Drum scanning technology: Why so expensive?

[Terence Patrick]

To be honest, I don't really understand drum scanning. But I'm curious as to why the technology hasn't come down in price or become the a consumer technology the way flatbeds have. Are the machines that make drum scanning possible so complicated that only professional labs are able to afford/use them? Seems like everything in photography has come down in price, except perhaps MF digital backs, but drum scanning technology feels like it's stuck in time with nothing new over the horizon. From the few used drum scanners I see pop up every now and then, it requires the use of a Mac G4 with SCSI, and the scanner is still quite expensive. Perhaps it's my ignorance on the subject, but it is rather difficult to find new information (from my searches).

[robc]

they are not designed for consumer use. That means they are low volume sales which means the cost per unit is high. Simple economics. If they were like hard drives which work to equally fine tolerances but are sold in hundreds of millions then they would be cheap. The technology is nothing special by todays standards. Why aren't they consumer level products? Because they require too much user input and are slow by comparison with flatbed doing a quick copy of a sheet of A4.

Are they expensive? Not for a lab doing many scans a day. They will pay for themselves quickly if you are doing scans commercially. At least they did before the advent of "Good enough" scans from flatbeds. And lastly, all the cheapskate fine art photographers who are not worried about ultimate quality just won't spend the money on one. I blame the open source software community which has created the belief that everything should be free.;)

[Ed Richards]

> And lastly, all the cheapskate fine art photographers who are not worried about ultimate quality just won't spend the money on one.

I hope this is tongue in cheek - even just scanning 200 sheets of 4x5 a year on a drum scanner, at $100 a sheet, which is low end for good services, is $20,000.

[robc]

exactly! if scanning 200 sheets brings in $20,000 dollars of revenue then that makes a drum scanner look pretty cheap to someone doing scans commercially. And if $100 is cheap for scanning services then some people think its value for money or they wouldn't pay it. Its only those who won't pay it that think its expensive. I wonder who they are?;)

[Bruce Watson]

To be honest, I don't really understand drum scanning. But I'm curious as to why the technology hasn't come down in price or become the a consumer technology the way flatbeds have. Are the machines that make drum scanning possible so complicated that only professional labs are able to afford/use them? Seems like everything in photography has come down in price, except perhaps MF digital backs, but drum scanning technology feels like it's stuck in time with nothing new over the horizon. From the few used drum scanners I see pop up every now and then, it requires the use of a Mac G4 with SCSI, and the scanner is still quite expensive. Perhaps it's my ignorance on the subject, but it is rather difficult to find new information (from my searches).

The technology did come down in price. And rather remarkably at that. Around 1990 a drum scanner was the size of a large office desk and weighed as much as 5000 kg. You had to reinforce the floor and place it with a crane. Literally. They could cost up to $250K.

By the mid 1990s there were a number of "desk top" and "desk side" scanners available. They often weighed less than 100kg and cost less than $80K. Some as low as $40K IIRC. You can thank the semiconductor industry for much of this gain.

In the middle 1990s however, digital capture finally got "good enough." Commercial photographers working for magazines and advertising dropped film and went digital practically overnight. The reason wasn't quality, it was time. They eliminated the entire process-and-scan cycle. They could see at the photoshoot what they had, get client approval, and move on. And time is money in these industries.

This of course devastated the pre-press market. They lost 90% of their business overnight. None of the makers of drum scanners could give the things away. There was massive over supply in the market -- why would anyone buy a new drum scanner? When the market collapses, where's your incentive for R&D and manufacturing new products?

The drum scanner basically ended around 1996. Everyone who was in the market at that time is gone with the notable exception of Screen. For the picky among you, Howtek isn't in the drum scanner business anymore - they sold the scanner biz to Aztek who keeps the name going. ICG in England went under, but managed to resurrect themselves a couple of years ago after being out of business for an appreciable chunk of a decade.

There are right now three drum scanner makers on the planet that I know of. Aztek in USA, ICG in England, and Screen in Japan. The vast majority of what they do is refurb. and service of existing scanners. The number of new drum scanners sold world wide could be less than 100 a year.

Those companies that wanted to stay in the scanner business dropped drum scanning and concentrated on flatbeds. And no wonder. Flatbeds are much cheaper technologies.

[Henry Ambrose]

Ten years ago nearly every photo printed in ink was scanned from film. Now nearly all are the product of direct digital capture. The pre-press industry barely needs drum scanners - certainly not in the numbers they did just a short while ago. As old machines die, they likely will not be replaced. There won't be any cheap drum scanners other than old ones that no one else wants. There may not be any new ones designed and made at any price for that matter.

Go to a bankruptcy sale of a pre-press house or engraver - you'll see older drum scanners that have to be hauled off for scrap becasue they are essentially unusable and not repairable. But there's no work for them anyway. Which is why you can buy a used but still serviceable drum scanner for a tiny fraction of its original cost.

What is a big fat 4x5 drum scan worth? Thats hard to say but as the installed base of drum scanners shrink I don't think you'll see big drops in scan prices. If anything, prices will go up. But does that really matter when the truth is that very very few people really need the highest quality scan?

Whoever started the idea that you must scan and archive a huge drum scan file of all the "good" pictures you make is nuts. Does the world need a 1 GB scan of your old falling down barn? I doubt that 10% of the "masterpieces" that grace a drum are worth the operator's time much less the cost of owning and operating a $200,000 machine. A realtively cheap flatbed scanner, well run, will accomplish most of what needs to happen for about 99% of the photos made. For your really good ones just buck up and pay what it costs. Two or three a year at $100 each won't kill you.

Edit:
You tell 'em Bruce!
(we must have been writing at the same time)

[Ted Harris]

Terrance, one more point. None of the high end scanners have come down appreciably in price ... at least not so you would notice although mos tare no longer over 100K these days. You are confusing consumer or prosumer flatbeds with their professional relatives. Professional flatbed scanners from Screen, Aztek, Kodak/Creo, etc. all start at over 10K and go up to over 40K. The guts of these scanners is as different fromt the guts of a prosumer scanner as are the guts of an 18 wheeler Mack truck from those of a Buick ... as are the prices and the software that drives them and the complexity of the software, etc. Finally with the high end scanners we are talking about machines that are virtually hand built to extremely tight standards and in very small quantities. The total worldwide output of these scanners in a year is less than the number of prosumer scanners manufactured in a week, maybe a day.

With the right operator the results are that much different as well. Yesterday I was working with a client and we did some comparison scans with a really tough full plate glass plate. The amount of detail that the Screen pulled out of the image matched or surpassed what he had been able to acheive with an enlarger (top line Durst 10x12 enlarger) and the results from the Microtek 1800f, while ok, weren't even in the same league.

BTW, I'm also not sure sure that much has come down in price in LF equipment. I don't see any significant downward trends in either cameras or lenses from the major American, European and Japanese manufacturers. Sure, there are new Chinese entries that are less expensive in some instances but that is another story.

Looks like we were all writing at the same time! I might quibble a bit with the point that the high end drum scanners are a less expensive technology than their drum breatheren. The CCD array's are somewhat less expensive than the PMT's used in the drums but the stepping technology used to drive the moving beds and arrays is very expensive at the level of accuracy at which they operate.

FWIW I think there is also one more company(maybe two) still making drum scanners. Worldwide, Kodak, Screen, Aztek, Fuji and Microtek all market flatbeds that compete with the drums at the high end. It is hard to say of Aztek actually manufacture their own though and Microtek doesn't sell theirs in the North American market because of prior licensing and marketing agreements with Creo.

BTW the under 100 made a year mentioned above is probably very close to the mark .... including the high end flatbeds.

[paulr]

I doubt that 10% of the "masterpieces" that grace a drum are worth the operator's time much less the cost of owning and operating a $200,000 machine.

My dayjob is in publishing/advertising ...the industry that keeps the prepress shops alive. We order drum scans for ANYTHING that gets printed on a press. Habit, probably. At any rate, your 10% estimate strikes me as wildly optimistic. Virtually everything we have scanned is crap. So are most of the pubs that print the scans.

[Ed Richards]

> exactly! if scanning 200 sheets brings in $20,000 dollars of revenue then that makes a drum scanner look pretty cheap to someone doing scans commercially. And if $100 is cheap for scanning services then some people think its value for money or they wouldn't pay it. Its only those who won't pay it that think its expensive. I wonder who they are?

I think you misread my post - I meant that very few fine art photographers can afford to have 200 sheets scanned in a year, which I assume is a pretty typical workflow, at least for 4x5, when you are not doing it full time. For example, I shot about 1,000 sheets last year, scanned about 900 on my flatbed, and had about 200 that would be candidates for drum scanning if I won the lottery.

As for Ted's comments - it is clear that drum scans do a much better job on tough negatives. Their advantage is less with negatives that are properly exposed and processed for scanning. Most of us can only afford to try to make negatives that get the most out of a flatbed scan.

[bglick]

Some very good responses.

I support Bruces assertions.... In the late 90's, you could buy a howtek 4500 for $6k.... a bargain indeed. In the early 90's, you couldn't touch these for under $100k, so prices have fallen. Now that Aztek has taken over the Howtek line and have pushed QC up a bit, prices are much higher....and the fact volume has dropped, well, it all equates to higher prices.

Screen sold 300 scanners a year in USA in 98, (all high end) now they sell maybe 3 a year max. This explains the "state of affairs" for the makers. The Screen Cezzanne flatbed sold for $45k in 98, today, its predessor, the Elite sells for less than half this. So prices have fallen dramatically...albeit, still not in everyones price range.

Also, the low end scanners have improved dramaticaly, and have narrowed the gap between the two, and you know the prices at the lower end. Today, used drum scanners can be purchased dirt cheap.... i see them in the $2 - 3k price range. However, due to lack of service or parts, they often must be scraped if they break down. A drum scanner is an amazing mix of mechanical, optical and electronics that is quite an impressive piece of machinery.... had the market afforded it a longer life span, which was reduced to maybe 10 years due to the advent of digital capture, then i am sure we would see more competitive priced units by more makers today.

I find it ironic, the advent of the PC's and graphics software created the need and purpose for drum scanners.... and then, only 10 - 12 years later, computer driven technology in digital capture ended the products life... pretty short lived product considering how sophisticated they are. I am willing to bet, had scanner makers anticipated the future of digital capture in the early 90's, many would have never ventured into the R&D phase to produce scanners!

Also, Screens high end drum scanners are still over $100k.... ICG is a bargain at $60k, as they have really advanced that scanner through the years. Its nice to see these options remain available on the market. But IMO, the good flat beds by CREO and Screen, and the committment to servicing these units, and their lower cost and excellent scanning ability is slowly killing the need for the remaining new drum scanners.....specially considering how many used drum scanners are floating around the market.

I recently saw a Screen Drum Scanner on ebay, sold for $250k in the mid 90's, could not fetch $6k today...truly amazing...

[bdeacon]

Let's not forget that despite their astronomical price tag as new units drum scanners can be purchased on the used market for a few thousand dollars in most cases. I picked up a perfectly functioning Optronics ColorGetter Eagle (with accessories) last year for less than $3K. Buying a used drum scanner can be a crapshoot, and getting them serviced can be difficult. On the other hand, mine paid for itself in a month and for not much more cost than a good prosumer flatbed (and far less than any Imacon) I am getting much better scans. It’s probably true that 90% of what I scan is crap, and that there is no way to rationalize a hard drive full of 600MB scans of worthless images. But they are my crappy images, and I have the scanner and hard drive space, so I am happy to indulge. And I’m glad to have done so when it comes time to make the occasional 40x50 print.

[robc]

They might be cheap on the second market but wait till the rotation has gone off center and you need a replacement bearing. It won't be cheap then!

[Terence Patrick]

You are confusing consumer or prosumer flatbeds with their professional relatives. Professional flatbed scanners from Screen, Aztek, Kodak/Creo, etc. all start at over 10K and go up to over 40K.

True, I forgot about the Creo used when I was in advertising. I knew a lot of the photographers who shot for us were still using film, I just don't remember taking note of how we got that film digitized for the art directors or production artists.

How much of a difference in performance are we talking in these professional flatbeds when it comes to scanning 4x5 or even 120 film versus a Microtek or Epson? Would the difference be akin to a Phase One back and a Nikon P&S?

Thanks for all the input everyone, I'm still putting a lot of pieces together about scanning film as I've really started exploring the LF world.

[Ed Richards]

> Would the difference be akin to a Phase One back and a Nikon P&S?

More like a 5D and a Phase One, for good negatives. For not so good negatives, things change in a hurry. Of course, this assumes that you are making prints big enough that the difference matters, and that your prints only work because they are sharp.

Having looked at a number of AA prints, few are as sharp as you can get from a good consumer scanner, and, with a proper negative, you can get as good a dmax. But I doubt drum scanning will make my prints better than his.:-)

Do not get me wrong, if money were no object I would get everything drum scanned. I just think there are better places to spend money if it is limited - like shooting a lot more film and taking a lot more trips to increase the chance of getting a negative worth scanning.

[Ted Harris]

Ed, I am not sure sharpness is the point. Nor am I sure that the digicam comparisons work here. The difference is sharpness as one point but it is also, and more importantly, the amount of shadow detail that can be captured. ..... Shadow detail, tonal range, Dmax/Dmin, density range, whatever you want to call it, this is where you shee the hugest differences between the prosumer scanners and the high priced spread. The absolute best Dmax Michael and I have gotten out of any of the Prosumers is a bit under 2.5 for the Microtek 1800f and that is only (excuse the pun) a shadow of the ~ 4 that one expects from any of the high end scanners ... remember this is a log scale so that is a big jump.

