Scanner advice appreciated 4"x5" for A1 print

[Ric Bower]

I need to scan 4"x5" neg film for 24" x 30" exhibition printing, can anyone help me decide from this shortlist please; Microtek 1800F, 2500F, i900 or Epson v750? or rumour has it a new microtek mooted for Feb release?
Thanks for your help

[Walter Calahan]

Can you wait till February?

If your deadline is soon, get a Microtek 1800F or an Espon V750. Your call. Both are excellent machines.

Or simply get a drum scan now, and then wait till February to see if Microtek releases a new machine.

[Adam Kavalunas]

I'm no expert in this area, but I would suggest to forgoe all of those options in place of drum scans. For printing that large, nothing can compete with a good drum scan. If I was going to be showing MY work at an exhibition, I would never scan with anything else. Flatbeds and Imacons for that matter, are good for small prints maybe up to 16x20, but they lack significant shadow detail and I would never sell a print made from them, just my opinion.

Adam

[Ted Harris]

Ric, the i900 and V750 awe definitely out. Scanning for 20x24 with the 1800F is a real push, I wouldn't do it. Scanning for 20x24 with a 2500F is right at the edge of that machine's capability. Also, if you are looking at a new 2500F then I ahve to assume you are not in the States as they have not been available in North America for more about two years. They are still manufactured, just not sold in the NA market, long complicated story of internal company politics from what I know. As for the 1800F, it is a discontinued machine but there are still a very few left in the NA supply line.

Yes, there will be a new scanner from Microtek late in January or early February,model number M1 Artixscan. This new machine should give you incremental improvements over the i900 but it will still nto come close to delivering a scan good enough for a 20x24 let alonean exhibition quality 20x24. Bottom line is that the 'prosumer' scanners (Imacons too for that matter) just can't deliver for prints larger than 8x10 to 16x20 (depending on the machine), generally none of those currently on the market are capable beyond 11x14. So, if ll you need is a few scans have them done professionally. You will find a few people here and many on other forums who will disagree, who will say "nonesense, I get great prints from scans on my 4990, print them at 20x24 and much larger all the time." The decision is up to you as is the definition of quality. As you can see from the responses above, there is generalagreement here that the quality just isn't there for what you want ...not from a 'prosumer' scanner. I run several prosumer scanners and a Screen Cezanne high end scanner. I would never think of scanning on the 1800F if I knew I was ever going to want a print larger than 11x14 or maybe 16x20.

[QT Luong]

(Imacons too for that matter) just can't deliver for prints larger than 8x10 to 16x20 (depending on the machine)

How are you so sure of that ? I've read several people (including JP Caponigro) comparing favorably their Imacons to drum scanners. Alain Briot also has been successfull with his large prints from his Imacon.

[Ric Bower]

Thank you all for the advice- i will tread with care - After going to all the bother of shooting on 5 x 4 I would not want to negate that benefit with crappy scans

[naturephoto1]

Hi Tuan,

From most that I have spoken with and heard from, the high end flat bed scanners including the Imacons are getting better. However, from my understanding they are not nearly as good in the shadow areas as a good High End Drum Scan. I can speak with Bill Nordstrom and get his take, but he uses a Heidelberg Tango with current software to keep the machine current. But we are making drum scans which we print to 24" X 30" or 30" X 37 1/2" with Raw files saved for output to 40" X 50" (usually 225 to 300mb) or larger from 4 X 5.

Rich

[Ted Harris]

Tuan, not so sure beyond the fact that when we tested a bunch scanners and compared results of the Dmax tests the Imacon 949 did not do so well. In fairness 1) the Imacon scan was done by the scan operator of a very reputable lab that is often touted here, not by me or Michael and 2) the Dmax differences will nto show up as startlingly on B&W as they will on scans from chromes. Finally, goes back to what we have said time and again that the operator makes more of a difference than the machine or at least jsut as much. I am sure that a highly skilled operator, highly skilled in operation of an Imacon as well as a high-end flatbed (Screen,Creo/Kodak or Fuji, etc.) and a drum will get better results from the high end flatbed and the crum than from the Imacon. The technology diffrences will show. The differences will be in the quality and accuracy of the stepping motors and the PMT v. CCD technology. With the high end machines the fact that they move the material in two as opposed to only one axis also counts.

