where to get a drum scan?

[Daniel_Buck]

Hello!

I do all of my scanning myself, however I have a print coming up that calls for more resolution than my scanner can handle sharply. My usual print resolution is 11x14, which is easily handled by my scanner. For this large print, I'm fairly certain I could "make do" with what I have now, but I would like to try out a drum scan to see how much better it would be for this large print (36" wide). How would I go about getting a single 4x5 B&W negative drum scanned for this?

Are there reputable places on-line that I can send it to? I have emailed my local camera store (Samy's Camera in LA) to see if they do any scanning.

What would the typical cost of a single 4x5 B&W drum scan be? (assuming scanning in at maximum resolution and bit-depth)

Thanks for any information or leads!

[David A. Goldfarb]

www.westcoastimaging.com They do excellent work at reasonable prices.

[Ted Harris]

West Coast Imaging that David recommends is fine. However, most commercial labs that doi scanning, like West Coast charge by the szie of the file. Their larger file sizes will cost you $200 or more depending on the scanner they use and the scan. The scanners they use are capable of delivering much larger file sizes (read much higher resolution too) but you will pay more .... if they offer it. The largest size they offer for B&W on their web site is 400MB which is a nice size file but if I were eventually printing 36 wide I would want the max they can deliver.

I scan at maximum possible resolution when I am scanning for myself and clients. The only caveat being that when I am scanning for clients I keep the file size manageable for their computers but archive a max. size file for futhre use. I do some scanning for others. Send me a PM or an email and I can give you more details.

[Bruce Watson]

Hello!

I do all of my scanning myself, however I have a print coming up that calls for more resolution than my scanner can handle sharply. My usual print resolution is 11x14, which is easily handled by my scanner. For this large print, I'm fairly certain I could "make do" with what I have now, but I would like to try out a drum scan to see how much better it would be for this large print (36" wide). How would I go about getting a single 4x5 B&W negative drum scanned for this?

Are there reputable places on-line that I can send it to? I have emailed my local camera store (Samy's Camera in LA) to see if they do any scanning.

What would the typical cost of a single 4x5 B&W drum scan be? (assuming scanning in at maximum resolution and bit-depth)

Thanks for any information or leads!

I do my own drum scanning of color and B&W negatives. What you need IMHO is someone who has the equipment/software that makes this as easy to do as scanning trannies, and has the knowledge and desire to use the equipment/software to best effect. This, again IMHO, lets out the high volume scanning houses who optimize everything for trannies.

I recommend Danny Burk (http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm) for what you need. I've seen his work and know his philosophy. If I weren't doing my own, I'd be sending it to Danny.

[Daniel_Buck]

ok! here are some interesting results! I sent the negative (tri-x 320, HC110, normal development) off to be drum scanned at 4000dpi 16 bit. I did my own scan comparison with my Epson 4990 (4800dpi scaled down to 4000 dpi, my scanner skips 4000 and jumps up to 4800) At this resolution would print 1 and 2/3 meters wide at 300 dpi with no interpolation.

At first when I looked at the drum scan I was quite surprised at how sharp it was! Then I played with the sharpening on my scan and realized that I could get fairly close to the same sharpness! Granted, it's a bit more edgy looking, but downsizing this to 30 inches (2/3 meter) or less I don't think there would be much noticeable difference. For very large prints however, I'm pretty sure the drum scan would look better. It would be sharp, but not as harsh looking as the flat bed scan sharpened version.

I can say that especially after seeing this compared to a drum scan, I'm QUITE happy with the Epson! I do have a Better Scanning glass holder from Doug Fisher on the way, which I'm looking forward to (I liked his 120 format glass!). If I had to print very large, I think I would still pony up for a drum scan, but for things in the realm of 'normal' print sizes, I think I'll be sticking to my home scanning for sure! (which I was expecting, being that I have been quite happy with my 11x14 prints)

1st image - is the drum scan at 100%

2nd image - is my Epson 4990 scan at 100% with no sharpening at any time.

