Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

  1. #11
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    I bought my Cezanne for $900, with another $900 or so in costs to go pick it up, and another $100 for a G4 with maxed out ram to run it. Like Bob, I've made about 100 scans with it, mostly bw negatives, and the quality is excellent. So that means so far I've spent $20 per scan plus the time taken to scan the film. If something were to go wrong with the scanner, though, costs would escalate quickly. Buying a scanner like this is a gamble.

    One thing to remember about the Cezanne, while it's an x-y positioning scanner with zoom and autofocus capabilities, it does not stitch negative or positive scans together. Thus, with 8x10 film, the 8000 element ccd will give a true 1100 spi in the direction from the front of the scanner to the back. From left to right, on the other hand, it is capable of about 6000 spi according to the Seybold report. (I hope I have the name of the report correct.) Thus, the true resolution of the scanner is a complex question. You could of course scan in strips and stitch them together if you need more real information, at the cost of added time.

    IME wet-mounting on a Cezanne does not improve scan quality, which is a good thing, as not having to wet mount saves time, mess, and cost.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    Wow I didn't realize how the price had fallen on them, I stand corrected.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,057

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    Using the batch proceedure you can break any size negative into stitchable files and since the film is not touched between strips, it stitches perfectly together. I mean Perfect!!!

    The optical resolution is about 5000 dpi, pretty amazing if I might say so.
    Last edited by Bob McCarthy; 14-Dec-2009 at 18:09.

  4. #14
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    As Bob points out, the batch scanning feature is very nice. It's very easy to precisely choose what area to scan, and you can work on the next scan while a scan is in progress. According to the Seybold report, the resolution approaches 5700 spi, at least it does when scans are limited to 1.5" strips.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    601

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    [QUOTE=IME wet-mounting on a Cezanne does not improve scan quality, which is a good thing, as not having to wet mount saves time, mess, and cost.[/QUOTE]

    Thats interesting, I found that wet mounting made a big difference on my Eversmart. I did some sloppy quick scans the other day and I noticed some newton rings as well as some other stuff. I guess it doesn't help that my Anti Reflective base glass is in bad shape.

    Does the Cezanne have a special solution to newton rings?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    601

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    I thought that the Cezanne was an XY stitch scanner... Since apparently it is not you might want to look for an Eversmart for 8x10 work because of the stitching capability. A drum scanner would work too but it can be difficult to mount an 8x10 on the machines with the smaller drums. Of course an 1100 PPI scan from the Cezanne might have more then enough detail for most of your uses.

    Also, I guess with the Cezanne one should be able to scan in strips and then combine in Photoshop’s to achieve a higher resolution image.

    I haven't used an Epson 750 but I'm under the impression that the professional scanners have many advantages in terms of scan quality. The Cezanne should have really low noise, a higher dynamic range, and stellar shadow performance.

    Be patient when looking for a used scanner. There are good deals out there but they don't come everyday. Be cautious when purchasing without a guarantee, especially if the seller has never actually used the machine (junk dealers). There are many things that could affect the scan quality, while the machine turns on and appears to work perfectly. It is not unreasonable to ask for a sample scan or to test the machine in person.

  7. #17
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    X-y positioning in scanners refers to the ability to achieve a full resolution scan anywhere on the scanner bed. The lens and sensor move in either the x or y direction to get into the appropriate position. Non x-y positioning scanners, on the other hand, only achieve the highest resolution in a specific area of the bed.

    Stitching is combining two scans to make a larger file. Eversmarts can do this in the scanner, whereas with non-stitching scanners you'd have to do this in photoshop (or similar.)

    As Bob pointed out, since the film in a Cezanne is held perfectly flat, and since the area scanned is so easy to specify precisely, scanning in strips and stitching in software is quite practical. It would be interesting to see if the overall process is done faster on an Eversmart or with a Cezanne/photoshop approach, since I'd expect the processing power of a current computer to greatly out do the internal processing of an older scanner.

    One curious point is that according to the manual the Cezanne can stitch line art internally.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,057

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    FWIW, I do wet mount 8x10 as the hold down clamp is not large enough for 8x10. I generally do not see any difference resolution-wise between the wet mounting and dry mount with the exception of reduced dust issues with wet mounting.

    My bed and hold down clamps are like new so i may be lucky with the unit I purchased.

    As peter said, the only difference between the Creo and Cezanne is where the stitching occurs. Both are XY, and batch scanning is by manually selecting the width of each stitch (which is determined by resolution desired). One can designate 2 selections from the prescan which slightly overlap to be completed in one scan command and the combination can be assembled in CS3 in my case. Batch selection one is <scan-name>-l and batch selection two is <scan-name>-r. Select scan the batch and it outputs both files from single scan command.

    no muss, no fuss

    bob

  9. #19
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    Bob,

    Have you tried AN, anti-glare glazing, or MC glass as the hold down plate for 8x10s? I've limited myself to 4x5 and smaller so far.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,057

    Re: scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    Bob,

    Have you tried AN, anti-glare glazing, or MC glass as the hold down plate for 8x10s? I've limited myself to 4x5 and smaller so far.
    Peter,
    no I have not. I bought this unit through Howell as you did. I was lucky as I was local to the company. I spent some time with Howell and while we paid a touch more (1500) I got every accessory they had including extra clamps. The bed on this one is damn near perfect, just some accumulated dust on the glass/frame interface. The main bed is blemish free.

    I found out the base tray is made from the same acrylic as on the drum scanner and is to be handled appropriately. I have a wet mounting (thanks to Gemsinger) kit from Astek and have no issue whatsoever getting a good sandwich. An occasional mini bubble but nothing to cleaning up such a huge piece of film.

    Guess what I'm saying is what I have works extremely well.

    Bob

Similar Threads

  1. Lab that does 8x10 Chromes
    By CP Goerz in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13-Jul-2007, 12:03
  2. Lenses for 8x10 (again)
    By ditkoofseppala in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 23-May-2007, 18:16
  3. Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?
    By Michael Heald in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 24-Feb-2007, 16:05
  4. Type 55 Scanning on Epson V700?
    By jay rustle in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 30-Oct-2006, 11:21
  5. Trouble scanning chromes
    By DrPablo in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 8-Aug-2006, 21:29

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •