Creo iQsmart3 and Supreme II scan speed [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

View Full Version : Creo iQsmart3 and Supreme II scan speed

Bukmop

9-Aug-2019, 10:20

Hello everyone,

soon I need to buy a large scanner to scan large glass photo plates. I hesitate to buy between Creo iQsmart3 and Eversmart Supreme I or II. Scanning speed is essential to me. Can any of you who have one of these scanners scan the entire surface at 2400 dpi and write the scan time here. You can also write me the advantages of one or the other model because I'm still hesitant to buy. I currently have an Epson 11000xl Pro and expect much better quality and at least the same scan speed. If someone in Europe sells one of the scanners, they can write to me too.

Pere Casals

9-Aug-2019, 11:10

You have here a thread with interesting tips about the 3: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners/page3

If you scan at 2400 dpi you won't notice much an improvement over the 11000xl, you have to go well beyond to notice some real improvement. The iqs3 is 3250dpi effective able, but if you scan at 2400dpi (hardware) then you won't get 2400 effective, probably you may get some 2000, and the 11000xl can deliver 2200dpi effective.

If wanting to scan the full bed then you have to take the calculator and see what dpi you can use without the file being larger than 4GB, because some file formats have that limit.

I'd recommend you that before purchasing an IQS3 you order an scanning service with it and then compare with 11000xl result. Also see the drivers you have for modern computers, and check if you can get it serviced for the case you have an issue.

My guess is that for big glass plates in particular you would not find a better result from the IQS3. In fact it's difficult to see a real improvement for Potra 160 MF in this IQS3 vs V700 side by side: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

Of course the V700 is a bit better than the 11000xl, but also MF film usually requires better performance that big glass plates.

Bukmop

9-Aug-2019, 12:00

Thanks for the quick response.

I also have a v850 pro and compared the quality and speed with 11000. The Epson v850 pro is better than halftone than 11000, but there is one major problem "no autofocus". I did a comparative scan of a 6x9 BW negative film with the Epson 11000xl, v850 and Nikon Coolscan 9000. I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners. In Nikon scans, I can see much more clearly the grain on film, which in order to be seen on the Epson has to be made USM. In your opinion, will I get a result close to that of Nikon?

I know about operating system and file size restrictions. I have been Apple user since 1992, and I have a PowerMac G5 with Mac OS 10.5.8, which is absolutely sufficient for Oxygen scan.
At 8 bit BW image size 30x40 cm and 2400 dpi resolution is about 1 GB and 2 GB at 16 bit. So this problem does not affect me in this case.

For a few days I read the topic you wrote to me and downloaded large files. But basically my question is scanning speed.

Has anyone done a comparative scan between the Epson 11000 and 12000. Although they are known to be the same and the only difference is replaced ccfl with led ligit. According to the Epson site, they have different pixels on the CCD, which means different CCD sensors and probably different quality.

Has anyone tried scanning Large formats with photogrametric scanners. There are also many good devices out there that scan at least 20x25 cm scan area. Unfortunately, these scanners are very rare and very expensive.

SergeyT

9-Aug-2019, 18:25

>> I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners.

Oh No! You can not say it here

Pere Casals

9-Aug-2019, 23:57

V850.. but there is one major problem "no autofocus".

For big plates you don't have that problem, the low res lens covering the entire width is focused in then external glass surface. The hi res lens covers 5.9".

the grain

There is the illumination collimation factor makes grain more or less evident, in fact older Nikons had a very collimated light that enhanced BW grain too much, a problem, this was corrected.

I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners. In Nikon scans, I can see much more clearly the grain on film, which in order to be seen on the Epson has to be made USM. In your opinion, will I get a result close to that of Nikon?

https://web.archive.org/web/20190115071451/https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm

The Nikon scanner are very superior to the Epson for roll film, the Epson shines the more as the format gets larger. The nikon has a 8k pixels sensor, but it covers 1" or 2". The Epson has a 40k sensor but it covers 5.9" with the hi res lens, the Epson scans 4 35mm strips in the scan width while the Nikon takes 1 strip, so the nikon can make a much better work with rolls.