[Terence Patrick]

Ted, do you notice a difference in color between the scanners you mentioned? Or is that more a function of the software (assuming the same negative is used)?

[Bruce Watson]

Ed, I am not sure sharpness is the point. Nor am I sure that the digicam comparisons work here. The difference is sharpness as one point but it is also, and more importantly, the amount of shadow detail that can be captured. ..... Shadow detail, tonal range, Dmax/Dmin, density range, whatever you want to call it, this is where you shee the hugest differences between the prosumer scanners and the high priced spread. The absolute best Dmax Michael and I have gotten out of any of the Prosumers is a bit under 2.5 for the Microtek 1800f and that is only (excuse the pun) a shadow of the ~ 4 that one expects from any of the high end scanners ... remember this is a log scale so that is a big jump.

I would also point out that part of what you get in a drum scan is improved tonality - drum scans are really really smooth. This is in part because of fluid mounting around a curved drum. This holds the film in nearly perfect alignment exactly in the plane of focus, while the fluid fills in all the little imperfections of the drum and the film. This tonality improvement can be seen on really rather small enlargements - down to around 2x. It can certainly be seen easily with more enlargement.

The result is sort of like lifting a thin veil from the print. You see more - more shadow detail, more tonal transitions, more subtle highlight transitions. Just more. This is one of the great reasons to use a drum scanner.

And this is in addition to the superior sharpness, huge density range, and huge gamut you get with a drum scanner.

Add to that the fact that most drum scanners have software control of the log amp limits - when you set the black and white points the software sets the sensitivity range of the log amp circuits. This optimizes the drum scanner for each individual film and is one of the reasons a drum scanner can dig so much information out of highlights and shadows both. A drum scanner with a good operator can scan a B&W negative and get more shadow detail (that is, from the least dense part of the film) than a consumer flatbed. And this optimization of the hardware is one of the reasons. The higher sensitivity of PMTs is another. The better optics don't hurt either.

I guess all I'm sayin' is that drum scans are often worth the high price. Drum scanners bring a lot to the table.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

> And lastly, all the cheapskate fine art photographers who are not worried about ultimate quality just won't spend the money on one.

I hope this is tongue in cheek - even just scanning 200 sheets of 4x5 a year on a drum scanner, at $100 a sheet, which is low end for good services, is $20,000.

Drum scans only cost me $15 a scan because my printer does them on such vast quantaties per year for hundreds of other magazines. I would be happy to offer any photographer who needs drum scanning done for whatever purposes the same value with a 72 hour turnaround time. I don't know the price for a scan done above 16 x 20, but I am sure I can find out. Anyone who is interested feel free to PM me here or e-mail me offline at david@focusmag.info.

[Karl Hudson]

Drum scanning is easy to do and comparatively inexpensive (roughly 10% to 20% of their cost when new). For instance the Linocolor software running an S3300 or S3400 from Linotype-Hell / Heidelberg is extremely easy to learn. This software was limited to OS9 but now a company out of Kiel, Germany is offering an OS X solution for driving these wonderful old scanners and it is being released as I write this. There is still at least some interest in keeping these machines up to date and usable. The scanners themselves are still available from third party suppliers (like myself) who grew up around them and hold on to personal feelings toward them. The detail they pull out of a nice transparency or negative is just amazing. I am committed to keeping them going for years to come. I stock parts in my U.S. office as well as my office in Germany. I can safely say that as far as the old Linotype-Hell / Heidelberg scanners, there will be a source for service and spare parts for decades to come (if I live that long). I just want you to know that there is an alternative to buying a high end drum scanner on ebay...you are quite probably buying somebody else's boat anchor. I have purchased them on ebay before and yes, they were broken, but I can repair them, refurbish them and then sell them to end users with confidence and a warranty. Everyone is happy in the end. In fact I will install one Monday in NYC. Although I only sell maybe two of these fine machines every year, it certainly makes me happy when I do. Of course I must do other things for income, but my love for these old scanners keeps me available to the people still using them. It makes me feel good to be appreciated by others who also love the old drum scanners and continue to use them. As far as I know the action shots, as in nature and sports photography, are still mostly shot with film or have the digital cameras gotten fast enough now to clearly capture the fast moving action too???

