SCANBACK: DICOMED (early betterlight) or POWERPHASE FX

[artyvisual]

Hi all,
Without wanting to start a discussion about the pros and conts of scanbacks, (I read a lot about it already, and decided I want to have a go with it), I wonder if anybodiy can advise me on if I should go for a Powerphase FX or a Dicomed. Important to mention is that, besides shooting stills in studio, I also would like to use the back (if conditions make it possible) for outdoor use in architecture photography.
The resolution of the Powerphase is superior over the Dicomed, but perhaps there are also some drawbacks on the FX? The Powerphase will cost me about 350$ more than the Dicomed.
Thank you, looking forward to read your opinions!

[VictoriaPerelet]

Scanback is one of the best film assisting tools ever made:)

One can do lens evaluation, image circle analysis, movements evaluations, composition assesment, focus evaluation etc etc. No matter what back you'll get - it's priceless tool. Just remember - for final shot - replace it with film holder...

I think all scanning backs are using Kodak linear ccd elements, so raw quality wise pretty much equal. I have couple of Phase one scsi backs.

Field use. Phase one is a bit bulky in the field, besides camera you'll need to haul bag with battery, invertor, powersupply, scsi cable etc etc. I think BetterLight has nice prepackaged box for field use. Also later PhaseOne have firewire interface which requires less bulky cable. Later BetterLight use USB which is also less bulky, but may be slow?

Computer. This part is very messy. Phase one software runs on Windows XP (I do not think it will work with later Windows versions) and you'll need laptop and pcmci Adaptec card and convoluted SCSI adapters. On Mac - you have to find OS9 laptop with SCSI or use USBXchange USC to SCSI convertor plus convoluted SCSI adapters.

IR cut filters. You do not have to use ones from back manufacturer. Schneider and others make IR cut filters. NOTE. IR cut filters work by reflecting IR back, so they need to be placed in front of lens and have no other filters in front.

[Adamphotoman]

I am using a much newer Betterlight , but my point is that Mike Colette will still service the Dicomed. I believe Phase no longer services their old scan backs.

[Jim collum]

+1 on the Dicomed.. Betterlight has had the best support of any company I've dealt with. I've never used a Dicomed.. but I got my Betterlight in 2001, and it's been working without an issue since then

[artyvisual]

+1 on the Dicomed.. Betterlight has had the best support of any company I've dealt with. I've never used a Dicomed.. but I got my Betterlight in 2001, and it's been working without an issue since then

I know, I already had the pleasure of dealing with Mike, absolutely amazing friendly guy/support, so yeah, that is a plus for betterlight indeed.


I think all scanning backs are using Kodak linear ccd elements, so raw quality wise pretty much equal.

This confuses me a bit. I thought the resolution quoted by Phase were uniterpolated resolutions:

PowerPhase FX/FX+ 12,600 steps x 10,500 pixels
PowerPhase 7,000 steps x 7,000 pixels
PhotoPhase 7,200 steps x 5,000 pixels
StudioKit 3,600 steps x 2,500 pixels

The Dicomed has a 6,000 x 7,520 pixel, 24-bit RGB image

BUT THE POWERPHASE HAS 12 BIT INFO. DOES THIS EXPLAINS THE HIGHER RES OF THE (PERHAPS) SAME SENSOR?


you'll need laptop and pcmci Adaptec card and convoluted SCSI adapters

This is a plus for the Powerphase, as it uses much faster Firewire

[VictoriaPerelet]

BUT THE POWERPHASE HAS 12 BIT INFO. DOES THIS EXPLAINS THE HIGHER RES OF THE (PERHAPS) SAME SENSOR?



You can google for Kodak tri-linear ccd to find specs, but fact is kodak is not producing them anymore. Scan backs are history. Technologically they are pretty much obsolete. Comparing bits and megapixels makes no sense.



This is a plus for the Powerphase, as it uses much faster Firewire

Look above:) "faster" is relative. They all take minutes to scan, if 1 min is faster than 2 - yes faster.

IMHO it will be crazy for amateur photographer to buy brand new scanback in 2014. If you are in digital you can get Sinar P3 or Arca digital ....

To me beauty of scanning back - it has scan area comparable to film size (7x10 cm). It can replace lengtly development process for experiments with film, will let you master view camera and LF lenses.

But if you are in to digital capture - scan back is absolete dinosaur, way bypassed by modern hardware.

[artyvisual]

Thank you Victoria. As mentioned in my opening post; I don't intend to discuss wether a scanback is still of this era. For me it will do the job.

[DennisD]

If I were contemplating purchasing a scan back, today, my first and primary concern would be serviceability. Because the scanning back technology is relatively obsolete and some parts no longer in production, I would want to have some assurance that factory or highly skilled service was available.

It's only going to become more of an issue as time goes on.

I have tons of electronic equipment (costing $$$$$$) that was state of the art when new, but after a few years of use is quickly surpassed by the "latest and greatest". It later winds up in the junk heap because it doesn't pay to get serviced or the manufacturer no longer offers service.

[Adamphotoman]

First of all Kodak made a number of different tri-linear CCD's.
I may have the actual names wrong but for all intense purposes the chips were 4K / 6K / 6KHS / 8KHS / 10KHS.

This should explain why you are seeing different resolutions.