No question that an Imacon, properly operated can deliver an excellent scan for a print up to 16x20. I am questioning what happens at larger size prints. Hopefully, sometime in the next year we will be able to test one-side-by-side with the other machines ... same transparency, same operator, etc. It will be the only valid test. But no matter what, I am not sure we will ever put the argument to rest. Remember all the folk who swore by all they held holy that they could get as crispy, detailed, etc. a print from a 35mm negative as you can from a 4x5? Those aguments now rage over scans.

[Ted Harris]

Quick addendum ... now that Hasselblad has come out with new models .... the x1 and x5 ... I am going to try and add them into our next scanner test and review. I just contacted Hasselblad to see about getting an evaluation unit here. The X1, with a street price of $13,000 and a 4x5 capability could be a worthy option to the Creo IQ2 or 3 in the same price range.

[QT Luong]

Why would the Dmax limit the enlargment size to 16x20 ? Isn't it mostly a matter of resolution ? And what is the percentage of images that need a high Dmax to reproduce well ? BTW, 16x20 from large format film strikes me as being pretty small and close to the territory of sub $1000 mid-range DSLRs. I certainly didn't take up LF in order to make prints of that size.

[Ted Harris]

Dmax, or the lack thereof, limits the amount of shadow detail that the scanner is able to reproduce. Thus, lower Dmax and less detail in the shadows, dark midtones. Couple that with lower resolution ... here meaning actual resolution in resolvable line pairs which is a function of the real spi (commonly referred to as spi) of the scanner and the quality of the scanner's optical sytem, and you have the two major performance issues.

Yes, 16x20 is coming close to the territory of the under $1000 scanners but it isn't there for exhibition quality prints. You are not likely to see the differences from one scanner to another from most negatives or transparencies in prints up to 11x14 and you may be hard pressed to see the differences at 16x20 bu tthey are there in both cases. Many people, maybe even most, would be satisfied with the 16x20 print from the 'prosumer' scanners,even more from the Imacon but the differences will be noticable if you put that print next to one made from a scan from one of the high end scanners, even more noticable as the size gets larger. Differences large enough to matter? Only if the prints made from the high end scans sell for higher prices, sell quicker, nail more clients, etc. I believe they will. Some of the difference, too, will be lost when the print is mounted under glass and more if the viewer stays at a distance .. as many will do with larger prints. Lots of variables but the absolute answer still remains that lined up side-by-side and viewed from up close there will be differences and they will be obvious.

You can easily see some of these differences if you look at both the sharpened and unsharpened images in the Home Page in the Scanner Comparison. Look at the scans,for example for the Howtek 7500 and Optronics Colorgetter (both drum scanners and reasonably modern and near the top-of-the line); the Creo Eversmart Supreme and IQ Smart 3 (both modern high end flatbeds, the Supreme a generationor two back and the 3 the current generation but a bit 'downline' from the current Supreme); the Epson 4990 which is very close to the V750 in performance; finally, the Imacon and unfortunately this is not a current generation Imacon. Look at the crops fromt eh full image, look at the crops both sharpened and unsharpened. Look especially at the differences in detail captured and falloff of detail as you move toward dark and darker shadows .. either sharpened or unsharpened. Ignore color differences since the scans were not corrected or balanced one-to-one for color.

Hope this helps ....

[Ken Lee]

dMax aside....

I have a Microtek 2500f, and I tested it as part of Ted's effort. Surprisingly, my unit delivered the promised resolution of 2500 ppi. Given a final print resolution of 360 dpi, one can make an enlargement at a factor of 6.94

(This contrasts with other consumer grade flatbeds. In general, they deliver only a fraction of their promised maximum resolution, somewhere around 60%).

