Professional flatbed scanners? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Bruce Watson

21-Sep-2007, 15:59

What are the really professional level flatbed scanners currently available? Creo/KodaK?

I'm a drum scanner guy, but here's a few links to some of the current professional flat bed scanners:

Eversmart Supreme II (http://graphics1.kodak.com/us/product/scanners/professional_scanners/eversmart_supreme_ii/default.htm)

iqSmart 3 (http://graphics1.kodak.com/us/product/scanners/professional_scanners/iqsmart_3/default.htm)

Screen Cezanne Elite (http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/product/scanner/cezanne/)

Fujifilm Lanovia Quattro (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/graphic/product_info/input/lanovia.html)

Aztek Plateau (http://www.aztek.com/plateau.html)

Heidelberg seems to be completely out of the scanner game, I don't see their Linoscan flatbeds listed on their website any longer.

There are undoubtedly more that I've forgotten, Ted will know. And the used market has a number of good scanners that are no longer in production.

Expect to pay considerably more for a used professional flatbed then you would for a used drum scanner. Ted can give more details. Really, it depends on your application. A pro flatbed is often the correct answer, else there wouldn't be so many of them out there. ;)

QT Luong

21-Sep-2007, 16:15

But I'm curious about the reasons a fine art photographer chooses a flatbed.

Being a fine art photographer doesn't mean that your time is unlimited :-)

Brian K

21-Sep-2007, 17:36

Brian, wonderful work on your web site. I need to see your prints.

Question for everyone: Why choose a very expensive flatbed over a drum scanner? I understand the need for prepress - a flatbed is much more productive. But I'm curious about the reasons a fine art photographer chooses a flatbed.

Don, thanks for the kind words.

The flat bed has an advantage in that it also allows one to do very high quailty scans of mounted prints, and my prints often have a high amount of optical manipulation, that is more than just burning and dodging, so I need to scan the prints themselves.

One other reason I chose a new, still in production flatbed versus a used circa 1995 drum scanner is long term parts availability and repairs. Kodak/Creo is still making the scanner I bought and by law they have to have parts and service for it for at least 7 years from the end of production and Kodak is a rather substantial company. There is a fair chance that parts for a drum scanner built in 1995 might not be available in 2014. Also service for the Creo is in house, that is they come to your place, you're not shipping some 100 pound monster somewhere.

Also my creo uses firewire, not scsi which is barely supported on Macintosh, my preferred platform. While the drum scanner might have a very slight edge, and I mean very slight, in image quality, I don't think that difference would be visible except under the condition of having to scan a truly awful negative or one that requires extremes of density range. My negs are all within a very useable range.

So that was my rationale for the Creo IQsmart 3 over a drum scanner like a used Howtek.

Ted Harris

21-Sep-2007, 18:48

I'm back but only sort of as I am working intensively with a client here, at my studio, through tomorrow afternoon.

BTW, we just did some prints with the new Harman matte paper and they are impressive.

To respond to Bruce, for our purposes the Supreme II is total overkill and very overpriced (not sure Kodak has sold any in the past months and they are reevaluating its pricing). The IQSmart 2 and 3 are the scanners I most frequently recommend to North American Photographers. I run a 3 along with a Cezanne and the differences between the 2 and the 3, while real, are rather small and inconsequential for many. The Cezanne Elite is much more expensive (but can sometimes be purchased at a hefty discount but that still keeps it well over 20K new). I don't recommend the Fuji Lanovia on this side of the ocean as finding one and getting ervice is difficult to impossible, its a different story in Europe. I don't know enough about the Plateau to say much but I have long suspected it was a rebadged machine made by someone else (possibly a Microtek 4000xy?). The Microtek 4000xy is still sold but only in Asia and a few European markets. They made an agreement with Creo when they sold them rebadged 4000's for Creo to sell as the "Jazz" several years ago. The agreement seems to be a lifetime agreement that prohibits Microtek from ever selling the 4000 in this market, even though the Jazz is long gone. Finally, Purup-Eskofot is still in business and, I think, still making scanners.

I have made direct comparisons between scans done on a Colorgetter Falcon (drum), a Howtek 8000 (drum), an older Screen drum (forget the model) and the iQSmart3 and Screen Cezanne that I am running and, in all cases I either see no difference in the final results from the scans I did myself are better .... not necessarily anything definitive in those findings though since any of the differences ere marginal and I know what I want from my own images.

Time, as QT mentioned is very important. Example, I set up a batch scan of 6 4x5 negatives this afternoon in less than 30 minutes total (included mounting the film and evaluating each prescan, making necessary corrections, naming the files and starting the scans). The six scans, each at ~ 2500 spi to produce ~ a 600mb file, took a total of well under an hour to run .... I can't tell you the exact time because I ran my client back to his hotel while the scans were running. Earlier in the day we printed a gorgeous 18x40 print from a scan from the Cezanne.

Brian and Kirk, thanks for the kind words. It was a combination of performance results, size of the bed and time that convinced me to go the high-end flatbed route over two years ago (then I searched for six months to find the right machine).

One other important point. If you are buying one of these machines used you have two options (equipment brokers such as Bob Weber and Gensis, etc.) and individual sales, often on eBay. You can get lucky on eBay and you can end up spending several times the original purchase price to get your machine operating. Your best guide to start your research is to read "Pixel Perfect" a Seybold article that was published several years ago. It is no longer available on the web and it is too large to post here so email me if you want a copy (email not pm please). I'm also happy to answer any other more specific questions.

Henry Ambrose

21-Sep-2007, 19:01

I'd like to have something like the iQsmart for the quality -and- throughput. Being able to lay down a bunch of negatives at once and then scanning my picks without attending the machine would be great. A whole job scanned with maybe two machine loads at very high quality would be wonderful.

For me its either a great flat bed scanner or maybe one of the new Canon 1DsMkIII bodies. I know that all digital workflow is a faster better commercial solution but 4x5 film and great LF lenses make a mighty powerful tool. The ability to use all my film gear and get great scans is very appealing. More so than having all my eggs in one Canon basket. But I've not seen files from the new body and might change my mind on this. But then its the slightly sucky Canon lenses.

I'm thinking a great scanner (iQSmart2) or a great digital body cost near the same. After that its not so clear - are the more choices in film gear and great lenses that I own better than another Canon body and one way of working? A way that doesn't really cover my bases without workarounds. Where's the 14mm shift lens or the 20mm shift lens? I'm at a fork in the road, I think.

Anyway I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about their high end flatbeds.

Ted Harris

21-Sep-2007, 19:12

Henry, the road still has a way to go before the available DSLR's and real time backs equal or better top flight scans from4x5 and larger film. They are getting closer and closer but aren't quite there yet.

Frank Petronio

21-Sep-2007, 19:25

Ted, if you don't mind it would be helpful for many of us to get some ballpark prices for these, I've often wondered, and my hunch is that a new Imacon and a slightly used high end flatbed might not be that far apart.

Ted Harris

21-Sep-2007, 19:53

Frank, actually a new Imacon and a new High End flatbed are the same!

Imacon X1 and IQSmart 2 both = ~ 12,000 and you can readily get a factory refurb IQ Smart for 9-10K

Imacon X5 and IQ Smart 3 both = ~ 20,000 and similar refurbs available for the 3.

BTW, Jim at Midwest is now a Creo dealer!

jetcode

21-Sep-2007, 20:06

Ideally you should talk to Ted Harris but I can mention a few. There's the Creo/Kodak, I just bought the Creo IQsmart3 and so far find it far more of a professional tool than the Imacon it replaced. It's harder to get up and running because the software and scanner do so much more. Fuji makes a professional level flatbed, Screen has one, Azek has one.

The differences between these and Microteks,Epsons, etc is huge, there's really no comparison. My Creo IQ3 does 5500 optical over the entire 13x18" bed with great shadow detail and very low noise and I have yet to try wet mounting which will yield even better results. These really are professional, pre-press tools.

You get what you pay for - to get high resolution precision motors must be used, high end optics, etc. I have a refurbed Cezanne Elite coming on Monday. Can't wait to take it through its paces. $6k. The price of a refurbed Imacon 848 or better is well beyond that. Plus I can get 4-5k dpi of quality over the entire bed. Bought an nice Apple G4 for $200.

There will be some learning curve no doubt but I have a lot of film to practice with.

Joe

sung

25-Sep-2007, 01:30

Don't mean to hijack this thread but...What type of computer power is necessary for high end flat bed scanners (in terms of RAM, hard drive etc) for 4x5 scans? Are these scanners only Mac compatible or are there PC options (for around 4K)?

Ed Richards

25-Sep-2007, 04:17

Ted,

How are 4x5 negatives mounted for scanning? Do they sit directly on the glass? What are the provisions for preventing Newton's rings, which make me crazy with Tmax film?

Ted Harris

25-Sep-2007, 07:17

Joe, you will find that very little learning is required to start to get super scans using yoiur new scanner and the Color Genius software (make sure you upgrade to the latest version and that you have the correct SCSI card ... btw if you want to run on OSX 10.4 instead of 10.3.x you will need a different SCSI card). The learning curve to master the software is much much steeper :).

Sung, a few are PC compatible but most that I know of are Mac specific but, since many of them run just fine on older Mac's you can get the needed computer for little money. As for computing power, they don't take that much. I have actually run the IQSmart 3 on a Mac Mini (although that is way less than recommended and the hookup almost gave the ?tech rep a heart attack) but wouldn't recommend it. Right now I am running both the Cezanne and the IQSmart 3 on a Mac dual processor G5 with 5 GB Ram. The machine has two hard drives, both bootable, and the Cezanne boots off of OSX10.3.x on one drive and the IQ Smart 3 boots off of OSX 10.4 on the other drive. The Cezanne is hooked up via a SCSI connection and the IQ Smart via Firewire. Both of these machines like to know that they are the only thing running so it is imperative that only ONE is actually turned on at a time. The G5 is networked with 4 other machines in the studio. One of the other machines, the one I am sitting at now, also has the Cezanne's client software installed as the Cezanne can operate in a client/host mode as wsell as on a single machine. So, for ~ 4K you may well be able to get a machine and a 'puter to run it.

Ed, of course the answer "it all depends" is the mpost important one. It depends on how beatup the negative is and how concerned I am with reducing/eliminating grain. Brian, who posted above, for example, prints very large and needs to pay a lot of attention to grain and, thus, he always wet mounts. To answer your specific questions, the negatives sit directly on the glass but both scanners use specially formulated glass with an anti newton ring coating (the IQ Smart 2 uses a different glass than the 3 but also Anti Newton Ring formulated). I have not yet had a single newton ring problem with either scanner. When not wet mounting I:

1) tape large negatives to the glass using painter's tape that is formulated for delicate surfaces.

2) for up to 5x7 on the Cezanne just carefully position the negative and then carefully place the cover glass over it (or them if more than one). This is a glass that is supplied with the scanner that runs the width of the bed and fits in grooves on the sides, also anti newton ring treated.

3) for up to 4x5 on the IQSmart 3, i fI have more than one or two to do, I tape the negatives to the back of the supplied mask that can handle six 4x5's, etc. The scanner came with a bunch of blank masks to cut other sizes and I have cut masks for 8x10, 6x12 and 6x17. Larger than 8x10 it is back to the tape. The Masks fit precisely on registration pins on the scanner.

When wet mounting I use the lightest liquid that I think will do the job so as to minimize the cleanup process. I seldom use Kami fluid. Prazio products are my choice and they vary from the anti-newton ring spay (the lightest) through anti newton ring oil to montage gel (the heaviest). I don't use a mounting station for either scanner, don't find them necesssary in my particular workspace. The scanning surfaces are easily removable and meant to be removed (they have handles at each end). Given that, I simply take the glass off of the scanner and carry it over to a worktable where I have a large sheet of mylar spread to insure the bottom of the glass stays clean and then proceed to mount and then carry the glass back to the scanner and go to work. Brian, I believe is now using the Creo mounting station with his scanner so perhap he can chime in with more details on that.

paulr

25-Sep-2007, 08:03

Ted, when do you choose wet mounting vs. tape mounting?

jetcode

25-Sep-2007, 08:36

The learning curve to master the software is much much steeper :).

Hi Ted,

It can't be any worse then learning CS2, in fact Color Genius appears to have a nice palette of operating control. Getting the right SCSI card will be an issue for sure. I have two right now and neither as I find out are recommended for this scanner software. What SCSI card do you use? I was under the assumption that Color Genius had to run on OS 9.2.2. I need to get an accurate monitor too. No doubt there will be some investment in understanding this scanner. I have some photographs to share in a day or two.

Joe

P.S. How do I scan 8x10 or 4x10's on the Cezanne?

Ted Harris

25-Sep-2007, 14:01

Joe,

Color Genius does have a ncie palette of controls but it will take a long time to master them all ... not that you will necessarily need to do so. Best bet for the SCSI card is to call Kirsten at Screen in Chicago and she can tell you which card will work with your machine. I really don't want to crawl under the table and drag out the machine and then disconnect the scanner and take out the card to check it. My recollection is that it is an Adaptec 2309N but not sure. There are 2 different cards that she recommends, I do remember that. One will allow you to run on operating systems up to OSX 10.3.x and the other on OSX 10.4.x. The Adaptec card that works through 10.3.x is now discontinued I believe but you can probably get one on eBay. ATTO makes the card that works with 10.4.

Re 8x10 or 4x10 ... either wet mount 'em or tape 'em down.

jetcode

25-Sep-2007, 23:06

Ted Harris

26-Sep-2007, 05:51

Paul, I wet mount if I have a damaged piece of film that will not lay flat, if I need to reduce grain, if I have a badly scratched piece of film,etc. Generally, to solve problems rather than to improve resolution. Or, when scanning small film that I know is going to be printed very large (e.g. 35mm to be printed 40x50 or something like that) so as to insure that there are absolutely no variables on my end that will get in the way of the final print. BTW, not saying that I think 35mm should ever be printed that large but I was just part of a project where that was the objective and I couldn't argue with the eventual client on this one.

jetcode

17-Oct-2007, 18:54

Here is how a refurbished Cezanne Elite makes its way to your doorstep and what it looks like under the hood. Note that the entire left wing is not yet attached. This thing is a tank at 160lbs. The shipping was $400.

Ted, If I may, a couple of questions:

1) The standard tray I have with this scanner appears to be somewhat fogged like it is dirty and it has some small scuff marks on it. I assume that this will affect the scan quality?

2) The lower tray with the grid on it is for reflective art?

I am in the process of scanning a 4x10 B/W negative at 2880. The whole process from installation to scan was pretty painless considering I am a complete virgin when it comes to MAC systems.

Joe

Ted Harris

17-Oct-2007, 19:08

Don Hutton

17-Oct-2007, 19:36

Here is how a refurbished Cezanne Elite makes its way to your doorstep and what it looks like under the hood.
I'd be pretty happy to find one of those blocking my front door....

jetcode

17-Oct-2007, 19:50

Joe ....

1) The glass is frosted ... is that what you mean? The frosting is an anti newton ring coating. Did you get the cover glass? I don't see it in your picture .. a frosted strip about 5" wide that has metal sides that fit in the grooves on the side of the scanning glass.

2) You scan reflective material on the top glass as well. Grid for alignment.

Ted,

The cover across the bed was a piece of optical mylar. There is a 5" frosted strip in the box and the 35mm batch holder. I take it that covers the piece of film? I just scanned a 4x10 at 2880 and it produced a 308M greyscale file which is substantial. When I pulled it into PS on my laptop I noticed that the image was a bit dark. I used the Sharp finish. I used PS levels (white adjust to 203) to adjust the white appropriately. Either my white reference is not installed right or I need to learn about picking black and white reference points prior to scanning.

Here are some images from my first scan. The image was taken of my HP laptop screen (1440x900) with a 210mm macro at about 1.4:1 on Bergger 200. First the original reduced and raw except for correcting levels. Note that the left side has been cropped about 3/4" or so from the original 4x10. Clip1 zooms the Portrait icon. Clip3 zooms the lips in the portrait icon. Clip3 finished is cleaned up and 35% PS sharpening at 2.2 pixels. Note that to get these images into this forum I used JPEG compression at 50-60 percent except for the full size which I compressed at 80 percent.

I'm impressed. I look forward to learning how to correct for originals in the scanner software. A couple of months from now I should have a pretty good handle on using this scanner.

Joe

jetcode

17-Oct-2007, 20:10

I'd be pretty happy to find one of those blocking my front door....

Wait 'till you try to move it. The manual says use 4 people to lift it. Unfortunately the manual wasn't read until after a friend and myself lugged it down into the lower level studio. It was so big we had to tilt it at quite an angle to get it through the sliding glass door.

I can't wait to scan some color images. I've considered offering scans at reasonable rates to the public. Stay tuned. I need to really understand this scanner first before I attempt to take that task on.

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 07:16

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 09:48

Drum scanners do have one important advantage over flatbeds, and that is in the area of dynamic range.

Chrome is limited in dynamic range. How much more of the extremes can be captured? Does a greater Dmax improve color fidelity or capture shadow detail that the eye will fail to detect in a print? Is there truly a dramatic difference in quality between these different technologies at the high end? I suspect there are differences but will the average eye be able to notice this? I suspect the shadow and highlight detail is cleaner with higher Dmax. Is it like comparison like the difference between a $1k stereo system and a $20k stereo system?

I am curious as a scanner novice.

The other reason I choose this technology was for reflective scanning of art. While I don't have much of that myself I am surrounded by a lot of artists and this may help pay the way for the scanner.

Joe

QT Luong

18-Oct-2007, 10:37

Chrome captures less dynamic range of the scene than negative, however, the dynamic range of the chrome itself is higher than that of the negative.

In practice, here is a typical situation where the greater Dmax makes a difference. You have a landscape with sunlit peaks and the valley in shadows, and scan to preserve the detail in the peaks. With the high Dmax scan, you can brighten the shadows considerably so that the valley does not look too dark. With the low Dmax scan, if you attempt to do the same, the shadows will exhibit considerable noise.

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 11:31

Chrome captures less dynamic range of the scene than negative, however, the dynamic range of the chrome itself is higher than that of the negative.

This sounds contradictory.

In practice, here is a typical situation where the greater Dmax makes a difference. You have a landscape with sunlit peaks and the valley in shadows, and scan to preserve the detail in the peaks. With the high Dmax scan, you can brighten the shadows considerably so that the valley does not look too dark. With the low Dmax scan, if you attempt to do the same, the shadows will exhibit considerable noise.

If I understand you correctly you are speaking of dynamic range compression; i.e. transpparency contains more information in a smaller dynamic range?

I thought Dmax was about being able to detect information in dense areas on a negative or transparency while Dmin is the ability to detect information in low density areas. Of course chrome has no nuetral transparent space that is not filled with some form of color (except B/W transparecies of course) Again I am a total newbie here. I ordered a recommended scanning book from Amazon to continue my own education.

Joe

clay harmon

18-Oct-2007, 12:00

It is not contradictory when you realize that there is not a one-to-one correspondence of scene/subject density range and transparency (or negative) density ranges.

That is where the idea of gamma or CI (contrast index) is valuable. Most people process black and white negative film to a gamma/ CI (not the same, but close enough for the purposes of this explanation) of 0.55. This basically means that for the main part of your response curve, a scene luminance change of 1 stop (doubling or halving of intensity) produces a 0.55 stop change on the negative's density.

Slide film, however, has gamma/CI in the range of 1.5-2.0. This means that a one stop change in subject luminance produces a 1.5-2.0 stop change in the slide density value. It is 'contrasty', to use the vernacular expression for this. Check out the slope of the graph for Ektachrome 100 for instance:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e27/f002_0787ac.gif

See how steep it is? That means that a 1 stop change in subject luminance produces a 1.6-1.8 change in the density on the transparency film.

