4x5 scans.. drum or virtual drum for 40"x50" print

[false_Aesthetic]

Go call Walker at Black Point Editions. 312.491.8051
They're in Chicago.

If you doubt his tech skills google John Cone and Walker Blackwell. J.C. thinks highly of W.B. Walker's business partner, Nathan Baker repairs drum scanners. They're smart dudes that don't rip you off when it comes to pricing.


Get a drum scan . . . if you can't tell the difference at the very least you'll save an hour or two with dust-busting.

[joelio]

I make the scans and postproduction for Massimo Vitali.

Take a look:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/

These scans and prints look INCREDIBLE on Flickr. I would love to see the prints in real life - are they making their way to New York City any time soon?

Thanks.

[federico9001]

That dyptich has been bought by a collector. I don't know where it will fly....

Anyway, I can swear that the print was much sharper than a direct analogue print, superb detail, perfect image flatness border to border, very natural and smooth colors.

At Grieger Lab (Gursky's, Struth's etc. lab) they told us (to me and to Massimo) that they never saw before a higher quality file from negative, and they started asking me which scanner I used, my scan workflow etc...

It has been an impressive experience for them too.

[David Luttmann]

I just uploaded a series of test scans with my Epson V700 of a 4x5 picture of a railroad bridge, taken with my Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 at f/16 or f/22, probably f/16. This is an exceptionally sharp lens. Hence, my tests might not be indicative, as the resolution of the 4x5 is so sharp. I've read that the 1/R formula underestimates final resolution when one component has much more resolution than another, and works best when both components of the system are of nearly the same resolution.

In any event, from my eye, at least when given a very sharp 4x5 to begin with, it seems from my scans that the V700 can produce very good 10x enlargements as seen on screen (this is about in line with estimates of the true optical resolution of the V700 being about 2400 dpi, which would suggest 8x enlargements at 300 dpi if you don't have much loss of image quality due to 1/R). But that's just from what I see; maybe those scans don't look nearly as good to you guys.

Given a negative that has exactly the same resolution as it seems the V700 has, about 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm), we can expect the final scan to be of a quality of about 23.5 lp/mm (1193.8 dpi, which can produce about a 4x enlargement, or 20x16 print). This is in line with what I've usually seen as suggested for the capabilities of the Epson V700.

Just a parenthetical note, I've seen Lenny Eiger claim that the V700 or V750 has a resolution of about 1100 dpi or something like that, and others argue that such is wrong, and the resolution is 2400 dpi. I think I remember Lenny saying he'd seen those estimates of 1100 dpi from prints made from a V750 or V700 scanner at an Aztek lab. The preceding paragraph would explain the discrepancy between 2400 dpi and 1000 or 1100 dpi. The actual resolution of the scanner component is 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm); however, when scanning in something that is also 47 lp/mm, the 1/R law is probably pretty accurate, so final resolution drops to 23.5 lp/mm (1194 dpi). If that's the case, it explains the discrepancy between Lenny's estimates of the V700 / V750's resolution, and estimates made by others.

I will be sending another copy of the 4x5 that I scanned in to Lenny to scan in at the beginning of December (after I find out if it was accepted in a photo-show). Then I will upload a crop of the same section. If I make a print for the show, of course I'll print from the drum-scan.

While I respect Lenny greatly, 1100ppi of real info from the V700 is plain wrong. I've tested mine out to around 2200ppi with 35mm and MF. I've never done a test sheet with 4x5...but I know 1100ppi is not correct, nor does it match what others have tested the V700 at either.

[Lenny Eiger]

As long as everyone is quoting me, let me correct a couple of things. I did have a 750 at one time and returned it because I didn't like the quality. I have Premier now but my early scans of film were done with a Howtek 4500. The number of 1100 was a round number off the top of my head that expressed more the frustration I had with the device than actual fact - and it was a long time ago. It's may not be that far off, 30-50%, that is, unless you align the scanner, possibly wet mount and are generally very careful, which are all things one should do. In that case, I will happily defer to Sandy, who is quite knowledgeable, and was quite right to correct me when I quoted those numbers earlier. I think the 700-750, properly tuned, is probably capable of 2000-2300, as Sandy says. Aztek's tests on the scannerforum site were done long before the 7xx series. I think it was a 1640.

