Leafscan 45, Sprintscan 45, Artixscan 2500: hi-res "desktop" scanner recommendations

[Lightbender]

I had a polaroid sprintscan 45, the original version not the ultra.
Vuescan will work with it. They were great scaners for thier time but they have no support now - if you can even find one.
The scanning system that the polaroid/microtek used was not all that different than a flatbed without the glass. The sensor was quite a distance away from the film. There was a mirror involved which would get dusty. Otherwise it was a great machine.

I have an epson 750 now and I am very happy with it. The scans are good for 35mm (and great for MF and LF). Beyond that, I cannot help.

What I dont understand is why you need such detail from your negs. (I'm not trying to make a point im honestly curious). A good 35mm neg can easily handle a 10X enlargement. A 4x5 neg enlarged to 10x makes a 40x50 inch print. What are you missing in the magnified areas of a print that size that make or break the image?

[sanking]

In layman's terms, what exactly happens when one scans color film at 5080 spi or is it damaging to the point that it plainly looks ugly and should be scanned at a lower rez?

When you are talking about that 40X60 print from the Leafscan, what sized LF film does it take off your Eversmart to make an equally nice print OR where are you beginning to see the differences between the one and the other?

To add to Lenny's thoughts, the 4500 can come around for $300 locally to $3000 on Ebay. It all depends on the market, one's luck, etc. They are very large machines, but are not as "fat" sized as the pro-flatbeds like Creo/Eversmart/Cezanne.

The color looks great when scanned at 5080 spi, and it is entirely feasible if scanning 35mm. When I said no way for color at 5080 spi I meant scanning MF, where you have to scan in two passes and stitch. Each of of the passes, one for Red, Green and Blue, takes about 25 minutes, so you would need 6 X 25 minutes to scan a MF color negative or transparency. That gets into the totally out of the question area for me.

The 40X60" print was from a MF Fuji Acros negative, and to get a print that size from MF requires a great negative to begin with, in terms of exposure and development, a great scan, and very good post scan processing, and just a bit of rezzing up. A print that size from 5X7" would not be all that difficult as we are talking only about an 8X magnification, which is nothing for a decent scanner like the Eversmart.

If you can buy a good working Howtek 4500 for under $1500, with drum and software, that would be a very good deal. Yes, you see them sometimes on ebay for a few hundred dollars, but with no software, no drum, and no guarantee that it will even work. I would never buy a high end scanner, either a drum or flatbed, with guarantee that it will work. I did it once and it worked out for me ok in the end but I will never do it again.

Sandy

[Jonathan Taylor]

I have an epson 750 now and I am very happy with it. The scans are good for 35mm (and great for MF and LF). Beyond that, I cannot help.

What I don't understand is why you need such detail from your negs. (I'm not trying to make a point I'm honestly curious). A good 35mm neg can easily handle a 10X enlargement. A 4x5 neg enlarged to 10x makes a 40x50 inch print. What are you missing in the magnified areas of a print that size that make or break the image?

Another forum member offered me a like new Sprintscan 45 Ultra for $150 with the full frame 4x5 glass carrier-- it was an offer I couldn't refuse. VueScan gives me multi-exposure and results that are a significant bit better than what I've read I would be able to get from wet mounting on the v750. I will try the v750 sometime soon, but if the SS45 resolution is better for a quarter of the price of a v750 there's really no contest.

It also really goes back to the collaborative scanner comparison. The Sprintscan looks like it's getting more and better detail than the v750.

Here's my math:

6x8 neg (I almost always crop 6x9) on Coolscan 9000 gets me:
26x35 inch image @ 360 dpi or 40x52 inch image @ 240 dpi

4x5 neg on Sprintscan 45 gets me:
29x36 inch image @ 360 dpi or 43x54 inch image @ 240 dpi

Ok, looking at the math a 6x8 neg gets me really close to the 4x5/Polaroid results, but my 4x5 camera gives the potential for more DOF through movements and even larger prints if I eventually get drum scans. Three, four and five foot prints is where I want to take my images, and at least for right now I don't have the budget for drum scans. The Polaroid will be a good avenue for really getting me into shooting 4x5 (and it seems to me at the moment a better avenue than a v750).