This sounds contradictory.

If I understand you correctly you are speaking of dynamic range compression; i.e. transpparency contains more information in a smaller dynamic range?

I thought Dmax was about being able to detect information in dense areas on a negative or transparency while Dmin is the ability to detect information in low density areas. Of course chrome has no nuetral transparent space that is not filled with some form of color (except B/W transparecies of course) Again I am a total newbie here. I ordered a recommended scanning book from Amazon to continue my own education.

Joe

Frank Petronio

18-Oct-2007, 12:07

Bruce Watson

18-Oct-2007, 12:22

This sounds contradictory.

Yet, it's not. Don't confuse the Subject Brightness Range (SBR) of the scene in question with the density range on film. Trannies are capable of recording a restricted SBR, depending on the film of course. A range of from 4-6 stops of SBR maybe. Tranny Dmax can be as high as 3.6 or higher. The Kodak calibrated density target only goes to 3.6; it's difficult to measure accurately above that.

Consumer flat bed scanners have difficulty reading through that large Dmax to record the shadow detail. The typical complaint about trannies and consumer flatbeds are noise in the shadows or a complete lack of shadow detail. High end flatbeds have less problems with trannies, and of course drum scanners have very little problem with trannies.
If I understand you correctly you are speaking of dynamic range compression; i.e. transpparency contains more information in a smaller dynamic range?

It's not compression. It's translation. Tranny film translates a smaller SBR into a large density range. Negative films translate a larger SBR into a smaller density range. There is no need for a one-to-one correlation between SBR and density range.

It's helpful to remember the design function of tranny film is to be the final output -- one puts it into a projector and projects light through the tranny onto a screen. The tranny therefore has to have the ability to create an image with a convincing white (lets all the light though) and a convincing black (blocks all the light).

Negative film, OTOH, is designed to be an intermediary. It's used to capture the SBR of the scene in such a way as to make it easy to translate the captured information to photographic paper so that the final output is a print. This doesn't require the high density of the tranny -- in fact, high density is harder to work with when making prints.

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 12:51

The kindly old Kodak film researcher told me that in the 50s as color film was being heavily R&D'd, they expected professional large format photographers would shoot color neg and make carefully crafted color prints for reproduction, since the would have more control, retouching, etc.

They didn't anticipate how freaking lazy professional photographers really are.

And that is why they shot tons of chrome film for fifty years....

Frank, it's not a matter of being lazy, it's simply smart business to shoot chromes versus color neg if you are shooting work for repro. Unlike a wedding photographer where the print is the final result of the photograph, for a commercial photographer it's usually mass reproduction that is the ultimate use.

A commercial photographer gets paid to shoot. It may take a day or days to complete the shoot. Does it make commercial sense for a busy photographer to turn away assignments in order to make color prints? Do you think that most clients are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars a day to have a photographer print color prints from color negs? (I'm talking traditional processes here, not hitting "Command P and going for coffee). It is simply more efficient for the photographer, and cheaper for the client to work with color chromes. It's business after all.

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 13:25

Thanks for the explanations everyone. Material sciences. The terms are familiar and now I get to learn and engage the implications. I discovered why I had to adjust my scanned neg for white. It's underexposed by a stop or so and has relatively low contrast. My guess is the scanner is already calibrated within reason and I have to tighten the control over exposure and processing. It's a fairly steep learning curve but I'm not starting from scratch. Rather then plague the forum with beginner questions I need to research and learn the craft. As far as becoming a "pro" scan house; not. I'm more interested in my art then being a service bureau. When I have some experience and feel comfortable with the tools and processes I will open the door to that possibility on a limited basis and most likely local.

Thanks again,
Joe

Asher Kelman

18-Oct-2007, 13:27

Frank, it's not a matter of being lazy, it's simply smart business to shoot chromes versus color neg if you are shooting work for repro. Unlike a wedding photographer where the print is the final result of the photograph, for a commercial photographer it's usually mass reproduction that is the ultimate use.

Maybe the real reason is that trannies can be simply put on a lightbox and the art department and client can choose the impressive beautiful sexy image in seconds raher than have to see a flat print.

Asher

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 13:54

BTW, to the best of my understanding, all of the current high end flatbeds, including the EverSmart Supreme, Fujis, IQSmart, etc, use the same Kodak 8,000 element CCD. Therefore, any differences in performance would be due to lens quality, how the lens sees the scanned material, stitching type, etc.

Effective resolution of EverSmart scanners is on the order of 90-95% of maximum potential optical resolution. This is a very high %, and results from XY stitching technology, only present in EverSmart and IQSmart scanners. Some very experienced users on the Scan Hi-End forum claim that the
Rodenstock lens of the EverSmart gives sharper results than that of IQSmart scanners, but I don't know if that is true. I do know for a fact that the effective resolution of my EverSmart Pro scanner is about 95% of optical maximum. Optical maximum is 3175 ppi, and tested effective is well over 3000 ppi, and that is over the entire scanning area of 12X17".

The major problem with the high end flatbeds is that they are huge. EverSmarts weigh about 160 lbs and take up a space of about 32X29X13".

Sandy King

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 17:33

Maybe the real reason is that trannies can be simply put on a lightbox and the art department and client can choose the impressive beautiful sexy image in seconds raher than have to see a flat print.

Asher

Asher, I don't think it's about the client seeing a more impressive image, afterall what really matters is how it looks in print, but the faster turn around might be a factor for them. Shooting chrome was the industry standard when I first started working in the commercial area. In 25 years in the business I can't recall ever shooting color neg film.

Sandy, the IQsmarts use a 10,200 element tri linear ccd. The top optical resolution on the IQSmart 3 is 5500 ppi.

David A. Goldfarb

18-Oct-2007, 17:39

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 17:44

For print media, transparencies are certainly easier to edit, and they are self-proofing, in that the press proofs can always be compared to the transparency. A negative always requires interpretation.

David a color transparency requires color calibration as does a color neg. Color transparency film always required that the emulsion be color tested and color correction added prior to exposure. With color neg a color chart or gray scale would need to be included in the photo, or in a test exposure to be used to set and calibrate the color balance for a final print. So in either case the photographer is interpreting or setting the color balance.

Kirk Gittings

18-Oct-2007, 17:45

I'm not sure what the issue is with negatives vs. chromes. Whether I am shooting negs chromes, (or DC for that matter) I supply files to all my clients. Color Negs scan fine. As a matter of fact I oftentimes have shot chromes and color negs on the same shoot (NPS and Velvia 100f chromes for the architecture, color negs for the people shots) and could scan them to look alike with little trouble.

Ted Harris

18-Oct-2007, 18:40

Frank Petronio

18-Oct-2007, 18:41

Ted Harris

18-Oct-2007, 18:45

While I believe Sandy's comment is correct regarding the current high end flat beds I am not sure that it applies to older generation machines bearing the same name (e.g. the current Supreme is actually the sceond model and there is an earlier machine also called the Supreme). I believe you will find that all of the current generation deliver real world resolution over 4000 spi.

Additionally, the DMax discussions are a tempest in a teapot. All of the current and last generation high end flatbeds deliver real world DMax over 3.7 which easily exceeds the range of film.

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 18:53

Sandy, the IQsmarts use a 10,200 element tri linear ccd. The top optical resolution on the IQSmart 3 is 5500 ppi.

Current Creo/Kodak literature for the IQSmart3 and EverSmart Supreme indicate slightly higher optical resolution for the EverSmart. Optical resolution for the EverSmart is stated to be 5600 ppi.

Sandy

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 19:02

While I believe Sandy's comment is correct regarding the current high end flat beds I am not sure that it applies to older generation machines bearing the same name (e.g. the current Supreme is actually the sceond model and there is an earlier machine also called the Supreme). I believe you will find that all of the current generation deliver real world resolution over 4000 spi.

I did not suggest otherwise. My EverSmart Pro is clearly an older generation scanner that at 3175 ppi does not deliver as much resolution as current EverSmart Supreme models.

Sandy King

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 19:04

I was merely making a wry observation, not trying to change a workflow (that has already been obsolesed anyways).

I always laughed when producton people and art directors would slavishly try to match the chrome when it was the chrome's interpretation that was probably the weakest link in the imaging chain. Or the ad agency's $49.95 crappy 9300 degree Kelvin light box... And while it was easier for the pro photographer to deliver a chrome, the behind the scenes pre-press work was pretty intensive and expensive.

If executed by someone who truly was a professional photographer, and I just don't mean they get paid, but someone with real professional standards, the color and exposure on the final chromes delivered to the client were dead on. Even if the art director had a crappy light box, as long as the printer had an accurate light box and reflective light illuminator ( which good printers almost always had) to use to match the printing to the original chrome, then the end result would be accurate.

Sandy the current Eversmart delivers 5600ppi optical, the current IQSmart3 is 5500ppi.
Here is the Kodak spec comparisons for the current IQSmart and Eversmart scanners:

http://graphics1.kodak.com/us/product/scanners/professional_scanners/scanners_specifications.htm

Kirk Gittings

18-Oct-2007, 19:09

Additionally, the DMax discussions are a tempest in a teapot. All of the current and last generation high end flatbeds deliver real world DMax over 3.7 which easily exceeds the range of film.
Ted Harris

And, I believe far exceeds all output materials? Or is that comparing apples and oranges.

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 19:20

Here are a couple of more images at 5300dpi, the optical max for the Cezanne Elite. I used the same area as the other images for comparison. This testing is not empirical by any means because I am still learning how to use this tool. However the only processing I have done is levels adjust in PS and much less this time then last. I notice that the differentiation is good but the noise is higher indicating the grain of the film. I want to try a wet scan at some point to see how that affects the noise floor. No sharpening has been applied to either image in PS. All scans use a sharp finish, a scan setting. There are some new controls I am discovering but I am completely convinced that I am missing the software manual for this scanner. I am going by the Start Guide which is minimal at best.

Joe

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 20:01

Sandy the current Eversmart delivers 5600ppi optical, the current IQSmart3 is 5500ppi.
Here is the Kodak spec comparisons for the current IQSmart and Eversmart scanners:

http://graphics1.kodak.com/us/product/scanners/professional_scanners/scanners_specifications.htm

Agreed. I believe that is what I noted in a previous message?

From the literature the EverSmart Supreme and Select II appears to win on almost every point.

Sandy

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 20:11

Agreed. I believe that is what I noted in a previous message?

From the literature the EverSmart Supreme and Select II appears to win on almost every point.

Sandy

Except one, $45,000 for an ES Supreme versus $20,000 for a IQ3, from the people I spoke to, the extra $25k was not justified.

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 21:08

Except one, $45,000 for an ES Supreme versus $20,000 for a IQ3, from the people I spoke to, the extra $25k was not justified.

If you want the best, what is a $20k difference? I quit counting when the difference is over $10k.

Sandy

Scott Rosenberg

18-Oct-2007, 21:11

If you want the best, what is a $20k difference? I quit counting when the difference is over $10k.Sandy

... priceless!!

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 21:21

If you want the best, what is a $20k difference? I quit counting when the difference is over $10k.

Sandy

I have a fairly unlimited budget but that doesn't mean that I need to spend $25k on differences that will not be apparent. I'd rather spend the money on shooting more images. After talking to Ted I "settled" on a new IQSmart 3.

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 21:28

I have a fairly unlimited budget but that doesn't mean that I need to spend $25k on differences that will not be apparent. I'd rather spend the money on shooting more images. After talking to Ted I "settled" on a new IQSmart 3.

Good for you.

But the point here is that you appear to be basing your decisions primarily on the advice of someone else.

With all due respect, I am going to make a decision of that type based on my own experience and testing.

Sandy

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 21:34

A first pass at a chrome test. 8x10 EPP 720dpi generating a 112M file. I tweaked the contrast levels in the scanner software. It's a little too contrasty for this image. I haven't yet calibrated my scanner monitor. There is no further image processing. The shadows are noisy, noisy, noisy, but are hard to detect at print size. I certainly hope a drum scanner is better. If I had a color negative I'd scan it for testing. I may have one somewhere. I am switching to color negative for the extended range and lower gamma. It's a pleasure having such a nice scanner in the office. I have a backlog of film to scan. Thanks for letting me post these findings in this forum.

Joe

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 21:36

I have a fairly unlimited budget but that doesn't mean that I need to spend $25k on differences that will not be apparent. I'd rather spend the money on shooting more images. After talking to Ted I "settled" on a new IQSmart 3.

Good choice. I hear that is an excellant scanner and it only weighs 99lbs! I paid $5.9k total including shipping for the Cezanne Elite. It may be a bit dated but it appears to be a fairly high quality scanner.

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 21:48

Good for you.

But the point here is that you appear to be basing your decisions primarily on the advice of someone else.

With all due respect, I am going to make a decision of that type based on my own experience and testing.

Sandy

Sandy,

Do you have access to all the different scanners on the market to test with? As far as I can tell there are a lot of decisions made based on the advice of others. Mostly because no one I know has access to every make and model to test with except perhaps a few brokers. I do note that there seems to be some war going on over which one is better. A waste of time and energy in my opinion. Lots to choose from. Pick the one that is best for you. I can't afford $20k for a scanner so I picked the one that works for me. Based on what I've seen so far though I will be careful in scanning transparencies because I'm not convinced the quality is there just yet. I think you are right though concerning negatives. It's still really new to me so it will take time to learn how to optimize an image scan.

Joe

Scott Rosenberg

18-Oct-2007, 21:55

Sandy,
...Mostly because no one I know has access to every make and model to test with except perhaps a few brokers....
Joe

and our very own Ted Harris!! ;)

Brian K

18-Oct-2007, 21:55

Sandy I test everything. I shoot more test film a year than actual real photographs.

I did some preliminary testing, I first tested a friend's Iqsmart 2, compared it to my Imacon 646, and to the many drum scans I have from from scitex, Crosfield, shima seiki, and other drum scanners. I then bought the IQsmart3 and if I didn't like it I would have returned it. It's results have been competitive with my drum scans. I'm sure the current Eversmart models are superior to the IQSmart3, but that difference is small and would not be apparent with the film i shoot or the way I print.

Scott I spoke with Ted regarding my decision. He does have access to a wide range of scanners. He felt that the Eversmarts were not worth the price, at least for my needs. Needless to say if I didn't like the IQ3 I would have returned it.

sanking

18-Oct-2007, 22:35

Sandy I test everything. I shoot more test film a year than actual real photographs.

I'm sure the current Eversmart models are superior to the IQSmart3, but that difference is small and would not be apparent with the film i shoot or the way I print.

OK, but my original point was simply that the EverSmart scanners are better. Since you seem to agree with that, no need for further discussion.

Sandy

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 23:27

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 23:31

OK, but my original point was simply that the EverSmart scanners are better. Since you seem to agree with that, no need for further discussion.

Sandy

Are you going to buy an EverSmart or do you need to make sure that everyone agrees with you? After all it's your opinion. How do I know you're any more right than Ted is or the Seybold folks or the manufacturers for that matter? The industry is fraught with marketing ploys to target market share.

jetcode

18-Oct-2007, 23:38

the current Eversmart delivers 5600ppi optical, the current IQSmart3 is 5500ppi.
Here is the Kodak spec comparisons for the current IQSmart and Eversmart scanners:

My guess is this is a marketing ploy to generate a difference between the two products. It may be accurate but does it really matter? Is the 100 ppi/spi/dpi really going to make or break an image?

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 00:58

So where are good place to hunt for a used Cezanne or other really lower cost pro scanner (not Epsons 700 series etc etc)

Asher

Brian K

19-Oct-2007, 03:54

The reality of most high end technologies is that you pay a higher and higher premium for smaller and smaller improvements. A $1000 scanner might be twice as good as a $500 scanner, but it might not be the case between a $2000 scanner and a $1000 scanner. If everyone is only looking for the absolute best, we should all own crosfield or ICG drum scanners (or whatever the best is). However one does have to take into account what their actual needs are and in the case of scanners those looking to sell scans or act as a service bureau to some degree will have a higher requirement for speed, reliability and quality. For those like myself who might not do more than 30 film scans a year and are limited to the density range of only B&W film, the requirement is less.

I am confident that the limiting factor with my scans is not my scanner at this point, but my own ability as a scanner operator. From what I have learned after 16 years of working with scans, is that scanning is an art in itself. I have produced better scans with my Imacon and IQ3 than some of the drum scans that
I have had done for me eventhough the drums scans were produced with superior equipment.

Ted Harris

19-Oct-2007, 04:41

Brian's points are right on.

Sandy, I didn't mean to imply that you said anything other than what you did, just wanted to clarify for the newcomers tht there are a number of scanners from different generations with very similar names.

Scott, thanks for the kind works but .... I do have access to an IQSmart3 and Cezanne and gcan readily get comparisons done for me from other Creo machines and perhaps an Aztek Plateau but I have no real access to those machines that are no so easy to find in North America (e.g the Fuji Lnovia -- although I can if someone wants contact one of the members of the original development team on this machine -- he is now part of Ilford in Switzerland).

BTW, the Microtek M1 is finally really coming for those interested in new consumer machines. I saw it demoed yesterday and will have one to test in a few weeks. It looks very verey impressive but I suspect there are some software questions we will need to know a lot about. More when I actually have the machine in my hands. I can say that the film holders for 4x5 are a definite improvement over those in the 1800f, etc.

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 06:04

So where are good place to hunt for a used Cezanne or other really lower cost pro scanner (not Epsons 700 series etc etc)

Asher

I purchased mine at Genesis Equipment Marketing. When I talked to
Michael they had a Cezanne and Cezanne Elite though not featured for sale on their website. The Cezanne was $4500. Here's their link.

http://www.genesis-equipment.com/home.cfm

I just surfed the Screen site for software upgrades and it turns out one of the bugs fixed in software was excessive grain in deep reds. Time to upgrade if I can figure out how to do it.

sanking

19-Oct-2007, 08:26

Are you going to buy an EverSmart or do you need to make sure that everyone agrees with you? After all it's your opinion. How do I know you're any more right than Ted is or the Seybold folks or the manufacturers for that matter? The industry is fraught with marketing ploys to target market share.

First, I have not said anything here that indicates I know more than Ted or the Seybold folks, whoever they may be.

And I am not in the market for a new scanner. I have an older EverSmart Pro with resolution of 3200 ppi, not the newer Supreme with resolution of 5600 ppi. I am not in the market for a Supreme because I scan primarily LF and ULF film and don't need the extra resolution.

However, I think it is common knowledge that most people in the industry consider the EverSmart Supreme and Select to be the best flatbed scanners money can buy. EverSmart Supreme and Select scanners cost a lot more than the other models new, and used models are typically two ore more times as expensive as other units with similar specifications. I see lots of Cezanne scanners go for $5k or less, but a used EverSmart Supreme will set you back $10k or more. Just look at the prices at Genesis where you purchased your machine. Whether one needs the extra quality is another issue.

Sandy King

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 08:45

First, I have not said anything here that indicates I know more about Ted or the Seybold folks, whoever they may be.

And I am not in the market for a new scanner. I have an older EverSmart Pro with resolution of 3200 ppi, not the newer Supreme with resolution of 5600 ppi. I am not in the market for a Supreme because I scan primarily LF and ULF film and don't need the extra resolution.

However, I think it is common knowledge that most people in the industry consider the EverSmart Supreme and Select to be the best flatbed scanners money can buy. EverSmart Supreme and Select scanners cost a lot more than the other models new, and used models are typically two ore more times as expensive as other units with similar specifications. I see lots of Cezanne scanners go for $5k or less, but a used EverSmart Supreme will set you back $10k or more. Just look at the prices at Genesis where you purchased your machine. Whether one needs the extra quality is another issue.

