current state of scanners for 4x5?

[Lightbender]

I shoot 4x5, and I have many problems getting my polaroid 45 scanner to work consistantly.

What are the current scanners available for 4x5 and how good are they?

THX

[Kirk Gittings]

Are you talking dedicated 4x5 film scanners? Try none are available new. You go basically from prosumer flatbeds to Imacons to highend drum and flatbeds.

What are you doing with the scans. How large are you printing etc.?

[Lightbender]

I meant in the 'prosumer' catagory of flatbeds.
Last I heard was the epson 4990.. but of course flatbeds have their limitations considering they are scanning a long distance though a plate of glass.. I was wondering if there was a new microtek or something similar that worked well for 4x5. or if the current crop of flatbeds had better quality.

[Ted Harris]

The new top-of-the-line from Epson is the v750. Microteck has announced, but not yet released, a new model, the M1. It's expected rollout is early May. The v750 is slightly,but noticably, better than the 4990 according to most users. OTOH, the differences between the bottom-of-the-line 'prosumer' models, the Microtek i800 and the v750 are small compared to the differences between any of this class and the highend scanners Kirk referenced.

[Eric Brody]

I am currently using a Microtek 1800f which gives me very good quality scans. I believe it is now discontinued but there may be a few around somewhere. Many on this forum consider it the best in the <$1,000 category. I have not done comparisons, I'd rather be out with my camera.

There is a new Microtek, the M1, due at some time in the near future. There is no telling if it will be revolutionary, but personally, I doubt it. I have friends who get good quality from the Epson 4990 and their newer scanners, the 700 and 750. I would love to be able to get something with the quality of my Nikon 9000 for 4x5.

Good luck.

Eric

[Ted Harris]

Addendum, just talked with the Microtek Product manager after the post and the rollout of the M1 has now slipped till the end of May/beginning of June.

Eric, the M1 will not be a replacement for the 1800f which is indeed discontinued. If a dealer has one in stock you may be able to get one from them but there are no more in the supply chain. The 1800f was discontinued because the CCD chip in the machine,which is unique to that machine, was no longer available at areasonable price.

[walter23]

I really like my V750, it resolves down to the grain and does a pretty good job with dynamic range (dense areas on negative film and overexposures are handled pretty well). By default velvia scans seem to have a slight magenta cast (I'm not sure about other slide films), but this is pretty easy to fix with film profiles and manual tweaking in silverfast.

I printed a 16x24 of an ektrachrome E100VS 35mm slide and it looks almost as sharp as what I'd get from a digital SLR (but the saturation and colour look really nice, better than anything I get with direct digital capture). I printed some slightly larger 4x5 scans and they are beautiful - a friend commented that the print quality is better than a lot of the stuff he sees in galleries.

Not that these reduced resolution images are that useful, but everything on this page (http://ashphotography.ca/gunther/view.php/page/photoaday0702) was scanned with it (except for the latest two images which are from a digital SLR).

Here's a tricky scan (http://ashphotography.ca/gunther/uploads/pages/photoaday07/alberni.jpg) of a 6x6 ektachrome slide that was really dark. Multipass scanning with silverfast did a GREAT job of reducing noise in the deep shadow areas - this looks almost exactly like the original slide which is very dark / underexposed like this.

Here's a nice B&W negative scan from a couple of weeks ago (http://ashphotography.ca/gunther/uploads/pages/photoaday07/elbowfalls800.jpg). I can provide detailed crops if you want, but at 2400 DPI scanning resolution I can resolve all the little bits of lichen on those rocks very well.

I've never had a high quality drum scan done for comparison, but if I had the prints that would warrant it I would have no problem scanning with this machine for up to ~30x40" printing for sale or public display. I find it reasonably easy to manage colour (except for the trickiest velvia slides, usually underexposed and/or with really deep reds which are out of my monitor's gamut).

[Ted Harris]

Walter, some very nice images but with all due respect if you tried printing either of the scans you showed us (or a scan of a 4x5) from the v750 at 30x40 I suspect you would be disappointed and/or whoever was going to buy the print would be disappointed. That size is just beyond the capability of the scanner for the best quality prints. Yes you can get usable prints but not prints that I would want on display or would try to sell.

[Frank Petronio]

You could say the same thing about people who do 30x40 inch prints from 35mm P3200 -- technically the print falls apart and suffers, etc.