But at 2000dpi you should see not much real difference, IMHO difference comes from the excellent digital image optimization the nikon silently performs by default while with the Epson you have to do it in Ps. Also it can happen that a Pro scanner scans at 4000 to later deliver 2000, while the epson would scan at the nominal dpi you requested.

Make this comparisson, scan with the Nikon and the Epson at the max dpi, then in Ps downsample to 2000 dpi and sharpen to optimum, you should see the same, beyond any light collimation effect in the grains, and beyond DMax that's also much better in the Nikon, anyway the Epson using Silverfast multi-exposure improves a lot in DMax.

In Pro scanners like the Nikon you usualy find a good digital image optimization to speed up workflow, manpower is important in a business. The Epson is not Pro, perhaps it's prosumer, so you have to do that in Ps with a few clicks. Me, I prefer doing the image optimization on my own.

But basically my question is scanning speed.

The IQS3 has a 8k pix sensor, for large mediums, if wanting quality, it uses a zoom to take smaller crops that will be stitched. The Epson takes all in a single pass of the 40k sensor, so its speed will be difficult to beat.

the Epson 11000 and 12000.

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonExpression12000XL.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190515062458/https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonExpression12000XL.html

Peter De Smidt

10-Aug-2019, 08:17

What the largest sized plate?

Bukmop

10-Aug-2019, 12:34

Size is 18x24 cm and larger. The total amount of glass plates is several thousand.

So I'm looking for a scanner better than my Epson 11000 that has at least the same scan speed. I know I can scan on the v850 as well, but I'm looking to optimize my time and workflow. Let's not forget that a plate placed vertically in the v850 scans much slower than a horizontally placed one. Therefore, the v850 is not a high volume scan option.

Well, if someone doesn't have a Creo IQsmart3 run a scan of 2400 dpi 8 bit greyscale and tell you what time it is done. It's simple.

Things written by Pere Casals are clear to me. I have over 17 scanners - Epson (4), Nikon (7), Imacon (1), Konica Minolta (3), Noritsu (1) Canon (1) and more.

I do not agree with what was written about the number of pixels of the EPSON scanners. Either epson.com wrote incorrect information for 11000 and 12000, or you have other inside information, for example, from the CCD sensor manufacturer (would be great). For EPSON 11000 is specified - 87,840 pixels / line (2400 dpi) and for EPSON 12,000 is written- Effective Pixels: 94,500 pixels. Which leads me to think of different sensors in both models.

For the Nikon light source, scanners can also be debated, however, the Nikon 5000 and the Nikon 9000 have different light sources. In my opinion, the one described for grain is more for a Nikon 5000 which has a direct light source

Peter De Smidt

10-Aug-2019, 14:10

I would build a digital camera scanner. It would be way faster than any other way. How exactly you'd do it would depend on the required resolution. I have an old D600. I use it to take three pictures of an 8x10 negative. It is an order of magnitude faster than using my Cezanne. A newer camera, such as the new Sony with pixel shift, might do away completely with the need to stitch.

Pere Casals

10-Aug-2019, 15:22

S Effective Pixels: 94,500 pixels. Which leads me to think of different sensors in both models.

I guess that those pixels are in the vertical direction obtained by micro-stepping with the motor, not because of 94,500 R-G-B pixels in the sensor: from manual: Scanning Resolution 2,400 dpi x 4,800 dpi (Horizontal x Vertical).

The 12000xl may output oversampled 6400 dpi if you want, but it only takes 2400 samples per inch in the hor direction.

