Screen Cezanne Users Unite

[analoguey]

That's some useful info!

[Peter De Smidt]

It's great to have you here, TC542.

[TC542]

Hi All . . .I received a reply from my colleague . . He stated that the Cezanne series ceased production in 2009, but they have to support parts until Aug.2016.
Therefore you should be able to obtain the software . . CG EX2.1x for MacOS10.x.x . . via any SCREEN support centre.
It will be expensive, and you must ensure that you have the correct Driver on your scanner before going onto a higher version of CG EX. . . Even from CG EX2.0x to V2.1x . . !!
I may be able to help if anyone needs help during this process. . . . ;-)
BR.TC542

[Clickwrr]

Hello, just wondering if anyone has a profile for Velvia that they wouldn't mind sharing?
Thanks

Bruce

[Corran]

Hi Clickwrr,

What exactly do you need for a profile? When I scan positive film, I just set the HD / SD values as roughly all 0.05 on the HD side and about 3.00 or 4.00 on the SD values. This is a flat scan that gives the colors that are on the film. I also set the MIN/MAX to 0 and 255 on all channels.

If you need to adjust the colors or shadow/highlights, I use the curves (either in the software or Photoshop).

Check out Peter's excellent blog post here for more info:

http://peterdesmidt.com/blog/?p=361

"Profiles" for different color negative film would be more necessary (I have notes for many negative films I use that are basically my HD / SD values for a given film).

[Peter De Smidt]

I can make an icc profile for Velvia, as I have Wolf Faust's targets. I'm not sure when i'll be able to get to it, though. How are you scanning the film, i.e. are you wet-mounting, using a hold down sheet....?

[Clickwrr]

Hi Corran, just wanting to see if a profile will give a better result or quicker screen time than what I am getting. I have read Peters very informative info, and while I am happy with the results, just seeing if it can be better.

[Clickwrr]

Hi Peter, dry mount on the plate and holder with mask.

[Corran]

I would love to get some opinions from other Cezanne users about an issue I have been having...

I love color transparencies but boy does this scanner seem to hate them. Without really having a low-contrast chrome it just seems to suck in the shadow areas. What's the actual DMax that the Cezanne can pull through?

I have been developing my own transparencies for almost two years ago and honestly I thought it was just my developing or exposure (though the chromes look perfect on a light table) so when I had the opportunity to test a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for my friend I put an old chrome on it as a test.

Here is the result - the best I could pull from the Cezanne on top, the Nikon on the bottom with only a slight tweak to the curves. Yes there is a bit more detail in the highlights of the Cezanne but I think I probably could tweak the scan on the Nikon to pull that in but the shadow detail is no contest.

These are fresh bulbs, brand new from Screen just a few months ago.

Am I doing something wrong, is there something wrong, or is this scanner just so-so on the DMax? This is Velvia 50 BTW, so really deep shadow values of course.



I wouldn't mind using a different scanner for chromes if the Cezanne just doesn't pull the shadow detail out of them but the Coolscan solution doesn't work for 4x5, obviously. And I still have a lot of LF chrome film in the freezer. That said, the detail on both is about the same - high praise for the Cezanne.

Velvia 50 is certainly the hardest thing to scan. The mass of shadows in the upper left on the Nikon scan is still pretty much gone but the transparency has tone.

[Peter De Smidt]

Dmax is about 3, as tested with a Stouffer stepwedge.

Have you tried a scan made with all of the options in the finish column removed? That's as unprocessed a scan as you can get with the Cezanne.

How much were the bulbs?