But it can still look awesome on the wall. It really depends on whether your work is about texture and detail -- or something else.

A good printer/Photoshoper can take it and make something good from anything. A better scanner helps for sure but I wouldn't not shoot or do stuff simply because all you can afford is "only" and Epson scanner.

[Bruce Watson]

A good printer/Photoshoper can take it and make something good from anything. A better scanner helps for sure but I wouldn't not shoot or do stuff simply because all you can afford is "only" and Epson scanner.

Yes, true enough. And the kicker is, you can always scan film again with a better scanner if required later on.

That said, nearly everything that one does to the file after the scan degrades the image. Most changes are small, but quantifiable, and they add up. This is why so many people advise scanning and editing in 16 bit mode -- it gives the file some "head room." Some edits are so destructive as to render the file unusable (which is why you should always back up the original scan file).

My point is that final print quality is dependent on scan quality. One can make good or even very good prints from good scans. But excellent prints need an excellent scan.

[Kirk Gittings]

I think from Ted's point of view (and my own), he is looking at the question from a large format standard of quality and how to maintain that standard of quality in scans through to large prints.

For instance one of the issues with prosumer flatbeds is shadow noise. With the new version of MultiScan in Silverfast it is possible to significantly increase shadow detail, dynamic range and depth and virtually curtail noise. HOWEVER on scanners like the Epson 750, 4990 etc. the tracking mechanisim is so sloppy that multi passes with these scanners create scan layers that are so far out of shape that the alignment program cannot quite bring them back into alignment full alignment. The result is some blurring in the direction of the scan. IE there is a trade off. A good drum scan has it all, great sharpness, dmax and dynamic range without the trade
offs. To maintain the Large Format quality that I have become accustomed to, I don't print above 16x20 with even a wet scan from a prosumer flatbed. Larger requires a drum scan. Others' standards may differ.

[JavaDuke]

I recently bought Polaroid 45 Ultra on ebay and I'm extremely happy with the quality of my 4x5 scans. Well, maybe it's because my other camera is Canon 10D :) Yes, some post-processing is still nessesary, and photoshop sharpening algorithms are much better that Silverfast ones.
Speaking of drum scan tradeoffs - there's a big one - cost. Not al of us can afford even an entry-level drum scanner, and pro labs are expensive too.

[Padu Merloti]

I really like my V750, it resolves down to the grain and does a pretty good job with dynamic range (dense areas on negative film and overexposures are handled pretty well). By default velvia scans seem to have a slight magenta cast (I'm not sure about other slide films), but this is pretty easy to fix with film profiles and manual tweaking in silverfast.


Good to know, I'm about to buy a V700 (which seems to be very similar to the V750).
BTW, you have some very beautiful photos in your gallery.

In one of your last photos, I saw the picture of a minolta rangefinder. Do you own it? How do you like it? (assuming you still use it)

I have the oportunity to buy one for $40...

[ducque]

I have had an Epson 4990 for about a year.

I generally use it with Vuescan, with usable results. I have found the Epson driver to be inadequate for anything but simple tasks. I find Silverfast to be unusable.

I have been disappointed overall. The focus is not consistent. I don't know what the dynamic range (Dmax) actually is, but it is much less than advertised. I don't know about scanning chromes, but I think it inadequate for negs.

It serves me well for proofing and "web" images. But I have yet to make a print from a scan which I would give or sell to anyone else.

[sparq]

I recently bought Polaroid 45 Ultra on ebay and I'm extremely happy with the quality of my 4x5 scans. Well, maybe it's because my other camera is Canon 10D :) Yes, some post-processing is still nessesary, and photoshop sharpening algorithms are much better that Silverfast ones.
Speaking of drum scan tradeoffs - there's a big one - cost. Not al of us can afford even an entry-level drum scanner, and pro labs are expensive too.

Hello JavaDuke,

For how much do the Polaroids go on ebay? I saw some scans from those machines and they were in a different league than E. flatbeds.

[JavaDuke]

I got mine for about $400. But they are pretty rare, I check ebay periodically just out of curiosity but since I got mine about a month ago I haven't seen any of those yet.

[Gene McCluney]

The Microtek Artixscan 2500f (a discontinued model) is quite good with 4x5 and larger negatives, having a top optical resolution (up to 4x5) of 2500dpi. A glassless carrier and very good tonal rendition, when using Silverfast. Microtek made all the Polaroid brand scanners, and still offer a couple of them under the Microtek Artixscan brand, but not the 4x5 one.