[Lenny Eiger]

Here's my math:

6x8 neg (I almost always crop 6x9) on Coolscan 9000 gets me:
26x35 inch image @ 360 dpi or 40x52 inch image @ 240 dpi

4x5 neg on Sprintscan 45 gets me:
29x36 inch image @ 360 dpi or 43x54 inch image @ 240 dpi

It comes down to the math, and it doesn't. First of all, if I read your numbers right, that's around 4000 or 4200 spi at the scan. Most of the members here would agree that the scanners you are using don't have that kind of optical resolution, it's more like 2000-2400 for most ccd's. To push it past that is just interpolating.

I would not choose to do a 50 inch print from a ccd scanner. Lots of people ask me to make large prints from smaller files - I've done a 20 foot print at 90 dpi - but I don't do it for my own work. Even if you want to avoid drum scans because of the cost, my guess would be that you would also want to keep the number of 50 inch prints down as well; also because of cost, amount of storage, cost of framing and glass/plexi, difficulty of transporting and other issues.

It follows that if you are doing only a few large prints, from your best images, perhaps, that the drum scanning budget can also be low.

I think most here would agree that there is a difference between ccd scans and drum scans, more visible as the prints get larger.

Lenny

[Jonathan Taylor]

It follows that if you are doing only a few large prints, from your best images, perhaps, that the drum scanning budget can also be low.

I think most here would agree that there is a difference between ccd scans and drum scans, more visible as the prints get larger.

Oh I absolutely agree, drum scans are where I'm headed, and I have no doubt that a drum scanned 6x9 would be better than from my Nikon-- but I'm fairly certain my Nikon 9000 with glass carrier is doing much better than 2000 spi. Maybe it isn't reaching all the way to it's optical 4000 spi resolution but I've done 25 x 34 inch prints from 6x4.5 cm Provia 100 film that worked and exhibited very well. The Nikon Coolscans are the best case scenario for CCD scanners-- and it's not just me-- many others have had similar experiences.

The Polaroid is another matter of course. From what I've read though it really does test out as getting somewhere near it's 2571 spi optical resolution-- no where near the Nikons or a drum scan, but it looks like it'll be a good scanner for smaller work prints-- and a better stepping-stone scanner for me (perhaps!) than an Epson v750.

I do appreciate all the thoughts and info-- this forum has been an incredible resource!

[Lenny Eiger]

but I'm fairly certain my Nikon 9000 with glass carrier is doing much better than 2000 spi.

I always thought the Nikon scanners with a glass carrier were pretty good...

I'm not a fan of Epson, so I'll just be quiet on that front... ;-)

Lenny

[Bruce M. Herman]

Looks like you already purchased your solution, but for the benefit of others who look at this thread, I offer the following based on my personal experience with an Eversmart Supreme scanner that I own and have under a Kodak service agreement.

A downside to ownership of scanners in the Eversmart and IQ Smart families is that you must be a photography business to deal with Kodak, and that seems to include the purchase of parts or new bulbs. Anyone considering one of these scanners should first establish a business and then verify that Kodak will sell parts to you. Even Genesis Equipment seems to be unable to purchase parts from Kodak.

These scanners are generally well built, but the folks that designed them are no longer working. They are basically black boxes that have been reverse engineered by the techs who service them now. That doesn't mean that they can't keep them working, but some solutions to problems appear to me to be less robust than others.

The ScanHi-End discussion site has numerous posts by folks who purchased scanners that are no longer being made and who cannot get them to work either due to a lack of parts or knowledgeable support providers. I personally would be wary of purchasing a scanner that is no longer being made.

[eduardtoader]

How Lenny Eiger said, this forum (you all) has been an incredible resource!


I´ll try to avoid the scan comparisons because I´ve not worked with any film scanner for scan bigger transparencies than 35mm.

I have 4x5" Tmax 50 sheet shot and developed (well said -35 shets if i think in some tank accidental light leaks or a second time developer -with unpresentable results) but I still haven´t any digital archive. I´ve tried digital shots of the negatives with the flash bounced against the camera, some scans in a normal scanner with a table lamp against the negative and more..

I´m looking to purchase a used 4990 or something similar. Today I meet a Heidelberg 1400 linoscan in mint condition for 100 $ here in Spain but the LF reviews deflate me.
Recently, a friend gave me a Duoscan T1200 but I can´t connect the SCSI to my Pc. There are a lot of SCSI trying adapters and theories but I don´t know who has the reason - so I don´t know wich part or cable or wich gadget I should buy.

I look for a scanner that bring me an archive to print untill 30x40cm or little bit more without interpolate. I´m usually printing the 50x70cm size but I should go to a drum scanner - in this case.

My budget - 200 dollars.

Thanks for your patience.


Best wishes for this days and the coming year.