High end scanner options - What's out there?

[SevArt74]

Hello, everyone. This is my first time posting to the forums but I've been a long time lurker and have gained lots of excellent information here over the years.

Here's my sitch: After 17+ years of faithful service, my company wants to put our Scitex EverSmart scanner to pasture. She's still kicking (barely) and it's only a matter of time until she's belly up. So naturally, we wanted to start looking into potential replacements, and I thought that with time and technology advances there would probably be some interesting options out there to consider. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but I have yet to find anyone currently manufacturing and updating a scanner comparable to this Scitex?

Let's just say for now there is no budget limitation.

Here's a wish list:
- Something new
- warranty
- tech support
- flat bed (min 11x17)
- reflective and trans
- wet mounting capabilities
- Operates on current MAC OS
- USB connect
- quality that compares to Scitex ( MUST be high end quality)

Now I know that's a hefty wishlist, but it's where I need to start. I full well know getting all of them is not reality. We've considered purchasing a drum scanner in the past but feel the flatbed just gives us more versatility. We do quite a bit of work for museums and gallerys, so scanning large format negatives/prints for wall mural output is not uncommon.

In closing, If anyone has any input on what's out there, what may be coming out soon, or if I'm just in a dreamland on what I'm looking for - please give me your thoughts. And if such a beast doesn't exist, maybe my best option is to have this Scitex refurbished? Is that even an option? I wouldn't even know who services them anymore.

Thanks much for any input ~
-Cee

[Alan9940]

Just a thought... You may get more information if you post this on dpug.org

Good luck!

[SevArt74]

Thanks- I will! :)

[koh303]

The only currently made option is a medformat DSLR on copy stand. Not quite a scanner, but depending on what you are scanning could be a replacement.
Digital transitions market one.

[Ari]

Contact Genesis, they'll be able to help you: http://www.genesis-equipment.com/productslink_Refurbished-Scanners_6.aspx

[Jim Andrada]

Basically I don't think there is such a thing as a modern scanner like the Eversmart - maybe best to just get another one. The world has gone to digital acquisition! The Digicam on a sophisticated copy stand is about as modern as it gets.

You can check the Scan Hi End forum on Yahoo as well. Genesis refurbs Eversmarts and IQSmarts etc. Drop Michael Streeter a line at yak@genesis-equipment.com and see what they might have available. He's knowledgeable about this stuff. Not sure if they'd refurb your unit for you but it wouldn't hurt to ask.

[Theodoros]

Thanks- I will! :)

It is the best scanning method too (by far)... Provided that the MFDB used is of the multishot 16x "true color" kind... I use my Sinarback 54H MFDB in 16x multishot true color mode and the Zeiss APO 120mm f4 lens of the Contax 645 at f11 and use a Kaiser lightbox to lay film on. If one scans film of 6x8 size shot on a Fuji GX-680 and then digitize it by stitching four 16x multishot shots, the result exceeds anything I've ever seen out of a scanner despite the film image area used... It is so good, that using larger film area is absolutely useless... The output is only a bit more than 200MP, but the (complete) absence of artifacts and the (unbelievable) DR, is by far beyond what a scanner can achieve.... Prints of bilboard size at 72ppi are absolutely stunning for detail to the extend that one can have a close look at them and play "the inspector with the magnifying glass"... :o

It saves a lot of money too as one can spend the 2-2.5K required for the back (in the S/H market) but then sell whatever scanner he uses and save a lot more out of the cheaper film and the developing of it (9 shots of 6x8 out of a roll of 120 film), yet improving on the flexibility, the associated equipment, the expenses, the manouverability, the time efficiency, the control over the process and the (unbelievable) image quality. Let alone that he then has an excellent MFDB as to use alongside his film work...

One may ask... "won't I improve further if I use 4x5 sheet film and digitize it by shooting eight 16x multishot captures"? The answer is ...no! ...things aren't proportional as it looks if one uses a scanner... Simply because one has to use a less resolving lens to capture the larger image area and then, the method extracts ALL the resolution that the smaller circle lens (used for the 6x8 image area) is capable off... The added softness (of the lens) on the 4x5 image area (and then on even larger image areas in proportion) is also exposed by the method, thus cancelling out the benefits of the image area size.

[Argentum]

Digital cameras have such high resolution these days that using one on a copy stand gives you both a camera and a copying machine. check out phase one and hasselblad digital backs.
Otherwise I think its drum scanning unless you're prepared to buy used flatbed.

http://www.icg.ltd.uk/

there will be other brands I think.

[Theodoros]

Digital cameras have such high resolution these days that using one on a copy stand gives you both a camera and a copying machine. check out phase one and hasselblad digital backs.
Otherwise I think its drum scanning unless you're prepared to buy used flatbed.

http://www.icg.ltd.uk/

there will be other brands I think.

The use of a multishot MFDB for the job, makes a "night to day" difference for this particular job... No Phase-One or other single shot MFDB can even come close to a multishot MFDB for copy work. There's complete abscence of artefacts, no color intrepolation, no Bayer Pattern errors and significantly more color depth and DR with a multishot back.. (Visible) Resolution is a world apart also... This is because the Niquist frequency is quadrabled, but also because the human eye/brain understands as resolution the difference in colour between pixels. The single shot backs use software to create color and this leads in common color used especially within neighbouring pixels... Multishot backs have color depth of 48bit (3x16) and they capture "what they see" for color without any interpolation method used. There is no way you can beat the resolution of an 88mp Sinarback 54H (or imacon 528c) no matter if one uses a ...400mp single shot back (or other device that uses interpolation as to create color). The difference applies for B&W captures too (there you can see that the single shot image is full of (hidden) artefacts - just like scanners are).

[Peter De Smidt]

You don't need MF backs to do this, which isn't to say that there wouldn't be benefits (and costs) to going this way.

The big advantage of a scanner is that it's setup and ready to use. Unless you can dedicated a camera body and lens to leave setup, alignment and achieving the best focus is non-trivial. This is speaking from practical experience. I have both a semi-automated DSLR scanner optimized for 1x magnification captures at f/4 (Apo Rodagon D 75mm), as well as a Screen Cezanne.

[Theodoros]

You don't need MF backs to do this, which isn't to say that there wouldn't be benefits (and costs) to going this way.