If we round that enlargement factor up to 7, and presume that a 4x5 negative is really only 3.75 x 4.75, then one can expect a print of around 26 x 33, which is basically the same as your desired 24x30.

This presumes no cropping, which is not always the case for many photographers.

If you plan to make prints of this size on a regular basis, you must have some money lying around, since as you know, you will need a substantial printer and all the other goodies that go along with a calibrated digital workflow. Perhaps it is best to find a used drum scanner. Some of the esteemed members of this forum have done just that - and I can't remember any of them complaining about their stunning results.

This analysis presumes that you expect people to come up close to your images, and inspect the details - hence the desire for 360dpi output. If that isn't the case, then a more affordable scanner may be good enough. The arithmetic is fairly straightforward.

[Ted Harris]

Thanks Ken,

Remember that the 2500f is a solid cut above the prosumer scanners we normally discuss. That is true in both performance and price. When last available in North America they were well over $2000 ... closer to $3000 if memory serves.

[Ken Lee]

You are right. I got mine for just below $2500, a few years ago.

[PViapiano]

You are not likely to see the differences from one scanner to another from most negatives or transparencies in prints up to 11x14 and you may be hard pressed to see the differences at 16x20 bu tthey are there in both cases.

If you can't actually see the differences, does it really matter if they're there or not?

The scanning debate on this forum gets a little silly sometimes...

[Chris_Brown]

I need to scan 4"x5" neg film for 24" x 30" exhibition printing...

There's been discussion here about the required resolution for this size print, so let's do some math! :rolleyes:

Assume the output will be on an Epson 7800 or 9800, or perhaps a LightJet. IMO, the optimal image resolution for these devices running at their highest output resolution is 360 ppi. I've run many tests on my 9600 with the ImagePrint RIP and can say that as the image resolution decreases from 360 ppi, the output resolution of the image also decreases.

A 24"x30" print @ 360 ppi has 8,640 pixels along the 24" dimension (24" x 360 ppi = 8,640 pixels).

A 4x5 has actually about 3.5" of image along the 4" dimension. Let's assume were not cropping any tighter than that. This means that the scanner needs a resolution of 2,469 ppi along the short dimension of the film (8,640 pixels ÷ 3.5 inches = 2,468.57 ppi).

If you want flexibility in your cropping, you'll need a higher resolution scanner which will give you a larger final dimension, allowing you to crop the image and maintain 360 ppi image resolution.

All this assumes that you want to maximize the output quality of the printer (i.e., print at the highest resolution the printer can attain) and utilize the image resolution of the film.

[Ric Bower]

Back to the 1800F- itwill produce at 300dpi it will do 24" x 30" from 4 x 5 assuming inkjet output which never needs 300dpi (200dpi more than enough higher res yielding no visible gain)
I ca'nt help but wonder with res it comes down to the type of image that is being scanned (as with so many res arguments with DSLR's). A portrait employing heavy differential focus (Apparrent sharpness being high where there is focus) will not require the same res for a big print as a cityscape recorded at f45 on a steel tripod.

[Ric Bower]

To follow on - What sort of photographer you are perhaps dtermines what sort of scanner you need as with every other equipment choice in photography.

[Chris_Brown]

Back to the 1800F- itwill produce at 300dpi it will do 24" x 30" from 4 x 5 assuming inkjet output which never needs 300dpi (200dpi more than enough higher res yielding no visible gain)
I ca'nt help but wonder with res it comes down to the type of image that is being scanned (as with so many res arguments with DSLR's). A portrait employing heavy differential focus (Apparrent sharpness being high where there is focus) will not require the same res for a big print as a cityscape recorded at f45 on a steel tripod.

Ya. To each his own. And at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and I wonder why I spent hours spotting such a large hi-rez file.