Mike designed and built the prototype scanning back that was later sold to Dicomed for production...hence the name.
Then Mike went on to start Betterlight. When Dicomed failed Mike took on the support for Dicomed on his own initiative.. He is still supporting Dicomed and Betterlight although he is no longer building new units. Around 2006 Mike came out with his USB2 control boxes. Then lighter weight Lit-ion batteries. So the heavier lead acid batteries and slower cumbersome scuzzy connections could burden.

When I tried using the much faster Betterlight Super 6KHS for outdoor architecture photography, I had trouble getting enough quality to satisfy my needs. Especially using slower large format lenses to cover the whole sensor. So it completely depends upon your needs.

Since I still make a living partly with fine art repro, the Betterlight scan back is still #1 for colour accuracy and smoothness of picking up graduated tones and subtleties. I picked up my Betterlight in 2005 & I have not have not shot film since 2007.

[Adamphotoman]

Next, each hardware solution has both Pros and Cons. I now use a pano adapter to make landscapes where even stitching with a MFDB would have trouble such as moving sailboats in a race.
Coupled with the extra sensitivity of the HS back and a pano adapter & using faster 645 lenses and a lighter weight Globus body, a macbook air and loth-ion battery I have managed to keep the rig light weight.
This works very well for some architecture applications. Even a sunset image.

http://www.akphotos.ca/regatta.shtml

My recommendation is to save some $ and wait for a second hand Super 6KHS rig to come available on Ebay

[Jim collum]

33 seconds to scan :) Given the amount of work being done in Wet Plate, 33 seconds doesn't feel like all that long :D

Given that you can usually find a used Betterlight on ebay, the price would be much more reasonable than a brand new one. I remember when Kodak shut down their department, they put their entire stock on ebay , for about $5K each.

I'm not sure how obsolete they are though. As far as image quality and resolution, they've only recently been surpassed by the medium format backs. (with those going for *a lot* more). They're very reliable pieces of technology.. and produce the same images they did back in 2001.. so they're mainly obsolete from a marketing perspective. (Mike has a stock of parts on hand in the event that there is a hardware failure)






You can google for Kodak tri-linear ccd to find specs, but fact is kodak is not producing them anymore. Scan backs are history. Technologically they are pretty much obsolete. Comparing bits and megapixels makes no sense.



Look above:) "faster" is relative. They all take minutes to scan, if 1 min is faster than 2 - yes faster.

IMHO it will be crazy for amateur photographer to buy brand new scanback in 2014. If you are in digital you can get Sinar P3 or Arca digital ....

To me beauty of scanning back - it has scan area comparable to film size (7x10 cm). It can replace lengtly development process for experiments with film, will let you master view camera and LF lenses.

But if you are in to digital capture - scan back is absolete dinosaur, way bypassed by modern hardware.

[Adamphotoman]

The sunset, architecture shot above took 100 seconds. I shot it twice to make an HDR compiled image.iso 400 1/80 line time and at 50% res.

The files are much more malleable too!

[Adamphotoman]

I just got off the phone with Mike.
He tells me that YES he is indeed servicing Dicomeds. He also informed me that the Studio Pro does not take a battery.
So watch out for which model that you are thinking about.

Again the Bettelights are going for less than 5K...

I urge you to phone him for info, understanding and support. You won't be disappointed.

Grant Adam Kernan
aka
Adamphotoman

[artyvisual]

Thank you so far of all your help. Betterlight seems to be in favorite, especially by the very good support.
One of the advanteges the Powerphase FX had, was that they are powered by the firewire connectione, so there is no need for external battery/AC. But digging into it deeper, I read that the firewire of a macbook don't provide enough power to stable power the back. That is a bit of a problem when working outside the studio. I also know have to figure out if there is a easy way to deal with that. Perhaps anyone here knows this?

[shakeshuck]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but I thought I'd add some more info for those who might ask the same question.

I don't have any experience with Betterlight, but I do own a Powerphase FX+.

As far as the power is concerned, it works fine with firewire 400 but not 800. I bought a 12" G4 macbook to use in the field, it works well but the battery doesn't last long at all.

You also get less versatility than the specs suggest. I don't know if the BL's are the same, but on my Powerphase if you want full res you have to use it at iso100. Changing to iso200 will give you half the resolution, so if you want the best quality you have a 5-stop shutter variation and nothing else. In the studio that's not a problem, but in the field it can be very limiting.

One plus point of the FX is the probe (if you have one). It's meant for studio use to alter the exposure if there are problems with the lighting due to power fluctuations, but I find it also works rather well if the sun isn't consistent due to light clouds, etc.

In favour of the BL, I'm quite jealous of the pano adapter - I'd love to be able to play with one of those!

[artyvisual]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but I thought I'd add some more info for those who might ask the same question.



In the meanwhile I have bought a Powerphase. I prefered a Betterlight I think (better light sensitiviy and great support) , but was not able to one within range of my budget. I agree with the observation made by Shakeshuck. But the ISO limit is 200 and not 100 for full ress. I also use a 12" powerbook for field use, and that makes it a rather mobile set.
I would love to have the opportunity to work with a betterlight to do some side by side comparison.

[shakeshuck]

But the ISO limit is 200 and not 100 for full ress.

After your correction, I had to double-check!

It turns out I can get full res between iso 100 and 400 - it all depends on which film curve has been chosen. That doesn't mean (typically!) that you get to choose from all the options all the time; it only offers certain film speeds for certain film curves.