The V700/V850 samples 6400 in the hor direction with the high res lens covering 5.9" width, and 4800 with the low res les covering the whole width. With the highres lens it effectively resolves around 2900 in the sensor direction and 2300 in the motion direction.

calebarchie

10-Aug-2019, 20:31

I don't know anything about these scanners but have a look, you can get backlight units for most.

https://www.imageaccess.de/?page=ScannersOptionsWheel&lang=en

If you are willing to sacrifice resolution these may offer greatest productivity.

Jim Andrada

11-Aug-2019, 00:10

I have an IQsmart 2 it deivers 4300 ppi and is as slow as molasses in winter - ie it takes forever. But the result is outstanding. I believe the IQsmart 3 delivers about 5500 ppi.

If I run at 2400 ppi times aren't too bad but it certainly isn't even close to being fast. If you have thousands of large plates you'll be scanning for a few years. The good news is that if they're 8 x 10 plates you can mount two plates and scan overnight so I guess you might get 4 to 6 plates scanned a day if you run 24 hours a day. The machines were built to scan all day every day so if it's in good condition I don't think you'd wear it out. Epson - Ha! Buy a few of them. it isn't what they were built for.

I think some form of scanning with a good digital camera will be the only way to do the job in a practical timeframe.

Bukmop

1-Dec-2019, 10:28

>> I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners.

Oh No! You can not say it here

SergeyT (Серёжа), look my test. The same frame scanned at 2400 dpi on a brand new Epson 12000 xl and Nikon CoolScan 9000. The original scanned from 6x9 glass photo plate. Scanned with VueScan and saved in DNG format. The Epson 12000 has 4 mirrors through which the image passes, Nikon CoolScans has only one. Heidelberg said - each mirror between film and lens/sensor reduced the quality of the scanned image. Only Heidelberg have an A3 flatbed scanner without a mirror.

198052

Pere Casals

1-Dec-2019, 11:15

SergeyT (Серёжа), look my test. The same frame scanned at 2400 dpi on a brand new Epson 12000 xl and Nikon CoolScan 9000. The original scanned from 6x9 glass photo plate. Scanned with VueScan and saved in DNG format. The Epson 12000 has 4 mirrors through which the image passes, Nikon CoolScans has only one. Heidelberg said - each mirror between film and lens/sensor reduced the quality of the scanned image. Only Heidelberg have an A3 flatbed scanner without a mirror.

198052

Probably you have some problem in the side by side, the Epson 12k delivers 2150dpi effective, and 3900 the Nikon 9000. Not doubt that the Nikon CoolScan 9000 has a way better resolution, but at 2400dpi nominal differences in the samples should not be that large by far.

For the moment the white triangles in the Epson 12k sample are fully saturated, which points to poor procedures in selecting the scanned range in the histogram.

Bukmop

1-Dec-2019, 11:21

Scan at 1800 dpi or 2000 dpi has a significant result.

Pere Casals

1-Dec-2019, 11:32

Scan at 1800 dpi or 2000 dpi has a significant result.

Scan at highest resolution in both cases, sharpen to the best point each and reduce both to 2400, then compare, this is what tells the truth.

A machine may scan internally at higher dpi and then sharpening and reducing, for a fair comparison to show the machine potential you should do the right test.

No doubt that N 9000 is way better than E 12000, one is for 6cm and the other is for A3, but if wanting to compare do a fair comparison.

sperdynamite

2-Jul-2021, 07:29

I want to revive this thread because I'm considering an IQSmart3. I currently have a LF scanning service that provides 50 or 100mp files to clients from 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10. I chose these resolutions because I think they're consumer friendly rather than saying xyz PPI or even worse "300mb"... Of course I do specialty jobs at higher res on request but I get lots of photographers who send me 10-30 sheets of 4x5 and just want affordable 50mp scans. Maybe they're working on a project long term or just having fun, in any case I'm a big proponent of the idea that not everything needs to be scanned at 4000ppi with a Tango 'just because'.

I've been using my Panasonic S1R set up in pixel shift mode, and I downsample the files to their chosen resolution. This cleans up the file quite a bit. I use Negative Supply tools, such as their holders and their 99CRI 8x10 LED. People are pretty happy with the quality!