3rd image - is same as 2nd, but has been sharpened (USM 4px at 100%)

4th image - is the entire scan with the red box showing the cropped area.



http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/scan_test_01.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/scan_test_02.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/scan_test_03.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/scan_test_04.jpg

[knweiss]

ok! here are some interesting results!

Thanks for posting this interesting comparison! I'm looking forward to read what the others are thinking about your result.

[JPlomley]

I've had Ted scan some of my B&W street work from a Mamiya 7 on his Cezanne and the results were nothing short of spectacular. Highly recommended.

[Bruce Watson]

ok! here are some interesting results! I sent the negative (tri-x 320, HC110, normal development) off to be drum scanned at 4000dpi 16 bit. I did my own scan comparison with my Epson 4990 (4800dpi scaled down to 4000 dpi, my scanner skips 4000 and jumps up to 4800) At this resolution would print 1 and 2/3 meters wide at 300 dpi with no interpolation.

At first when I looked at the drum scan I was quite surprised at how sharp it was! Then I played with the sharpening on my scan and realized that I could get fairly close to the same sharpness! Granted, it's a bit more edgy looking, but downsizing this to 30 inches (2/3 meter) or less I don't think there would be much noticeable difference. For very large prints however, I'm pretty sure the drum scan would look better. It would be sharp, but not as harsh looking as the flat bed scan sharpened version.

Two things. First, it's difficult if not impossible to judge the quality of a scan by looking at a monitor screen. The variance in dot pitch (typical monitor is 72-100 ppi, typical printer is 300-360 ppi) means the monitor is showing you an additional 4-5x enlargement which exaggerates graininess and distorts tonalities. Also, the difference in lighting (monitor is a light source, print is a reflective medium) makes the monitor show you different tonalities, especially in shadow areas. Make and compare prints. That's the only way to get an end to end comparison that tells you what you really want to know which is: what gives you the best prints?

Second, you should also sharpen the drum scanned file. No matter how good the scan, scanning has a softening effect (the scanner is looking at a stochastic medium through a deterministic scanning grid after all). For B&W at around 4000 spi I would start with an unsharp mask with a radius of around 0.7 pixels, and an amount of around 60. Vary it from there. It's subtle but it gives that little extra clarity.

Your findings match what many report -- that consumer flat bed scans rule (that is, hard to distinguish from a better scan) up to around 4-5x enlargement. For 5-8x enlargements, professional flat beds rule. For more than 8-10x, drum scanners rule. Part of what drum scanners give you is smoother tonality which really shows up in the bigger enlargements.

[Ed Richards]

You also have to look at the image you are scanning. If it does not depend on very smooth tonalities, or on high frequency detail, the consumer scanner will look good even at large sizes. Even with the tonalities, if there is not a really wide dynamic range and the negative is exposed and developed to stay within the scanner range, you might not see much advantage with the drum scan. OTOH, with the right image, you will see differences with the drum scanner at much smaller print sizes.

My guess, but one I have not tested yet, is that the biggest gains with drum scanning will be on the not so good negatives. Say you have a great image, but it is over exposed, under developed, etc. - the drum scanner should be able to pull out much better info than the consumer scanner on these negatives. Ironically, and you might be like me, I send my best negatives to be drum scanned, when I probably should be sending the hard negatives.

[sanking]

Your findings match what many report -- that consumer flat bed scans rule (that is, hard to distinguish from a better scan) up to around 4-5x enlargement. For 5-8x enlargements, professional flat beds rule. For more than 8-10x, drum scanners rule. Part of what drum scanners give you is smoother tonality which really shows up in the bigger enlargements.

I agree that if you do not want to make prints bigger than about 4X (16X20 from 4X5, 20X28 from 5X7) you are not likely to see much, if any, improvement in results from a drum scan of a 4X5 negative compared to a scan on the Epson 4990. That assumes a normally exposed and developed B&W negative with a dynamic range that can be captured by the 4990.