[Ted Harris]

Terrance, yes there are color differences. There are also dramatic differences in color fringing. Fringing issues are hardware. Color differences are often software related. Therereally is now ay to compare the software used on prosumer scanners .... even Silverfast Ai with that available for the high end scanners ... they are totally different easts.

[Ed Richards]

Ted - no arguements at all on color, I only do black and white.

Bruce - that is all correct, of course, but isn't that why we do zone stuff to match the negative to the output, even if it is a lower dmax scanner rather than a lower dmax paper? You can certainly pull a lot more range out of a negative with a drum scanner, but isn't the real question how much of that you can put back on paper?

Since all I can get on the paper is 256 shades, if that, my task is to get enough out of my negative to fill the range of the paper, not to get everything out that is possible. My problem, which is the same as those who print in conventional means, is to do my best to get my negative to match the range of my output media. The consumer scanner will capture more dynamic range than I can get on paper, which is all the really matters, if the negative is right.

Sharpness, OTOH, is a bigger issue and one where the drum will clearly do better and where the only thing I can do with the negative to comensate is to take pictures of things with no fine detail.:-) So there will be an increasing gap in sharpness between my scan and a drum scan as the print gets larger, if the viewer stands close, and if the image depends on fine detail to work.

My bigger concern, and one that I think gets lost in this crusade for techical perfection, is that very few memorable images depend on techinical perfection. We can tinker with technology, and buy better technology, but we cannot buy inspiration and timing. Those we only get by shooting a lot of pictures so we are ready when it happens. I do not think this is an issue for Ted or for Bruce, but I read a lot of posts from folks on the list who are new to photography or who have not found their way yet, and I worry that they will let these discussions of the ultimate image distract them from shooting pictures and concentrating on what is in those pictures.

[Brent McSharry]

Since all I can get on the paper is 256 shades, if that, my task is to get enough out of my negative to fill the range of the paper

Does anyone know how many shades of grey the eye can differentiate between in a b/w print under standard illumination? This would seem to make a big difference to what capabilities b/w photographers/printers look for in both input and output media.

[Ed Richards]

Brent - Adams and all the other folks working on controllling exposure and development have written on this. You can see Adams, The Print, or for a more modern treatment (with all the technical detail you could want), Way Beyond Monochrome. Bottom line, 256 is about the best case, and that is not under standard illumination - you need a bright, point source light, and, ideally, you are printing on high gloss film. Step back to a mat paper, or turn off the halogen light, and actual visible range contracts a lot. Mostly you create the illusion of range by contrast, such as the great pictures by Paul Strand where you this luminous white object, which is really only luminous because it is against a very dark field, which in turn makes the dark, darker.

You want more dymamic range in the negative to give some room for adjustment, because no one gets the range match exactly right. But the more closely you can match the negative density to the print, the less range you need the scanner to extract from the negative. The BTZS folks really push this for printing, but it is the same for scanning.

OTOH, I am sure I have some negatives that would be printable if I drum scanned them, but are not now. I prefer to concentrate on the ones that are printable. Thus, if I had a few thousand to burn, I would spend it on drum scanning my difficult negatives, not my good ones. Tried some of the good ones, and found that I did not see enough difference to matter.

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce - that is all correct, of course, but isn't that why we do zone stuff to match the negative to the output, even if it is a lower dmax scanner rather than a lower dmax paper? You can certainly pull a lot more range out of a negative with a drum scanner, but isn't the real question how much of that you can put back on paper?

I don't think so. I think the real question is: How do we minimize the degredation of the image at each step of the workflow? If you want a first class print, you have to start with a first class image on film. If you underexpose your B&W negative and you don't record the shadow detail, no scanner is going to retrieve it for you. Therefore it won't be on your final print.

Every part of the workflow degrades the image. I want to do the best I can to minimize the damage at every step. So I try to make the best capture to film I can, the best scan that I can, the least amount of manipulation in Photoshop that I can, and do the best setup of the printer (linearize it), using the inks that give me the widest range and smoothest tonal transitions. Every step in the workflow is important.

IOW, if you don't have the information in the file, you can't put the information on paper.


Since all I can get on the paper is 256 shades, if that, my task is to get enough out of my negative to fill the range of the paper, not to get everything out that is possible. My problem, which is the same as those who print in conventional means, is to do my best to get my negative to match the range of my output media. The consumer scanner will capture more dynamic range than I can get on paper, which is all the really matters, if the negative is right.