Sandy King

OK, so you've identified the "best" based on yet more third party opinion. As far as I can tell this choice has less impact on the other offerings then is being projected or perceived. While I completely respect your choice, knowledge, and opinion based on a collective in the industry it isn't going to matter a bit in the work I do with the scanner I selected. I am getting results I want and saved $40k in doing so apparently. I'm glad there are primo scanners for those who need such machines. Thank god for the rest of us we can get a great scanner without a second mortgage or deep pockets. :)

Gene McCluney

19-Oct-2007, 09:23

While it is easier to "hold" highlight and shadow detail on color negative in uncontrolled lighting situations, most Commercial Photographers (such as myself) learned years ago to light for chromes. You "fill in" the shadow areas to bring them up in the transparency. If you light for the media you are using to shoot with, then the results will be good, regardless of media.

And..the resulting transparency will be easy for a scanner to scan.

sanking

19-Oct-2007, 09:26

OK, so you've identified the "best" based on yet more third party opinion. As far as I can tell this choice has less impact on the other offerings then is being projected or perceived. While I completely respect your choice, knowledge, and opinion based on a collective in the industry it isn't going to matter a bit in the work I do with the scanner I selected. I am getting results I want and saved $40k in doing so apparently. I'm glad there are primo scanners for those who need such machines. Thank god for the rest of us we can get a great scanner without a second mortgage or deep pockets. :)

How did this become a discussion about you? It was started by someone interested in acquiring some information about professional level flatbed scanners. There are many choices and I would expect that most people would welcome a discussion of the options rather than insisting on relating everything to their own needs as you appear to be doing. I fully recognize that everyone does not need a $50,000 scanner and that less expensive options may fully satisfy their needs. But there are differences between these machines and that seems a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion to me.

Sandy King

sanking

19-Oct-2007, 10:29

Scott, thanks for the kind works but .... I do have access to an IQSmart3 and Cezanne and gcan readily get comparisons done for me from other Creo machines and perhaps an Aztek Plateau but I have no real access to those machines that are no so easy to find in North America (e.g the Fuji Lnovia -- although I can if someone wants contact one of the members of the original development team on this machine -- he is now part of Ilford in Switzerland).

Ted,

I am curious how you compare the performance of scanners? Is there some kind of industry standard protocol?

Sandy King

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 11:14

Thanks Brian,
For those like myself who might not do more than 30 film scans a year and are limited to the density range of only B&W film, the requirement is less. I'd like to scan 12x24 with stitching, 8x10 and 4x5. The bulk (150 per year) with 4x5.

I am confident that the limiting factor with my scans is not my scanner at this point, but my own ability as a scanner operator. From what I have learned after 16 years of working with scans, is that scanning is an art in itself.I can see that. At least I know what I want. The same in the darkroom.

In practical terms, what's the support like? Is there reasonably priced software for Mac OS X?

Am I on an island with a Cezanne, or is there a way of dealing with broken parts or troubleshooting?

Asher

Brian K

19-Oct-2007, 12:16

Thanks Brian, I'd like to scan 12x24 with stitching, 8x10 and 4x5. The bulk (150 per year) with 4x5.

I can see that. At least I know what I want. The same in the darkroom.

In practical terms, what's the support like? Is there reasonably priced software for Mac OS X?

Am I on an island with a Cezanne, or is there a way of dealing with broken parts or troubleshooting?

Asher

Asher I'm not the goto to guy for information about the Cezanne, Ted Harris would be. I can tell you that the flatbed of the IQSmart3 is 12x18" and would require one stitch for a12x24" scan. The IQ3 gives you 5500ppi optical over the entire flat bed, not that you'd ever scan anything that large at that high a res. I don't know about the reliability of the Cezanne scanners or their parts availability but I can say that one of the reasons I went with the IQ3 was that Kodak owns the company and that they have to keep parts in inventory for at least 7 years from the date of last manufacture (or maybe date of last sale, I'm not sure which) and that I feel more secure with an expensive product backed by a large company more so than one backed by a small one. From my audiophile days I've gotten very wary of expensive high tech electronics being supported by small companies.

The IQ3 ,as are all the current kodak scanners, is native to Mac OS-X and the software, while more complicated than Silverfast or flex soft, is very stable and quite powerful. The interface is firewire. If you are considering a Cezanne make certain that it is not scsi only if you work on the Mac platform. The support from kodak is not great, at least that is my experience so far.

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 13:38

The IQ3 ,as are all the current kodak scanners, is native to Mac OS-X and the software, while more complicated than Silverfast or flex soft, is very stable and quite powerful. The interface is firewire. Yes, that would be an optimal way to go (and cheaper than MF digtial for what one gets). If my work sells enough, then yes. Otherwise I couldn't justify the price. So for now, I'm looking at refurbished.
If you are considering a Cezanne make certain that it is not scsi only if you work on the Mac platform. The support from kodak is not great, at least that is my experience so far.What's wrong with SCSSI? One can have a SCSSI card for any Mac tower. I have G4s and a G5.

Also, Ted, how would one rate the Eversmart Pro II compared to the Cezanne and does one generally need to buy new software and if so what? (I see some come with "Oxygen Dot", but is this jus for documents?

Thanks again,

Asher

Gene McCluney

19-Oct-2007, 14:14

Yes, you can put a SCSI card in a Mac tower, but SCSI is becoming an obsolete interface, replaced with the newest versions of firewire and usb, and if you can use a firewire or usb interface, you can run your scanner from your laptop, or just about any currently available computer whether it has room for a scsi card or not.

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 14:45

In practical terms, what's the support like? Is there reasonably priced software for Mac OS X?

Asher,

I'm trying to get a OS X version for my Cezanne. I have the OS 9 version but my color calibration tool is for OS X and I can't really tell if the profile is being loaded by OS 9. In terms of support Genesis provides a 90 day free technical and hardware support and contractual tech support after this period. Michael at Genesis says that this scanner is fully supported by Screen.

Joe

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 15:02

Asher,

I'm trying to get a OS X version for my Cezanne. I have the OS 9 version but my color calibration tool is for OS X and I can't really tell if the profile is being loaded by OS 9. In terms of support Genesis provides a 90 day free technical and hardware support and contractual tech support after this period. Michael at Genesis says that this scanner is fully supported by Screen.

Joe

Joe,

Thanks for the information!

So how much would that Software upgrade cost? Can one use 3rd party software?

The guys at Genesis who should know about these things will be back on monday.

Ted,

Currently I scan with my Linocolor Saphir II with two scans, one for shadows and another for highlights and combine. I'm wondering whether I could match the better scanners with a new Epson or Umax scanne by this technic (excluding the issue of only true optical resolution and limited scanning area)? Will the Cezanne or else the Eversmart Pro ll give better shadows and highlights than I can obtain by labor with my Saphir.

IF all one needs to do is several careful scans and combine them, could one go for a lower cost scanner as far as extracting the tonality (not so much the detail) of film? Or are the stepper motors and and electronics so inferior in ~ $1,000 flatbed scanners, that even careful combinations of scans cannot reach the recognisable detailed shadows and highlights that can be achieved on an Eversmart Pro ll or a Cezanne?

Gene,

Thanks for the heads up on SCSSI! SCSSI doesn't bother me but getting the profiles loaded for latest color management does!

You guys are a lot of help.

Asher

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 17:07

Joe,
Thanks for the information!
So how much would that Software upgrade cost? Can one use 3rd party software?
The guys at Genesis who should know about these things will be back on monday.

Asher,

There is no 3rd party software. The upgrade should be free, at least it is for an upgrade in OS 9. I am still waiting word from Screen. Well see how the service is. Michael deals with a lot of scanners so he is not necessary up on every detail. They do have some technical staff in Arizona where the scanners live. Michael is in Chicago. I found a SCSI card at the local MAC shop and he installed it for me. It all came up perfectly. I tried running ColorGenius in OS X classic and it doesn't work because the SCSI driver isn't found.

Joe

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 17:35

Asher,
They do have some technical staff in Arizona where the scanners live. Michael is in Chicago. I found a SCSI card at the local MAC shop and he installed it for me. It all came up perfectly. I tried running ColorGenius in OS X classic and it doesn't work because the SCSI driver isn't found.

Joe
Joe,

This "SCSSI driver not found" might be something that the Mac Genius Bar might be able to help with in an Apple Store.

i'd have thought SilverFast would have software for all the high end scanners! I'll try to find firewire or USB machines!

Now what on earth does one need to handle the massive files from scanning 4x5 film if one chose the max resolution (for the sake of argument only)! What are the max pixels that CS3 can deal with?

I often choke my machine dual Mac 2.3 GB G5 with several 2GB files at once (these are actually say 300MB files with many layers). So the handling of these files seems scary. Can the supplied software down ress the files and so get rid of noise?

Asher

Brian K

19-Oct-2007, 18:35

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 18:59

CS3 has a ram limitation of 3 or 3.5 gigs, theoretically I don't think there's a limit to the file size that CS3 can handle, but the bigger the file the greater the chance that things may go wrong. Macs though are pretty darn stable. I'm currently using an Intel Mac pro and it has no problems with CS3 and 2 gig plus files.
Thanks Brian for the clarifications.

What are the largest scans you have worked with?

Asher

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 19:37

Asher, I think you'll be better off without the scsi. It's just one more thing to further complicate the whole process and Apple will provide NO support for scsi. Also if the companies making the scsi cards decide that it's not good business to support Mac scsi cards then you are out of luck. This was another factor in my choosing the IQ3.

Brian,

The SCSI part was easy. The MAC guy had a bunch of them and it works out of the box with OS9. The OS X version I have yet to aqcuire. I completely agree that SCSI is dated. Firewire is waning as well. If dealing with SCSI means the difference in saving $14k I think it's a non issue from my perspective, since it works anyway. If I can get a color calibrator for OS 9 I won't need OS X version. I am not an APPLE person. My PS work is done on PC's. Right now my transfer media is DVD drives. The Airport card for OS 9 is not WAP compliant so no wireless for now. I could get a long Ethernet cable and go direct and I just may do that. I wish Apple put the I/O connections in front instead of the back. Do I wish it was all the latest? Yeah, but it's not killling me. I purchased a 733Mhz Apple G4 with 512M and 120Gig of hard drive for $200 minus the monitor which I already had. I am living a budget limited reality at the moment.

Joe

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 19:48

Joe,

This "SCSSI driver not found" might be something that the Mac Genius Bar might be able to help with in an Apple Store.

i'd have thought SilverFast would have software for all the high end scanners! I'll try to find firewire or USB machines!

Now what on earth does one need to handle the massive files from scanning 4x5 film if one chose the max resolution (for the sake of argument only)! What are the max pixels that CS3 can deal with?

I often choke my machine dual Mac 2.3 GB G5 with several 2GB files at once (these are actually say 300MB files with many layers). So the handling of these files seems scary. Can the supplied software down ress the files and so get rid of noise?

Asher

Asher I can't see myself working with anything over 1 Gig. It's not necessary. It may be one day just not now. The Cezanne Elite is capable of generating a 96G file.

Frank Petronio

19-Oct-2007, 20:41

whoa, you are working with one gb Photoshop files with a G4 with 512 mb of RAM?

Is that a typo?

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 21:21

whoa, you are working with one gb Photoshop files with a G4 with 512 mb of RAM?

Is that a typo?
Frank,

for sure one wants more RAM! Some people simply don't have the money but do have the time! Apple doesn't care which way! It just uses the hard disk for virtual memory and one has to wait, that's all. So after you do a sharpen, for example, one might have to wait 30 seconds perhaps, depending on the speed of the hard drive.

I work with several 2G files with just 1.5 GB RAM in my G4 and the same with 4GB RAM in my G5.

What I want to know is what large file sizes you might be using and with what configerations?

Thanks for sharing,

Asher

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 21:37

whoa, you are working with one gb Photoshop files with a G4 with 512 mb of RAM?

Is that a typo?

Pretty Amazing Huh? You ought to see that hard drive thrash! Like a rodeo show where the cowboy gets a good kicking! Actually I use a HP Pavillion dual core laptop (17" screen) with 2G ram for PS and the Apple for scanning because I have no other choice. The Apple is pretty nice. I see why people like them.

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 21:57

A really convenient feature with a flatbed is you can fill the bed with images, setup each image individually, then batch scan them.

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 22:17

Joe,

This level of scannner will give a great working file from my negatives but also will allow me to harvest boxes of transparencies and B&W film stored in boxes!

Still thinking about ULF and large files. A 60"x150" print at 300 dpi native would need a scan at 4500 dpi from a 4"x10" film (or 2250 for an 8x20) and the 16 BIT file would be 4.53 GB! I've never worked with such a file! It sounds scary!! Must be slow!

Makes me think it would be great to master "live objects" in Photoshop CS3 so one could work with a smaller file right until the time for sharpening and then before that stage, just swap the object file for the original 4.53GB file for that very last step.

Is that what people do or else do you have 16GB or RAM and a Quad processor plus a stack of 6-packs?

Asher

Frank Petronio

19-Oct-2007, 22:30

Wow I am kind of blown away actually. If it works don't fix it ;-)

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 22:46

Joe,

This level of scannner will give a great working file from my negatives but also will allow me to harvest boxes of transparencies and B&W film stored in boxes!

Still thinking about ULF and large files. A 60"x150" print at 300 dpi native would need a scan at 4500 dpi from a 4"x10" film (or 2250 for an 8x20) and the 16 BIT file would be 4.53 GB! I've never worked with such a file! It sounds scary!! Must be slow!

Asher

That's a big print. Is 16 bit necessary? The more I scan the more I enjoy how easy this tool is to use. No film holders or drums to load. By the end of this weekend I will have decent scans. I have boxes of film to scan too.

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 22:51

Wow I am kind of blown away actually. If it works don't fix it ;-)
Frank,

The Mac does not blow me away, just the cheap way film is to get detail-rich large images in high quality.

I'm a whiz at stitching! I can join together 10 or more 5D shots from a 4x5 image circle but it takes too much personal attention. The problem is that trees and birds move! I just realized that it's far easier to slip in a sheet of film and scan!

So once I decided that, hey why not go for 8x10 and a 4x10 reducing back and a 4x5 back too? So that's what I'm doing, getting a blond Chinese Chamonix lady from Shanghai who'll do everything I could possibly want!

So for me, the scanner is the key empowering technology! I will also make large tranparencies for contact printing with platinum and other rare earth chemistry. So the help in getting up to speed with the right (albeit "refurbished") scanner is really appreciated! Thanks guys!

Asher

jetcode

19-Oct-2007, 22:55

Wow I am kind of blown away actually. If it works don't fix it ;-)

I think the scanner must have a lot of ram because scans consist of the scan phase and the transfer data phase. Since the data transfer is streamed to disk it doesn't require much ram. The manual states 180meg minimum for the server/client. The software can be configured as a PS plug-in too.

Asher Kelman

19-Oct-2007, 23:13

That's a big print. Is 16 bit necessary? The more I scan the more I enjoy how easy this tool is to use. No film holders or drums to load. By the end of this weekend I will have decent scans. I have boxes of film to scan too.
Hi Joe,

If the exposure is so good that one could do a print without dodging, burning or changing the contrast anywhere, then 8BIT is fine since the Epsons take the RGB in 8 BIT. However, Canon is now sucking in the files at 16 BIT for printing! So I expect that will be normal. That's the short answer!

The issue is, as you know, that when working in 8 BIT and doing calculations and resigning luminance and saturation values, shifting hues a little and then sharpening one can end up with a comb effect where in fact one has cut out parts of the smooth continuity of the beautifully scanned image.

There's another major issue. The printing software, or Photoshop has to remap and so reassign perceptually colors in the gamut of the file you capture to what the inks can lay down on your choice of paper! Each of these tens of thousands to millions of changes has to be rounded off and theoretically, to keep your file in the pristine quality your scan delivered, but with all the finesse you added on the way, means the files have to be protected. That 16 BIT level provides the safe workspace to do the entire math, even if the print is to be done at 8 BIT.

Of course, to make a difference, I'm talking about really trying to get the shadow detail that modern inks or the best wet-process can deliver. If one has high contrast images, it may not matter one bit!

Asher

jetcode

20-Oct-2007, 01:21

Asher you know your imaging. That was a very educational justification for 16 bit scans. Aren't you glad you are not resigned to "web" only colors?

Asher Kelman

20-Oct-2007, 01:34

Asher you know your imaging. That was a very educational justification for 16 bit scans. Aren't you glad you are not resigned to "web" only colors?
Joe,

If web colors floated by boat, I'd not need to scan carefully in the first place. I already have several nice flatbeds. However, there is no point in trying to make "nice pictures" or prints that are "good enough". I can do that with a point and shoot and a $90 printer.

I do suspect that skilled use of even a $700 Epson 700 series camera with scans for highlights, midtones and shadows combined in Photoshop might rival the more competant scannners. That is something I can imagine but have no idea whether or not anyone has tested. No doubt the experience is already there. Using a high end consumer scanner would not work commercially, but for an artist, it might just work perfectly to the full extent that printing can deliver.

So just like you I want to do so much better!

My passion is to harness the deep richness of film and leap way beyond my unfulfilled lust and dreams of the latest digital cameras I cannot afford. I want to carry my own ideas to prints that are just excellent!

I just need to match my wishes to a good price!

Asher

Brian K

20-Oct-2007, 03:34

Thanks Brian for the clarifications.

What are the largest scans you have worked with?

Asher

Asher because my files are for an LVT output, which in itself is limited to 2032 at 9.5" or 3048 at 9.5" (which I don't often do, but might do more of now that I have the IQ3 versus the imacon) I tend to scan around 600-700 megabyte. Most of my scanning has to do with removing scratches,pinholes or other spots that would require print spotting, however if there's some other clean up or local contrast correction (dodging/burning too fine to do in the darkroom) the file can bloat to 2 gigs quite easily.

By the time the file has been flattened, comverted to gray and dropped to 8bit for the LVT, the file has gotten down to 100 meg or so. However all corrections are done while in 16 bit rgb.

If you intend on working with files around 2 gig, it really does makes sense to have at least 5 gig of RAM, 3-3.5 for photoshop and 1.5 for other system processes.

Gordon Moat

20-Oct-2007, 11:02

. . . . . .

Makes me think it would be great to master "live objects" in Photoshop CS3 so one could work with a smaller file right until the time for sharpening and then before that stage, just swap the object file for the original 4.53GB file for that very last step.

Is that what people do or else do you have 16GB or RAM and a Quad processor plus a stack of 6-packs?

Asher

The live objects implementation is a bit like how LivePicture software worked on images. You did edits in real time, then when you had the edits the way you wanted, the software would build the final image file. So edits were fast, though saves might be a little slow, depending upon the computer. There are still a handful of people using that software (including myself) running through Classic, though it is not easy to get it working on a newer computer.

It really comes down to time, as in meeting deadlines. If you are waiting too much for the computer, or simply not getting all the work done in a day that you want, then the only solution is a faster computer; unfortunately something that changes every six or so months. What I have observed is that people are often impatient, or they simply get use to the slight speed improvement and consider their previously fast computer to be running too slow.

You had a question about dot software with Creo scanners. I don't know if anyone answered that, though what that usually refers to is copy dot scanning. This would be for scanning an actual screen used for commercial printing. There is a small need for that in the industry, though based upon comments at the last few printing industry trade shows I attended, it seems that need is largely going away. Quite often it is easier and faster to create a new neg, and with changes in printing technology the older negs just don't get re-used very often.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

sanking

20-Oct-2007, 13:51

Thanks Brian, I'd like to scan 12x24 with stitching, 8x10 and 4x5. The bulk (150 per year) with 4x5.

