PDA

View Full Version : Leaf 45 scanner



manuel johson
4-Jan-2006, 00:50
I have been thinking about purchasing the Microtek Artixscan 1800. It would be used to scan 4x5 positives. I was reading your forum and Mr Dolde seems to be using a Leaf45 with great success. I would be most appreciative if the forum elaborates in both directions. The pros and cons and any other suggestions the you may have. Maybe this two scanners can not even be compared to each other. I am new to 4x5 and I am experiencing a steep learning curve. I am running a dual processor Power Mac 10.3.9 which is quite new but I am afraid may not support the Leaf45. Thank you.

Antonio Corcuera
4-Jan-2006, 01:24
The Leaf 45 scans at 1200 dpi max for 4x5", which may or may not be enough for you.
This will let you output at around 4x, which you will also be able to do with the 1800f. Don't think you'll see any differences at this level of enlargment. The Leaf is an old dedicated film scanner which most probably doesn't run on OSX and is reported to be very slow too. It might be interesting if you need to scan 35mm and MF too (over 5000 and 2500 dpi respectively), but otherwise I'd go for the Microtek. There are many posts in this forum regarding the qualities and defects of the 1800f.

Frank Petronio
4-Jan-2006, 05:55
I used to have a Leaf 45 and I think the modern under $1000 flatbeds are as good as the older Leafs.

Henry Ambrose
4-Jan-2006, 06:54
I concur with what has been written above. I sold my LeafScan45 after finding that the Epson 1680 and 4870 that I owned at that same time gave better results. My current Epson 4990 is even better. The Leaf was sharper but its lower resolution on 4x5 film would not match the prints made by the Epsons. For 6x6 and 6x7 the LeafScan was superior to the 1680 and 4870, but not that much.

Kirk Gittings
4-Jan-2006, 11:56
Tell us about your final product? prints? How big etc.

manuel johson
4-Jan-2006, 22:56
Thank you all for your feedback. I would stay away from Leaf 45. I would probably do not print anything larger than 20x30. I am not sure if a Microtek 1800 or an Epson 4990 would get me there from a 4x5 image. I am willing to get something better but I would rather not exceed the $1800 range.

Jack Brady
5-Jan-2006, 06:26
I used to own a software development firm and among other things we wrote drivers for the Leaf , Howtek drum scanners, Sharp flatbeds, etc for the Silicon Graphics platform over their SCSI interface.

The Leaf has a steep learning curve in order to get a decent quality curve, and has nil for support today in either hardware or software support. In short, it was not a device I liked to work with then and I would like even less today.

I highly recommend the Howtek 4500, 6500 or 8000 drum scanners. I'm currently running the Howtek HiResolve 8000 using PC based Aztek DPL Pro software - the combination produces excellent digital files to work with from all formats and types of film. I plan on staying with drum scanning of my film (which I develop myself for control) for some years to come - at least until the arrays reach about 52-55MP and are AFFORDABLE!

manuel johson
6-Jan-2006, 11:10
Thank you Jack. I am afraid that drum scanners are out of my price range.

sanking
7-Jan-2006, 09:09
I agree that the Leaf 45 has a steep learning curve, and you might also find it easier to work with if you dedicated an older Mac 3 with OS 9.2.2 to it )very inexpensive).

However, there is no comparison in my opinin between results with medium format between the Leaf 45 and a flatbed like the Epson 4870, which I also use. There is a sharpness to the Leaf scans that the 4870 just does not have, and the difference is significant at print sizes of 8X10 and larger, not small.

As for 4X5, if you use a glass plate you can actually scan in two passes at 2450 and stitch in Photoshop. The glass plate will also allow easy use of wet mounting.

John Barnes
7-Jan-2006, 10:18
I have a Leafscan 45 beside me on my desk connected to my G4 right now. As of today I am running the scanner on OS 9.2.2 However Lasersoft sells silvefast Ai iT8 and Ai iT8 studio which provides full upgrade to OS X and Win 2000 and XP

I do understand the opinions of others regarding the learning curve of the L45 but I feel the superior results regarding sharpness are worth keeping this scanner around. Also at the prices it can be had for now, I think it is a excelent value for the money, due to the versitility of scanning film 35mm to 4x5. I have not seen a flatbed that can give me the quality of the leafscan on the 6x6 transparencys I shoot on occasion.