For comparison, and in this case quoting Aztek's numbers, the Premier is capable of 7264. It's quite a difference. Scans come out sharp, and usually don't require any sharpening at all. The thing sucks the marrow out of a piece of film.

Overall, I think PMT technology is unquestionably better in general than the CCD technology, a little in resolution, more in range and number of colors reproduced. I know they can be expensive and I appreciate that not everyone can afford one of these. If I was going to do a 50 inch print, however, I would use one myself... and it probably wouldn't be the cheapest one either. We all know that the operator is a major factor in the scans, and they need time to do their job well.

I just did a whole series for someone at a deep discount. When he makes a little money from his efforts, he will move up to a more reasonable price, so I can eat, too. We are all in this together...

I hope this clears a few things up...

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

Nice post, Lenny.

[Nathan Potter]

EPSONcont-web-1 by hypolimnas, on Flickr

I checked out an Epson V750 several months back using a glass plate resolution target. I wanted to get some idea of contrast at a particular resolution. After carefully getting the best focus point (3.37 mm. above the platen) I scanned an arrayed chrome target on glass with the emulsion facing down. I used a flat scan, linear tone scale with no adjustments to collect a full tonal range. No sharpening. B&W Negative Film setting. 2400 dpi.

Moved the file to PS and viewed at 1600% then density measured each pixel across the line pairs. Probably rather unconventional but it gave me the info I wanted in order to understand how my images were being converted to digital. The resulting plot is above.

Actually I think Lennys comment of 1100 spi has merit. The contrast I see at about 1100 spi in is about 80% and crisp enough in detail and tone discrimination to call this near maximum performance for this scanner. 50% contrast occurs at about 1500 spi also a very useful setting. 2000 spi approaches a lower limit for using the full tonal range and it is about gone at say 2250 spi. I assume the non linearity at the toe and shoulder of the curve represents a saturation due to scattered light within the device and possibly other factors I haven't contemplated about - and can't worry about.

This is far short of the finest drum scans but OTOH it takes remarkable film images to make use of the best drum scans.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[rdenney]

2000 spi approaches a lower limit for using the full tonal range and it is about gone at say 2250 spi.

I suspect that 20% MTF at 2000 could be improved using sharpening, though doing so may create false detail and other sharpening artifacts. But with reasonable sharpening, 2000 may be good enough. Had you sharpened your scan, the line pixels would have been darkened with respect to the space pixels, assuming appropriate radius settings.

Rick "an illusion that works" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

....We all know that the operator is a major factor in the scans, and they need time to do their job well....

+1

I'd look at the budget and work backwards with what you have... maybe you can't afford to do such large prints well, in which case you should modify the parameters.

It would make a lot of sense to run some tests, do one image with high-end everything, do another with a less expensive workflow... do your best effort with both and hang them up, get some opinions from people you respect.

Test and Verify....

Overall on the RFF the idiots are saying the Epson is comparable to a film scanner, etc. and then another guy will gripe about $2 scans from Costco... so I would take all this internet banter with a grain of salt.

[Lenny Eiger]

Overall on the RFF the idiots are saying the Epson is comparable to a film scanner, etc. and then another guy will gripe about $2 scans from Costco... so I would take all this internet banter with a grain of salt.

I think there is a lot of good advice given out here. Many times, I think the answer comes too quickly. For example, the answer to "which film is best" requires an examination of what the goal is, and that is often not clarified before folks go off on their opinions. Overall, however, I think we have a pretty good group with experts on many different subjects that keep people in check (sometimes even me).

When I go out to photo.net and luminous landscape I find the most awful advice being given by some of the most non-knowledgeable people. It's often just so far off the mark its ridiculous. It makes it very difficult to participate... and I just leave...

Is it just me?

Lenny