I disagree. While individual pixels are a given shade, real images aren't seen by the eye/brain system as bits of individual shades. Most of what we see is the transitions between shades. And this gets you into the sharpness/accutance debates. Human perception seems to be geared toward edge detection. This is certainly true in both vision and hearing. IOW, I don't think discussions about the number of shades we need to use to print have much meaning to how we view a print.

The difference between scanners (even between drum scanners) can be described as a matter of clarity. Say we stand you in a room and put an image on the wall. Then we hang a veil between you and the image. The thinner the veil, the more detail you can see - also the more dynamic range you can see. As the veil gets thinner, the blacks get blacker and the highlights become less blocked. The amount of detail you see also improves.

Scanning puts a veil between you and image. What we are talking about here is how much of a veil. Drum scanning arguably has the least amount of veiling (but it's not zero). CCD scanners create more veiling.


My bigger concern, and one that I think gets lost in this crusade for techical perfection, is that very few memorable images depend on techinical perfection. We can tinker with technology, and buy better technology, but we cannot buy inspiration and timing. Those we only get by shooting a lot of pictures so we are ready when it happens. I do not think this is an issue for Ted or for Bruce, but I read a lot of posts from folks on the list who are new to photography or who have not found their way yet, and I worry that they will let these discussions of the ultimate image distract them from shooting pictures and concentrating on what is in those pictures.

So just because the conversation might confuse newbies we shouldn't have it? I don't believe that, and I don't think you really believe that either. What this discussion should mean to newbies is that they still have much to learn and that it's not as simple as pushing a button and getting everything done for you. There are decisions to be made; education will give them the information they need to make them. Maybe this discussion will inprire some to think and go off searching other sources to learn more, which is always a good thing.

[David_Senesac]

Drum scanners will always cost a lot more than consumer flatbed scanners because of the higher precision of the electronic and mechanical parts and high engineering costs due to the relatively few hardware or software electronic engineers that have a command of the optical engineering that is required. This all forces these products to be expensive low volume products. With just a few photo multiplier tubes, ie for red, green, blue, and luminance, such designers can put a large amount of the design and electronics behind every PMT in order to deliver the best dynamic range and most linear color characteristics by using expensive parts throughout the few sensors. The result is clearly superior especially versus consumer CCD arrays. When scanners are compared, most consumers just think in terms of resolution. It was several years after CCD flatbed or film scanners came out that the manufacturers would even mention dynamic range aka Dmin Dmax. That was because their products just sukked in such specs and they had to be prodded while kicking and screaming several years before they would even blurt the terms out. But there are a lot of other non-linearities involved in color optical characterizations and getting the hardware to reduce all that during the sensing before generating the raw data is the only way that software lookup tables have any chance of getting it close to right.

My higher end consumer flatbed CCD scanner does a fair job of scanning my 4x5 transparencies with resolution and noise a couple notches below drum scanner results. Makes an ok 16x20 print with in the ballpark color fidelity. However trying to get the color hues to critically match the transparency colors beside my computer on the light table is sometimes simply impossible because there are multiple dimensions to the color that if corrected at one hue/frequency are likely to become worse at others. So anytime I want a real scan I send it in for drum services. Its a good thing the current explosion of smaller format digital cameras can't touch view camera sheet film resolution, quality, and cost performance because it guarantees at least another decade of continued need by high end photographers using film for drum scanner services that is not likely to disappear like services for the smaller film formats will. ...David

[Ed Richards]

> I disagree. While individual pixels are a given shade, real images aren't seen by the eye/brain system as bits of individual shades.

Ah, but I am not wiring this into your brain directly. I am putting this on paper, and it does not matter at all how the brain processes that input - whether you start with a Dmax 4.0 ultimate scan or one that barely gets 2.0, they both end up as pixels with limited range on paper and there is no way to tell where they came from before that. There is no history in the information in those pixels.

> If you underexpose your B&W negative and you don't record the shadow detail, no scanner is going to retrieve it for you.

But I do not underexpose my negatives, I fully expose them and I limit development as necessary to keep the highlights from blocking. I make sure I get all the information into the negative. Frankly, I do not even need to do that much on compression because negatives do not develop that much dmax unless you really over develop them. My bet is that expansion of flat scenes is more important.

Most of this dmax discussion would make a lot more sense if we were talking about chromes. So would most of the other stuff about micro contrasts. Color is just a lot harder to do, and really shows the benefits of a great scan.

>So just because the conversation might confuse newbies we shouldn't have it?

