Flatbed vs drum scan

[Paul Schilliger]

You are welcome!

[Steve Seitz]

I would be interested in knowing how Adam modified the HP Photosmart to accept 4x5 tranies.

Thanks

[Guy_2084]

Yeah, I'd like to know how a Photosmart can be converted to scan 4x5 as well. I heard of folks slicing up their film into strips, but that's out of the question for me.

[orgel]

I'ld like to know if the Epson 1680 can be succesfully used for scanning 6x17 color and b/w transparencies, color negs and b/w negs?

Anyone done that successfully? I wan tot make pritn son my Epson 3000, size: about 44 inches maximum length, and about 17 inches max height.

THANKS

[Anthony J. Kohler]

I would be interested in knowing how Adam modified the HP Photosmart to accept 4x5 tranies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, I'd like to know how a Photosmart can be converted to scan 4x5 as well. I heard of folks slicing up their film into strips, but that's out of the question for me.

Me, too. I have a Microtek Scanmaker 4 that I use for anything bigger than 35mm, but I've got an old Photosmart that still gives better 35mm scans than the flatbed (duh). Using it for bigger films sounds like a great idea.

Tony

[David Glover]

Sorry Adam, I don't think you've seen the results of really good drum scans.

Consider the specs: HP Photosmart has 2400dpi optical resolution. DMax (maximum density) is unspecified.

Drum scanners typically start at 4000dpi - and up to 25,000 for a serious one. DMax is up to 4.2.

The photomultiplier tubes used in drum scanners simply have a much wider dynamic range than the very best CCDs. This does make a difference that will be visible in many instances.

That said, for the original questioner's purpose, the difference wouldn't be that great. But the 2400dpi resolution of the HP limits enlargements to about 8X with a resolution of 300dpi ? so a 35mm image would be roughly the size of a letter.

I'd be the first to agree a drum scan is overkill for many applications, but to say it can be matched by any CCD scanner is simply technically incorrect. Apart from the machines' capabilities, an experienced professional drum scanner operator will be able to get better results out of any scanner than the most conscientious part-timer.

And I'm surprised to hear these are hard to find in Singapore, given the volume of high quality printing done there.

As for the price of drum scanners - it's simply driven by volume.

There's no way I'd suggest everyone goes for a drum scanner, or that their quality is necessary for every application. But for critical print reproduction work or significant enlargements, they're still essential.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but here in Sydney drum scans are cheaper than ever. If you're doing a few with reasonable deadlines you can get scans done for A$20-30 (US$10-15) each. Very reasonable when you consider you're getting a professional operator and a machine worth A$100,000+.

Hope this is useful. (Incidentally, I'm not in the scanning business, but have been buying high quality printing for many years).

[starkhaze]

David I would love to have more info on where I can get drum scans for $10-15!

have any recommends in australia? given the amount of hi rez scans I need it's worth my while making a trip there if that's how much they cost.

thanks.

[Bruce Watson]

David I would love to have more info on where I can get drum scans for $10-15!

have any recommends in australia? given the amount of hi rez scans I need it's worth my while making a trip there if that's how much they cost.

thanks.

Look at the date on the post -- this thread is nearly 10 years old!

[Mike1234]

Look at the date on the post -- this thread is nearly 10 years old!

Nahh... just a little over eight years old. Stop exagerating, Bruce.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I used a 1680 for a few years and mainly scanned LF B&W x-ray images of delicate botanical specimens done on fine grain photographic film. The problem I encountered was separation of delicate tones and some lack of fine detail. Dynamic range figures are exagerated as well. The 1680 isnt terrible but its not even close to a high end scanner. I sold the Epsom and purchased a demo Fuji Finescan 5000 (Lanovia Quatro) and the difference is remarkable. The Fuji separates fine detail and delicate tones exceptionally well plus the dynamic range is beyond any negs that I have scanned. I guess I should say that I reproduce my images from 4x5-11x14 negs up to 24x36 and will soon be printing up to 60 inches.