Bear in mind that even though you scan with the Epson 4990 at 4800 ppi and then reduce to 4000 dpi, its *real* resolution will only be about 35 lppm, which corresponds to a effective resolution of about 1800 ppi. On the other hand, a high end flatbed or drum scanner scanning at 4000 ppi will give real resolution very close to stated, or about 78 lppm. However, if you limit print size to 16X20 the effective detail from the Epson 4990 will be around 9 lppm, very acceptable since this is resolution is beyond the threshold of human resolution when viewing a print at the optimum viewing distance of about ten inches. But if you plan to print larger than about 4X there should be a real difference in the amount of detail from the drum scan. Of course, if the original negative itself is not one that has a lot of detail there would be little or nothing to be gained with a drum scan.

There is one other issue. Many people believe that in order to obtain maximum sharpness in scanning you must scan at a resolution that will resolve film grain clusters. I believe that if you compare your two scans you will find that the Epson 4990 did not resolve the grain clumps, while the drum scan does. That is definitely true for in my case when I compare scans made with my Epson 4990 and EverSmart Pro. The stated resolution of the EverSmart Pro is only 3175 ppi, but the effective resolution is close to 100%, or about 60 lppm.

Sandy King

[claudiocambon]

I am a drum scan and Scitex advocate (who owns a 4990 with a Better Scanning table! :D ). Oh well, I can't afford them everyday!

I can see the difference between the raw drum scan and the sharpened 4990. Once you sharpen the drum scan, as was suggested above, it will stand out that much more. And this is just on a monitor!

I do agree with everyone that the difference is more manifest the more you enlarge, but I will encourage you to err on the side of better resolution and sharpness if this is a question of anything past a test or marketing portfolio print. Be suspicious when people tend to the "good enough" line of talk, which I compare to people saying that a certain lens is "sharp enough," when in fact, it can often be sharper, and matter that it is.

Try A+I Digital in Hollywood for drum scans or Digital Fusion in Culver City (Conjunctive Points, the B2 bomber looking building in Hayden Tract) for Scitex scans. I have used both, and been very happy with both. (Don't bother with Samy's, as they farm it out, and will charge you for doing so.) Actually, without wanting to hijack the thread, I would love to hear people's opinions about these two techniques relative to each other.

Nice picture, by the way. I really like it!

[Daniel_Buck]

Digital Fusion in Culver City (Conjunctive Points, the B2 bomber looking building in Hayden Tract) for Scitex scans.
Wow, this building is literally right across the street from me! I'm in 3535 hayden, right across from the bomber building :D

[jetcode]

I had a day job that left me buried like that car, in fact every day job I've ever had has ...


That's a nice comparison, obviously the drum scanner is delivering higher resolution which I believe make a difference when down-sampling an image. If an image is soft and unfocused down-sampling will amplify this. I think the results of your image scanned on the 4490 is fine though I do a lot of image mining and I prefer to have full resolution data to work with. That said there is a BIG difference in price in owning and operating a drum scanner and owning and operating a consumer grade flatbed.

I take it the film was scanned dry in your 4490? I don't know much about the 4490 and I just purchased a Cezanne Elite which I am duly looking forward to using. At last a real scanner and I don't have to drop $12k++ on an Imacon. My latest LF rig is in transit and it's a Shen-Hao 4x10. I plan on using a 240mm Caltar and 480mm APO Ronar. It this works the way I think it will I will be rich in imagery for quite a while.

I like your image.
Joe

[Daniel_Buck]

yes, my scan in the 4990 was dry. The drum scan was wet, though I don't know any specifics.

[jetcode]

I've had Ted scan some of my B&W street work from a Mamiya 7 on his Cezanne and the results were nothing short of spectacular. Highly recommended.


Yum, a Cezanne report, I just purchased an Elite and can't wait to see the results.

Joe

[jetcode]

yes, my scan in the 4990 was dry. The drum scan was wet, though I don't know any specifics.

Thanks again for taking the time to do the comparison. The image is up my alley as I love buried junk, reminds me of my lifestyle and living situation.