Not at all. I do think we should be aware that the absolutist rhetoric can be very disorienting to folks who do not have enough experiece or technical sophistication to keep it in context. Modern film like Tmax, with something like dilute Xtol, competently shot and scanned on an optimized consumer scanner, can produce prints that are TECHNICALLY as good as any AA master print. There are ways to do better in terms of sharpness and maybe even tonality, but for me, just getting to AA standard is good enough while I work on getting to his vision.

[Bruce Watson]

Ah, but I am not wiring this into your brain directly.

Say what? You lost me.


...scanned on an optimized consumer scanner, can produce prints that are TECHNICALLY as good as any AA master print.

You might think so. I've never seen it. Scans made from CCD scanners, particularly consumer scanners like the Epsons, seem too veiled to me, even at small enlargements. I find them lacking, TECHNICALLY, when compared to good darkroom prints, or good drum scans.

But maybe that's just me. Wouldn't be the first time. So if you are happy with your scans, good on ya. Carry on. It should all be about the art, and if you are happy with your art that's all you need.

[Ted Harris]

Bruce, I have to quibble with you regard all scans made on all CCD based scanners. Have you seen scans from the Creo Supreme II, the Screen Cezanne and the very few other comperable high-end flatbeds? For the most part, the differences I have seen at the high end depend far far far more on the operator than on the machine.

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce, I have to quibble with you regard all scans made on all CCD based scanners. Have you seen scans from the Creo Supreme II, the Screen Cezanne and the very few other comperable high-end flatbeds? For the most part, the differences I have seen at the high end depend far far far more on the operator than on the machine.

He didn't say professional flatbeds. He said consumer flatbeds.

I'll agree that the professional flatbeds are quite good these days. For much LF work, a pro flatbed can rival a drum scanner, this is true. And at this level operator skill and dedication plays an ever important roll.

[Ted Harris]

LOL .... Bruce, then, as usual, we are singing fromt he same song book. As for consumer flatbeds your comments are kind. No doubt that they now do a good enough job to get a decent scan for smaller enlargements but I am now starting to do some one on one comparisons of prints from Cezanne scans v. prints from 1800f scans ... smaller prints ... 1x14 and 16x20 and while the differences may sometimes be subtle there is no doubt they are there.

[Kirk Gittings]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Richards View Post
...scanned on an optimized consumer scanner, can produce prints that are TECHNICALLY as good as any AA master print.

I have the good fortune to personally know some of the best inkjet printers in the country and this is not really true in a sense. This implies that you could do an inkjet print from a AA negative that was indistinguishable from a silver print and I sincerely doubt that. There are things that digital printing can do better than traditional and vice versa. Each medium should be respected for what it does best, but in a sense but they are not really directly comparable.

This endless comparison between traditional and digital misses the point.

[Rob Landry]

Look, you drum scanner guys need to tone down the consumer flatbed scanner bashing on this forum. I mean seriously, every time someone mentions an Epson, the same statements keep getting repeated "no good for more than a 2-3x enlargement", "good for negs but not trannies", "every scan has a veil over it" yada yada yada. While I agree that there are differences between a drum and an Epson, I think some of the statements that are being tossed around are a slight exaggeration. I agree with Ed, much of this discussion seems to be absolutist rhetoric which can be misleading to newcomers. The discussion is really more academic than anything. I don't own a consumer flatbed, but I have had a few drum scans made over the years. If I was buying a scanner now, a used drum would not be in my sights; too old, too prone to breakdown, to slow, too expensive for an antique with no support and too much trouble messing with wet mounting fluid, mylar overlays and the need to spin your film a ridiculous RPMs. For what, an extra 5% that may or may not show on an limited resolution inkjet print? Seriously, how many here print at anything over 16x20? Crap, I haven't made a 16x20 in years.

Try this link at Photo-i and read the entire thread, with emphasis on the comments by Quentin, who is/was the owner of the ScanHi-End Yahoo group.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=49

He owns a Howtek and bought a 4990. I think you'll find his comments surprising. The links to his test scans no longer work (older thread) but I did save them to my hard drive when the thread first appeared but don't want to post them for copyright reasons. Lets just say that there are differences, but they are slight. Roger N. Clark has also done quite a few comparisons between drums and flatbeds and is quite well regarded in his field and he didn't buy a drum scanner either.

[Bruce Watson]

...every time someone mentions an Epson, the same statements keep getting repeated "no good for more than a 2-3x enlargement", "good for negs but not trannies", "every scan has a veil over it" yada yada yada. While I agree that there are differences between a drum and an Epson, I think some of the statements that are being tossed around are a slight exaggeration.

You can think what you want. No one is stopping you. This is an excellent example of what John Heywood said way back in 1546:

"A man maie well bring a horse to the water, but he can not make him drinke without he will."

