Best option for flat-bed / drum under $2k?

[sanking]

I haven't used one, but I've heard very good things about the Better Scanning holders. Wet mounting can make a big difference, especially with regards to grain, with some scanners.

With some scanners wet mounting can indeed make a big difference. Although it will not increase real resolution wet mounting will reduce the appearance of grain with most scanners, and add micro-contrast which can make the image look much sharper.

With the Better Scanning holder you can choose to either dry mount or fluid mount. And just as important, there is a mechanism for placing the holder at the plane of best focus. This requires a bit of trial and error but once determined should not change for these conditions.

Sandy King

[sanking]

A short follow-up to my previous message. Just thought I would show an example of scanning with the Epson V700 and the Better Scanning fluid mount system.

Basically I adjusted the shims on the Better Scanning fluid mount to optimize the best plane of focus. I determined that this was about 3.0mm above the surface of the glass of the scanner. I then fluid mounted a high resolution film target to the bottom of the Better Scanning fluid mount, emulsion side down, covered with a piece of thin mylar.

The scan was at 6400 ppi. Real resolution is no where near 6300 ppi, as one would expect. The effective resolution of the image file of the target is about 45 lp/mm, which is basically 2300 ppi, if we base resolution on discrimination of both the horizontal and vertical line pairs. Based on only the resolution of the vertical line pairs resolution is on the order of 65 lp/mm. This is of course real resolution, but only in one direction.

These results don't come close to what we would expect with a professional flatbed like the Eversmart or Cezanne, or with a drum scanner. But I think the results do indicate that a very good quality 4X print (16X20" from 4X5" negative) is not beyond the range of the possible, assuming good post scan processing, from an Epson flatbed.

I also compared results at scan resolution of 2400 ppi, 3200 ppi, and 4800 ppi. There was a slight improvement from 2400 ppi to 4800 ppi, but none above that. In other words, no point in making huge files with scans of 6400 ppi because results are virtually identical with 4800 ppi, and even 3200 ppi.

Sandy King

[Ed Richards]

Sandy,

What scanning software were you using? Did it trigger the secondary optical system at 6400? I am curious if have tried the 750 which claims to have better coated optics.

[sanking]

Sandy,

What scanning software were you using? Did it trigger the secondary optical system at 6400? I am curious if have tried the 750 which claims to have better coated optics.

Ed,

I was using the Epson software for the V700. According to Epson literature the high resolution optical system (6400 ppi) is activated whenever one chooses the Film Holder option in setting scanning space. The lower resolution lens (4800 ppi) is automatically activated if you choose Film Area Guide.

The V750 has an anti-reflection coating on the glass that covers the CCD. The anti-reflection coating of this glass should reduce bloom, and might marginally increase resolution. That is speculation on my part since I have not actually made the comparison. There is no difference in the quality of the lenses of the V700 and V750, at least so far as I understand it.

Sandy King

[sanking]

I also compared results at scan resolution of 2400 ppi, 3200 ppi, and 4800 ppi. There was a slight improvement from 2400 ppi to 4800 ppi, but none above that. In other words, no point in making huge files with scans of 6400 ppi because results are virtually identical with 4800 ppi, and even 3200 ppi.

Sandy King

Instead of just stating this as fact I have included the actual target scans made at 2400ppi, 3200ppi, 4800ppi and 6400ppi. There is some slight increase in effective resolution with the increase in scan resolution, all the way to 6400ppi, but the differences are very small. In practice I don't believe one would see much, if any, difference in print quality at 16X20" size from a scan of a 4X5" negative at 2400ppi and 6300ppi. BTW, I resized the 2400ppi and 3200ppi scans to 4800spi so that they would all appear at about the same size. Sizing up does not create any new resolution, just more pixels.

Sandy King

[dh003i]

Instead of just stating this as fact I have included the actual target scans made at 2400ppi, 3200ppi, 4800ppi and 6400ppi. There is some slight increase in effective resolution with the increase in scan resolution, all the way to 6400ppi, but the differences are very small. In practice I don't believe one would see much, if any, difference in print quality at 16X20" size from a scan of a 4X5" negative at 2400ppi and 6300ppi. BTW, I resized the 2400ppi and 3200ppi scans to 4800spi so that they would all appear at about the same size. Sizing up does not create any new resolution, just more pixels.

Sandy King

Thanks for the post. I really see no increase after 4800.

[deatojef]

As far as drum scanners go, the Howtek 4500 is a good choice as there are usually a good number of them on the used market and they still have good support from Aztek with regards to some maintenance items (pads, drums, lube, etc) and software is available for them (Silverfast and Aztek DPL).