The big advantage of a scanner is that it's setup and ready to use. Unless you can dedicated a camera body and lens to leave setup, alignment and achieving the best focus is non-trivial. This is speaking from practical experience. I have both a semi-automated DSLR scanner optimized for 1x magnification captures at f/4 (Apo Rodagon D 75mm), as well as a Screen Cezanne.

Hi Peter,

Setting up isn't a problem... one can use his view camera and mount the lightbox on the extension rail of it... Focusing is no problem either if one uses LV... With Sinarback 54H & view camera, LV is really easy if one adds Sinar's LC shutter. He can then use a macro lens and stitching becomes a piece of cake by just shift the lens and the image area around the negative... The thing is that (as I said before) its got to be a multishot back, you won't gain much (if any) by using a single shot back... A multishot MFDB though, will make a night to day difference one has to try it as to believe it.

Sinar (who only makes multishot backs the later years) even came up with a set up dedicated for the job http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/products/cameras/repro/ so that museums can digitize their old films of paintings without need to redo them in digital... But it won't make a difference if one uses his own camera and lens and an older multishot MFDB instead... Its really difficult to describe with words how impressive the results can be if one uses a multishot back... The back being multishot, is the key factor.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm glad to hear that works well. With my Nikon Dslr, live view is not accurate enough to focus precisely. No, I don't know why. For best results with FX, everything needs to be aligned within about 6 thousands of an inch at 1x magnification. I use a Velmex 4000 series linear slide for focusing.

[Will Frostmill]

It's worth noting that both Olympus and Pentax now make multi shot cameras in m43, APS-C, and full frame formats. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has used one of these for scanning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Theodoros]

I'm glad to hear that works well. With my Nikon Dslr, live view is not accurate enough to focus precisely. No, I don't know why. For best results with FX, everything needs to be aligned within about 6 thousands of an inch at 1x magnification. I use a Velmex 4000 series linear slide for focusing.

I've tried a Nikon DSLR too (just for testing purposes), the problem with the D800E I've tried, is that -like with MFDBs- the pixels are too small for one to get the magnification needed as to nail focus to the accuracy needed for copying film. But even if you do nail focus, the fact that it is a single shot device (just like most of the MFDBs) remains... Ideally, one has to use a macro bellows with the lens set to infinity and then LV as to nail focus. Of course, if a view camera is used instead it can replace the bellows even better, but the limitations of the technology (the presence of the Bayer pattern, the cross talking between pixels, the processor used for interpolation, the presence of microlenses on the sensor) will remain... Then there is the Nyquist limit that restricts the lens/sensor combination. I'm affraid there is no other way to avoid all these shortcomings but to ....avoid them! ...and using a multishot MFDB is the only way as to avoid them!

[Peter De Smidt]

It's worth noting that both Olympus and Pentax now make multi shot cameras in m43, APS-C, and full frame formats. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has used one of these for scanning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Will, the issue is controlling the camera via an Arduino, which is what my Dslr scanner uses to automate the scanning process. I simply don't know whether that's practical with those brand cameras. Electronic First Curtain Shutters are also very beneficial. Lack of vibration, light source quality, alignment....all are important to maximize image quality.

[Argentum]

The use of a multishot MFDB for the job, makes a "night to day" difference for this particular job... No Phase-One or other single shot MFDB can even come close to a multishot MFDB for copy work. There's complete abscence of artefacts, no color intrepolation, no Bayer Pattern errors and significantly more color depth and DR with a multishot back.. (Visible) Resolution is a world apart also... This is because the Niquist frequency is quadrabled, but also because the human eye/brain understands as resolution the difference in colour between pixels. The single shot backs use software to create color and this leads in common color used especially within neighbouring pixels... Multishot backs have color depth of 48bit (3x16) and they capture "what they see" for color without any interpolation method used. There is no way you can beat the resolution of an 88mp Sinarback 54H (or imacon 528c) no matter if one uses a ...400mp single shot back (or other device that uses interpolation as to create color). The difference applies for B&W captures too (there you can see that the single shot image is full of (hidden) artefacts - just like scanners are).

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm obviously not upto speed on what is available in the digital reproduction area.
Out of curiosity what camera and lenses are you using for repro of negs of all sizes and also capture of original artwork inlucing large paintings of say 6ft on the long side.

[Theodoros]

It's worth noting that both Olympus and Pentax now make multi shot cameras in m43, APS-C, and full frame formats. I'd be interested to hear if anyone on here has used one of these for scanning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Will,

I haven't use it yet, but I'm sure that the K1 will be better than using a single-shot MFDB. (no question about it) but I'm sure it will be much inferior to the sinarback 54H or the Imacon 528c for the particular application. Reasons are: 1. The size of pixels (too small) 2. The niquist limit (it can't do 16x as to quadraple it and the sensor is half the size), 3. The existance of microlenses (causes cross talking) and 4. the absence of dedicated software to ensure color accuracy and correct tonality... There are other applications though (like still life studio work or product photography) that I'm sure the K1 will shine... I wouldn't bother at all considering even smaller size sensors, the pixel size is totally inappropriate for resolving a negative.

Just think of that, Rodenstock claims for the HR series of lenses, that they are good for sensors that have down to 6μm pixel size... and those are certainly among the sharpest lenses ever made... I thus believe that what Peter thinks as being "not properly focused" is because the sensor/lens combination can't resolve down to the resolution required for scanning film... IMO it is softening due to the limited Niquist frequency of the lens/sensor combination... not poor focusing. More than that, the artifacts due to the Bayer pattern and the interpolation process are magnified. I'm sure the improvement will be considerable if Peter uses the K-1 instead of a Nikon, but it is still going to be far behind a 16x multishot MFDB with (huge) 9μm pixels and complete abscence of any interpolation or artifacts involved... Shooting in 16x mode with a Sinarback 54H is directly equivalent as if one would use an 100x75mm sensor (almost the size of 4x5 sheet film) with 9μm size pixels of true color (like foveon)... Surely the difference is evident only by one looking at the specs...

[Peter De Smidt]

I can move the camera a few thousdandths of an inch at a time. If I start by using live view magnified all the way, back off a bit, and run a series of photos, a couple of them will be clearly sharper than the distance indicated by live view. It has nothing to do with "the sensor/lens combination can't resolve down to the resolution required for scanning film..." I have a Edmund Scientific chrome on glass high resolution test slide. In my system, a D800E achieves over 4000 spi. Grain is clearly resolved. If that's not enough, I can use a Nikon Measuring Microcope at 5x magnification, but my tests show that any gain, even with 35mm Technical Pan, is not worth the added effort.

