PDA

View Full Version : X-Rite Pulse and Drum Scanning vs. Flatbed



bmarcin
23-Jun-2006, 12:10
What is the difference between the Pulse system and the ColorByte RIP?

I currently have the Monaco EZColor calibration system that I received with my Epson 4990 scanner. It came with the ICC targets and I'm able to make color profiles for the scanner and printer with it. I have access to a Spyder Colorometer for the monitor.

Does the X-Rite Pulse add any value to the above package?

I like the 4990 scanner. I've generated a couple of excellent scans for 30x30" prints hanging on my walls. However, I always hear how the drum scanners and Imacons do a much better job than the best flatbeds out on the market. Would I be better off getting drum scans off my 4x5" Ekatchromes?

Thanks a lot.

Ben Marcin
www.benmarcinpohots.com

Gordon Moat
23-Jun-2006, 19:01
I will let someone else reply on the Xrite. In regards to Imacon, drum scanners, and high end flatbed scanners, there are many variables. People seem to be generally quite satisfied with Heidelberg Tango drum scans, despite this particular scanner being over six years old and no longer on the market. New drum scanners are best represented by Dainippon Screen (or just Screen) and ICG, both of whom make systems better than a Heidelberg Tango.

An Imacon is not a drum scanner. It is a CCD film scanner with a curved path film movement to help out film flatness. Arguably the best film scanner on the market, it is actually challenged in performance by several high end flatbed scanners. Most current models are better than a Nikon, Polaroid, or other 4x5 film scanner, making the Imacon a good choice. Couple downsides is the Imacon cannot do as many scans per hour as a high end flatbed, and unlike a drum scanner is not easily able to use an oil mounting system to improve the capture.

High end flatbeds are currently available from Fujifilm Electronic Imaging, Dainippon Screen, Purop Eskfot (sometimes called Esko Graphics), and Creo (recently bought out by Kodak. Of these, the Screen and Creo scanners are the easiest to purchase, and the easiest to get support, set-up, or service. A Screen Cezanne or Creo EverSmart will meet or exceed the capabilities of a Heidelberg Tango, and easily best any Imacon. The lowest priced Creo iQSmart 1 is a match for an Imacon, sometimes better, and capable of more scans per hour. Add on the oil mounting station to any Creo, and the results will be better than any Imacon.

Considerations: all scanners are operator dependant, and software constrained. A really talented individual can do a better scan on lower spec equipment than a careless or untrained individual on a higher spec scanner. There are many older drum scanners still in use, but they are not necessarily better than a high end flat bed scanner. Notice I did not mention Epson at all, though the 10000XL might be a low end flatbed to investigate.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

steve_782
25-Jun-2006, 04:47
What is the difference between the Pulse system and the ColorByte RIP?

The Pulse Elite System consists of a colorimeter for monitor calibration, a spectrophotometer for making paper profiles, and Pulse software.

The Colorbyte raster image processor (RIP) is software used to control printers in place of the manufacturer's printer driver.



I currently have the Monaco EZColor calibration system that I received with my Epson 4990 scanner. It came with the ICC targets and I'm able to make color profiles for the scanner and printer with it. I have access to a Spyder Colorometer for the monitor.

Does the X-Rite Pulse add any value to the above package?

I'm not sure what you mean by "value." If you purchased the Pulse System, you'd be duplicating what you already have to a great extent.


"I like the 4990 scanner. I've generated a couple of excellent scans for 30x30" prints hanging on my walls. However, I always hear how the drum scanners and Imacons do a much better job than the best flatbeds out on the market. Would I be better off getting drum scans off my 4x5" Ekatchromes?"

The "best flatbeds" are as expensive or more expensive than an Imacon and scan as well as an Imacon. Your 4990 cannot be compared with high-end flatbed scanners. A drum scan or scan from an Imacon would be far better than one from your 4990. Would you be "better off" with a drum scan from a 4x5 - for a large print, yes. There will be more shadow detail and the scan will be sharper.

Ted Harris
25-Jun-2006, 07:15
Ben, go back and check the ansers you got from us in your thread of tw days ago http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=18205. These are basically the same. One expansion on Steve's points above. The most expensive parts of the Pulse systema re the tools to profile paper. When you buy the top two levels of this system you also get the hardware to calibrate and profile monitors .. that is wht you already own and if you aren't going to profile your own paper then you don't need the Pulse.

As mentioned in theearlier thread, if you are satisfied with your 4990. cool. If you wantto experiment with results from the high end scanner world then send a tranny out for scanning to a solid reputable lab which has been recommended here. Remember that there are some that are a lot better than others. Prsonally, I would stay away from any lab that uses an Imacon unless the price is inexpensive. While a properly used Imacon will definitely outperform your 4990 the key term is "properly used" andthey often are not. OTOH, the results you get from a lab using oe of the top line Creo's or a Screen Cezanne or a modern drum scanner will outperform the Imacon (again operator is important). Expect to pay 50-150 for the scan but then you should be able to make a soid comparison.

Send me a PM if you wnt some names of places to send your film to for a scan.

bmarcin
25-Jun-2006, 20:09
Thanks for all the info, I will try out a lab here in Baltimore that does drum scans just to see what the difference would be for a 30x40 or 40x50" print. I really appreciate all the advice, thanks.

Ben