Asher

I have been scanning and stitching 12X20 negatives for several years, and you should be able to do a 12X24 just as easily with any 12X17 or 13X18 scanner. There are several possibilities for making the individual passes depending on the physical condition of the platen. Assuming you scan in 16 bit grayscale and at 1200 dpi, which would allow a 48X96" image at 300 dpi, the assembled file will only be about 800mb, which you should find easy enough to work with if you have a relatively modern Mac. It is even doable with a G4 if you are patient.

I used to manually stitch with layers, but since I got CS3 for the Intel Mac I just let Photoshop do it.

My assumption that you will be scanning in grayscale is based on the fact that color film in ULF sizes is not commonly available, though you can get it from time to time with special order.

Sandy

Brian K

20-Oct-2007, 14:11

Sandy you don't scan in 16 bit rgb, then pick the green and/or red channels and then use either or both of them to first convert to monochrome rgb to do your image editing?

sanking

20-Oct-2007, 14:46

Sandy you don't scan in 16 bit rgb, then pick the green and/or red channels and then use either or both of them to first convert to monochrome rgb to do your image editing?

Brian,

I develop with staining developers, and one can often get better results by scanning in RGB and then evaluating the separate channels for best tonal control. I always do this with MF film, and sometimes with 5X7 and 7X17. However, scanning a negative of 12X20" in RGB at 1200 ppi will result in a file size of 1.9 gb (which takes a lot of patience to process), so unless the negative looks very difficult to control in terms of tonal values I will make the scan fo 12X20 in grayscale.

If you are developing B&W film with traditional non-staining developers there is very little reason to scan in anything other than grayscale, IMO.

Let me say that I have been doing this for several years and am still learning (guess I am a real slow learner) so I am always attentive to other ideas about what works best. So I listen a lot.

Sandy

Brian K

20-Oct-2007, 18:30

Brian,

I develop with staining developers, and one can often get better results by scanning in RGB and then evaluating the separate channels for best tonal control. I always do this with MF film, and sometimes with 5X7 and 7X17. However, scanning a negative of 12X20" in RGB at 1200 ppi will result in a file size of 1.9 gb (which takes a lot of patience to process), so unless the negative looks very difficult to control in terms of tonal values I will make the scan fo 12X20 in grayscale.

If you are developing B&W film with traditional non-staining developers there is very little reason to scan in anything other than grayscale, IMO.

Let me say that I have been doing this for several years and am still learning (guess I am a real slow learner) so I am always attentive to other ideas about what works best. So I listen a lot.

Sandy

Sandy, I don't use staining developers but I do notice a distinct difference between color channels when scanning a B&W beg in RGB. This might be due to the fact that I selenium tone all my negs to some degree. I most often use the green channel or green with a little red channel added, and almost always discard the blue channel. I find the blue channel noisier and less sharp than the other channels. From what I have heard from others this a fairly common practice.

sanking

20-Oct-2007, 19:25

Sandy, I don't use staining developers but I do notice a distinct difference between color channels when scanning a B&W beg in RGB. This might be due to the fact that I selenium tone all my negs to some degree. I most often use the green channel or green with a little red channel added, and almost always discard the blue channel. I find the blue channel noisier and less sharp than the other channels. From what I have heard from others this a fairly common practice.

I have not found any advantage to RGB scanning of LF and ULF B&W negatives developed in non-staining developers.

You cite common practice. Have you tested this yourself with LF and ULF negatives? If so, and you have found some advantage, perhaps you could share the results? I just don't find there is anything to gain.

Sandy

Kirk Gittings

20-Oct-2007, 21:07

Brian K

21-Oct-2007, 03:50

I have not found any advantage to RGB scanning of LF and ULF B&W negatives developed in non-staining developers.

You cite common practice. Have you tested this yourself with LF and ULF negatives? If so, and you have found some advantage, perhaps you could share the results? I just don't find there is anything to gain.

Sandy

Sandy, I don't go to the bathroom without testing first.

I haven't scanned any B&W negs larger than 4x5" with my latest scanners, but with 4x5 and 6x12cm, 6x17cm B&W negs the difference between the rgb layers is pretty obvious. I don't know about you but my B&W negs are not neutral gray they have a coloration. This might be due to the tinting that occurs with X-tol which tends to make a brownish neg, or the fact that I will slightly selenium tone all my negs for stability, or outright selenium intensify some of my negs for increased contrast. But the fact is that the 3 channels R.G and B all render a different tonality, and in some cases it is far from a subtle difference, and that the blue channel also tends to be less sharp and have more noise and more apparent grain. Maybe the lower appearance of sharpness is due to the increased grain and noise.

It is for this reason I scan rgb, and almost always dump the blue channel in the channel mixer and use a combination of green and red, mostly green.

Brian K

21-Oct-2007, 04:27

I have found noticeable differences in noise and sharpness in the RGB channels of prosumer scanners from the Epson 3200 through 750 and the Canons and Microtek 1800f, but effectively none in the scans that Ted Harris has done for me on his professional flatbed.

Kirk, are you having Sandy scan your B&W negs in 16bit RGB? From what it sounds like Sandy doesn't think there's a difference unless you're scanning a stained neg. Are your B&W negs stained or developed with non staining developer? On both my Imacon and IQ3 scanners the differences between channels is very obvious. They often look like 3 different contrast/curve/brightness settings were used for each.

It is also possible to scan as Gray and then convert to RGB, this would result in rgb channels that are identical, as would scanning in rgb and then using the channel mixer to create a monchrome rgb file.

jetcode

21-Oct-2007, 04:44

I notice in the ColorGenius software profiles for several films though they are mostly consumer 35mm brands except for Fuji 160NPS. How does one create a profile for a particular film? I suspect that some calibration target must be captured at a specified color temperature, scanned and profiled with scanner controls until optimum results are achieved. The settings are then saved to a profile. Has anyone here made their own custom film profiles?

sanking

21-Oct-2007, 08:04

I haven't scanned any B&W negs larger than 4x5" with my latest scanners, but with 4x5 and 6x12cm, 6x17cm B&W negs the difference between the rgb layers is pretty obvious.

I never said that there would not be a difference in the RGB channels. There may be a difference even with perfectly neutral film because every scene will have lesser or greater amounts of each light present, and the color of the light present will affect both negative density and contrast because of the different sensitivity of film to Red, Green and Blue light. Most films are more sensitive to Green and Blue light than to Red and that fact should be reflected in the densities of the RGB channels. Pan film is usually most sensitive to B light, and this fact also should be seen in the RGB channels.

You could choose to drop one or more of the channels if you want, and that may certainly change density and contrast more or less as if you had chosen to shoot the scene with a band cutting filter. However, in looking at a few high resolution scans of neutral tone negatives developed in non-staining developers I do not see any difference in either grain or sharpness in comparing the Blue and Green layers. And of course, dropping one or more channels of the scene is going to give you a representation unlike what you would expect with a panchromatic type film.

It is known that Xtol gives a slight stain, or at least a color that is not perfectly neutral, and it is also clear that selenium toning would change the color. If you can get better prints by scanning these negatives in RGB and then adjusting the channel, so much the better. However, neither of these conditions apply to me as I don't use Xtol and I don't tone my negatives with selenium.

A pyro stained negative will definitely give RGB layers of different contrast and density and one is free to exploit this potential if there is some advantage to doing so. However, most of my work is with 5X7 and larger negatives which already have such fine grain and sharpness in prints of moderate size that I find there is very little to gain in an RGB scan compared to a grayscale scan.

Sandy King

jetcode

21-Oct-2007, 08:29

Sandy,

May I ask why you use a staining developer? Do you print traditionally and digitally?

Joe

sanking

21-Oct-2007, 08:41

Sandy,

May I ask why you use a staining developer? Do you print traditionally and digitally?

Joe

In answer to the second question, I print traditionally (carbon transfer, pt./pd. and kallitype) with both in-camera negatives and with digital negatives. Probably more these days with digital negatives but I am contemplating shifting the balance back toward traditional printing in the next year or so.

With regard to the first question, I use staining developers because they are economical, have excellent shelf life, give very great apparent sharpness, and the stain adds contrast which is often needed for printing with alternative processes. And if you scan, a film developed in a staining developer will have less grain than the same film developed to the same CI in a non-staining developer.

If you have further interest you might look at my introductory article on these developers at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

Sandy King

Scott Rosenberg

21-Oct-2007, 08:42

Sandy,

May I ask why you use a staining developer? Do you print traditionally and digitally?

Joe

http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

note the name of the author, and then this line...
"...Pyrocat-HD was developed by the author and..."

Sandy is far too modest!

some more reading: http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Pyrocat/pyrocat.html

jetcode

21-Oct-2007, 09:02

http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

note the name of the author, and then this line...
"...Pyrocat-HD was developed by the author and..."

Sandy is far too modest!

some more reading: http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Pyrocat/pyrocat.html

Thanks for the link Scott. So it appears that this choice is made for improving the quality of the negative rather then a specific purpose such as platinum printing. This of course is a projection on my part.

One thing for sure, Sandy has a LOT more experience with this art form then I do.

Kirk Gittings

21-Oct-2007, 09:14

Kirk, are you having Sandy scan your B&W negs in 16bit RGB? From what it sounds like Sandy doesn't think there's a difference unless you're scanning a stained neg. Are your B&W negs stained or developed with non staining developer? On both my Imacon and IQ3 scanners the differences between channels is very obvious. They often look like 3 different contrast/curve/brightness settings were used for each.

It is also possible to scan as Gray and then convert to RGB, this would result in rgb channels that are identical, as would scanning in rgb and then using the channel mixer to create a monchrome rgb file.

BRIAN,

I have been having Ted scan my b&w (non-staining developed) in RGB and then using a channel mixer layer for conversion, but this is more out of habit from using the prosumer scanners where it really mattered (particularly because of noise) which channel you used for the conversion. This is a practice that I will probably discard because the noise levels are so low in a good professional scan.

FWIW, as a matter of personal technique, I rarely print above 16x20 from 4x5, but i scan my film to make 20x24 in case. So a scan that will make an adequately sharp and noise free 16x20 is really my threshold, smaller than that is easily accomplished with the prosumer scanners, but to me they fall apart at 16x20. This is fine for my commercial work but not for my fine art prints. I bought and thoroughly used every one on the market wet (helps) and dry. A well tuned Imacon will give me that threshold and I have regular access to new Imacons at SAIC, but scans properly done from a setup like Ted's is a cut above even the Imacons in terms of sharpness and noise. My print sales are increasing geometrically every year and it makes no sense to invest a ton of time to develop anything but a first rate file. So my 750 Epson is used for scanning commercial work and for proofing new work deciding what has real potential.

Brian K

21-Oct-2007, 09:18

I never said that there would not be a difference in the RGB channels. There may be a difference even with perfectly neutral film because every scene will have lesser or greater amounts of each light present, and the color of the light present will affect both negative density and contrast because of the different sensitivity of film to Red, Green and Blue light. Most films are more sensitive to Green and Blue light than to Red and that fact should be reflected in the densities of the RGB channels. Pan film is usually most sensitive to B light, and this fact also should be seen in the RGB channels.

Sandy King

Sandy, have I misread you, or did you just state that the color of the original scene, or the film's inherent color sensitivities, has an affect on the way a B&W neg is scanned? The pre-processing exposure sensitivity of film to different colors of light has nothing to do with scanning. The scanner is not fooled by the fact that the original scene was heavy on red or green or blue or any non-linear sensitivity the film has to those colors, all the scanner sees is the emulsion and the differing densities of silver grains of the negative, which is predominantly gray with maybe a slight color tint.

Where sensitivity to light color does come into affect during scanning is how the scanner's CCD or PMT reads the white light going through the neg and then separates it into red, green and blue channels. I assume that the lens being used by the scanner is a true Apochromatic, in that it focuses the 3 colors of light onto the same exact plane, but that might not be the case and that would add to non-linearity in channel color and focus. What mostly determines the differences in the 3 color channels is the CCDs sensitivity to the 3 different colors and if it's sensitivity is equal for all 3. Granted if the neg is not color neutral but has some sort of tint, this may further alter the end results. Even the trace amounts of UV and infrared in the scanner's white light might affect the color response of the ccd, but that is just speculation on my part.

Gordon Moat

21-Oct-2007, 09:34

On very good high end scanners, most of the lenses are APO, or could be designated as APO, so there is less chance of one channel being soft. However, you also need to consider that on any CCD based scanner, the colour filtration over the sensor passes/blocks different amounts of light. Green is the weakest filtration, and often why there might seem to be more detail, or better tonality in the green channel.

Then if you looked at low end and mid range scanners, you might find even more differences. A lower Dmax capability could indicate more noise in the blue channel, because more light is blocked. A lens that is not an APO, or not perfectly aligned, or just lacking in general, might show other issues, like softness or unevenness.

PMTs function a bit differently, and in theory should give perfectly even scans. The only other approaches are Nikon with their colour LED light and unfiltered CCD, and a few companies that add a fourth row of unfiltered sensor pixels. Software also corrects for some aspects of any scanner.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

Brian K

21-Oct-2007, 09:39

I have been having Ted scan my b&w (non-staining developed) in RGB and then using a channel mixer layer for conversion, but this is more out of habit from using the prosumer scanners where it really mattered (particularly because of noise) which channel you used for the conversion. This is a practice that I will probably discard because the noise levels are so low in a good professiona SCAN.

Noise is not as big a problem with high end scanners but there are still differences in the appearance of grain and sharpness as well as very obvious tone differences. In my use of professional scanners most often the blue channel showed more grain and yet was also not quite as sharp.

One of the biggest problems with scanning non stained B&W negs is the "pepper affect" that can appear from scanning. At high scanning resolutions even non grainy negs can appear to have substantial grain. Some attribute this appearance of grain to the scanner picking up the actual texture of the emulsion, this might be true as this issue seems to be exacerbated by higher optical scanner resolutions. Oil Mounting seems to lessen the appearance of grain and that may indicate that the theory that the emulsion's texture may be appearing as grain has credibility as oil mounting reduces the optical aspects (refraction-diffraction?) of the emulsion's texture. It could be that the blue channel's propensity to appear both grainier and less sharp might be due to the blue light not focusing on the film's grain but is instead focusing more on the emulsion's texture. Can anyone shed more light on this ?

Obviously with ULF lower scanning resolutions are used and they are also subject to lower reproduction ratios making grain and even sharpness issues far less relevant.

sanking

21-Oct-2007, 09:46

Sandy, have I misread you, or did you just state that the color of the original scene, or the film's inherent color sensitivities, has an affect on the way a B&W neg is scanned? The pre-processing exposure sensitivity of film to different colors of light has nothing to do with scanning. The scanner is not fooled by the fact that the original scene was heavy on red or green or blue or any non-linear sensitivity the film has to those colors, all the scanner sees is the emulsion and the differing densities of silver grains of the negative, which is predominantly gray with maybe a slight color tint.

No, you did not misread me. I was thinking about the effects of Red, Green and Blue filtration on B&W film and the effect of channels on a scan of color film and got my thoughts mixed. I apologize for the confusion because part of what I wrote is clearly incorrect. It is important to understand, however, that film is more sensitive to Blue and UV light, and also, because of the limits of diffraction, has less resolution when exposed with Red light than with Blue light.

All I really meant to say was that I did not say there was no difference between the Red, Green and Blue channels of scanned B&W negatives, only that the difference did not have any practical consequences for me. I have looked at several scans of neutral tone B&W negatives and there is no difference in sharpness or grain size between the green and blue channels, when the scan was made in RGB, and no difference in sharpness or grain between the RGB file converted to grayscale and a scan made in grayscale.

Clearly the Red, Blue and Green sensors should react the same way to equal density on a neutral tone B&W negative. If they do not, and the negative is truly neutral tone, the reason might be because of uneven sensitivity of the sensors, to the light source, or to how the scanning software is calibrated.

Sandy

sanking

21-Oct-2007, 10:35

Thanks for the link Scott. So it appears that this choice is made for improving the quality of the negative rather then a specific purpose such as platinum printing. This of course is a projection on my part.

One thing for sure, Sandy has a LOT more experience with this art form then I do.

Joe,

The fact that I print primarily with alternative processes, pt./pd. for example, does have something to do with my preference for staining developers. The stain is high actinic to UV light so with any given film you can develop to a higher contrast with a staining developer than with a non-staining one. This is important because alternative processes usually require negatives of high contrast.

As for scanning, I have only been doing it for about three years, and until I acquired an EverSmart Pro earlier this year I was making all of my scans of LF and ULF negatives with Epson and Microtek consumer scanners. I have learned a lot by listening to people on this forum, and on the Scan Hi-End forum on Yahoo, though that forum can get quite contentious at times.

Sandy

Asher Kelman

21-Oct-2007, 14:03

Joe,

The fact that I print primarily with alternative processes, pt./pd. for example, does have something to do with my preference for staining developers. The stain is high actinic to UV light so with any given film you can develop to a higher contrast with a staining developer than with a non-staining one. This is important because alternative processes usually require negatives of high contrast.

As for scanning, I have only been doing it for about three years, and until I acquired an EverSmart Pro earlier this year I was making all of my scans of LF and ULF negatives with Epson and Microtek consumer scanners. I have learned a lot by listening to people on this forum, and on the Scan Hi-End forum on Yahoo, though that forum can get quite contentious at times.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

Since you have a lot of experience with both less than $1000 scanners and then Eversmart, is it possible to do several scans say with an Epson (for shadows, midtones and highlights) and together approach the quality of the Eversmart. I imagine there will still be noise, but is the resultant scan at least in the ballpark or is it light and day going to the Creo Eversmart Pro?

For sure one pays for what one gets, but how competant can a most cereful combo scan with an Epson or Microtek be?

Also are there practical special needs for pyro stained negatives that definately require the higher end scanner. I'm thinking of the subtle gradations.

Asher

sanking

21-Oct-2007, 14:39

Hi Sandy,

Since you have a lot of experience with both less than $1000 scanners and then Eversmart, is it possible to do several scans say with an Epson (for shadows, midtones and highlights) and together approach the quality of the Eversmart. I imagine there will still be noise, but is the resultant scan at least in the ballpark or is it light and day going to the Creo Eversmart Pro?

For sure one pays for what one gets, but how competant can a most cereful combo scan with an Epson or Microtek be?

Also are there practical special needs for pyro stained negatives that definately require the higher end scanner. I'm thinking of the subtle gradations.

Asher

Asher,

First, there is indeed a world of difference between a high end flatbed like the Scitex EverSmart and the Epson and Microtek consumer flatbeds. For example, the Epson 4990 is advertised to be 4800 spi resolution, but you will be very lucky to get effective resolution of 2000 ppi, even when the position of the material to be scanned is placed the optimal position relative to the lens. By contrast, my EverSmart Pro, which has optical resolution of 3175 spi, will actually deliver over 3100 spi in effective resolution.

However, if you are scanning B&W film the effective resolution of a tabloid scanner like the Microtek 9800 or 1000, or the Epson 1600 and 10000, is more than enough for B&W ULF negatives, and assuming you don't overexpose and/or overdevelop, the dynamic range of these scanners should be sufficient. Problem is that physical characteristics of the Microtek 9800 and 10000 are not good for stitch scanning ULF negatives since these scanners have a lip above the surface of the glass. Epson 1600 and 10000 is better for this, but for the same price you may be able to find a used high end flatbed. That is the option I considered for a long time, and I eventually decided that the best choice for me for LF and ULF negatives, was a high end flatbed.

Finally, there are no special needs of pyro stained negatives that make high end flatbeds necessary. I have made many beautiful carbon and pt./pd. prints from PMK and Pyrocat-HD negatives scanned on Epson 4870 and 4990. However, it is important to expose and develop film so that you do not exceed, or even approach for that matter, the Dmax limit of the scanner. If you do, there will be no way to capture the detail in the highlights with consumer flatbed.