I appreciate your views, but sometimes you come across as being dismissive of what others are doing.

[B.S.Kumar]

...a Kaiser lightbox to lay film on....

The Kaiser is your light source? How are you doing multi-shot? If you aren't using flash, how long is each exposure, and the total time for each scan?

Kumar

[Marco Annaratone]

I scanned my 6x17 film by inserting it in one of the plastic frames of an Epson flatbed scanner. The frame is attached to one of the standards of my sinar P2 with duct tape. It sounds ugly but in fact it works pretty well. Then I took about 20 shots of each film with a Sony A6000 with a Nikon 55mm Macro lens (and bellows). Finally, I put together the 20 frames with PTGui. Once the correct alignment between camera and standard+frame is achieved the capturing process is tedious but no biggie.

My findings are:
1. PTGui has been thought as a tool to put together images from a rotating camera, not from a camera sliding parallel to the subject (i.e., the film being photographed). Lots of work to adjust all the parameters. PS Photomerge is not better than PTGui in this respect.
2. Achieved resolution is out of this world. One realizes how much information a good film (helped by a good lens and a steady tripod!) can capture. It is still pretty impressive even today with 100Mpix sensors coming.
3. Scanning color negatives is even more work. When I do not need a state-of-the-art scan I use Silverfast on my Epson V850 for MF and LF film because I do mostly color negative scans and Silverfast has an excellent library of profiles for color negative film (better than Vuescan in my opinion). With the "DSLR-based scanner" you are on your own.
4. The scan out of the camera has much higher contrast than that coming from a standard film scanner or flatbed scanner. Easily fixed in PS, though.

(My very personal) bottom line.
I do only fine-art work, so (1) I shoot relatively little and (2) I have no customers pressing me to deliver photos within a deadline. So, film scanning with a DSLR-based set up makes a lot of sense even if it is a lot of work. Right now, as long as my Minolta Elite Dimage II works for 135 film and the lab that scans my 6x17 and 8x10 films with its Creo iQsmart3 survives I will not switch to the DSLR-based scanner. But it is definitely - for me - a good "plan B."

[Theodoros]

I can move the camera a few thousdandths of an inch at a time. If I start by using live view magnified all the way, back off a bit, and run a series of photos, a couple of them will be clearly sharper than the distance indicated by live view. It has nothing to do with "the sensor/lens combination can't resolve down to the resolution required for scanning film..." I have a Edmund Scientific chrome on glass high resolution test slide. In my system, a D800E achieves over 4000 spi. Grain is clearly resolved. If that's not enough, I can use a Nikon Measuring Microcope at 5x magnification, but my tests show that any gain, even with 35mm Technical Pan, is not worth the added effort.

I appreciate your views, but sometimes you come across as being dismissive of what others are doing.

Hi Peter,
I assure you, it's never in my intentions to be dismissive of what others are doing. I'm only sharing past experience and findings. As you said, using a DSLR doesn't beat the scanner, may I suggest something then? I propose to use a Pentax K1 instead of the Nikon as a first step so that you set it up the same as you do with the Nikon... I'm sure you'll then appreciate the advantages of using multishot for the particular job. Then, it will be a natural step to sense what it is coming if you use a 16x multishot MFDB...
As Marco pointed out earlier, "it's amazing the magnitude of information that is hidden on film"... There is a tendency for people, that whenever they find a process that beats the one they where using before, then they think of it as being the best they can achieve... When I claim a "night to day difference" if one uses a 16x multishot MFDB with respect to a single shot device, it's because I've experienced the difference, I'm sure if you try it you'll agree.

[Theodoros]

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm obviously not upto speed on what is available in the digital reproduction area.
Out of curiosity what camera and lenses are you using for repro of negs of all sizes and also capture of original artwork inlucing large paintings of say 6ft on the long side.

Hi,

I use different set ups depending on the situation. For Scanning film, I use the Sinarback 54H on a Rollei X-Act2 camera or a Sinar P2 camera and then the Schneider Apo-digitar 80mm /5.6 M mounted on Rollei electronic shutter. Alternatively, I use a Contax 645 with the Zeiss 120mm Apo f4 that is dedicated for the Contax. For stand, I use my old LPL 7700 stand with the head removed and replaced by a camera base and then the Kaiser lightbox on its base board.

For artwork & architecture, I use either the Contax 645 camera with the 120 lens and either the Sinarback 54H, or a Hasselblad CF-39MS I also have (it's mostly the sinarback though) on a 40 years old FATIF tripod, or a Fuji GX-680 with the Sinarback 54H and various GX-680 lenses, or the Sinar P2 with the Sinarback and the Schneider 80mm.

However, I'm now in the process of converting the Sinar P2 and I'm also working with an electronic engineer (I have a British degree in MechEng myself) as to "break" the interfaces of Contax & Rollei 6xxx lenses (it's done - its in the protocol wrighting stage) for the aperture and then Fuji gx-680 & Rollei lenses for the leaf shutter.

So, within a month or so, it will be the Sinar converted (different frames for front and rear standard able to slide back and forth so that the entrance pupil & center of image area can be set for accurate yaw free operation & new bellows - front frame of 85mm mounting diamerter, two rear frames of 72 & 100mm mounting diameters) with Contax 24mm (don't ask... it's a Nikkor 24mm PCE converted as to work on Contax with full aperture dedication - mechanisms removed, rear part of barrel shortened by 17.5mm), 35mm & 120mm lenses & then the Fuji GX-680 50, 65, 100, 150 & 210 lenses and with either Sony a7 mirrorless, or Sinarback 54H, or CF-39MS MFDBs and then a Linhof 6x8 film currier for image areas. There will be a focal plane shutter on the Sinar too mounted on the rear of a (again converted as to fit on the rear frame) Kapture group sliding back and external electronic control for the aperture of the lenses and for the leaf shutter, the film back (on the 100mm diameter frame) will be used with the GX-680 lenses only on the Sinar.

I also have a (recently added) Rollei 6008 which will replace the Contax 645 for both film scanning and art repro (it can lock its mirror for the multishot process & its leaf shutter is very quite) when I can find an adapter & cables for the MFDBs & add the Schneider 90mm Apo micro lens... Then the Contax will stay for single shot work only with the CF-39MS back.