I have never found Vuescan (which I have) to be a good choice for any scanner over the other available options when looking for maximum quality. Where Vuescan shines is its support for older discontinued scanners that do not have software compatible with current computer Operating Systems.

[Frank Petronio]

I'm surprised the Imacons haven't been broughtup. They certainly are more expensive than a consumer flatbed but they are currently in production and will work with modern computers and OSs. Parts and software are around and will be around for years to come, thanks to a large installed base. It's also easier to mount the film than a drum.

Quality is closer to that of a good drum scan than a flatbed, and for many people an Imacon is "all" they would ever need. To me it may not be the absolute ultimate but it is the most logical, best choice.

[Dan Baumbach]

I'm surprised the Imacons haven't been broughtup. They certainly are more expensive than a consumer flatbed but they are currently in production and will work with modern computers and OSs. Parts and software are around and will be around for years to come, thanks to a large installed base. It's also easier to mount the film than a drum.

Quality is closer to that of a good drum scan than a flatbed, and for many people an Imacon is "all" they would ever need. To me it may not be the absolute ultimate but it is the most logical, best choice.


I periodically rent time on an Imacon at a local lab and I love the results. I've made 32x40 prints from the scans and they are georgeous. I wish I could afford my own.

- Dan

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually, Frank I did mention Imacons,

I like Imacons and use them regularly whe I am in Chicago at the school. BUt........to do a viable comparison you have to remove all of the sharpening from them. Setting sharpening at 0 (at least on the generation two years ago) was still leaving in a fair amount of capture sharpening. You actually had to set the number too -25 or something to get no sharpening. Doing a scan that way will show you how far they are from drum scans. Having said that I love the scans from them as their capture sharpening is very sophisticated and they certainly exceed the prosumer flatbeds.

I believe Ted is preparing to do a test of one this summer or fall.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't understand why "artifical" sharpening or "native" sharpness matters really... so long as you get the file you want, who cares?

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't understand why "artifical" sharpening or "native" sharpness matters really.
I assume you are joking with this.

It also matters in terms of measuring the actual capabilities of a scanner against the gold standard, a good drum scan. Many people compare a sharpened Imacon scan (which they think is unsharpened because they had the setting at 0) to an unsharpened drum scan and think they are comparable. In effect they are comparing apples and oranges. Imacons are not cheap and there is some mythology about their true capabilities which is somewhere between the prosumer flatbeds and a drum scan. I tested this myself two years ago, because I did not believe it. As I said though, I like Imacon scans and use them all the time.

[George Kara]

Before purchasing a high end scanner, I went to a large seller of new and used/refurbished prepress equipment here in PHX. I asked the guys who have seen and worked on every type of scanner available. They had a least 8 different refurbished high end scanners available in their back with many more in their storage facility. Including one of those beast hiedelberg machines.

Every person (including installers, repair guys)told me the same story. They believed that flatbed scanners were clearly the way to go. They all thought that drum scanners were messy and limited in the functionality. They also didnt feel there was any real difference with the end result.

I actually saw the exact same positive image scanned through the various machines. They use the same image to make sure the drum and flatbeds are functioning at optimal levels. No question that this was true.

I was one of the few non business customers that they dealt with as their customers are professional printers, newspapers etc.

I purchased an eversmart pro II based on their advice. It was by far one of their cheaper machines and they explained that one of the major differences between this machine and the newer versions was related to speed. I didnt care how fast it works, since its for personal use but could see this to be a major issue for scanning pros. It also sounds like some science fiction type of robot.

They suggested I get the glass from a jazz+ scanner with the non reflective coating and use it wet mounting! Im still waiting for a used base glass to come around. New from Kodak they are around 1500 USD - ouch forget that.

I would keep my eye on that IQ smart II that is up for sale on ebay. That is one heck of a machine with a starting bid of 4K. I'd bid on that puppy if I had the money.

The sharpening question is really a non-issue. All images that are scanned will be soft due to digitizing and this doesnt have anything to do without end result image quality. This is per the guys at lasersoft imaging which work with most scanners (excluding Kodak, which is what I have)

So ignore the drum scanner warriors. Most of the die hard advocates have a vested interest in the equipment.