Lastly the Yahoo groups has a Leafscan user group which has helped me greatly.

Doug Dolde
7-Jan-2006, 17:07
Since my name was mentioned I guess some clarification might be in order.

I use the Leafscan 45 with Silverfast and Burney Poh's glass mounting plate. Go to Yahoo Groups for more info on this though he may not have many left for sale. His plate lets me wet mount the transparencies using Kami or baby oil (messier but actually better than Kami in terms of solid contact with no voids).

To up the resolution I scan a 4x5 in two passes at 2540 dpi then stitch them with PanaVue Image Assembler. I can't see any flaws in the stitching using this software. So I get a file that will print at 24x30 (360 dpi).

Is the Leafscan 45 perfect? No...there is some color fringing which is likely due to the three passes not aligning perfectly. But at actual pixels I can't see it nor can I see it on a print. Also it is a bit slow but I run Silverfast in stand alone mode so I can be working on another image in Photoshop while it is scanning in the background. So slow doesn't bother me.

I find the color quite good (I haven't done a color profile of the scanner) and better than the Epson 4990. The sharpness is WAY superior to the Epson as well.

Still, it doesn't beat a Tango drum scan which for me is the gold standard. I also compared a scan I did several years ago on an Imacon Photo scanner at 3200 dpi. The Imacon did give some more detail mostly I think due to the higher dpi.

manuel johson
9-Jan-2006, 22:29
Thank you all for your great feedback. I am not clear about the technique Doug is describing. Are you scanning a one half of the image and latter the other and stitching them afterwards? I would check yahoo groups for more info.

Doug Dolde
6-Jun-2006, 16:16
Thank you all for your great feedback. I am not clear about the technique Doug is describing. Are you scanning a one half of the image and latter the other and stitching them afterwards? I would check yahoo groups for more info.

Yes I scan the 4x5 in portrait mode in two halves @ 2540 dpi then stitch them using Panavue Image Assembler's Mosaic mode. Flawless.

Doug Dolde
6-Jun-2006, 16:23
I concur with what has been written above. I sold my LeafScan45 after finding that the Epson 1680 and 4870 that I owned at that same time gave better results. My current Epson 4990 is even better. The Leaf was sharper but its lower resolution on 4x5 film would not match the prints made by the Epsons. For 6x6 and 6x7 the LeafScan was superior to the 1680 and 4870, but not that much.

My experience is just the opposite. Sold the 4990 after getting the Leaf. However I do use the glass plate and wet mount, use Silverfast, and scan 4x5 at 2540 in two halves then stitch. If you weren't doing all this the Epson might appear better. But doing this I get scans that are so close to Tango scans I have stopped sending them out entirely.

Henry Ambrose
6-Jun-2006, 17:00
Well sure Doug, if you stitch two scans carefully and well the Leaf would perform great. But if you just run the the LeafScan 45 and 4990 head to head the Epson wins handily with its higher resolution.

What I don't get is the talk about the Leaf software being difficult to use. I think its one of the simplest and easiest ever. The Leaf is a great machine given its limitations.

Doug Dolde
6-Jun-2006, 17:47
http://www.painted-with-light.com/NEW_WORK/5JUN2006_LARGE.jpg


Here's a scan done on the Leaf.

Henry Ambrose
6-Jun-2006, 19:24
Looks good.
In what part of Arizona was this taken?

Doug Dolde
6-Jun-2006, 20:01
No way. This is the Hoh Rain Forest in the Olympic National Park, Washington.

Arizona doesn't have a rain forest :)

Marco
9-Jun-2006, 07:33
I've been using a 4990 for a year now to scan my 4x5" and 8x10" originals, I don't enlarge more than 4X and print on an Epson 9600 and I found the resulting prints good, we (me and my wife) had a solo show in Milan in march and there were prints from 4990 scans and prints from Creo scans, at our low level of enlargement nobody was able to say the differences.
What is very different thuogh is the digital workflow involved: since the Epson 4990 scans are very soft, you have to work very hard and in a very sophisticated way in PS to obtain good results (i.e. to restore apparent sharpeness without causing too much noise or other strange artifacts), while with a Creo or, better, a drum scanner, the post production work is much easier...

Ciao
Marco