I also use Nikon DF & D800E bodies, but only have the 17-35mm zoom and then the 24mm PCE (well, not anymore... :rolleyes: ) & 85mm PC lenses and a Kenko DGX 1.4 TC for it (an old 35-70/2.8 zoom too as to use for walking around lens) and then have an electronic adapter which allows me to use all my Contax Zeiss glass (I have all but the 350 Contax lenses) on my Nikons with full dedication (AF too), hence I sold all my Nikon glass.

After the Sinar is ready, I'll have it presented here (the conversion kit as well as the electronics control box will be available for production) and then I'll be selling the GX-680 and the Rollei X-Act2. Parts of the Sinar & the Rollei X-Act2 (which are not needed anymore after the conversion has progressed) as well as some lenses I have listed here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=110197.0 in case one is interested. There will be a listing here too whenever I'm allowed to do so.

[Theodoros]

The Kaiser is your light source? How are you doing multi-shot? If you aren't using flash, how long is each exposure, and the total time for each scan?

Kumar

Each 16x shot lasts about 50 secs, it's about 5 minutes required to do four 16x shots for a 6x8 120 negative. I don't use flash for artwork repro either (it's Fluorescent daylight >97IRE valves I use for artwork). Strobes I only use for architectural work (sometimes in combination with fluorescent). Multishot is done either by activating the focal plane shutter of the Contax, or the electronic leaf shutter of a respective lens.

[Ken Lee]

Theodoros - Could you post some sample images ?

[Theodoros]

Theodoros - Could you post some sample images ?

Hi Ken,

Do you mean sample images of the conversions or is it for the results of doing scanning by using a 16x multishot back? I can post some drawings of the conversions and images of the Nikon with Contax adapter and lenses, but if the requirement is for one to judge the results of the digitization process of film, I'm affraid it will be useless to so as one can't have a reference to compare, but internet compression will do a lot of (severe) damage too if one only posts a result of the method... a four shot stitch of 16x multishot true color captures for 6x8 film comes out to about 1500mb... One 16x capture of 88mp (sufficient in most cases as to blow his mind off) comes out to 512mb...

[Ken Lee]

hi ken,

if the requirement is for one to judge the results of the digitization process of film, i'm affraid it will be useless

ok

[Theodoros]

I forgot to mention the following (important) as for one to calibrate the scanning method for extreme color accuracy... Kaiser's lightbox white temperature is extremely close as the daylight >97 IRE fluorescent Osram Dulux L valves I use for art repro (same white balance as Cruse scanners use). Then one has to do the following simple as to built a profile for film digitization:

1. Have a Magbeth (or X-rite, or colorchecker) digital 16X multishot capture of the card using the Dulux L valves and store the profile in Sinar's Captureshop 6.1.2 &
2. Activate the same profile for the capture (or captures) of the film negative, export in TIFF out of the software and convert the negative to positive on the TIFF file in PS... That's all.

[Argentum]

Hi,

I use different set ups depending on the situation. For Scanning film, I use the Sinarback 54H on a Rollei X-Act2 camera or a Sinar P2 camera and then the Schneider Apo-digitar 80mm /5.6 M mounted on Rollei electronic shutter. Alternatively, I use a Contax 645 with the Zeiss 120mm Apo f4 that is dedicated for the Contax. For stand, I use my old LPL 7700 stand with the head removed and replaced by a camera base and then the Kaiser lightbox on its base board.
snip....

Blimey, I almost wish I hadn't asked now:D

[Theodoros]

Blimey, I almost wish I hadn't asked now:D

LOL... ;) Ohhh common... you should see what others use that do the same as me...

If you think about it's not that hi-end of equipment... One can buy a Sinerback 54H for around 2K these days and if one chooses a Rollei 6xxx for MF platform (peanuts cost these days) alongside it and a used view camera he is set to go by having only 3-4 Rollei lenses that he will use on all his view camera and SLR MF plarform, as well as on the the view camera (with MFDB or up to 6x4.5 film)... You'll only need the Rollei control S as to control the Rollei lenses aperture and shutter on the view camera, but if you scan 120 film by using the Rollei 6008 with Sinarback 54H, you'll have a 15 times the cost Phase One system pale... OTOH you'll save a lot by reducing your film size (yet improving a lot image quality out of film) and then you can advance from there... The Rollei 6008 or a Hasselblad H are the best platforms to use for digitizing film as they are "as quite as a dead man can be" when making a capture, the Contax I use needs care as to keep it "quite enough" for the job...

[Argentum]

the question is for digitizing film, is doing it this way going to give you better quality than using say an IQSmart or or a drum scanner. If it is then its maybe worth it but if it isn't then its not. At least for me. Now although I don't have an IQSmart or drum scanner, everything I have read over the last umpteen years says the IQSmart approaches the quality of a drum scan but not quite as good. So where is the multishot method placed in that equation from your experience. Better, on a par or approaching which of the IQSmart or Drum leaving aside the other uses of the camera system. From what you are saying, it is at least as good as a drum scanner if not better which I've always thought was the gold standard in the film scanning game.

[Peter De Smidt]

I would be surprised if any of these methods beats a properly setup Tango or Premier, but the proof is in the pudding. The best way to find out would be to have your own film scanned by the various methods. Compare. I recommend Lenny Eiger for the Premier scan. Have Theodoros make a scan as well.

[Theodoros]

the question is for digitizing film, is doing it this way going to give you better quality than using say an IQSmart or or a drum scanner. If it is then its maybe worth it but if it isn't then its not. At least for me. Now although I don't have an IQSmart or drum scanner, everything I have read over the last umpteen years says the IQSmart approaches the quality of a drum scan but not quite as good. So where is the multishot method placed in that equation from your experience. Better, on a par or approaching which of the IQSmart or Drum leaving aside the other uses of the camera system. From what you are saying, it is at least as good as a drum scanner if not better which I've always thought was the gold standard in the film scanning game.

Using a multishot MFDB in 16X mode It's not only "just" better to drum scanner... It's is so much better, that if one digitizes an 120 film 6x8 negative, it will beat an 8x10 negative of the same scene out of a drum scanner! Honest... It will also make shooting larger than 6x8 (or 6x9) and digitize it with the multishot back completely useless... The later is because its resolving power is so much, that the (natural) weaknesses of larger image circle lenses with respect to modern smaller image circle lenses are revealed to their full extend.

[Argentum]

Why are you needing to make several files from one negative? Is it becasue of the final image size you require or is it so that you are only using the central portion of the lens to avoid any distortion and get the optimum perfomance from it.