Sandy

Asher Kelman

21-Oct-2007, 14:59

Asher,

First, there is indeed a world of difference between a high end flatbed like the Scitex EverSmart and the Epson and Microtek consumer flatbeds. For example, the Epson 4990 is advertised to be 4800 spi resolution, but you will be very lucky to get effective resolution of 2000 ppi, even when the position of the material to be scanned is placed the optimal position relative to the lens. By contrast, my EverSmart Pro, which has optical resolution of 3175 spi, will actually deliver over 3100 spi in effective resolution.

However, if you are scanning B&W film the effective resolution of a tabloid scanner like the Microtek 9800 or 1000, or the Epson 1600 and 10000, is more than enough for B&W ULF negatives, and assuming you don't overexpose and/or overdevelop, the dynamic range of these scanners should be sufficient. Problem is that physical characteristics of the Microtek 9800 and 10000 are not good for stitch scanning ULF negatives since these scanners have a lip above the surface of the glass. Epson 1600 and 10000 is better for this, but for the same price you may be able to find a used high end flatbed. That is the option I considered for a long time, and I eventually decided that the best choice for me for LF and ULF negatives, was a high end flatbed.

Finally, there are no special needs of pyro stained negatives that make high end flatbeds necessary. I have made many beautiful carbon and pt./pd. prints from PMK and Pyrocat-HD negatives scanned on Epson 4870 and 4990. However, it is important to expose and develop film so that you do not exceed, or even approach for that matter, the Dmax limit of the scanner. If you do, there will be no way to capture the detail in the highlights with consumer flatbed.

Sandy

HI Sandy,

What sort of prices are you talking about to get into the professional level qualities we need? I want the scanner for both color negatives as well a B&W pyro stained film that can be used for either Platinum prints or else regular prints.

I can see that 3000 dpi would be plenty for almost all purposes.

Thanks for sharing your extensive experience!

Asher

sanking

21-Oct-2007, 15:10

HI Sandy,

What sort of prices are you talking about to get into the professional level qualities we need? I want the scanner for both color negatives as well a B&W pyro stained film that can be used for either Platinum prints or else regular prints.

I can see that 3000 dpi would be plenty for almost all purposes.

Thanks for sharing your extensive experience!

Asher

Asher,

If you check the prices at Genesis (Joe posted a link in an earlier message on this thread) you should be able to find a good high end flatbed for your needs at $5K or less. Ted Harris has good contacts and may be able to help you locate good used flatbed.

You can probably get one for a lot less than that on ebay, or from local pre-press companies, if you are prepared to take some risk and/or have some mechanical ability to fix things. For example, an EverSmart Pro at Genesis is $5k, but several EverSmart Pro II have not sold in recent auctions on ebay for less than that.

The risk in buying on ebay (significant IMO) is that the scannner will be DOA. The other issue is operating software as some of the high end flatbeds may have to be run with MAC 9.2.2 systems, or older. The potential gain is that if you get one in good condition it will probably last for years and years, assuming moderate use. Given the size and weight of these units, and the fact that shipping costs for repair will be very large, I would highly recommend buying directly from a person that allows both (1) local pick-up, and (2) checking out the scanner. If you don't do this, chances are good that you will wind up with a very expensive piece of useless piece of scanner furniture.

I took a risk with ebay auction, got a DOA scanner that I had to repair, but in the end paid about $2K total for an EverSmart Pro, which scans at 3175 ppi (and that is very close to effective resolution as you would expect with a drum scanner). Given the fact that it is built like a tank, and designed to be used 7/24/365 I figure that with reasonable luck this scanner will satisfy my LF and ULF needs for a very long time.

Sandy King

Asher Kelman

21-Oct-2007, 20:21

I took a risk with ebay auction, got a DOA scanner that I had to repair, but in the end paid about $2K total for an EverSmart Pro, which scans at 3175 ppi (and that is very close to effective resolution as you would expect with a drum scanner). Given the fact that it is built like a tank, and designed to be used 7/24/365 I figure that with reasonable luck this scanner will satisfy my LF and ULF needs for a very long time.
Sandy King
Thanks Sandy,

That's great information. I wonder whether there is a serivce center people might have experience with in the Los Angeles area?

Would Genesis refurbish the scanner purchased on Ebay?

Asher

jetcode

23-Oct-2007, 09:57

Asher Kelman

23-Oct-2007, 11:15

For those who may be interested in the Cezanne scanners; I just found out that a software upgrade from OS9 to OSX is $850 and takes 4-6 weeks for delivery. My only real problem with the OS9 version is finding a color calibration tool for OS9. The OSX version likely has some improvements over the OS9 version.

Joe

Hi Joe,

That's great information. Is it possible that the Cezanne can be seriviced or is it tough luck if something goes wrong? I was told by Genesis that Eversmart are easily repaired with guidance over the phone!

I like the idea of OS X software, for the same reason; getting profiles. Genesis thought that canned profiles for hte Eversmart series work perfectly and referred me to Kodak for methods of getting profiles in under OS 9.0 which the Eversmart Pro II needs.

Did you find a good source ofd information on the Cezanne?

Thanks,

Asher

Ted Harris

23-Oct-2007, 13:17

Joe and Asher,

Sorry to have been away from this thread for most of last week but I was too dog tired at the end of the day after Photo Plus to do much writing.

Regarding Cezanne support its right there in Chicago when you need it and several authorized repair sites for various things around the country. However, if you pay less than 10 grand for the machine and anything serious goes wrong you may be better off pitching it. To a certain extent the same holds true for Creo scanners too. OTOH, not much goes wrong with these machines very often except replacing the bulbs on a regular basis (which, of course, you do yourself).

As for OS X and Color Genius, the version I run is the 2.0.6.x and it runs on OSX up through 10.3.x. The limiting factor is the SCSI card, not the software. It will run under OSX 10.4.x but I have never bothered since swapping my current AdaptecSCSI card for the necesssary ATTO card would cost $350 or so and for what advantage? In my case I have a G5 dedicated to scanning. The machine has two bootable internal drives, one, running 10.3.8 for the Cezanne and the other running 10.4.x for the IQSmart 3. I boot up accoring to which scanner I am running. If I am in heavy production mode I can run either off of a different machine as well.

What additional information are you looking for on the Cezsanne?

A final cautionary note, one I have mentioned before. There are some really fantastic buys around these days on high end scanners with many in top condition going for 10 cents to 20 cents on the dollar, or less. OTOH, at these prices it is often 'buyer beware.' Sandy got lucky on the purchase of his Eversmart Pro, very lucky. There are others hwo have had to make substantial investments after the initial purchase before their machines were running and yet others who found they wasted money on a boat anchor. The same holds true of repairs. Remember you are buying an industrial machine, manufactured to tight tolerance industrial standards and meant to operate in an industrial environment; a machine with repair costs and channels that go with the original costs and supposed application. These machines will serve you well as long as you have room for them but they were't made for home use; neither for that matter were their software packages or the supporting manuals.

sanking

23-Oct-2007, 13:17

Hi Joe,

That's great information. Is it possible that the Cezanne can be seriviced or is it tough luck if something goes wrong? I was told by Genesis that Eversmart are easily repaired with guidance over the phone!

I like the idea of OS X software, for the same reason; getting profiles. Genesis thought that canned profiles for hte Eversmart series work perfectly and referred me to Kodak for methods of getting profiles in under OS 9.0 which the Eversmart Pro II needs.

Did you find a good source ofd information on the Cezanne?

Thanks,

Asher

Asher,

Service is one of the risk factors in a used high end flatbed. Because of their size, and initial cost, machines of this type have historically been serviced on site. All of the high end flatbeds I have seen are very large and very heavy. The EverSmart, for example, takes up space of about 32"X29"X13" and weighs over 160 lbs. I beleive the Cezanne is even larger and heavier.

I did mention earlier that the EverSmart Pro that I purchased arrived not working, even though the status lights indicated it was OK. However, it did respond to software diagnosis so that I was able to convey the error code to a technician at a repair center in New Jersey. He correctly determined the problem, sold me the correct replacement part, and walked me through installation. Had it been necessary to ship the scanner to New Jersey (I am in South Carolina) shipping costs would have been $700-$900 back and forth, plus labor, plus parts. I probably saved at least $1200-1500 doing the installation of the part myself.

Sandy King

jetcode

23-Oct-2007, 14:28

Hi Joe,

That's great information. Is it possible that the Cezanne can be seriviced or is it tough luck if something goes wrong? I was told by Genesis that Eversmart are easily repaired with guidance over the phone!

I like the idea of OS X software, for the same reason; getting profiles. Genesis thought that canned profiles for hte Eversmart series work perfectly and referred me to Kodak for methods of getting profiles in under OS 9.0 which the Eversmart Pro II needs.

Did you find a good source ofd information on the Cezanne?

Thanks,

Asher

The Cezanne is fully serviceable and Screen USA would know more about this. So far I need no service and most likely will only need bulbs if and when they expire. The Cezanne is a well built machine. If you buy through Genesis they guarentee the scanner for 90 days and you don't make the final payment until you verify the unit is not dead on arrival. My scanner has been well cared for. There are a couple of very minor scuffs on the film holder (holds the film flat) and a tiny scuff on the white reference. Genesis tests the scanner before shipping. They will not sell a bad scanner. I asked about a different scanner and it had been used for parts so they pulled it from their inventory.

Asher Kelman

23-Oct-2007, 20:46

Thanks Ted, Sandy and Joe!

The Cezanne is thus an excellent scanner to buy used from a reputable source.

Would all the same ideas also apply to the the Creo Eversmart flatbeds which are available at even better bargain prices. Is there OS X software and can profiling be performed in OS X?

Now when the big dealers say the machines are "reconditioned" and they clean all the lenses etc, how much weight would you give that from the big dealers?

Asher

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 01:05

Asher,

First, there is indeed a world of difference between a high end flatbed like the Scitex EverSmart and the Epson and Microtek consumer flatbeds. For example, the Epson 4990 is advertised to be 4800 spi resolution, but you will be very lucky to get effective resolution of 2000 ppi, even when the position of the material to be scanned is placed the optimal position relative to the lens. By contrast, my EverSmart Pro, which has optical resolution of 3175 spi, will actually deliver over 3100 spi in effective resolution.

Sandy

So what's the point in anyone buying a low end flatbed when the difference is world's apart? I don't quite understand the logic here of "not" buying a Nikon 9000 that is supposed to rival drum scans and shoot medium format film VS. shooting sheet film and having it processed through something that is world's apart from these expensive flatbeds you are talking about?

In other words, one can pickup the 9000 w/glass carrier on a good day for $1200USD. Add in a nice 6X7 kit for $1000.

OR

One can shoot sheet film and put it through an Epson and achieve results world's apart from what the Nikon 9000 equivalent can do in the LF world. Since LF is about enlarging, and given what is said about the digitization of LF sheet film having "zero" options aside from spending 3K on a lucky day, and more like 5-6K on an average day...what is the point in doing anything but b/w contact prints w/careful study and learning about what all can be done with a contact print, and shooting everything else with an MF camera and using the Nikon 9000 for the digital process/enlargement potential???

After reading through this thread, it's as if the Epson/Microtek/etc. brew of scanners is the Yugo and these higher end scanners are the Bugattie (sp).

Brian K

24-Oct-2007, 03:55

So what's the point in anyone buying a low end flatbed when the difference is world's apart? I don't quite understand the logic here of "not" buying a Nikon 9000 that is supposed to rival drum scans and shoot medium format film VS. shooting sheet film and having it processed through something that is world's apart from these expensive flatbeds you are talking about?

In other words, one can pickup the 9000 w/glass carrier on a good day for $1200USD. Add in a nice 6X7 kit for $1000.

OR

One can shoot sheet film and put it through an Epson and achieve results world's apart from what the Nikon 9000 equivalent can do in the LF world. Since LF is about enlarging, and given what is said about the digitization of LF sheet film having "zero" options aside from spending 3K on a lucky day, and more like 5-6K on an average day...what is the point in doing anything but b/w contact prints w/careful study and learning about what all can be done with a contact print, and shooting everything else with an MF camera and using the Nikon 9000 for the digital process/enlargement potential???

After reading through this thread, it's as if the Epson/Microtek/etc. brew of scanners is the Yugo and these higher end scanners are the Bugattie (sp).

The Epsons and Microteks are very good for their very modest prices. And they will do an acceptable job on LF because little if any magnification is required. But compared to a high end flat bed they are more akin to Saturns versus Mercedes. The nikon 9000 is not in the same league as a drum scanner or high end flat bed. I bought a 9000, bought an Imacon, and did a head to head comparison and the Imacon blew it away. My IQ3 then surpassed my Imacon.

As for why bothering to buy an Epson or Microtek, it's all a matter of need, just how good does your work need to be scanned? Are you selling a fair number of prints at prices that require a high degree of professional quality? Or are you just doing work for yourself? And the other factor is what you can afford and if the price jumps, which increase rapidly but yet yield diminishing returns, are worth it to you.

LF forum has a mix of professionals and amateurs. Just because professionals may be discussing very high end equipment doesn't mean that it is a required piece of gear for an amateur. For most people that Nikon 9000 or the Epson/Microtek will do a more than satisfactory job.

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 04:59

The Epsons and Microteks are very good for their very modest prices. And they will do an acceptable job on LF because little if any magnification is required. But compared to a high end flat bed they are more akin to Saturns versus Mercedes. The nikon 9000 is not in the same league as a drum scanner or high end flat bed. I bought a 9000, bought an Imacon, and did a head to head comparison and the Imacon blew it away. My IQ3 then surpassed my Imacon.

As for why bothering to buy an Epson or Microtek, it's all a matter of need, just how good does your work need to be scanned? Are you selling a fair number of prints at prices that require a high degree of professional quality? Or are you just doing work for yourself? And the other factor is what you can afford and if the price jumps, which increase rapidly but yet yield diminishing returns, are worth it to you.

LF forum has a mix of professionals and amateurs. Just because professionals may be discussing very high end equipment doesn't mean that it is a required piece of gear for an amateur. For most people that Nikon 9000 or the Epson/Microtek will do a more than satisfactory job.

Right,

But regardless of how a photographer is classified, don't you think that "any" photographer that does this as a passion of life, even if considered an "amateur", would want to see a print that looks "world's better" than one done on an "amateur" based machine? Take a different "hobby" as an example...electric guitar...an amateur has to live with playing directly through the distortion button on his/her amp. Wouldn't this guitarist want to use pedals or a single box for "effects" since "every" band out there uses some sort of effects, even those playing live acoustic music? Or is the distortion straight from the amp going to do the job? No artist out there, commercial, amateur, just started playing a couple of weeks ago is "ever" going to play without effects. So why do the "amateur" photographers have to live with an amp that produces great clean distortion, but can't do anything further?

It makes me question how an Epson V750 can retail for what, $799??? It should retail for $299 with a street price of $199. I can find cameras that are 1/20th the price of others that can do the same functions. Why does it cost me 6X the price of the Epson just to get to that 5K barrier when it should be 20X the price, or $299 for the Epson.

Sorry...just seems to me that it makes "zero" sense for someone trying to achieve the very best to even shoot color film until they know that $7-$15 shot will count...with your own scanner, you can blow off $1000's in film...for that person that has to pay $150 average? for it to be drum scanned and hope it is done as well as what Ted Harris is able to do, they will be shaking everytime they put just one holder in the back praying to whatever that that shot comes out perfectly.

It's late and I'm hitting the irrational side of my brain, but it really makes no sense to me that the fastest cars on the road can be beaten by "stealth" turbo'd rides that cost them $15K when their 80K rides that are built for speed only cannot keep up. Same with in the Audio world where you have a million dollar system get spanked by a 5K system...

And yes...I'm P'od that I would have to sell this 5K stereo system that I would put up to "anything" out there, just to have a scanner in the "base range" of price expectations per scan quality...

Greg Lockrey

24-Oct-2007, 05:43

I'm going ask a seemingly stupid question so bare with me. What is it about these "high end" scanners are you buying? Better lens, ok. Dpi....I don't see it. Better color....how? Durability...for sure. I raise this question because I get clients every day who have had reflective scans made at the BGSU lab (you know the world renowned FLAAR institution) at $100 per and the dpi is only 270 rgb/8 . What in the hell are they paying for? Sure the scanner is a Creo (I think) 17x25" and cost $55k. I use an Epson 10000xl 12x17" at 360 dpi rgb/16. The machine is capable for 2400x4800 if I want to do slides or negatives. My prints are better when compared side by side to BGSU's and I don't need a loop to tell either. What gives? With all that power that they supposedly have why are they scanning at only 270 dpi rgb/8? When I decided to buy my scanner from the dealer I told him what I was primarily going to do with it and I asked him what was the difference really. His comment was that higher end had slightly better lens and much more durable. Where mine could easily hold up for 3-4 scans per day for a couple of years, the high end could run 24 hours a day for years. But unless I was doing that kind of volume, 98% of my clients wouldn't be able to see any difference. I've been very happy with my choice. 95% of my work is reflective copy and I can see some improvement when you are talking about 35mm film but 2 1/4 film on up looks pretty good to me. I also have the Epson 750 but it doesn't have the motorized focus but the 35mm I can get better dpi and some whistles and bells.

Frank Petronio

24-Oct-2007, 06:04

I have free access to an Imacon on the other side of town and a Epson right on my desk. Used with a modicum of skill, the Epson scans of my 4x5 look just lovely printed 20 x 30, in my print portfolio, repro'd in magazines up to spread sizes, and certainly online.

Now, if I had a windfall and maybe an assistant, I would love to get an EverSmart and redo all my best work starting with even better scans. And maybe someday, when I'm rich and famous I'll get a chance to go back and re-mix a few of the very best pieces...

But I'm not going to let the lack of having a high end scanner (or an XL lens or any other gadget) keep me from making good pictures and neither should you.

Learn to use the Epson and rock it, use it to 100% of it's capability. The skills you learn will make you all the better when you get a chance to get the ultimate scanner.

Many of the labs and studios that have visited that have a drum scanner also have a cheap Epson next to it. Nothing better for quick proofing and tests before investing in setting up and investing the time into a big scan.

riooso

24-Oct-2007, 06:22

There is a good value in the lower end scanners. I personally use mine to "cull" out the sheets that are not keepers and also get a good look at negative film that one has taken and I would bet there a lot of people like me out there. I can send my keepers to a professional scanner where I do get excellent results. It would take a lot of trips to spend $10K.

Richard

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 07:18

Now that I've calmed a bit, I hope the board doesn't think I'm too crazy here. I just got and still have the impression that these mega buck machines, being "world's apart" should go into a blindfold competition with the same negative. Take a properly processed excellent negative and let Ted Harris do his work with it. Then have it sent to Sandy for his work with it. Send it to one more competent worker that owns a high end scanner (any type). Then send it to a few (say 5 others) that have the Epson or Microteks. Have each person send their final print of say 20X30 and/or even 30X40 (just to stretch the limits to eliminate the inferior from the superior), and have a get together with all 8 prints on the wall, mixed up so that maybe the three high dollar scanned images are even right next to each other, though mixing all 8 up and placed along the walls would be best I presume, etc. All paper must be the same, though the printer does not have to be the same. It would be fairest to have in the minimum, the exact same paper type, and the same printer would be ideal, but not necessary...just high end "amateur" printers such as the B9180 or "anything" else that is at least as good as the B9180. Have as many viewers, primarily shooters, but also their guests, come along for this get-together.

I think this would be the best way to show a number of things:

1) An "opinion" of which ones the viewer sees as being the best to their own eyes.

