Professional scanners for 4x5

[yhong]

Hi all,

Just wondering which scanners on the market can produce high quality images, high enough to be accepted by image libraries? Any comments from those photographers who submit their images to libraries, or their own libraries are welcomed!

Thanks!
yhong.

[Ron Marshall]

This has been discussed many times. See this thread, and use the search function with drumscan and or flatbed to find others:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...atbed+drumscan

[QT Luong]

Any current photo scanner can produce a file from 4x5 that is good enough for stock photography. Most stock is from 35mm film or digital. Any reasonably made scan from 4x5 will better a drum scanned 35mm. The discussions you are being referred too are from nit-pickers :-) wanting to make great fine prints.

[archivue]

For 4X you can't beat the V700 epson (value for money)... for larger file then you have to go with an imacon, or even better a scitex or similar products.

[Lenny Eiger]

For 4X you can't beat the V700 epson (value for money)... for larger file then you have to go with an imacon, or even better a scitex or similar products.

I wouldn't scan anything on an Epson - not if I had the choice. I was just down at Aztek, Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical, DMax of 2.3. Creo Eversmart is at optical of 3251, drums are all higher... the device works, but that's about it. It's very blurry.

I think QT's comment is right on - for the op's purpose. However, that's about where it stops for me....

Lenny

[Santo Roman]

I don't know, I have the V700 and scanning at a high res of 12,500 if needed looks pretty damn good!

santo

[Ken Lee]

"I was just down at Aztek, Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical"

I'm sure that we'd all love to have an Aztek scanner, if it were the same price range as the Epson scanners. This is especially true when we shoot medium format or smaller.

That being said, even ~1000 spi allows you to make a 3x enlargement at critical sharpness. With 4x5/5x7 film, that gives you a 12x15/16x20 print which is so detailed and smooth, it's... nuts.

[Doug Fisher]

>>Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical, DMax of 2.3.<<

Sorry if this is a double post, but the other one seems to have disappeared.

If that is their claim for an optical resolution, there is something seriously wrong. I am not saying a V700 is as good a drum scanner but if they were fluid mounting they should have been easily getting double that number. If you or they were using the comparison on their page/.pdf for their v7xx fluid kit, something was obviously messed up on that - either the equipment or operator error. That looks like the classic newbie mistake where the film holder vs. film with film area guide setting was incorrectly set. I can't believe they still have that posted and have not rechecked it. Lots of people love to use it as an example but unfortunately it is flawed.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Lenny Eiger]

><If that is their claim for an optical resolution, there is something seriously wrong. I am not saying a V700 is as good a drum scanner but if they were fluid mounting they should have been easily getting double that number. If you or they were using the comparison on their page/.pdf for their v7xx fluid kit, something was obviously messed up on that - either the equipment or operator error. That looks like the classic newbie mistake where the film holder vs. film with film area guide setting was incorrectly set. I can't believe they still have that posted and have not rechecked it. Lots of people love to use it as an example but unfortunately it is flawed.

I'm going to try and respond to everyone in one post. Doug - I agree, it's a bit low if you fluid mount. Might be up another 800 or 900 I would guess. However, I was just down there and they have a wall of scanned targets from almost every scanner and the Epson sticks out like a blurry sore thumb. Doesn't compare favorably to an Imacon, any of the film scanners, nor any drum.

As to the contention that it is so expensive no one else can own it - a Premier is very expensive. However, there are many other scanners that aren't. A film scanner is around 3-3K, that's a fairly low number, and one can find excellent drum scanners in the $1500-$6500 range. Is there some reason why a good scanner be under $800?

I could get a barrel lens, or an old Tessar, for almost nothing, yet I just picked up a new Nikon 300W. If I had insisted that I only purchase lens at the low end of the spectrum I wouldn't be satisfied - I like to have things somewhat sharp. We have all had to always pay for the good stuff, whether it be top large format lenses, a Leica lens, a Planar 80, etc. Some people pay up to 3K for a Rodenstock lens.

Why does someone go out and buy an Ebony and a Sironar S lens and then insist on a cheaper scanner? I see it over and over again. Everyone gets to make their own choices. We all have limited resources. I got the Premier because I wanted to offer services for others - it was a business decision. I couldn't pay for it if it was just for my own photography, either. However, I did get a Howtek 4500, which cost as much as my 8x10. I didn't insist that it had to be less..

As to the rest of this, if anyone is happy with a piece of equipment they purchased, I am happy for them. That's what's important - that you get to do the work you want to do at the level you want to do it. Yet, when people gush over the low end of the spectrum, how wonderful it is, etc., I can only conclude that they either haven't seen what a very good scanner can do, or their work doesn't require it (there are lots of folks for whom focus is not a big thing). I think forums should inform accurately as much as they can and that goes for scanners as well.

Lenny

[sanking]

Resolution is highly dependent on contrast. You get a lot more resolution with high contrast targets than with low contrast ones. My experience in testing the Epson flatbed scanners with high contrast targets is that you generally get about 1/3 to to 2/5 of maximum stated resolution. My 4990 will resolve about 2000 spi and a V700 that I tested did around 2300 spi. Those values are consistent with what a number of other people have also found, so if someone is posting scans that show resolution of only 1023 spi with the V760 something was seriously wrong with the testing.

BTW, fluid mounting is primarily useful for enhancing micro-contrast and reducing grain. I have not seen any significant increase in resolution over regular dry scanning when testing resolution targets. The values that I mention for the 4990 and V700 are based on dry mounting.

There is no question but that drum scanners are better than high-end flatbeds and that high-end flatbeds are better than consumer flatbeds. However, the consumer flatbeds give perfectly acceptable results up to 3-4X when scanning B&W and color negatives that are correctly exposed and developed.

Sandy King

>>Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical, DMax of 2.3.<<

Sorry if this is a double post, but the other one seems to have disappeared.

If that is their claim for an optical resolution, there is something seriously wrong. I am not saying a V700 is as good a drum scanner but if they were fluid mounting they should have been easily getting double that number. If you or they were using the comparison on their page/.pdf for their v7xx fluid kit, something was obviously messed up on that - either the equipment or operator error. That looks like the classic newbie mistake where the film holder vs. film with film area guide setting was incorrectly set. I can't believe they still have that posted and have not rechecked it. Lots of people love to use it as an example but unfortunately it is flawed.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com