[Theodoros]

Why are you needing to make several files from one negative? Is it becasue of the final image size you require or is it so that you are only using the central portion of the lens to avoid any distortion and get the optimum perfomance from it.

There is more info that film hides than we have experienced up to now with the best of drum scanners... Multishot MFDBs can reveal that, it is best then to shoot film in 1:1 image magnification (meanning equal area of film transfered in equal area of sensor size) and by shooting a 37x49mm sensor, you can achieve shooting a 72x56mm area of film only if you use 4 shots... using one (16x multishot) shot will still be superb (best you've ever seen) but four shots will reveal the possible maximum one can ever see.

[Jim Andrada]

Frankly, I don't believe any of this! Let's see a comparison scan between this and a good drum scan and then we can talk. Until then I think it's foolish to make claims without substantive evidence.

[Theodoros]

Frankly, I don't believe any of this! Let's see a comparison scan between this and a good drum scan and then we can talk. Until then I think it's foolish to make claims without substantive evidence.

I'm afraid there is no way that one will ever try to convince you... Frankly, there is none who uses the method that will bother to go find a drum scanner and digitize some film for you to compare... One that uses the method, does so because he did his comparison years ago... If you want proof, my advice would be for you to check yourself... It shouldn't be difficult for you to rent a multishot MFDB and try it for digitizing an older film of yours that has been already previously digitized by using a drum scanner... A good hint however is for you to call a major museum and ask them how do they digitize theses days their old sheet film of artwork... I guess there is a reason that Sinar came out with a 50K camera (cost as for one to purchase the camera, the 16x modern back and a lens) dedicated for the job.... After all the purpose behind forums is sharing information/techniques... if one risks to lie in forums, people can check it out and never take him serious again... I don't find it very polite for you to use the words "foolish claims" but do remember that if one can't support the opposite of the suggestion it may go both ways...

[Argentum]

OK I researched this (had a long talk to someone who knows) and this is my take on it. YMMV.

16 shot is moving sensor 1/2 a sensor site so is overlapping sensor site positioning which requires interpolation to create output. Also its incredibly hard to do becasue you're talking approx 4 micron shift in sensor position which is so sensitive that you require absolute stillness otherwise you get softness in image. No shutter vibration of any amount. No other vibration from any source. One user reporting that he even had to switch of his sound system to get sharp and that even a strobe firing was sufficient to vibrate the camera and/or subject that amount. i.e. 16 shot is a royal PITA. Then you have alignment issues which are incredibly difficult to get 100% accurate which if you don't then all bets are off. And lighting issues for both 4 and 16 shot. Continuos lighting is required. And of course it looks like you need stitching which is a destructive process along the lines of the stitch even if you can't see it (unless you know it's there and arr looking for it).

4 shot doesn't use interpolation and is easier in practice. But the claims Sinar make are about colour resolution and not image resolution which is something else. But if colour accuracy is your thing then maybe except that since you have red, green and blue pixels which are "overlayed", read interpolated, they frequently don't get it right which is true of all digital colour cameras. Interpolating an orange for example, from a mix of red green and blue may not accurately reproduce that orange. Most likely won't. So in short, colour accuracy actually isn't there when using to scan film. Only very close colour approximation. Still, it may "look" better than from a one shot back or drum but not as accurate as product literature would have you believe. But then how accurate is film colour anyway? So what we're talking about, as far as colour accuracy when scanning film, is reproducing colour in the neg which wouldn't be true colour reproduction from subject anyway. So its a close spproximation to a close approximation. i.e. There's a lot of bollocks in marketing literature and we need to consider what is really happening.

So methinks that what OP is seeing is soemthing which is wowing him but isn't necessarily "accurate". So it is something that has the wow factor, that's all, which might be good or not depending on your point of view and what you were wanting/trying to achieve.

A drum scanner will produce as good an image depending on your perceptual(subjective) take on it. i.e. one is not objectively better than the other except a drum can scan to a higher un-interpolated physical resolution than a sinar back can.

Also incidentally, Sinar have their new CTM(Colour to Match) system which utilises a yellow filter and a profiling system for each shot taken. Why is this system required? Becasue taking a three colour channel (RGB) and mixing them won't necessarily give you what you started with in the subject. This is a digital back manufacturer ackowledging that RGB isn't 100% accurate and is trying to make it better. So you can take it as read that any claims of 100% colour accuracy in any existing system are false. Not that any of us would notice since we can't see the original subject in the light it was taken in to compare against. 99.9% of the time, close enough is good enough.

[Theodoros]

OK I researched this (had a long talk to someone who knows) and this is my take on it. YMMV.



Obviously, the one you talked to, doesn't know a thing on the matter...

There is no color interpolation involved with 16X backs... When the sensor moves 1/2 a pixel step, it does so to shoot a new pixel (of 9μm pixel size) that is inserted inbetween the upper and lower pixel so that it doubles the rows (the mechanism records information -automatically- by recording the areas in between pixels in both rows and columns)... Then, it doubles the columns... Moving the sensor by 1/2 a pixel is done in the back automatically by a mechanism that is controlled by a piezzo-electric crystal... Has nothing to do with accuracy of positioning with respect to the subject or stability. All pixels are recorded by shooting 4 times 2G,1R &1B... no interpolation involved whatsoever.

Accuracy required is (of course) less demanding since the pixel size is huge 9μm... Color calibration of extreme accuracy is performed in the software... it even counts for sensor temperature by setting a new black reference point (for perfect black) before the sequence starts... (Absolute) White reference is factory preset and then one calibrates for the lighting and the software (automatically) adjusts that as to align it with the (perfect) white reference and the black reference... The equipment is especially designed for use in the most demanding for colour accuracy photographic application (painting reproduction) and is the most popular among museums... Detail is jaw dropping, not because of the resolution... but much more because of the complete abscence of artifacts and because of the quadrapling of the Niquist frequency...

Finally... Sinar's CTM has nothing to do with multishot sensor's calibration or is required... It is an independed system (again aimed for museums) as to advance color sampling so that it can then cope with gold or silver... Hence your friend (which I doubt he exists - you just read some troll reports that the web is full off as it seems with all the false you posted above) is completely ignorant of the technology...

[Argentum]

So are you saying that your back can't cope with gold and silver?

And I never said he was my friend. I said I asked someone who knows. And obviously I think he does know a thing or two on the matter.

