Flatbed v. drum scans for lightjet prints - Microtek 1800F.

[Bruce M. Herman]

Tuan,

I have an 1800f, and previously owned a Linocolor-Hell Ultra Saphir II. The 1800f does have a lower noise level than the Ultra, but Heidelberg's Newcolor 5000 software is superior to SilverFast in ease of use and in achieving the correct color balance on the first pass. I've used both to make prints up to 11x14 with an Epson 1280 printer using Epson's ink set. The differences in dynamic range are small, but visible.

I've also had scans from drum scanners and subsequently used these to make inkjet prints on my Epson 1280. I cannot see any real difference between these and the same prints made from 1800f scans.

I would make the following observation: although I have not used Epson's ultrabright inks, the 3rd party pigment inks that I have used with the Epson 1280 are well known to have a smaller gamut than the Epson dye based inks, not to mention the gamut in a LightJet print. If you are printing with these inks, a scanner with a Dmax of 3.4 would probably be more than adequate.

What would I do? For LightJet prints, I would go to the drum scanner. For dye based or comparable gamut inks, I would use the 1800f. For most pigment inks, or for printing on uncoated fine art papers, I would use a less expensive scanner.

One last note - I have found that the 1800f driver is very picky about other applications running when it is installed. If you work on an IBM clone, install in the safe mode. I also use 2 or more scans (a setting in the SilverFast software) to avoid some color artifacts that seem to appear in single pass scans.

I hope that this has been of some help, and that you read it in good health.

Cheers, Bruce

[Henry Ambrose]

I have owned and used the Leafscan45, the Agfa 2500 (no longer made and long since sold by me) and an Epson 1680 for 4X5 film. All give fine results with 4X5 film. I do mostly color negative but did not have any trouble with any of these scanners with transparency film or B&W negs. Actually sometimes the Agfa would fail me on real dense film but you won't buy one of those anyway.

What is missing from your question I think is the size of the prints you want to make. I now regularly use the 1680 to scan 4X5 film and have 8.5X11 prints output from a Durst Lambda with 400 ppi input that I (and very important my architecture clients) find completely wonderful in their quality. A very small reproduction size but I've made lots of them with great success and a little cropping does not hurt them at all so I feel like I have a cushion to work with. The largest print I've seen from my 1680 scanner was a ten foot by ten foot trade show display background that looked fine, and again a satisfied customer. It was not fine art or even close but looked quite good given the output device they used and the purpose intended. From on-screen viewing of the files I get from the Epson I estimate they are great to 11X14 from the Durst printer but I've only made large 4X5 prints on Epson inkjets and they have a way of making not-so-good scans look better than they really are. I can compare the Leaf at 2500 ppi from roll film and the Epson at 1600 ppi from 4X5 and the Epson/4X5 scans are simply amazingly better with both scans being about 120MB file size. For what its worth I've worked extensively as a commercial photographer with digital cameras and film scanners since 1991 and I've seen and worked on lots of scans from most all kinds of scanners since that time.

Anyway, my point is that if you're not making large prints then the Epson 1680 will do a great job. This scanner has a reputation for not having great lenses and I agree. The Leaf is much sharper as a file returned from the scanner, as is the Agfa. However the 1600 pi res of the Epson overcomes the Leaf and Agfa on 4X5 film. The Leaf as it only gives 1000ppi output from 4X5 and soon runs out of resolving ability. The Agfa because it has some trouble with dense film. Though a bit fuzzier, after proper unsharp masking the Epson scans look wonderful. Great color, detail and smoothness. This scanner has a much better range than the Agfa and makes better prints even though it is only 1600 ppi vs. 2500 ppi and of course you're scanning through glass with the Epson. I have not compared the 1680 to the Epson 2450 or 3200 which are much cheaper than the 1680 but the specs lead me to believe that the density range of these cheaper scanners might be lacking. I can not say for sure from experience. A friend has used the 2450 to make big three foot wide Epson prints from 4X5 B&W negs that are superb, so I might be wrong. The Epson 1680 sells for about $1100 with the film adaptor.

I'm with the others about drum scans being better, but if you're making smallish prints you can make them great on a flatbed used skillfully. Since you are using 5X7 I think you will get outstanding 11X14s which will be about equal to my 4X5 at 8.5X11. The repro ratio is in your favor. As print size goes up you may want better scans but then the price of the print should cover the additional scanning cost. If you want, send me a piece of film, and I'll scan it for you on my 1680 so you can get an idea of the quality.

[Dick Roadnight]

Neal Thank you, that is useful infomation, but the 1,200 is not significently better that the 4,000, and would not, IMO show a vast inprovement over the quality 4000, 5000 and 6000 ppi flat-bed film scanners.

[Dick Roadnight]

Has anybody used e.g. a 16 shot digiback and a Digitar macro lens to get LF pictures into a computer?

[Lyle Aldridge]

Neal, your comparison is striking, but I'm wondering if there's something wrong with your 1640. I've been using the same scanner to scan 4x5, and your 1600ppi example looks like the output from mine with about a 2p Gaussian blur applied.



Perhaps I've misunderstood the methodology. How much of a piece of film are we seeing? From your statement that the crane lettering was about 0.1mm, I've inferred that we're looking at an area of about 3mm tall, or roughly 1/8 of an inch.