2) How many are the most appealing to the viewer. I.E. Does the viewer find one in particular that stands out amongst the rest? Does the viewer find that three (the drum scanned ones) stand out the best? Does the viewer have a difficult time saying any one is the best as each has some sort of merit in their own way?

3) Have the viewers with their paper in hand mark down in the order the best ones, and even for whatever reason they felt they chose which and why, etc.

4) Last and not least, it gives the audience a very sophisticated LF image to view. It brings people together and gives them the opportunity to not just be the critics for a session, but to talk about different things, both photographically and life speaking. It also brings to the table just what can be achieved with LF and the use of film in a world dominated by the digital, and what is now becoming mostly an "exotic" artform. It seems to be almost a sin for LF photographers to post their images on Flickr, the largest photo database in the online world. Flickr is filtered with 35mm-medium format, all with film/polaroid/and of course, dominantly digital. But you find extreme "few" images of LF shooters on there. And when you do a google search for ULF galleries, it's an exhausting search. One LF image per 1000000 other format image is quite something I feel.

I don't know if this is something that can be done and how we can involve the very best post-processing people out there as I feel "a lot" has to do not only with nailing down the scanning technique, but also post-processing the image very carefully. I've said this before, but if you look at the digital images on Flickr/photo.net/etc. you will see a TON of point and shoot and quite a number of "budget" based DSLR shooters have the most interesting images...because they are "world's better" at CS2/3 than the more "professional" shooters. If only those tiny sensor digi-cams could print a large print of what is on the web, it would be truly something. I'd love to see someone that has possibly discovered further points in the scanning technique with the Epson, along with a post-processing wizard be in this challenge.

Too much to ask for? I'm sure those that have packed it with their ULF cams and their crew have done a lot more than doing what I am proposing should be done.

Brian K

24-Oct-2007, 08:07

I bought my first scanner in 1991, I forget the brand name, it was japanese I think,might have been panasonic or toshiba, it cost me $3000.

Then I bought an Agfa duoscan 2500, which I still have and it cost me $4000. It was a far better scanner than the previous one, sharper, higher resolving, lower noise, more accurate color more even tonality.

Then I bought and still own, a Microtek 9800xl,( $1400 if I recall correctly) it had a better dynamic range than the Agfa and for my rather subtle prints (a lot of white on white) it gave me better print scans and was a little less noisy.

Then I bought a Nikon coolscan 9000 and an Imacon 646. The nikon was vastly superior to the Microtek for scanning MF negatives, vastly sharper and far less noise. However the Imacon had even less noise, was sharper overall, and was much sharper at the edges of the film.

I had reliability and service issues with the Imacon so I got rid of it and tested the IQSmart2 and eventually bought the IQSmart 3. The IQ had better edge to edge sharpness than the Imacon and I found that the imacon would sometimes blur and stretch the pixels at the end of the negative (6x17cm film) due to unevenness of movement during the scan, if you wanted to stitch images or do a shadow scan on top of a highlight scan it was problematic. This was not a factor with either IQSmart as the negative never moves. With the IqSmart 3 I got higher optical res and higher density range than any of the other scanners I've owned. As my prints may go as large as 40" I needed to have at least 12,000 pixels of width, with smaller MF negs none of the other flatbeds or the Imacons could do so. My IQ3 gives me 5500ppi optical over the entire bed. I also have the advantage to wet mount which is significant.

Bottomline, from personal ownership and usage the current crop of professional high end flat bed scanners are far better in sharpness, resolution, density range, evenness, edge to edge sharpness, color fidelity, etc than the consumer flat beds. If you scan ULF negs and out put them to an 11x14 digital print you might not see much difference. If you scan a 6x6 negative, out put it as an 8x10" lvt negative and then make a 40" silver gelatin print you will see a huge difference.

Now there is another factor, some people just can't see qualitative differences. It's hard to see through the eyes of others, but not everyone out there has the same standards, or even the same ability to detect subtle differences. Some people can notice the slightest flaws, some can not. If you are one of those people who has a hard time discerning qualitative differences, and that the only real audience for your work is yourself or friends/family, then a 5 figure scanner is absurd to buy. On the other hand if you make your living with your photographs, and those photographs are judged and or bought by a large and discerning audience, and any flaws have a direct affect on your career and your ability to put food on the table, then you might be best served by making the investment in a high end scanner.

If you want to see how a variety of flatbed, drum and consumer scanners compare head to head check out this interactive link:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

I suggest comparing the scanners in this review with the added sharpening turned off

Brian K

24-Oct-2007, 08:18

Right,

Same with in the Audio world where you have a million dollar system get spanked by a 5K system...

If both systems were properly set up and in a typical room
then I rather doubt it.....

Michael Mutmansky

24-Oct-2007, 08:51

And yes...I'm P'od that I would have to sell this 5K stereo system that I would put up to "anything" out there, just to have a scanner in the "base range" of price expectations per scan quality...

Some of this comes down to your ability to see/hear the difference.

Since you think your $5000 stereo system can match up to "anything" out there, I presume you have listened to much of what is out there? Have you listened to a $50,000 system? How about a $250,000 system? While the $5000 system meets your needs, someone with a much looser wallet may find particular faults with it, and feel that a $50,000 system meets their needs better.

The same goes for scanners. Especially when people can justify the demands of the scanner with business expenses.

My tests have shown that you can get approximately a 4x enlargement out of the Epson scanners before differences begin to show in a print between them and a drum scanner. I haven't formally tested the V700/750, so that may be a little higher for them, but not much. I'm talking about sharpness, here, not DMAX. The tests were specifically done with B&W film, using the best method to produce the best results on the Epson scanner (single channel scanning with the green channel, single pass). Whether the differences become significant enough to be a problem for you is somewhat determined by your preferences and needs. Very careful sharpening can mitigate this somewhat, and possibly bring it up to 4.5x or 5x.

I'm not talking about 'which image do you like better'. I 'm talking about there being a perceptible difference in the sharpness or structure of the image due to the performance of the scanner. So this is not a preference debate, but purely a measure of output capability.

If you are shooting 4x5, that's a pretty large image; much larger than most people print on a regular basis. However, if you shoot a lot of MF or 35mm, then you will probably discover some issues while using the Epson.

However, let me say that at 4x or so, you are barely even testing a high end scanner, while you are at about the limits of the Epson. So, the differences start to rapidly become more apparent as the size increases. This has to do with the sharpness of the output device (in this case, an Epson 4800 printer was used for the tests). Once you meet the requisite output device parameters, extra sharpness is of no benefit. But as you begin to fall under the output device specs, the difference becomes apparent.

So while the drum scanner can deliver much more to a print at 4x than the Epson, it's also much more than the output device can deliver, so the overhead is of no value. At 4x, the Epson scanner is slightly under the output device capabilities, and so the differences are beginning to be visible.

It is possible to go to 8x or 10x with many drum scanners before you start to slip below the capabilities of the printer. Some may be as high as about 12x or so. For higher end flatbeds, the values are a little lower, but in the same ballpark, probably 6x to 10x, depending on the model.

---Michael

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 09:26

If both systems were properly set up and in a typical room
then I rather doubt it.....

Well...I didn't talk retail;):)...I suppose I can put a price more like 8K for the system. 5K for the speakers...rest for equipment including my PC audio system that has the most elaborate room correction/digital crossovers I know of on the market, period. DEQX/TACT/MULTEQ (Auddysey) are all exellent "standalone" boxes, but are not progressive like the people doing the intensified/obsessed really, study of the best possible software for this very critical part of a system

But here it boils down to taste rather than which is best as my dipole based speakers cannot produce the sound of horns, nor can they produce the sound of a Maggie Ribbon or an ML Electrosplat. But as a best of all worlds kind of speaker, I have absolutely no problem putting my system up against "anything"...period...

Then again, I've also been to many shows, have listened on hours to many different very elaborate systems in home and in shops...I also have friends that listen objectively regardless of the system. And we can spot things others cannot, we can also disagree at first, but then come to learn that our disagreements become a conclusive agreement (i.e. we put two and two together to form one). The kind of people that I am referring to have 20K speaker testing devices, know every single bit of the latest technology on every driver produced, and have every objective fact that can relate to a speaker, along with the subjective proof which is sometimes surprising in the sense that it should not be sounding as good or bad as it shows on the science side of things. Hearing bad transformers in an amplifier with music blasting...know of anyone that can hear that? No one at the show seemed to notice but my friend that told the rep the amp needed to have the tranny fixed and the reps response was, "but it sure sounds good hey?"...

I think one needs 5 different properly treated rooms, all with the unique sound that that particular speaker "type" has, combined with the optimum equipment for that specific speaker, and then full blown room correction and perfect linear response....well...linear enough that one has to nitpick the life out of it to find flaws...and in the end, most importantly isn't how "exacting" the sound is from each of these speaker's limitations (every speaker has limitations or we'd have one perfect speaker and not 5-10...gotta go through a "big" list of the many different types), but how it touches the soul.

In the end, when you have something that sounds "so good", you simply let off of the objective elements involved and let the music treat you to tears that come out unconsciously. I had never had this experience with anything but the system I have now. Usually an emotional response can occur due to sensations that lead up to tears. But this one time, a tear just came flat out of my eye...totally unexplainable and random.

Just to let you know...I in no way feel my system is perfect, is the best in the world, etc. etc...I have no intention to boast about my system nor compete with it. At the same time, I know it cannot be embarrassed by anything, but rather, just be subjectively the "equivalent" of anything out there...and for me, that's good enough since my redundancy never stops, every system, every speaker, everything in life has compromises, and that's the beauty of life...learning to live with the compromises while striving to perfect them...though we never can and never will since something else will always surpass what we thought was pefect. Hence, why nature is so perfect=she's balanced and she's unpredictable...just ask the earthquake people;)....

Now if only I can see these beautiful scans alongside the budget scans in prints on the walls and in my hands to see just what is possible...that would be a real treat not just for myself, but I'm sure for any photographer in general.

Kirk Gittings

24-Oct-2007, 09:34

My tests have shown that you can get approximately a 4x enlargement out of the Epson scanners before differences begin to show in a print between them and a drum scanner. I haven't formally tested the V700/750, so that may be a little higher for them, but not much.

Ditto. I've owned and tested everyone of the top of the top of the line prosumer Epsons, Microteks and Canons as they have come out, except the Microtek 800i (?) including the 1800F. I have tested them wet and dry and with custom holders (Like the Better Scaning holder which is superb). Each generation has been slightly better than the last, for instance, the Epson 750 Pro is a good bump from the 3200 but only slightly better than the 4990. IMO I could never get a file for a 16x20 b&w print that resolved even as good as a Imacon scan and not even close to a good pro flatbed or dru scan. Above 16x20, IMO scans from the prosmer flatbeds were unusable. I am talking resolution, noise and DMax. That 16x20 boundary may not be apparent to my clients, but is obvious to me.

Brian K

24-Oct-2007, 09:45

Now if only I can see these beautiful scans alongside the budget scans in prints on the walls and in my hands to see just what is possible...that would be a real treat not just for myself, but I'm sure for any photographer in general.

I posted a link that gives excellent head to head comparisons of scanners, maybe you should check it out.

As for the very off topic stereo system discussion, it's been about 10 years since I was an active audiophile, and I've heard very good $5 and 10K systems, but head to head with the higher end systems you will hear a huge difference. And it has to be head to head, that is both systems in the same room playing the same material one after the other. It seems that people don't necessarily have a very good memory for sonic differences. All one can usually carry from one listening experience to another done on a different day in a different environment, is to listen to a recording that you know extraordinarily well and try to remember certain subtle details that you are accustomed to hearing and see if they are missing in the system being tested, or if you hear new details that might have been missing from your reference system.

And the plain truth is that people have varying degrees of hearing acuity and many people have hearing loss in certain frequencies. Someone with hearing loss in the upper frequencies might think that a shrill screechy sounding system has details in the highs, whereas someone with good hearing might find the same system painful to listen to.

sanking

24-Oct-2007, 12:20

So what's the point in anyone buying a low end flatbed when the difference is world's apart? I don't quite understand the logic here of "not" buying a Nikon 9000 that is supposed to rival drum scans and shoot medium format film VS. shooting sheet film and having it processed through something that is world's apart from these expensive flatbeds you are talking about?

In other words, one can pickup the 9000 w/glass carrier on a good day for $1200USD. Add in a nice 6X7 kit for $1000.

OR

One can shoot sheet film and put it through an Epson and achieve results world's apart from what the Nikon 9000 equivalent can do in the LF world. Since LF is about enlarging, and given what is said about the digitization of LF sheet film having "zero" options aside from spending 3K on a lucky day, and more like 5-6K on an average day...what is the point in doing anything but b/w contact prints w/careful study and learning about what all can be done with a contact print, and shooting everything else with an MF camera and using the Nikon 9000 for the digital process/enlargement potential???

After reading through this thread, it's as if the Epson/Microtek/etc. brew of scanners is the Yugo and these higher end scanners are the Bugattie (sp).

I am not kicking the Epson scanners. I have a 4990 on my desk and use it almost every day. And for prints up to about 15X21" from 5X7" negatives it gives very good results IMO. In fact, almost every print I am currently showing was made from a scan with either a 4870 or 4990. However, for anything beyond 4X the results from the Epson 4990 are generally not acceptable for me with most subjects.

I don't fully understand your question about our logic in choosing certain systems. To be frank, there is probably a lot more chance and personal interest than logic in some of my own choices.

Sandy

sanking

24-Oct-2007, 12:41

I'm going ask a seemingly stupid question so bare with me. What is it about these "high end" scanners are you buying? Better lens, ok. Dpi....I don't see it. Better color....how? Durability...for sure..

You are buying more effective resolution, or real sharpness. If a drum scanner is said to have optical resolution of 5000 ppi then the real, or effective resolution, is going to be very close to 100% of the optical potential. A high end flatbed such as the EverSmart Supreme with optical resolution of 5600 will give effective resolution of at least 90% of the optical potential. By contrast, my Epson 4990, with optical resolution of 4800 ppi, gives a maximum of about 1800 - 2000 ppi in effective resolution, and the last generation V700 and V750 don't do much better.

So in terms of effective resolution, as opposed to the useless "advertised" dpi, drum scanners and high end flatbeds deliver about 2.5 times as many useful pixels.

You are also buying other things, greater dynamic range, more reliability, more powerful software for example, but sharpness is at the top of the list for me.

Sandy King

Ted Harris

24-Oct-2007, 14:50

Greag, to add to Sandy's you are also buying much much more dynamic range. Shadow details that the Prosumer scanners cannot even begin to render are clearly visable in scans from the high end flatbeds and drums. All of the high end flatbed and drum scanners have a real Dmax in the range of 3.9 to 4.2, all of which exceed the density range of any film to be scanned thus are capable of capturing all the detail. This is vastly better than the performance of the Prosumers whose Dmax, in the best case barely reaches 2.5 ... remember it is a log scale so the higher performance number are much better.

Greg Lockrey

24-Oct-2007, 16:12

Thank you for all your answers, so in a nutshell, I'm not to believe the specs on any prosumer scanner? The stated Dmax for a Epson 750 is 4.0 and 3.8 on the 10000xl. Unless film has changed in the past ten years, what is the Dmax there? The fact that the high end scanners can reach 5600 dpi is awsome, but what does that do for me where all I need is 360-720 for a print scan at 1:1 which already more than what the reknowned BGSU lab uses for their scans at only 270 dpi use on their 5000 dpi machine? (Where did they get that number?) And do I really need more than 1200 dpi for a 4x5 if I can get 2000 in reality from a machine that claims 4800. No, I think I'll just be cost effective and when my Epi's ware out, buy the next improved generation for less money than I paid for these. Only about 2% of you can tell the difference anyway. ;) ;)

Brian K

24-Oct-2007, 16:48

.....The fact that the high end scanners can reach 5600 dpi is awsome, but what does that do for me where all I need is 360-720 for a print scan at 1:1 .....

Well clearly you do not need a professional flatbed scanner. Although as Ted mentions it's just not about sharpness and resolution but about density range and tonal detail as well. These are professional level tools and the professional never knows just what requirements may come up so often they buy a tool that goes beyond their typical usage.

Greg Lockrey

24-Oct-2007, 16:57

Well clearly you do not need a professional flatbed scanner. Although as Ted mentions it's just not about sharpness and resolution but about density range and tonal detail as well. These are professional level tools and the professional never knows just what requirements may come up so often they buy a tool that goes beyond their typical usage.

I agree with you in principle to be sure. But for what I primarily do, copy art work for artists, these prosumer scanners meet the requirements. Black paint is just so black and white is as white as the paper. If I get a demand for scanning 8mm film to make prints, 5600dpi will be what I need. ;)

My thinking is that many businesses end up pricing themselves out of the market because they buy machines that are way too expensive to meet their need. Sure there is a better scanner. Yes, BGSU has the best facility in these parts, but then the taxpayer subsidizes them. And from my limited knowledge of scanning my scans compete with theirs no question. Do they have a better capability, sure, but for who? I'm not seeeing anything coming out of there that has 5000 dpi attached to it. I'm only seeing 270 dpi rgb/8 . I mean thats low level scanning. Looking at histograms they miss the BP and WP targets and they charge $100 for 17x25" page. Extra if they have to stitch. I still have to play with the colors to make a match. Yes, I know my printers are different, but not that different. I just think people get caught up in the hype. My $.02. I'm done.

Brian K

24-Oct-2007, 17:03

I agree with you in principle to be sure. But for what I primarily do, copy art work for artists, these prosumer scanners meet the requirements. Black paint is just so black and white is as white as the paper. If I get a demand for scanning 8mm film to make prints, 5600dpi will be what I need. ;)

Greg don't get caught up in dpi, actually ppi, the difference in density and tonal range is significant and if the artist's whose work you scan do contunuous tone images with a great deal of subtlety, some of those subtle tones will be lost. That was the case with scans of my own prints on the Agfa Duoscan 2500 and the Microtek 9800xl.

Michael Mutmansky

24-Oct-2007, 17:18

I agree with you in principle to be sure. But for what I primarily do, copy art work for artists, these prosumer scanners meet the requirements. Black paint is just so black and white is as white as the paper. If I get a demand for scanning 8mm film to make prints, 5600dpi will be what I need. ;)

And your specific application is nothing like what most people on this forum are trying to do with their scanners. For many of them, concerns about delivered sharpness and DMAX are very valid.

Asher Kelman

24-Oct-2007, 18:56

Greg don't get caught up in dpi, actually ppi, the difference in density and tonal range is significant and if the artist's whose work you scan do contunuous tone images with a great deal of subtlety, some of those subtle tones will be lost. That was the case with scans of my own prints on the Agfa Duoscan 2500 and the Microtek 9800xl.
Brian,

I think this can be described as delicateness of tone. That's what the fines prints show and it's a combination of perfect stepping movements and accuracy in recording delicate lighting, textures and shadows that bring imbed feelings into a print.

The whole purpose of the very best prints is to evoke passion and allow the close study, nose in the print, as one admires the seamless beauty.

For that, going from $750 to either $2,000 or $4500 for a used high end scanner seems reasonable, as long as one has work in that class to scan!

Asher

Greg Lockrey

24-Oct-2007, 20:31

Greg don't get caught up in dpi, actually ppi, the difference in density and tonal range is significant and if the artist's whose work you scan do contunuous tone images with a great deal of subtlety, some of those subtle tones will be lost. That was the case with scans of my own prints on the Agfa Duoscan 2500 and the Microtek 9800xl.