And note that sinar say colour sampling interpolation and not sensor site to pixel interpolation. There is a difference. A half sensor site step is a half. There is an overlap and that has to be dealt with. just inserting the inbetween samples between previous and next IS INTERPOLATION whether you like it or not. Maybe not in the way that software normally interprets a bayer pattern but pixel interpolation never the less. Please explain how its dealt with without interpolating.
And just to be precise, even combing an R,G and B value into a final output 24 or 48 bit colour is interpolating although I'm not going to argue that point exactly. The point I'm making is that only using 3 fixed filter colours (the red green and blue sensor sites that form a pixel) is not sufficient to reproduce a colour accurately on output. It might be very close but never quite 100%. Maybe even close enough you can't see it most of the time.
Just saying that's all.

[Peter De Smidt]

A Dropbox account is free. It is easy to upload a hi-res scan to share, or a part of a high res scan. Theorizing doesn't really get us very far. What might be a theoretical benefit or deficiency might be unimportant in real-world practice. Drum scanners have been widely acknowledged as the highest quality scanning solution for decades. Saying that a different system is far better requires some publicly available evidence to be persuasive.

[bob carnie]

When looking for a replacement scanner at my shop - I had Aztek Premier Drum scans done by two different operators, I also scanned with my Imacon and I also
had sample scans made with the Eversmart Supreme. I used colour negative as a reference original and I wanted to see how this combination would work.
Medium format negatives are fairly normal for me to work with in colour or black and white.

I took all four scans and then produced files by matching LAB aim points within each image to the best of my ability's, not an easy task BTW.

I then printed these files on Fuji Flex on my Durst Lambda at 400ppi and mounted all the prints on foam. All prints again were to my best ability and were 30inch x 40inch.
I labeled them as A, B, C and D for reference points.

Then as customers came in I asked to rate the prints at normal viewing distance, and as well allowed closer inspection. This was done over 6 months and I think I got about 30 photographers opinions who were all in the market to make large prints.

The results..... Aztek and Eversmart had about the same amount of #1 votes and the Imocan was close behind.

Needless to say I bought the Eversmart and have not regretted the decision..

FYI - I have never tried scanning using a digital back on camera and have no opinion whatsoever on how they would compare - judging by the quality of files I am seeing these days from
the new systems I would hazard to guess the prints would be of similar quality as the scanned versions.


A Dropbox account is free. It is easy to upload a hi-res scan to share, or a part of a high res scan. Theorizing doesn't really get us very far. What might be a theoretical benefit or deficiency might be unimportant in real-world practice. Drum scanners have been widely acknowledged as the highest quality scanning solution for decades. Saying that a different system is far better requires some publicly available evidence to be persuasive.

[8x10 user]

I've done my own scans with my Sinar 54h. I determined good black and white scans can be done with the system however the contrast range of black and white film is so much smaller than that of the cameras that images drum scanners or dedicated CCD scanners are by far the best digitization method for black and white film quality wise.

E-6 film has up to 100 times the density (2.0 versus 4.0 dmax) of black and white film. The contrast range of E-6 film is a better match to digital cameras (that are designed for real world applications).

Essentially a lower contrast LUT would need to be loaded into the hardware in order to produce high integrity scans from a digital camera and low contrast film. If you play around with the files from your scans of BW negatives you should see how much easier it is comb the histogram then with a good drum or CCD scan.

I elaborated on this further in a thread on the LL forum.

[Theodoros]

So are you saying that your back can't cope with gold and silver?

And I never said he was my friend. I said I asked someone who knows. And obviously I think he does know a thing or two on the matter.

And note that sinar say colour sampling interpolation and not sensor site to pixel interpolation. There is a difference. A half sensor site step is a half. There is an overlap and that has to be dealt with. just inserting the inbetween samples between previous and next IS INTERPOLATION whether you like it or not. Maybe not in the way that software normally interprets a bayer pattern but pixel interpolation never the less. Please explain how its dealt with without interpolating.
And just to be precise, even combing an R,G and B value into a final output 24 or 48 bit colour is interpolating although I'm not going to argue that point exactly. The point I'm making is that only using 3 fixed filter colours (the red green and blue sensor sites that form a pixel) is not sufficient to reproduce a colour accurately on output. It might be very close but never quite 100%. Maybe even close enough you can't see it most of the time.
Just saying that's all.

Multishot backs are ideal to capture gold or silver, CTM isn't about calibrating backs.. it's about calibrating a whole line from capture to print. One doesn't print using PS if he integrates CTM in the process...

Obviously he doesn't know a thing on the matter if he got it all wrong... There is no interpolation involved or overlapping of half pixels with multishot... I've already explained, there is a capture of four shot (4x4=16) that creates a new column and a new row around each pixel... the new rows and columns are not a creation out of interpolation, they are NEW (the sensor changes position by half a pixel and shoots in-between the existing rows and columns and then at the that where originally, the fourth shot is the pixel that each row and column crosses by. (one shot is at the original position, second is half a pixel down, third is half a pixel right from the previous one and fourth is half a pixel up from the third one.

RGB output (if no interpolation is involved) can be extremely accurate if there is white reference and black reference.... This is because R,G,B (and then C,Y & M) are calibrated individually for their intensity at the particular lighting used and thus the mixture of them... Calibration is so accurate, that one can use the 192 colour patch as to calibrate (there is provision in the software - it then checks and counts for the mixture of colours too) and it won't make any difference than if one uses the "common" A4 x-rite card... Certainly if there is an error you can't see it... But (as I said) most important is that there is complete absence of artifacts and that DR is maximized (2 whole stops over a single shot capture out of the same sensor).

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob,

That's exactly the way to go about it!

[Kirk Gittings]

A Dropbox account is free. It is easy to upload a hi-res scan to share, or a part of a high res scan. Theorizing doesn't really get us very far. What might be a theoretical benefit or deficiency might be unimportant in real-world practice. Drum scanners have been widely acknowledged as the highest quality scanning solution for decades. Saying that a different system is far better requires some publicly available evidence to be persuasive.

Yes all. Please provide samples so we can judge these different techniques for ourselves. Otherwise it is hard to take some of these claims seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Argentum]

To OP, where are you located? Which country?

[Jim Andrada]

The OP seems much quieter since I clicked the ignore button. But it's a valid discussion to have even without extraordinary claims. All we need is some evidence. I think it's exaggerated but I would be happy to have the results prove me wrong.