Me? I didn't believe it either. But over the last four or five years I've done enough testing to convince myself. Scanning the same negative with several different scanners. Making real prints off the same printer with the same settings and the same inks onto the same paper. Side by side comparisons under the same lights.

What you "think" to be a 5% difference my experience says is closer to 20%.

I wish you were right. It sure would make my life simpler if you were right. But the truth is the truth and we all have to live with it.

But this thread isn't about whether drum scanning is worth it or not. The OP wanted to know why drum scanning is so expensive, and that question was answered long ago. It's well past time for this thread to be put to bed.

[Ted Harris]

Rob with due respect, no one is bashing consumer scanners in this or most of the other threads here. If you read closely you will see that most of the posts referring to high end scanners say that for enlargements up to 8x10 or 11x4 at least that the consumer scanners perform quite well, well enough that if you see any difference int he prints at all it won;t be unless they are side by side with one from a high end scan and even that will be very had to tell .. again if at all. The differences become apparent for larger prints and for difficult negatives/chromes. I think you will also find that there are frew that denigrate the ability fo the consumer machines to scan trannies ... at least I don't.

Finally, two comments on the thread you mentioned: 1) He was running a Howtek 4000, a very long-in-the tooth-early generation drumn scanner. 2) He mentioned a DMax for the 4990 of "maybe 3.5" and that is unlikely as we have tested the DMax of that machine at it is ~ 2.25 which is in the smae ballpark as that of all the consumer scanners v. a ballpar of ~3.8 - 4+ for most of the high end scanners.

Again, I don;t think there is any bashing intended or going on. BTW, I run both a high end Screen scanner and a Microtek 1800f. Which gets used depends on what is getting scanned and the eventual end use.

[Brent McSharry]

Brent - Adams and all the other folks working on controllling exposure and development have written on this. You can see Adams, The Print, or for a more modern treatment (with all the technical detail you could want), Way Beyond Monochrome. Bottom line, 256 is about the best case, and that is not under standard illumination - you need a bright, point source light, and, ideally, you are printing on high gloss film

Thanks for the reply and summary ed: i'll get round to reading that stuff one day, but I was told years ago to try and master colour or b/w but not both, and I went the way of the heathens (well for this site anyway)! Nonetheless I love picking the collective brains out there in the ether - most b/w of you b/w guys seem to be walking encyclopedias.

part of my work involves reading x-rays, and I actually thought the number of discernable shades would be less, but the edge detection stuff makes sense from experience(ie if there is a sharp transition it is discernable, but not a gradual one).

[Chris_Brown]

Hey all, first post on this forum. I've been looking for a good LF discussion board. Looks like a motly crew here.

I saw this post/question about drum scanning and have spent enough time and money to respond fairly.


Are the machines that make drum scanning possible so complicated that only professional labs are able to afford/use them?
Drum scanners are far more complex then their flatbed/CCD counterparts. More moving parts, more sensitive PMT and A/D hardware. And because the drum spins quickly, the dang thing must be built on a heavy platen to minimize abberations from vibrations.


Seems like everything in photography has come down in price, except perhaps MF digital backs, but drum scanning technology feels like it's stuck in time with nothing new over the horizon.
Drum scanning was the only game in town for high quality 15+ years ago. The pre-press trade had apprentices and journeyman scanner operators getting $15 - $30 per hour running Crosfield and DS Screen scanners.

The first crack in the dam was cheap scanners being used by cheap clients who didn't care about color reproduction in catalogs - the largest pool of color printing clients in the world. The second crack was digital cameras. Within five years most pre-press shops went out of business, much like type houses in the early 90's.

As this new tech ate away at drum scanning, a few hardy people bought the technology rights to these things and put them in smaller, desktop enclosures. Unfortunately, the market was so small that the price needed to stay high to pay for the cost of doing business.


From the few used drum scanners I see pop up every now and then, it requires the use of a Mac G4 with SCSI, and the scanner is still quite expensive.
Currently, there is only one company in the US that is actively developing drum scanner hardware and software, (http://www.aztek.com/index.html) and it's a Windows-based system.

I use a Howtek HiResolve 8000 hosted with Trident scanning software. ColorByte Software no longer develops Trident - they are busy developing ImagePrint RIP. So when I scan, I use an older G4 running OS 9 with a SCSI port. Ancient, but highly effective in getting killer scans from 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies.

Now, I will go back to browsing the rest of this forum!

~ CB (http://www.chrisbrownphoto.com)