Thanks Brian, I'm not caught up in dpi/ppi I understand what is necessary. I know what you mean about subtlety of tones. So far, knock on wood (see me knock on my head), I haven't run into this issue with the artists I deal with. I scan 48 bit wherever possible vs. the 24 bit I see that BGSU does with their Creo. Apparently they think that it's enough since they are using that very high end scanner. :rolleyes: Again 95% of what I do is reflective art and whenever I do transperancies 2 1/4" on up is my norm. I can definitly see a need for improvement at the 35mm level which I don't get any volume at all. If I get sufficient requests, I'll look towards a dedicated film scanner.

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 20:44

I posted a link that gives excellent head to head comparisons of scanners, maybe you should check it out.

As for the very off topic stereo system discussion, it's been about 10 years since I was an active audiophile, and I've heard very good $5 and 10K systems, but head to head with the higher end systems you will hear a huge difference. And it has to be head to head, that is both systems in the same room playing the same material one after the other. It seems that people don't necessarily have a very good memory for sonic differences. All one can usually carry from one listening experience to another done on a different day in a different environment, is to listen to a recording that you know extraordinarily well and try to remember certain subtle details that you are accustomed to hearing and see if they are missing in the system being tested, or if you hear new details that might have been missing from your reference system.

And the plain truth is that people have varying degrees of hearing acuity and many people have hearing loss in certain frequencies. Someone with hearing loss in the upper frequencies might think that a shrill screechy sounding system has details in the highs, whereas someone with good hearing might find the same system painful to listen to.

I didn't cick on the list, but I did see a scanner test from this LF board I believe that has a few drum scanners/flatbeds and a few consumer flatbeds. It's a nice test, but it's no different to me than the online publications of the Canon 1DS 11MP camera resolving more information than MF when another has compared the Nikon D2X and has shown a remarked difference. Another showed the Canon 5D being worst than MF. How many of the "money makers" does one need to prove one side vs. the other side???

More on Medium format-I have also seen a person do a head to head test with the Nikon 9000 and an Imacon and the Nikon 9000 flattened the Imacon. I know a person that just started shooting with a Rollei 6002? and says he has never seen the level of detail/resolution/etc. fromm the 6cm X 6cm piece of film. His reference and camera he has used for a long time with "very expensive" lenses=the Canon 5D. Yes, he says it outresolves he 5D "handily", and this is from both scans (off an Epson V700) and in print. Some around here and I'm sure many others have tossed the LF equipment in the garbage since they see no differences in the 5D up to 20X24. Is it that the flatbeds can resolve "less" information and therefore are "better" for scanning 35mm and medium format film? I have always heard it is the opposite, and that the larger the film, the better the results from an Epson flatbed.

On the off-off-topic of things. Why don't you have a look around the web for the Linkwitz Orion speakers and find a review on them. You will see "groups" that have been formed to discuss these speakers that reviewers and members of the group consider to be "as good as sound gets". Look at what it costs to build them and maybe you can see that the dollar goes a lot further than it did when you heard the 5-10K systems. I have heard many 5-10K systems you may be referring to and they sound like absolute garbage. I have heard 60-100K systems and they sounded like absolute garbage. It's not about the money, but how everything is put together. People will be in this hobby the rest of their lives trying to find this amp to go with their beloved speakers or just have the luxery to buy/sell every speaker they chose each year to buy. But how they all put their system together and "most importantly", the "limitations" of the speakers in the system.

I know there is some scientific study that proves the human forgets sound after a second?...your point about forgetting and remembering sound.

I can tell you this much, I remember "precisely" how my Subaru WRX Wagon with turbo mods felt, drove, handled, etc. I know exactly how my friend's crapola Toyota Celica from vintage 80? is like. I know exactly what it feels like being in an Acura MDX/TSX, Lexus SUV (ugly looking mid-sized thing), etc. etc...this is "precisely" what it is with music for me. I can go and listen to those Orions I mentioned above in "any" place and know "exactly" what to expect. I have heard them for 12 hours on 4 different occassions. Maybe it is true that I cannot say, ohhhh...the way the cymbol came out on the left side of such and such a musical passage sounded way better on your Orions than they did at Linkwitz's house, but I can say "precisely" what they can and cannot do, and "precisely" how I feel "after" I have listened to them. What "precisely" I feel "everytime" I listen to them goes unchanged regardless of where I listen to them. This is the same thing for the Maggie 3.6R's...I have heard them maybe 10 hours, but they are so entirely "easy" to know and remember...these 20K "modern day" horns I have heard for 10 or so hours..again, extremely easy to know and remember. I won't go on with my cars and speakers I have heard list. Lastly, I have heard a ton of diy type speakers/systems that demolish super $$$ systems.

Again, every speaker, every car, everything has a limitation. "However", you can know exactly what a speaker's limitations are, irrespective of the room and conditions, and can know "exactly" what can be expected even if that speaker is being run of 100K tube amps and all the best cabling/room dampening/blah blah blah...Sure, the speakers will sound "much better" than when we heard them in their far from optimal conditions...but they will still have the "exact same sound" that is possible from them. And I'm not saying to go listen to a system where the speakers each are facing the wall and not properly setup;):):):)

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 20:59

I am not kicking the Epson scanners. I have a 4990 on my desk and use it almost every day. And for prints up to about 15X21" from 5X7" negatives it gives very good results IMO. In fact, almost every print I am currently showing was made from a scan with either a 4870 or 4990. However, for anything beyond 4X the results from the Epson 4990 are generally not acceptable for me with most subjects.

I don't fully understand your question about our logic in choosing certain systems. To be frank, there is probably a lot more chance and personal interest than logic in some of my own choices.

Sandy

That print size is plenty acceptable to me. That's all I needed to hear/know...though that print size is only 3X and not 4X;). What I gathered from what you said is that the high end scanners are world's apart from the consumer scanners. "Logically" speaking, if someone tells me Fiji is world's apart from Alabama, what do you expect me to think??? Fiji is indeed a world's difference from Alabama and makes anyone wonder why "anyone" in their "logical" mind would choose to vacation in Alabama vs. Fiji....this is why I responded the way I did...In my "illogical and chance based mind", does it not seem logical to wonder why someone would have to PAY ME to go to Alabama (aka Epson) when I know I can go to my dream place in Fiji (high end scanner).

It is good to know what print size you find acceptable, but do you still see the differences at this print size??? In other words, are the scans from your high dollar machine better even at only 3X enlargement, or even at 2X enlargement? This is where my point, and only point exists...if two scanners are world's apart, then why wouldn't one see this even at a 2X enlargement...10X14?

audioexcels

24-Oct-2007, 21:10

Ditto. I've owned and tested everyone of the top of the top of the line prosumer Epsons, Microteks and Canons as they have come out, except the Microtek 800i (?) including the 1800F. I have tested them wet and dry and with custom holders (Like the Better Scaning holder which is superb). Each generation has been slightly better than the last, for instance, the Epson 750 Pro is a good bump from the 3200 but only slightly better than the 4990. IMO I could never get a file for a 16x20 b&w print that resolved even as good as a Imacon scan and not even close to a good pro flatbed or dru scan. Above 16x20, IMO scans from the prosmer flatbeds were unusable. I am talking resolution, noise and DMax. That 16x20 boundary may not be apparent to my clients, but is obvious to me.

So 16X20 is "exactly" alike the better scanners? This would correlate to Sandy's point of 4X enlarging maximum. Are there "any" differences at 4X enlargement, 3X, 2X???

If I have an 8X10 sheet being scanned, can I use the 4X theory and get a 36X40 print that looks as good as one that was scanned on these high end scanners?

I'm trying to figure out "precisely" where the "threshold" is...and more importantly, whether or not the differences in the different scanners shows up at the smallest (1X/2X/3X) enlargening sizes.

For me, if there are no differences, I can put my 8X10 sheet film onto the scanner and have as large of a print at 4X than I would ever make and would never need a drum scanner.

Hopefully these are helpful questions for others so they can let them know what they have been achieving with their Epsons/Microteks/etc. are or are not as good as a drum/high end flatbed scan even at lower enlargements, or if vice versa, they want a print that looks no different to a high end scanner at whatever determined enlargement value, then that is what they can expect, know, etc.

Frank Petronio

24-Oct-2007, 21:15

A 5D will probably easily beat the pants off the sharpest 6x6 film if that film is scanned on a consumer flatbed. Scan that film on a professional film scanner, starting with a Nikon 9000 on up, and it's a different story.

Part of the reason I went from shooting mostly medium format to shooting mostly large format is that I can scan 4x5 with a lot less expensive and critcal equipment, i.e. an Epson 4990 works fine for normal print sizes w 4x5. It sucks for 6x6.

I actually thought my old 6mp D70 was a close match for Epson flatbed scanned 6x6. It was that bad...

riooso

24-Oct-2007, 21:25

Mr. Harris put his finger on the advantage exactly on point. From what I have seen trannies have a lot more information in the shadows than I can possibly get with my Epson V700 and conversely print film just can not be scanned to their full potential with anything but a professional scanner. Sometimes it is not necessary to get all that information but for the professionals it gives them the option to work with the scan on the spot and time is money for them. For us down at the lower level sending out a really good sheet to a shop to scan is time consuming but sometimes necessary. I have seen a 16x20 print from a sheet scanned both ways and it is sometimes not easily explained other than to say it can be the difference between magical and "pretty good". I have been to a couple of shows some of the respondents have done and they are magical experiences that no monitor surfing on the net can show you.

Richard Adams

sanking

24-Oct-2007, 21:33

That print size is plenty acceptable to me. That's all I needed to hear/know...though that print size is only 3X and not 4X;). What I gathered from what you said is that the high end scanners are world's apart from the consumer scanners. "Logically" speaking, if someone tells me Fiji is world's apart from Alabama, what do you expect me to think??? Fiji is indeed a world's difference from Alabama and makes anyone wonder why "anyone" in their "logical" mind would choose to vacation in Alabama vs. Fiji....this is why I responded the way I did...In my "illogical and chance based mind", does it not seem logical to wonder why someone would have to PAY ME to go to Alabama (aka Epson) when I know I can go to my dream place in Fiji (high end scanner).

It is good to know what print size you find acceptable, but do you still see the differences at this print size??? In other words, are the scans from your high dollar machine better even at only 3X enlargement, or even at 2X enlargement? This is where my point, and only point exists...if two scanners are world's apart, then why wouldn't one see this even at a 2X enlargement...10X14?

When I wrote that the high end scanners are world's apart from the consumer scanners I was thinking in terms of the quality of the scan itself, not final output. I won't comment further on that because Michael Mutmansky already addressed the issue thoroughly in this thread. However, if I were to compare the files of scans made with the Epson 4990 at 3175 ppi with one made with the EverSmart at the same resolution there really is no comparison. The one made with the EverSmart will have almost twice the resolution of the one made with the 4990. That is what I meant by worlds apart.

What format you use, how many magnifications you print, and the final output device would have to be considered to know if the very significant difference in the quality of the scans would make a real difference on the print. Final print quality is always determined by the weakest link in the chain. For MF the weakest link would nearly always be the scanner when comparing the Epson and EverSmart. About the largest print I would consider acceptable from the 4990 from MF (6X7cm) would be about 9X11", whereas a scan from an EverSmart can easily be enlarged to twice that size, or 18X22".

However, not even the EverSmart at 3175 ppi can pull all of the detail out of my Mamiya 7 MF negatives since the lenses of this system easily resolve 90 lppm at best aperture and on a tripod. For that one would need about 5000 ppi of "effective resolution." So maybe I need a drum scanner after all, or an EverSmart Supreme.

Sandy King

sanking

24-Oct-2007, 21:52

I'm trying to figure out "precisely" where the "threshold" is...and more importantly, whether or not the differences in the different scanners shows up at the smallest (1X/2X/3X) enlargening sizes.

For me, if there are no differences, I can put my 8X10 sheet film onto the scanner and have as large of a print at 4X than I would ever make and would never need a drum scanner.

I personally always first calculate the threshold on theoretical grounds based on the assumption that the threshold of human vision is 5 lppm when a print is observed at the optimum viewing distance of 10"-12". However, I want a little more than the very threshold, so I calculate for 10 lppm at final print size.

Now convert the effective resolution of your Epson to resolution in lppm. Assuming you are getting real resolution of 1800 ppi, that amounts to resolution of 35 lppm, or 1800 ppi/25.4/2. If you scan a 4X5, you would have 35 lppm of detail , 2X gives you 17lppm, 4X gives you 8.5 lppm. The 8.5 lppm of 4X is below my threshold so I would not consider a 16X20 from a 4X5 negative acceptable. Some might consider otherwise. And of course, some subjects may not need this much resolution, but landscapes usually do.

The thing about detail is that it is either there or not. You can increase apparent sharpness in processing, but you can not put real detail into a file if it is not there to begin with.

Sandy King

Kirk Gittings

24-Oct-2007, 21:58

So 16X20 is "exactly" alike the better scanners? This would correlate to Sandy's point of 4X enlarging maximum. Are there "any" differences at 4X enlargement, 3X, 2X???

If I have an 8X10 sheet being scanned, can I use the 4X theory and get a 36X40 print that looks as good as one that was scanned on these high end scanners?

I thought I was pretty clear. But one more time put a little differently. I have owned now 11 or 13? I can't remember prosumer scanners and scanned hundreds of 4x5 and 6x9 films for my business and art work using them dry and wet, with adjustable height holders, on the glass, you name it. I also have access to and use regularly the latest Imacons. I cannot get a scan from a 4x5 to print a 16x20 on any of the prosumer flatbeds that meet my expectations of resolution and low noise. I can get a decent 16x20 from a 4x5 from the newer Imacons, but they are not quite as good as the scans I get from professional flatbeds or drum scans. I put too much effort into a file for fine art prints to waste my time anymore on anything but a great scan. Therefore after years of testing the prosumer flatbeds (I also teach scanning at a University BTW), I have gone back to paying for professional scans for my FA prints until I can afford a decent professional flatbed. The difference is substantial enough for me to pay for the scans. I wish this were not so. Believe me. I will continue to use my Epson 750 for proofing, magazine assignments and small prints, but not when I need a file that will make a 16x20 from a 4x5 worthy of selling to collectors.

I have never scanned 8x10 and I no longer shoot it. 8x10 has its own idiosyncrasies with the prosumer flabeds like film plane height that must be considered to achieve maximum sharpness.

jetcode

25-Oct-2007, 03:34

Kirk,

I want to thank you for posting your professional experience with scanners. I find the information very useful.

I would like to suggest that a professional in your position consider finding the scanner you want and purchase it either by credit card or small business loan. I put mine on a credit card and write it off as a business expense. The scanner I selected costs $200 a month which is the equivalent of 2 scans or less. You could train a student as a scan operator and offer scans to the local population to offset the expense. It would seem to me that a person with your credentials should have little problem securing a small business loan. Just a thought.

Joe

Brian K

25-Oct-2007, 04:10

[QUOTE]I didn't cick on the list.......

Why not? It shows the same 4x5 chrome scanned on about 25 different scanners tested head to head, it's very informative.

More on Medium format-I have also seen a person do a head to head test with the Nikon 9000 and an Imacon and the Nikon 9000 flattened the Imacon. I know a person that just started shooting with a Rollei 6002? and says he has never seen the level of detail/resolution/etc. fromm the 6cm X 6cm piece of film. His reference and camera he has used for a long time with "very expensive" lenses=the Canon 5D. Yes, he says it outresolves he 5D "handily", and this is from both scans (off an Epson V700) and in print.

I don't trust most people's ideas of head to head tests because it seems that many people don't really know how to test anything and often take shortcuts that invalidate the test. This is why I test everything myself. I bought both the Nikon 9000 AND the Imacon and had them sit side by side and scan the same negs. No comparison, I would have preferred to spend the less than $2k for the Nikon but the differences were worth my spending the $10k on the Imacon, so the Nikon was returned.

Some around here and I'm sure many others have tossed the LF equipment in the garbage since they see no differences in the 5D up to 20X24.

I doubt that people who subscribe to the Large Format Forum have tossed their LF gear and shoot with a DSLR because they see no difference.

Is it that the flatbeds can resolve "less" information and therefore are "better" for scanning 35mm and medium format film? I have always heard it is the opposite, and that the larger the film, the better the results from an Epson flatbed.

I just don't understand what you're saying here. A professional flatbed resolves higher than anything short of a PMT drum scanner. And yes with ANY scanner the bigger the neg the better the scan. that's just simple common sense. If you only have to enlarge something 2x, it will more than likely look better than something that requires 10x for the same output size. I'm talking sharpness and resolution here and not color or density range as those are not affected as obviously by enlargement.

On the off-off-topic of things. Why don't you have a look around the web for the Linkwitz Orion speakers and find a review on them. You will see "groups" that have been formed to discuss these speakers that reviewers and members of the group consider to be "as good as sound gets".

I stopped chasing the perfect sound a decade ago and i've heard my share of arguments from people who claim that their modest systems compete with the best. If they are happy with their stereo systems then I'm happy for them. I'm more than satisfied with my Goldmund, Krell, CAT, ML system.

As for cars, I'm not 17 anymore and need to have the fastest wheels on the road to buck up my self esteem. I just want a good 4x4 that can haul all my gear, won't be too painful to gas up and won't leave me stranded in a desert somewhere.

Greg Lockrey

25-Oct-2007, 05:32

I don't trust most people's ideas of head to head tests because it seems that many people don't really know how to test anything and often take shortcuts that invalidate the test. This is why I test everything myself. I bought both the Nikon 9000 AND the Imacon and had them sit side by side and scan the same negs. No comparison, I would have preferred to spend the less than $2k for the Nikon but the differences were worth my spending the $10k on the Imacon, so the Nikon was returned.

I even seen a side by side test that compared the Nikon 9000 to the Epson 750 over at Pnet that showed the Epson beating the Nikon. Hmmmm?

Ted Harris

25-Oct-2007, 05:47

There is not a lot I can to this thread other than to say that you are kidding yourself if you believe the prosumer scanners (including the superb Nikon 9000) will preform as well as the high end flatbeds or drum scanners. Most labs that scan have at least one of the lower end scanners around. Why not send a transparency or negative to one of them and have them do two scans for you, one on the high end and one on the low and then make up your mind?

I have three scanners, a Microtek 1800f, a Creo Cezanne and a Kodak Creo IQSmart 3. The 1800f has not done a single scan (except for workshop/learning purposes) in over a year. No reason to fire it up. It may be the best or one of the best of the prosumers but given that it takes as much time to scan with it and the results don't even come close, why bother? In the last article on scanners I wrote for View Camera I went into great detail on the differences in the high end scanners v. the prosumers. I also discussed them in a number of threads here. Sandy has mentioned some of these dfferences and Kirk, Joe and Brian others. As a note I have now rescanned almost all of the negatives and transparencies that were once scanned on either the UMax Powerlook III or the Microtek 1800f. A lot of my film, going back 8 years (the time when I gave up traditional color printing), was originally scanned on high end flatbeds or drums.

You might also consider calling around to local printing operations and seeing if any run a high end scanner (many do). Ask them if you can run a test, see some results, etc. I spent two days working with the prepress guys at Dartmouth Printing woring with them and their Cezanne before I bought mine.

BTW, the 1800f is going to be for sale soon so if you really want to go that way send me an email.

An offer, if you aren't in a hurry send me a tranny or a negative (one only please) and I will scan it for you on either the Cezanne or the IQSmart. I'll do as high a resolution scan as your computer system can handle, which is the way I work with my scanning clients. A small rant, one of the problems with the scans you get done by most labs is that they scan to size unless you tell them otherwise and they charge you much bigger bucks for bigger files. You won't really know what thee machines are capable of producing unless you get a high resolution scan but that gets to be a very big file. Scanning is only a part of my work and my philosophy is to give you the highest resolution scan you can handle (if you want an 8x10 tranny scanned at 5000 spi please send a portable hard drive to hold the file though :)); I charge for my time, I don't change that if the machine has to run 30 minutes instead of 10 or 15. If you are in a hurry I am still happy to do it but it won't be free.