[Pali K]

I am no expert but I do have a drum scanner. Here is a dry-mounted test scan of a 6x7 negative at 6000 DPI that I had made earlier to support a similar discussion elsewhere. Login with your flickr account to download the original file and draw your own conclusions (at least on the drum scanner side).

https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/591/21740620618_1f34909075_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/z89n5w)
Canon AE-1 Drum Scan (https://flic.kr/p/z89n5w) by Pali K (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palikalsi/), on Flickr

I am happy to scan an image if someone wants to send me a negative so we can do an apples to apples comparison.

[Argentum]

I've done my own scans with my Sinar 54h. I determined good black and white scans can be done with the system however the contrast range of black and white film is so much smaller than that of the cameras that images drum scanners or dedicated CCD scanners are by far the best digitization method for black and white film quality wise.

E-6 film has up to 100 times the density (2.0 versus 4.0 dmax) of black and white film. The contrast range of E-6 film is a better match to digital cameras (that are designed for real world applications).

Essentially a lower contrast LUT would need to be loaded into the hardware in order to produce high integrity scans from a digital camera and low contrast film. If you play around with the files from your scans of BW negatives you should see how much easier it is comb the histogram then with a good drum or CCD scan.

I elaborated on this further in a thread on the LL forum.

LL Forum? What and where is that?

[B.S.Kumar]

Digital Transitions (http://dtdch.com/) provides a reproduction system based on PhaseOne digital backs that is aimed at museums and other large organizations. Though their backs are not multi-shot, perhaps they might be willing to do a scan of a negative which can then be sent on to a recognized expert commercial scanner operator and Theodoros to let us see a comparison? Or what about using the targets provided by SilverFast/Faust, etc?

Kumar

[Theodoros]

OK... I'll bite... but I'm afraid you can't have larger than that (for obvious reasons)... The painting is of 48 square feet...

151155

The horse head...

151156

Sorry about the size guys... rights prohibit me to post larger.

[8x10 user]

I don't think that the phase one back allows for the LUT to be replaced in the DAC or for the signal to be altered prior to digitization. This is why I feel that high end CCD and drum scanners should provide better quality with negative films. For slide film the high D range and low noise of MFD should be able produce very nice results. Especially with the right lens. Good lighting, ect. Quality wise I expect current phase one technology to be closer to the old Sinar Multishot CCDs, only the latter absolutely requires low iso. Sinar multishot at iso 25-50 has stellar image quality; they took kodaks best deep well CCD chip and added a pelter cooler and a piezo electric microstep device that is accurate to 200 nanometers (as per my last calibration).




Digital Transitions (http://dtdch.com/) provides a reproduction system based on PhaseOne digital backs that is aimed at museums and other large organizations. Though their backs are not multi-shot, perhaps they might be willing to do a scan of a negative which can then be sent on to a recognized expert commercial scanner operator and Theodoros to let us see a comparison? Or what about using the targets provided by SilverFast/Faust, etc?

Kumar

[Theodoros]

Digital Transitions (http://dtdch.com/) provides a reproduction system based on PhaseOne digital backs that is aimed at museums and other large organizations. Though their backs are not multi-shot, perhaps they might be willing to do a scan of a negative which can then be sent on to a recognized expert commercial scanner operator and Theodoros to let us see a comparison? Or what about using the targets provided by SilverFast/Faust, etc?

Kumar

Digital transitions is Phase One's larger dealer in the world. They also sell Sinar/Leica & Hasselblad, but if you have a look in their web site, it is easy to conclude that they underestimate the presentation of the rest in favor for Phase One (obviously more profit)... Now Hasselblad and Sinar do support multishot captures, but Phase One does not (neither their software). But because museums and institutions are major customers for digitization work, Phase one came up with the "caltural heritage" software which is a "hi end" approach to colour profiling... Then, they coorporated with Digital transitions as to offer a "complete solution" (based on the Caltural Heritage software) that would be easy for museums to use... The aim is to sell on institutions, libraries and museums (a huge market) which has been dominated by Sinar and Hasselblad over the past decate and a half (because of multishot).

It is a clever marketing move as to overcome the abscence of multishot capability out of Phase One (and Leaf) backs, based to work for success on the ignorance that institution representatives have on technological aspects... One will be a hundred light years ahead if he uses an old multishot back instead... There are some institutions in the US that bought into the system, but this doesn't mean that they abandoned their older investments on multishot backs from Sinar and Hasselblad... The project is in reallity a P1 (marketing) project... Digital transitions was "(kind of) hired" because they could "open doors" with the institutions having sold them multishot stuff out of Sinar and Hasselblad over the past 15 years... :o

[Oren Grad]

Please describe what setup would be required to use a multishot MFDB for "scanning" 4x5" and larger sheet film.

[Daniel Stone]

Oren, TBH, I think you might be better served by sending your film to get drum scanned by a professional operator. But that's just my opinion
-Dan

[B.S.Kumar]

Theodoros, I'm not particularly interested in the "marketing" aspects. While I have not dealt with museums directly, I know people who have, and there are many obvious / not-so-obvious reasons why a particular organization may or may not choose to buy a particular system. Apart from the technical reasons, there are also questions of budget, workflow, etc. There are also many behind-the-scenes reasons, which may not be known to people outside the fairly tight network. Let's not go there.

DT says their solution with the new backs is superior to multi-shot. You say your system with multi-shot is superior to a drum scanner. I (and others) simply want to see a comparison among the three systems.

I own a Sinar 54H and a Betterlight 6K-2. I must confess to never having had a reason to use the multi-function capabilities of the Sinar. The sensor in the Betterlight is supposed to be the same as that used in the Creo iQSmart series. There are some people who use the Betterlight to scan film.

Kumar

[Theodoros]

Theodoros, I'm not particularly interested in the "marketing" aspects. While I have not dealt with museums directly, I know people who have, and there are many obvious / not-so-obvious reasons why a particular organization may or may not choose to buy a particular system. Apart from the technical reasons, there are also questions of budget, workflow, etc. There are also many behind-the-scenes reasons, which may not be known to people outside the fairly tight network. Let's not go there.

DT says their solution with the new backs is superior to multi-shot. You say your system with multi-shot is superior to a drum scanner. I (and others) simply want to see a comparison among the three systems.