The pro machines are significantly superior to the prosumer epsons and its worth spending the extra $ 1000 bucks.

If I remember right, I paid around $ 3,500 for a refurbished unit with a warranty. New it was over 30K! Glad I didnt take the hit on it.

[Kirk Gittings]

George, Your points about high end drum scanners will be echoed by Ted who has a similar pro flatbed machine.. I haven't and have no experience with them, when I pay for a drum scan I get a drum scan and would never fool with buying one myself. As a matter of fact I would go your route before springing significantly more $ for an Imacon.

Also,
Sharpening does matter.........when a sharpened image is presented as unsharpened and supposedly reflects the true native optical resolution of a scanner. That is an issue with me with Imacon. I have also battled with labs about sharpening drum scands because I want a scan delivered unsharpened. I massage the hell out of files and want to do all the sharpening myself when it is appropriate in my workflow.

[Gordon Moat]

I'll agree with George (and probably Ted too) that high end flat scanners do quite a good job. I would like to add that when you do wet scans on a Creo, the difference is often noticeble. Wet scans on a flatbed are a little easier to handle than with some drum scanners, though only if an oil mounting station is used. I do think it is something best reserved for more difficult transparencies, and not something worth the extra effort to do all the time. However, a good drum scan is a good drum scan, just that in a production or high volume environment they might not be as efficient.

I know many of the Creo (now Kodak) scanners offered an oil mounting option. Some of the Fuji scanners also offered a separate oil mounting station. I am less sure about the Dainippon Screen or Purop Eskofot (also called Esko Graphics) high end flatbeds, though perhaps someone else has that information.

I know of a few professionals using Imacon scanners. They tend to be slower over many scans than several high end flatbed scanners, mostly due to that one at a time scanning workflow. I would state that the results I have seen are better than older medium format and large format dedicated film scanners, but I find a noticable improvement from even a low priced Creo iQSmart1. Imacon (now Hasselblad) scanners are not a bad choice, though I think they need to be compared to other choices in the same price range.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[walter23]

HOWEVER on scanners like the Epson 750, 4990 etc. the tracking mechanisim is so sloppy that multi passes with these scanners create scan layers that are so far out of shape that the alignment program cannot quite bring them back into alignment full alignment.

I guess it depends on what you're expecting, but I haven't seen this.

[Kirk Gittings]

Try a horizontal scan and then rotate it 90 degrees and do another. Then look at some fine detail at 200&#37;. It was true of the three 4990's (and a few others I tested where I teach) I owned and the 750 I currently own. It is a widely known problem. The slop will increase with the age of your scanner. Scanners at this price range simply have many compromises to bring the price down. Having said that, they do amazing jobs for the price compared to even a few years ago and if you don't print large or look to closely at your large prints, they may be OK for you. To raise them to the next level though calls for more costs, better step motors and gearing, better optics and better sensors.

[Ted Harris]

I totally agree with Kirk on this. You have got to remember the cost of stepping motors that are stepping in very very very small increments. An analogy from the video industry 30 years ago .... we used to refer to a $500K Quad Video Recorder as a $100K machine with $400K of error correction .... think of the prosumer scanners as machines with no error correction.

[walter23]

For the record, see my other recent post where I'm complaining about chromatic aberrations in the V750, and in a lot of respects I'll have to defer to the more experienced members here with respect to their quality assessments.

I'm pretty happy with the scans and prints I've gotten so far though, and I'd agree that to moderate enlargment (if not necessarily extreme enlargement) you can get simply stunning results from a modern flatbed consumer scanner.

I have 8x10s on my wall right now that knock anything from my digital SLR out of the water, and I've done 16x20s that are similar.

[Scott Rosenberg]

i'm also using a sprintscan 45 ultra and am very impressed with the results. i've recently made several 16x20's and am extremely impressed with the results. i'm very critical of resolution of fine detail and the sprintscan really delivered. i know this print size isn't tremendous, but the results the sprinscan delivered are better than the microtek 1800f i owned previously.

[JavaDuke]

Scott, do you use Silverfast or Vuescan? I just tried Vuescan for the first time yesterday and it looks like Vuescan can get better color and detail reproduction. I only have to do minimal post-processing and some dust cleaning.
If only Sprintscan had infrared dust reduction...

[Ben R]

So if I'm looking for 50" wide prints will the Imacon do or is it drum scan time?

