Screen Cezanne Users Unite

[Corran]

Attention Screen Cezanne Users:

I am offering a limited-time order of replacement lamps at cost + shipping/fees. More info can be found on this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ead.php?132455

(FYI, this post is approved by the moderation team.)

[coisasdavida]

Had the part pre-ordered at THK. Went to take the scanner apart and check part number. Took the light table out. Found out greese that I tried to place on the belt right axis never really made it to the axis (it is a hard to reach place). Had sewing machine oil at hand, but some there, some at the other end of the belt, some on the belt mostly an accident, on the rollers that support the scanning table, on the motor axis bushings near the belt. Put the scanner back together and the lines are gone. Feel stupid, but scanned 12 negatives already. Singer machine oil...

[Blasted]

Hi there,

How do I determine at which point a scan goes from non interpolated to interpolated? Generally I'm scanning 35mm film lengthways at either 4000 or 5000dpi and 120 film at 2000dpi.

I was also considering getting a scanning resolution target to check its performance, is that something you would recommend?

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi there,

How do I determine at which point a scan goes from non interpolated to interpolated? Generally I'm scanning 35mm film lengthways at either 4000 or 5000dpi and 120 film at 2000dpi.

I was also considering getting a scanning resolution target to check its performance, is that something you would recommend?

You're fine at the resolutions you're scanning at. Basically, it's an 8000 element ccd. So a 2" strip give 4000 spi. It's a little more complicated, as the linear motion system is capable of finer movements in the other axis. So you might get some interpolation in the direction of the sensor, but more information in the other direction. The Seybold Report found a 20% increase in obtainable resolution when upping the resolution over non-interpolated results.

I don't recommend getting a high res target, unless you want to compare results between different scanners. That's been done, though.

[Blasted]

Thanks for the quick response Peter.

So what are the upper limits before interpolation for a 35mm frame at 36×24 mm and a medium format frame (6x7) at 56mm x 67mm?

I will skip getting a target.

[Peter De Smidt]

I scan 35mm at 6000 spi and 120 at 4000. The best way is to test this yourself. Make a scan 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000... and compare. With 35mm film, 6000 spi did a better job with grain for me than 5000. The theoretical upper limit for 35mm is 8000 (8000/1") spi, and 4000 spi for MF.

[timparkin]

That's a tough question - If you're well exposed it's great, stunning. If you've got solid blacks then you can have problems with transitions - I'd be torn between an Epson and the Cezanne for trying to get deep shadows out. The Epson will transition nicer but may not get as deep into the shadows. For resolution the Epson sucks though. The Screen comes into it's own as a neg scanner though imo (or make sure your Velvia is always well exposed!)

[Corran]

I recently did a test, and shot a random roll of 35mm Tech Pan I had around and scanned it at 6000 DPI. I was not particularly impressed. I did another test and scanned some 35mm T-Max 100 shot on a tripod at optimum aperture with excellent lenses, again at 6000 DPI, and I was really floored with the resolution. I don't usually bother scanning 35mm that high because I don't usually "need" it, but wow. I definitely saw a reduction in grain compared to lower resolution settings, as Peter mentioned above.

The Cezanne continues to amaze me. Positive film not so much from a dynamic range perspective but I've gotten better at developing it for slightly more open shadows, which helps.

[photo8x10]

Dear All,
I started to read this long thread because I just bought a cezanne FTs 5000, I m a large format photographer and I would have a scanner that can use with my negatives 8x10" and 8x20" the most I use, even if sometimes I use 120mm film. I m very poor as digital and scanning ability but I would like to learn a bit more about this new world, so surely I lll ask lots of things.
First I would like to know the better way to scan BW negative, I saw that if I put gray become 8-bit and not 16-bit, so what is the best way to scan BW negative keeping 16-bit?

I read it " The "normal" way to scan is to place the negative emulsion side up on the bed and place a cover sheet, which is a thinner and smaller piece of textured plastic on top to hold the negative flat. You put the masks on the cover sheet."
Is this the right way to scan dry or Fluid?

So far these questions, during my curve learning surely Iìll put more and more...
Thanks for every answer

Stefano

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Stefano,

Scan as a positive in 16-bit-per-channel.
Set the resolution low, such as 800 spi. (We'll change that later.)
In advanced setup do the following things:
1) turn off sharpening,
2) set input shadow/highlight to 0 and 255 respectively.
3) Go into curves. Drag the highlight and shadow ends of the line such that the image is inverted. This is a pain, as the curve is hard to adjust, but you only have to do it once.
4) Go back to the main advanced tab, the one with exposure controls. Use the eye dropper to place a point on the image, one in the darkest are, one in a mid tone, and one in the lightest area. You will now have a readout of before and after adjustments.
5) Adjust the RGB highlight and shadow numbers to give you a rendition that you like.
6) Scan.
7) Look at the photo in Photoshop. Is it pretty close? If not, adjust and scan again.
8) In the future, you can load the setup for the scan (I call it BW Negative). This will turn off sharpening, apply the invert curve.....You can then adjust the shadow/highlight numbers to taste, scan....

For a real scan, set you resolution to what you want at 100% magnification. Go into advanced (I'm not sure that's Screen's term.) Load the BW preset. Adjust. Scan.

When you get in photoshop, look at the various channels. Pick the best. Get rid of the rest.

Try Screen's method, which you mention, for scanning. If that works, it's the easiest way to scan. Wet-mounting on a glass plate will give better results, but there's a major increase in effort, especially with large film, and for small enlargement sizes, it might not be worth it.