." - Helen Keller
    www.peterdesmidt.com/blog

  10. #350

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,055

    Re: Screen Cezanne Users Unite

    Is there any chance you did one scan with sharpening off and the other with it on (default).

    Bob


    Quote Originally Posted by mdala View Post
    Since I didn't have a USAF 1951 chart, I used an Arri image analysis focus chart imaged on a 5 ISO negative by a laser recorder. Here are two 5300 spi scans of a section of that chart, with and without the masking overlay between the scanning bed and the hold down tray.

    To me, it looks like the scan without the masking overlay (film sandwiched between scanning bed and tray) is not sharp, although it should be. I think. I can see what looks like the anti newton pattern interfering with the line patterns in the chart. Because I don't have another Cezanne to compare with, I'm unsure if what I'm noticing is normal.

    Comments welcome.

    I would be really grateful if someone would be willing to scan the chart. I could mail it to you. In that case PM me.

    Thanks

Similar Threads

  1. Screen Cezanne FT s5000 scanner
    By hbjornson in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 16-Feb-2008, 09:36
  2. feedback: long time Maxwell Screen users?
    By Arne Norris in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2008, 00:42
  3. Screen Cezanne Elite Questions
    By Tim Shawcross in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2007, 06:27
  4. Initial Report: Maxwell Screen on Wista DX II
    By John Hollenberg in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15-Sep-2003, 19:37

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
  •