However, on my end there are some surprising issues with this workflow. First, it's totally 'hands on'. I have to sit there and set up each scan. This means dusting the platform and negative extensively and then doing the capture. I can get 30 4x5s scanned in about 25 minutes or so this way, so it's quite fast. But of course then I have to do the inversions and output processing. Next, digital capture is still not 'perfect'. I need to do a lot of tweaks to deal with issues of reverse vignetting, possibly even some flare. It's...fiddly. At very high resolution the dust is atrocious seemingly no matter what I do...

I'm attracted to the pro flatbed workflow because:

1. It seems like the scans will be better, and still allow me to capture the full sheet. My clients love the film edges.
2. It seems like I'll be able to set up a certain number of sheets and 'walk away', allowing me to multitask.
3. The dust control is front loaded in the workflow so maybe possibly perhaps I'll be able to mitigate it as much as possible?
4. I can still use Negative Lab Pro, which I think does a great job when well handled.

Micheal Streeter informed me that a 4000ppi 4x5 scan from an IQSmart3 will take 50 minutes. I'm curious what it looks like at 2000ppi? Or when scanning an 8x10 sheet, at 1000ppi? My 50 and 100mp size targets don't stress the scanner or film very much so I'm curious how much I can get done in a day when using these reduced figures.

Thanks for the input here!

BTW, an Eversmart Supreme Pro II was also recommended but they're closer to 10k which is out of my price range. Even the refurbished IQSmart3 is stretching the budget to some extent. I'm going to have justify it by doing lots of jobs with it.... If you're curious about my lab, it's called Northeast Photographic and we're in Maine. We do all formats but sheet film is run in Jobo ATLs using Expert Drums and 2509n reels. We have an ATL3 and an ATL2500. We use Flexicolor C41, replenished Xtol, and Fuji-Hunt 6 bath E6. A sheet of 4x5 C41 film scanned to 50mp starts at around $10.00.

Ari

2-Jul-2021, 11:24

Wish I could answer your questions, I'm waiting to pick up an IQ Smart 2, but the US/Canada border remains closed for now.
Get in touch with forum member Pali K, and look up some older Creo/Eversmart threads.
My old Eversmart Pro was great for batch scanning, so you'll enjoy that part of the workflow.
Maybe you can do just as well with the less expensive IQ Smart 2? Or you may have computers and software that will work better with the 3.
In any case, I don't think you'll ever regret getting a Creo scanner, they are a pleasure to use.

SergeyT

2-Jul-2021, 12:59

>> ... I'm considering an IQSmart3..
Finally! :D

If you are looking to scan 4x5 and larger, then an Evermart Pro II (3175 dpi optical) and higher Eversmart models could be as good if not a better choice than an IQSmart 3. They are faster and have better optics.
Scanning with borders on a flatbed is not easy. It requires precise masking or you unavoidably will get flare and contrast reduction around edges. If you go with precise masking then it may negatively impact productivity as fewer sheets of film will "fit onto the glass", alignment of each sheet will be trickier and chances of getting dust all over - higher .
Wet mounting is almost a must (to fight the dust , contrast reduction, and most importantly "un-flatness"\curling of film). Many may disagree ...
If you decide on wet mounting - try to get your Smart with anti-newton glass instead of coated one (to save on buying the anti newton separately) . Wet mounting station is absolutely not required , a good roller is.

Resolution-wise Smarts are as good if not better than a Tango (since you mentioned it), but they cant beat Tango in overall fidelity of image reproduction. IQSmart3 optics are not perfect and on a side by side with Tango scans on certain images with high frequency patterns it suffers from some chromatic aberrations that are absent in Tango.

I won't by a Smart model that does not allow to scan into DT format (a Creo proprietary RAW).