The Howtek 4500 is about 3-4 feet long, about 2 feet deep, and about a foot high. Not including clearances to get a SCSI and power cable into the back and a little room for cooling. Plus the darn thing weighs near 150lbs.

Also keep in mind if you're wanting to drum scan, then you're going to need room to setup the mounting station to mount your film to the drum...probably a good 2' x 3' of desk space, minimum. ...regardless of the model of drum scanner.

The 4500 might set you back ~$2k. Software is expensive - $500 for DPL Standard, and > $800 for Silverfast. Color calibration targets aren't cheap. Same goes for wet mounting supplies.

So if you decide to purchase software to drive the unit then your only choice is to run Windows in a VM with VMWare Workstation (~$100). Why? Because the last I checked VirtualBox (free) can't pass through a SCSI device to the VM. I know VMWare can pass through SCSI devices from the host (your linux box) to the VM so that's going to be your only option. If you somehow manage to get a SANE driver written (or written for you) then you're probably good, but that seems like a very iffy road to travel. I mean, how will you really know if you're controlling the scanner correctly and therefore getting the best image, even assuming you get the SCSI command protocols from the original manufacturer? If you're prioritizing risks, trying to get a SANE driver developed seems like a much bigger risk to your quality goals than incurring the financial risk to your pocketbook by purchasing software.

...and we haven't even talked about trying to maintain a color managed work flow. Unless things have improved with GIMP 2.6 (is that the latest version now?) and KDE/Gnome getting color calibration on the desktop was an extreme challenge.

Honestly, I think you're going to have to make compromises somewhere along the line. I can sympathize with your desire to minimize the number of additional computers filling up floor space and trying to minimize costs, however, I think you're either going to have to ratchet 'er back down and go with a scanner that SANE already supports and deal with lower quality scans or live with the fact that quality scanning also includes overhead (ex. space, software, and costs). That's just the way it goes, staunch principles or not.

-Jeff

[dh003i]

Jeff,

Thanks for your post. For those reasons, I've already ordered the Epson V700. I barely have room for that in my computer work-station area, and certainly don't have room for a 3-4 ft long device. Not to mention the enormous cost-difference. Of course, there's also an enormous quality difference, but that's priced in; I believe that for what I'm paying, I'm not getting ripped off. The Epson V700 cost me $470, which is for effectively ~2000 dpi; a Howtek would cost $2000 + software, which is for ~4000 dpi & a greater dynamic range. A reasonable price-difference given the specs (about 4x greater resolution, about 4x greater price). Which also means it is reasonable in reverse.

I also decided to get the HP B8550 13x19" printer. It's clearly on the low-end for printers, but it's again what fits on my desk and is affordable (and it also has full Linux-support).

[PenGun]

Instead of just stating this as fact I have included the actual target scans made at 2400ppi, 3200ppi, 4800ppi and 6400ppi. There is some slight increase in effective resolution with the increase in scan resolution, all the way to 6400ppi, but the differences are very small. In practice I don't believe one would see much, if any, difference in print quality at 16X20" size from a scan of a 4X5" negative at 2400ppi and 6300ppi. BTW, I resized the 2400ppi and 3200ppi scans to 4800spi so that they would all appear at about the same size. Sizing up does not create any new resolution, just more pixels.

Sandy King

The 6400 spi is a bit clearer ... look at the numbers as well. If you really blow em' up there is a bit more useful info in the hi res one.

It's really not much at all though. Looking at that I may try scanning a bit higher than the 3200 spi I use although it probably would not normally be worth it. I just use hi res B&W film, TMY and now some Ilford 100 Delta.

[dh003i]

Just got the scanner Thursday and the printer Friday. I haven't set up the printer yet, but I have the scanner up and running on Linux. Unfortunately, the sane-epson2 drivers don't yet fully support the V700, so I can't scan at 6400 dpi or use ICE. However, even at 3200 dpi, I'm really pleased with what I'm getting. I re-scanned the railroad shot that Frank Petronio scanned with his 4990 for me, this time using 3200 dpi. Even at 1:1 without sharpening, it is still fairly sharp (a little blurry, but there is clearly detail down to the pixel level, imo). This is without doing any adjustments for height or what-not to get the sharpest image.

I may buy Vuescan, but am not sure yet. The free programs Image Scan and xsane work well (just can't scan at 6400 dpi or use ICE).

Sometime I'll put the initial scan results online and link to them.