I own a Sinar 54H and a Betterlight 6K-2. I must confess to never having had a reason to use the multi-function capabilities of the Sinar. The sensor in the Betterlight is supposed to be the same as that used in the Creo iQSmart series. There are some people who use the Betterlight to scan film.

Kumar

I would have no hesitation as to use a scanning back to scan film, they are tricolor "true color" devises just like multishot backs are and thus they luck artifacts and maximize DR. The thing is that they need larger circle lenses as to do so and this leads in lower resolving power (of the lens). Additionally, it is difficult to stitch some shots as to increase the resolving power on the film's surface. Still, the results should be comparable with the better of drum scanners.

[Theodoros]

Please describe what setup would be required to use a multishot MFDB for "scanning" 4x5" and larger sheet film.

Hi Oren,

I would suggest one to convert an Old view camera so that he uses one of its standards as film carrier and then use an old Rollei 6008 with a Sinarback 54H mounted on the view camera's rail and aligned with the center of the image area to be scanned. Then he can use a bellows mounted on the lens filter thread and the standard that the "film carrier" is fitted on and then use a diffusor behind the film and a lightbox to backlight the film area... It takes some self involvement, but IMO it would make an ideal dedicated copy device that would be as sturdy and accurate as it is needed for the job.

I would then recommend for one to use the standard's focusing as to accurate focus on the film surface by using the Sinarback's LV mode (the Sinar software offers a focusing scale that makes it easy for one to focus extremely accurately) and then he can easily stitch several (multishot) shots by using the standard's shift and up/down movements as to move the film surface and keep the lens constant. The suggestion is not what I use, but it is what I plan to do as to maximize the efficiency/flexibility/accuracy of the process.

Let me add this though which is a suggestion that one should check... If one uses an old 16x multishot back and scans film by stitching several multishot shots at 1:1 magnification (film area "scanned" equal to sensor size), he may realize that shooting larger than 6x8 (or 6x7, or 6x9) image areas doesn't offer anymore quality benefit. This, should be because of the lower lens resolution out of the lenses used to capture larger image areas which is then revealed by the "scanning" method. It maybe that if one uses one of (the few) "digital" lenses that can cover 5x4 image areas for the capture, there maybe a slight advantage over 120 film (again shot with a high resolution lens but dedicated for smaller image areas) but even in that case, the advantage is (IMO) insignificant to consider... Certainly there will be no advantage if one shoots even larger that 4x5...

[Peter De Smidt]

Theodoros, you don't have a test negative scan to show us?

Speaking as someone who's investigated this a bit, I'd be worried about alignment and freedom from vibration using a camera rail. I have a P2. Imo, it's not up to the task. Any vibration in the system is clearly visible in the results, and that's with lowly dslrs, and not the rarefied equipment that Theodoros is talking about. Moreover, the gearing of a P2 is terrific for film, but it's not fine enough to be ideal for use with digital backs at normal distances. Hence, Sinar gave us the P3. All of this is magnified greatly at 1x. The slop in the zero position alone would be difficult to overcome.

[B.S.Kumar]

The people who are using the Betterlight to scan film are not using a camera the way Theodoros suggests. They are using large, heavy copying stands or adapted 8x10 enlarger columns. My own attempts to use a Sinar P/P2 for this purpose have convinced me that the gearing is not fine enough for digital backs - even those with "huge" pixels like the 54H or Betterlight.

I think we need to see some comparison samples.

Kumar

[Theodoros]

Theodoros, you don't have a test negative scan to show us?

Speaking as someone who's investigated this a bit, I'd be worried about alignment and freedom from vibration using a camera rail. I have a P2. Imo, it's not up to the task. Any vibration in the system is clearly visible in the results, and that's with lowly dslrs, and not the rarefied equipment that Theodoros is talking about. Moreover, the gearing of a P2 is terrific for film, but it's not fine enough to be ideal for use with digital backs at normal distances. Hence, Sinar gave us the P3. All of this is magnified greatly at 1x. The slop in the zero position alone would be difficult to overcome.

Hi Peter... First, I want to thank you in public for senting me the PDF of the service manual I required a few days ago...

I will have a test shot of 6x8 film and post it just after the Sinar is converted (in a few weeks time), I'm affraid I rarely shoot film anymore for personal use and all my film scanning is part of the work I do which includes digitization of art work that has been previously stored in sheet film for institutions. The example I'll post however won't have a comparison being scanned by a drum scanner, it is too much trouble asking me this as the nearest lab is 55 miles away (and charges a lot)... I insist that it's best for one to try it himself by having a negative of his that he has already being scanned by a drum scanner and then have it re-scanned by using a multishot back...

IMO, the Sinar P2 should be just fine for the job, the suggestion for one to use the Rollei 6008 (or 6003) for platform, is because the Rollei is compatible with the Sinarback 54H (there is adapter and cables for it) and also because the Rollei is "dead quite" when capturing a multishot (it locks its mirror up for the whole process and the leaf shutter of the lens is vibration free). Focusing by using the standard's focusing knob should be not be an issue at all if one uses the Sinarback's LV mode, as I said there is a focusing scale on the (tethered) software and one can focus extremely accurately by using it.

However, i would prefer to have a set up dedicated for the job than having to convert my Sinar all the time... I think an old Fatif or older Cambo or a Horseman L45 should be both inexpensive and sturdy to permanently convert as to have the SLR body only mounted on it whenever scanning is required. My choice favors the Horseman because it looks the easiest for one to permanently convert as the film carrier can be adapted instead of the L frame block on one of its standards and then one can simply remove the frame on the other standard and bolt a camera base on the L instead of it... he can then use the standard's up/down movements as to align the camera with the film area and leave it there for ever.

[Theodoros]

The people who are using the Betterlight to scan film are not using a camera the way Theodoros suggests. They are using large, heavy copying stands or adapted 8x10 enlarger columns. My own attempts to use a Sinar P/P2 for this purpose have convinced me that the gearing is not fine enough for digital backs - even those with "huge" pixels like the 54H or Betterlight.

I think we need to see some comparison samples.

Kumar

As I said earlier, I use a stand my self up to now (my enlarger's one with the head removed and replaced by camera base) with the lightbox on its base... There is no problem for compatibility of the Sinar gearing with digital backs... the 54H back has been originally aimed for the P2, the P3 improves further on the gearing ratio, but there are plenty of pros that use P2s with 54H... Sinar's LV software is the best among all CCD backs, especially if one adds Sinar's LC shutter.