SergeyT

sperdynamite

2-Jul-2021, 15:30

SergeyT

2-Jul-2021, 15:54

Well, apparently they look great at Instagram size. Anything should :)
And IQSmart3 is a high end scanner capable of delivering great results. But to get the best out of it certain things should be considered and measures taken.
As an example try scanning an IT8 color target from here http://www.targets.coloraid.de/ and then "explore" with color picker variations in density over the Black patch of Gray scale at the bottom. That tiny vertical "White"(clear film) separator by Black patch bleeds into Black patch noticeably. This issue impacts all flatbeds. The Supreme is not immune neither...
But that just a tiny "clear" window on the film and it still has some density to it. Imagine the effect of open border on light spill over the edge.
Check page 21 of this doc also : http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Scanning_Guide.pdf. That's all true and can be reproduced.

Once you "nail" your workflow with Smart , I think you will be having hard time going back to digitizing with dSLR.
Mounting a glass worth of film will be counted in minutes and then the machine will do everything for you. If productivity (or volumes) is what you looking for - consider getting a second base glass. So your scanner will never IDLE. While one mounted glass is in the scanner and being scanned , the second one will be mounted with another batch and ready.

EH21

2-Jul-2021, 23:28

I have an IQ3 and though it's been a little while since I scanned 4x5, I think it's much faster than that - I'm thinking 10 minutes at 4000 dpi is probably about right. You can cut your own templates and put in a number of 4x5 negatives and let it work on them.

SergeyT

11-Jul-2021, 19:36

iQSmart3 takes 50+mins on scanning a 4x5 at 3200 dpi
Eversmart Pro II took ~25 mins for the same

The resulting files are top notch from both

sperdynamite

12-Jul-2021, 07:21

iQSmart3 takes 50+mins on scanning a 4x5 at 3200 dpi
Eversmart Pro II took ~25 mins for the same

The resulting files are top notch from both

Any idea how long the IQSmart 3 takes to scan a 4x5 at 2000ppi?

sperdynamite

12-Oct-2021, 13:54

As an update to this, I am ordering an Eversmart Supreme II from Scan Solutions Online. It pushed the budget a bit but I'm thinking it's the right move for my little lab. From what I've read it's pretty much the finest CCD scanner ever made.

Now to find a Durst Sigma Plus...

EH21

1-Dec-2021, 23:33

iQSmart3 takes 50+mins on scanning a 4x5 at 3200 dpi
Eversmart Pro II took ~25 mins for the same

The resulting files are top notch from both

My IQS3 is significantly faster on 4x5 at even 4000 dpi than yours. I wonder why?

sperdynamite

2-Dec-2021, 15:52

Scanner delivers Dec 17 or 18th. I added the wet mount kit with it. Getting excited!

SergeyT

7-Dec-2021, 12:25

My IQS3 is significantly faster on 4x5 at even 4000 dpi than yours. I wonder why?

It could be because of the Mac that I use to drive it. I noticed it sits at the end and stitches for a long time.

sperdynamite

18-Dec-2021, 08:02

It's here, it's huge, and it's beautiful.

sperdynamite

18-Dec-2021, 08:36

Ok so I made a scan of an 8x10 sheet at 1500ppi...clocked at about 18 minutes.

sperdynamite

18-Dec-2021, 10:50

Less than 5 minutes on 1000ppi. So much faster than I expected. The quality is blowing away my camera scans.

johnmsanderson

19-Dec-2021, 14:35

Would love to see some samples of the 8x10.

Ari

19-Dec-2021, 17:13

Ok so I made a scan of an 8x10 sheet at 1500ppi...clocked at about 18 minutes.

That sounds about right, if memory serves. I had the Eversmart Pro, not quite as good as a Supreme, and it would take noticeably longer once you pass the 1000 dpi threshold.
8x10 scans at 600-900 dpi were usually in the neighborhood of 5-6 minutes.

Less than 5 minutes on 1000ppi. So much faster than I expected. The quality is blowing away my camera scans.

That also sounds right. Enjoy, they're fantastic scanners!