[Kirk Gittings]

I just tried Vuescan for the first time yesterday and it looks like Vuescan can get better color and detail reproduction.

This is only because you are not using Silverfast properly. There is one way and one way only that I have found after extensive testing that Vuescan outperforms SF and that is is single pass multi sampling. That is not to say you can't get good scans with either. Generally SF AI has a more extensive tool kit and better interface than VS.

[Ed Richards]

> Generally SF AI has a more extensive tool kit and better interface than VS.

Whether you think it is a better interface depends entirely on how you like software set up. I like the Vuescan interface a lot better than silverfast. I use both and find different strengths for scanning black and white.

[Michael Mutmansky]

In my experience, I have never gotten a better B&W scan from Vuescan than Silverfast. At times, the quality may be approximately the same, and whenever there is a proble, it's always the Silverfast scan the comes out on top.

For that reason, I recommend that people simply get used to the somewhat difficult interface and not bother with the somewhat cobbled functionality of Vuescan. It'll take some practice, but in the end, the results will be better for it.


---Michael

[JW Dewdney]

In my experience, I have never gotten a better B&W scan from Vuescan than Silverfast. At times, the quality may be approximately the same, and whenever there is a proble, it's always the Silverfast scan the comes out on top.

For that reason, I recommend that people simply get used to the somewhat difficult interface and not bother with the somewhat cobbled functionality of Vuescan. It'll take some practice, but in the end, the results will be better for it.


---Michael


IF you think Silverfast has a difficult interface - you've CLEARLY never used LinoColor...! ack!!

[JW Dewdney]

So if I'm looking for 50" wide prints will the Imacon do or is it drum scan time?

From personal experience - I'd say it's drum scan time. I wouldn't use anything BUT a drum for anything over 8x10. Once you've compared both side by side, it's like night and day. Nothing compares to a good drum. Personally - I'd go for a really GOOD old school drum scanner like a Linotronic or a Crosfield.

[JavaDuke]

There is one way and one way only that I have found after extensive testing that Vuescan outperforms SF and that is is single pass multi sampling.

I actually use multipass mode, since my scanner doesn't support multi-sampling. Scans obtained with vuescan seem to have better shadow detail reproduction than SF. Probably this is just a perception, or maybe it's the user interface matter, I don't know. Actually I don't like either one so I'm thinking about writing my own scanning application with UI similar to ACR.

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually I don't like either one so I'm thinking about writing my own scanning application with UI similar to ACR.

Take more pictures. It will be allot more fun.

[Michael Mutmansky]

IF you think Silverfast has a difficult interface - you've CLEARLY never used LinoColor...! ack!!

No, I don't think it's terribly difficult at all, compared to the Trident-port software I use on the Colorgetter. But for beginners, it is a bit intimidating to get a hold of.

It's precisely the shadow zones where Vuescan fails in my experience. Vuescan can have the tendency to show levels in the gradients going into the shadows, and I haven't seen Silverfast do that at all.

For that matter, on scans that I have seen problems using the Microtek software (Scan Wizard), SF delivers with aplomb.


---Michael

[lutherasmith]

So if I'm looking for 50" wide prints will the Imacon do or is it drum scan time?


Ben,

The best way to know is to do both. A side by side test will tell you what you want to know. People will tell you different things on this but we are not all looking at the same issues. It is not objective. What you want from your prints may be different than someone else.

Good luck,

Luther

[Ted Harris]

Ben,

Luther is right it is not completely objective. What is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me. Having said that I can guarantee you that the results from the high end drum or flatbed scanners will exceed those from an Imacon. The issue is whether or not the difference matters to you. At that size I absolutely know it would matter to me.

[Padu Merloti]

Has anybody tested the HP Scanjet G4050?

I saw it today on my local staples and it seems that it would be possible to scan 4x5's mounted directly on the glass.

It's cheap (< $200) and I don't expect a high quality scan from it, but maybe it could work for a quick monitor proof before you send that one film to a drum scanner...

[sparq]

Google these two words: G4050 resize

[Padu Merloti]

Google these two words: G4050 resize


Wow. that bad?

I'm almost tempted to buy one at best buy just to test it and return. I know that computers and cameras have the restocking fee, but scanners are not listed on the 14-day return policy.

Also, best buy says it's out of stock. I wonder if that's because HP reworked the units...

Let's see...

If anybody gets hands on experience with the G4050, please let us know...