Greg Lockrey

25-Oct-2007, 06:05

sanking

25-Oct-2007, 08:04

I would be more interested in finding dealers of these that are refurbished. I looked at the Bob Weber's site, could not find the Gensis on line. BW had some 1995 scanners but I don't know if they are the ones you folks have been discussing here. If they are the same, they were at $4k which sounds pretty reasonable to me to get into this level of scanner.

If you are interested here is the link to the Genesis site.

http://www.genesis-equipment.com/home.cfm

Buying a refurbished scanner from a place like Genesis or Bob Weber, with guarantee that it works on arrival, is a very good option.

Second best would be local pick-up from a dealer, or from someone else local that will allow you to check the scanner out before carting it off.

Worst risk is buying something on ebay that is advertised as "powers up but we don't know how to check it so sold AS IS. You will pay a lot for shipping such an items and if it does not work on arrival you may have to pay again to ship it off for repair. I took the third route and wound up with a nice scanner, but as Ted Harris notes, I was lucky.

But you pays your money and takes your chances.

Sandy King

jetcode

25-Oct-2007, 08:15

jetcode

25-Oct-2007, 08:24

BW had some 1995 scanners but I don't know if they are the ones you folks have been discussing here. If they are the same, they were at $4k which sounds pretty reasonable to me to get into this level of scanner.

Note that scanner is missing the 35mm film tray and possibly the flat film tray. Make sure you understand exactly what version of software is provided and what OS it runs on.

Michael Mutmansky

25-Oct-2007, 08:35

... Ted, you gave me a great idea to solve my media exchange problem between the Apple for scanning and my PC for editing ...

'Dave', by Thursby...

http://www.thursby.com/

Works like a charm. Acts like a PC on a PC network, and will transfer the file over a wireless network to the PC. I send my scans directly from the drum scanner to the PC. No intermediary step.

---Michael

jetcode

25-Oct-2007, 08:47

'Dave', by Thursby...

http://www.thursby.com/

Works like a charm. Acts like a PC on a PC network, and will transfer the file over a wireless network to the PC. I send my scans directly from the drum scanner to the PC. No intermediary step.

---Michael

thanks Michael

Asher Kelman

25-Oct-2007, 14:41

Greg Lockrey

25-Oct-2007, 15:45

Ted's scanner list should have read

... three scanners, a Microtek 1800f, a Screen Cezanne and a Kodak Creo IQSmart 3.

Ted, you gave me a great idea to solve my media exchange problem between the Apple for scanning and my PC for editing; portable hard disk media. I've been using a DVD for this operation. I still haven't been able to figure out if I can network on my Apple to my toaster (a pair of 300gig drives in a NetGear box that looks like a toaster) which is connected to a wireless DSL router and configured by PC software on each computer. I am going to hire you for consulting in the near future for information on ColorGenius software when I've had some more time to digest it all.

Greg,
Here's the Genesis link. In fact here are links for Cezanne brokers.

http://www.genesis-equipment.com/home.cfm
http://www.bob-weber.com/
http://www.graphicsequipmentmart.com/index.php?ct=Hi-End%20Scanners&md=details&id=36
http://www.printerads.com/

there are more links too - google

Genesis scanner inventory appears to be slim at the moment. They may still have a Cezanne in stock shipping from Arizona. A phone call or email is best.

a PDF brochure
http://www.fujifilm.com.tw/print/input/204-144E_Cezanne_0308_R0-0.pdf

Thanks a million Joe, Sandy and Ted and Brian too. This has been a wealth of information. That's why I gave this thread 5 stars. I tried to find the Genesis site last night, but Ted had it spelled Gensis which makes it more difficult. ;) This is not going to be a "I have to have by this by the weekend" type purchase. Getting one of these will have to fill a need (scanning negs and tranies) that I honestly don't have at the moment. If the copy film I used back in the '80's was still available, I would have gone the high end scanner route years ago. But instead I am using the technology at hand (a work around if you will) for my work flow. On another thread discussing Traditional Photography has repeaked an old idea for a custom wet lab I had in the '80s. Possibly if a demand for film processing re-merged I will be looking into setting up an auto E-6 processor with high end scanning capabilities. I know for sure that there is basically no demand here in Toledo for large format processing but making a larger net presense is what I need to do. As of date, I easily handle any demand for E-6 with my roll tank and homemade water bath.;) I learned from starting this business before on two attempts that it's better to have a demand than trying to fill it. Something to ponder.

A special note to Ted: Thanks for your offer, I was being facetious with my comment about Epi and Nikon. Didn't mean for you to rant. ;) After 9:00am is my bed time sometimes people don't get my sarcasism. I am full aware that you get what you pay for. They wouldn't be asking the $$$ if they weren't worth it.

Greg Lockrey

25-Oct-2007, 15:49

What are the going prices for scanning 4x5 and 8x10 film with a Cezanne or a Creo Eversmart Pro II or equivalent.

I am trying to work out how many shots I'd have to do before I'd save money.

Thanks,

Asher

Joe (jetcode) summed it up pretty well. He bought his machine on time that will cost about $200 per month, or the equivelent of 2 high end large format scans. You will have to look honestly what your need truly is verses having one in your spare bedroom. You can make a lot of scans for $6k+.

jetcode

25-Oct-2007, 20:07

Joe (jetcode) summed it up pretty well. He bought his machine on time that will cost about $200 per month, or the equivelent of 2 high end large format scans. You will have to look honestly what your need truly is verses having one in your spare bedroom. You can make a lot of scans for $6k+.

Greg, I was estimating the cost per month but that truly depends on financial charges and banking institutions. Thank Ted, Sandy, and Brian. They have far more professional experience to offer then I do. I am two steps in front of you and a couple of million steps behind them.

Asher,
60 scans at $100 a scan covers the cost of the scanner I bought except I get to work with a scan as much as I want until it meets the criteria I am looking for in an image. What's truly nice about have a high resolution scanner is that I may find an image within an image (the real image or one of many) and scan that at a higher resolution. I can also get a scan whenever I want 24/7.

Asher Kelman

25-Oct-2007, 20:33

Greg, I was estimating the cost per month but that truly depends on financial charges and banking institutions. Thank Ted, sandy, and Brian. THey have far more professional experience to offer then I do. I am two steps in front of you and a couple of million steps behind them.

I'm there in line saying thanks too!

Asher,
60 scans at $100 a scan covers the cost of the scanner I bought except I get to work with a scan as much as I want until it meets the criteria I am looking for in an image. What's truly nice about have a high resolution scanner is that I may find an image within an image (the real image or one of many) and scan that at a higher resolution. I can also get a scan whenever I want 24/7.
This clarifies things.

Even just 30 scans a year would pay off the scanner in 2 years! Sounds great! Now the question is Eversmart /Pro versus Cezanne.

Asher

jetcode

25-Oct-2007, 20:55

I'm there in line saying thanks too!

This clarifies things.

Even just 30 scans a year would pay off the scanner in 2 years! Sounds great! Now the question is Eversmart /Pro versus Cezanne.

Asher

Asher,

I would think less in 'versus' as in what works for you, what scanner is in better condition, what is the cost difference, etc. I don't think you will be disappointed with either one. I'll be spending some time this weekend ... scanning of course.

Joe

audioexcels

26-Oct-2007, 06:42

I'm there in line saying thanks too!

This clarifies things.

Even just 30 scans a year would pay off the scanner in 2 years! Sounds great! Now the question is Eversmart /Pro versus Cezanne.

Asher

Yes...this is a very relevent subject. The "average" price to have someone scan this on one of these high end scanners. At the same time, one can even "charge" someone something like $50 for a scan and make money to offset the initial investment...perhaps even making money off it all in the end. Not sure how much time/labor/etc. is involved to give someone the results they are expected at $50 a pop, but I know if it is about 3 hours to do, that's not bad.

But put into perspective the costs of a 5-6K scanner that will yield 60 scansX$100 is a very sufficient point and IMHO, way worth the investment. I mean, think of all the photos one will do in say, the next 5-10 years. Just put in 5 years as an example. I'm sure I'll shoot 500 4X5 shots in 5 years "easily". Of those 500 shots, I would expect to see at least a 20 percent ratio of must have drum scanned/keepers...not to say the others would be a waist, but 20 percent, giving it a super low ratio of top end shots vs. gallery based photos, but not your very best. SO in that 5 year period, you did 100 scans=$10,000.

It's early and I'm redundantly repetitive as usual.

Excellent thread and thanks to everyone and their words.

jetcode

26-Oct-2007, 07:22

I'm not yet convinced a drum scan is necessary, that is, until I have more time to evaluate real prints from the different films I want to use. The scanner I selected allows me to batch scan as many images as I can get on the bed. I can use the scanner to preview film, scan once, edit once, print forever at different image sizes for different medias. I can scan watercolors and other reflective art which will offset the cost. I save money in shipping costs for outside scans. And I suspect the scan quality is very high for the scanner I selected. What's not to like?

Ted Harris

26-Oct-2007, 07:31

audioexcels

26-Oct-2007, 07:37

[QUOTE=audioexcels;285843]
I stopped chasing the perfect sound a decade ago and i've heard my share of arguments from people who claim that their modest systems compete with the best. If they are happy with their stereo systems then I'm happy for them. I'm more than satisfied with my Goldmund, Krell, CAT, ML system.

As for cars, I'm not 17 anymore and need to have the fastest wheels on the road to buck up my self esteem. I just want a good 4x4 that can haul all my gear, won't be too painful to gas up and won't leave me stranded in a desert somewhere.

Your system sounds like it would be an enjoyable one for the stat people. I don't like Stats, Krell, and Goldmund is heavily overpriced, but very pretty to look at. I'm sure I could build components that cost 1/8th the price of the ones used for your Stats and they would be equally good or better...

You don't need to hear claims about a modest system competing with the best. Go read the reviews on the Linkwitz Orions and let me know why reviewers claim they are amongst the best in the world. Then go to the Orion group and let them know that their modest systems cannot compete with the best. These are people that have all the money in the world to spare. Why get a "modest" sytem when they can have the best? You see a TON of Wilson/ML/Maggie/Von S/Kharma/Talon/B&W/etc. but once in a blue moon see the Orions.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TAC-review.htm

"Availability

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man”…to obtain a pair of Orions—well, maybe not, but certainly easier for him to purchase a pair of Wilson Audio Alexandria X-2’s or Von Schweikert VR-11SE’s for 23 times as much money. They are more readily available but won’t yield equal musical satisfaction because they are still box speakers and don’t benefit from Linkwitz’s special insights. If you just want a set of Orion construction plans and an empty PC board, that’s relatively easy; Linkwitz Lab will ship them to you as soon as you pay for them. If you want precut cabinet panels shipped to you in a flat package, there is a source, and you can also order the eight drivers separately. If you just want to sit back and wait for a finished pair of Orions to arrive at your doorstep, you’ll have to put in a special order and wait a month or more while Linkwitz Lab has them custom-built for you. There are so many different options and so many different prices that it’s easier to refer your to www.linkwitzlab.com than to list them all here. The basic price of a finished pair of Orions with fully wired crossover and all necessary cables, but not including the required six-channel or eight-channel power amplifier, is $5300.00 plus shipping and handling. Considering that it’s arguably the world’s best loudspeaker system, that’s a freaked-out bargain—not even counting all the DIY opportunities to pay a lot less. No, I haven’t tested all the good loudspeakers in the world; I’m just basing my opinion on what I know. My enthusiasm for the Orion knows no bounds. I never had its equal in my listening room; I am totally sold on the “boxless” approach; and I am planning to keep my pair forever. What more can I say?"

Car point was an analogy, just as the audio point was also an analogy. The point being, these two genres, both art forms in how you view them since even a car that has been heavily modified is nothing close to the stock form...as in, the V750 has never (to my knowledge) been modded so it has the exact same components as these high end scanners to perform similarly to them). The V750 in stock form, with the additional supplies and even minor tweaks isn't going to get you a high level scan. This has been said and that's that. But a $5000 speaker can rival a 100K speaker, end of story. A 15K heavily modded car can race "just about" anything on the road that was built on both speed and also luxury.

jetcode

26-Oct-2007, 07:44

sanking

26-Oct-2007, 08:42

Joe, the scanner you go tis every bit as good as a drum scanner. It cost the same new and performs as well (takes up as much space too as you now know). It outperformed a bunch of drum scanners in the Seybold test.

Ted,

I would be interested in your thoughts on the pros and cons of the IQSmart 3 and the EverSmart Supreme (or Select). Were either of these scanners tested in the Seybold comparisons?

And beyond just the pros and cons, what is the rationale for Creo/Kodak to offer the competing line of scanners, both which use the same XY stitching technlogy? And who makes IQSmart 3 and EverSmart Supreme and Select? Are the EverSmarts still made in Israel?

Sandy

Ted Harris

26-Oct-2007, 12:44

Sandy,

The IQSmart 3 is newer than the Seybold comparison the same for the Select (I think). The Supreme was tested and came out about in the middle of the pack.

More to follow on your question regarding the IQ v. the Eversmart series

jetcode

26-Oct-2007, 14:44

... what is the rationale for Creo/Kodak to offer the competing line of scanners, both which use the same XY stitching technlogy?

Sandy,

From a technical standpoint I can think of no other way to acheive large high resolution scans without stiching technology. This means that the Screen products use XY stiching as well as most likely every other flatbed. Now they may not use the same algorithms or implementations but big files from small sensors require some form of XY stitching.

Joe

sanking

26-Oct-2007, 15:12

Sandy,

From a technical standpoint I can think of no other way to acheive large high resolution scans without stiching technology. This means that the Screen products use XY stiching as well as most likely every other flatbed. Now they may not use the same algorithms or implementations but big files from small sensors require some form of XY stitching.

Joe

Joe,

Are you sure that Screen scanners use XY stitching? The screen product literature uses the term XY Zooming, not XY stitching. EverSmart scanners do not zoom out their lenses except for initial focusing.

See http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/product/scanner/cezanne/

“The Cézanne Elite is equipped with a 3-line CCD array that contains 8,000 CCD elements in each line.
The advanced CCD array and XY zoom mechanism help the Cézanne Elite attain its remarkable 589 to 5,300 dpi range of optical resolutions across the entire scanning bed.”

Sandy

QT Luong

26-Oct-2007, 16:37

What are the going prices for scanning 4x5 and 8x10 film with a Cezanne or a Creo Eversmart Pro II or equivalent.

I am trying to work out how many shots I'd have to do before I'd save money.

Where, by whom, in which quantities ? There is an order of magnitude difference in pricing. Also, the other part of the equation is how much do you value your time, and do you consider scanning an activity you want to become an expert in ?

For instance, the answer for Ted was obviously yes (he teaches scanning workshops and provides services), which made his choice to buy high end scanners (but why two of the same type ?) easy.

My own goal is to make a living from the sale and licensing of photographs, and nothing else. Scanning is an art in itself, but not something I consider to be in the core skill set of a photographer. Although I may have more transparencies to scan than Ted (more than a thousand drummed scanned already), I chose to outsource. I don't get up in the middle of the night feeling that I should make a scan :-)

Brian K

26-Oct-2007, 17:09

Your system sounds like it would be an enjoyable one for the stat people. I don't like Stats, Krell, and Goldmund is heavily overpriced, but very pretty to look at. I'm sure I could build components that cost 1/8th the price of the ones used for your Stats and they would be equally good or better...

Audioexcels, what does this have to do with photography? I really could care less. So your speakers got a good review, my audio stuff had great reviews too, Who cares? I am very happy with what I have and have no interest in discussing audio.

Asher Kelman

26-Oct-2007, 23:28

My own goal is to make a living from the sale and licensing of photographs, and nothing else. Scanning is an art in itself, but not something I consider to be in the core skill set of a photographer. Although I may have more transparencies to scan than Ted (more than a thousand drummed scanned already), I chose to outsource. I don't get up in the middle of the night feeling that I should make a scan :-)
My goal is to scan for my own photographic artwork. About 30 images per year worthyv of scanning and printing!

Asher

sanking

26-Oct-2007, 23:30

If you just want to look at some comparison scans, check this out.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Not necessarily relevant to this thread. Also, no endorsement on my part of the methodology.

Just something to look at if you are bored.

Sandy King

jetcode

26-Oct-2007, 23:49

Joe,

Are you sure that Screen scanners use XY stitching? The screen product literature uses the term XY Zooming, not XY stitching. EverSmart scanners do not zoom out their lenses except for initial focusing.

See http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/product/scanner/cezanne/

“The Cézanne Elite is equipped with a 3-line CCD array that contains 8,000 CCD elements in each line.
The advanced CCD array and XY zoom mechanism help the Cézanne Elite attain its remarkable 589 to 5,300 dpi range of optical resolutions across the entire scanning bed.”

Sandy

Sandy I can email tech support and find out. I am not one to take a machine apart in this price range. But suffice to say that an 8000 element CCD does not map to 12.9" across and I don't think the optics would be able to resolve this either. My guess from what I've seen is that the bed moves from right to left incrementally after the CCD has moved back to forward or foreward to back across the width of the image being scanned. This would constitute an XY pattern and sticthing simply means appending data to the end of the image. The magnification in the scans I've done so far is 100%. It doesn't change. XY magnification may mean that X and Y can be independantly magnified in either axis. But again this is a suspicion rather then fact. I am an engineer and I've worked with a lot of measurement systems. A scanner is a precision optical measurement system.

Joe

jetcode

27-Oct-2007, 06:50

Ted,
The Seybold report is the best test report I have seen yet and it is very interesting to note the differences between the Cezanne and Cezanne Elite and where they stand in comparison to "name" drum scanners and other "name" flatbeds. I have to say I was a bit shocked. I think I made a very wise choice given that field of scanners.

Sandy,
While scan techniques are similar it appears there are proprietary differences between XY stitching and XY zoom. The Elite uses both techniques in different scan modes.

sanking

27-Oct-2007, 11:53

While scan techniques are similar it appears there are proprietary differences between XY stitching and XY zoom. The Elite uses both techniques in different scan modes.

The issue of stitching has come up several times on the ScanHi-End forum on Yahoo. If you go to the forum and do a search on XY Stitching you will find quite a number of messages on this subject.

I definitely would not advise tearing your scanner down in an effort to determine how it works. Ultimately the only matter of interest relevant to the stitching or zooming issue is, what is the real or effective resolution of the scanner, as opposed to the theoretical maximum? And you can test that yourself with a proper resolution target if you like.

Sandy King

Susanne

27-Oct-2007, 12:05

Kirk Gittings

27-Oct-2007, 12:40

Thanks Susanne,

Of the prosumer scanners currently in production, I think the best is the combination of Epson 750, with Silverfast (or Vuescan if you can stand the interface) and the Betterscanning adjustable film holder (used wet preferably with Lumina).

These days IMO this is the best combination for 4x5 without jumping to an Imacon or pro flatbed. But I find it most useful for magazine scans, small prints (sub 16x20) and proofing my serious images to see if I want to do a pro scan of them.

I did a scanning workshop with M. Mutmansky earlier this year sitting in for Ted. These guys are the best. For the past few years I have mainly taught credit classes at the Art Institute of Chicago and at the View Camera conferences. Watch my website for notifications. Thanks for your interest.

Asher Kelman

27-Oct-2007, 13:05

Ted,
The Seybold report is the best test report I have seen yet and it is very interesting to note the differences between the Cezanne and Cezanne Elite and where they stand in comparison to "name" drum scanners and other "name" flatbeds. I have to say I was a bit shocked. I think I made a very wise choice given that field of scanners.

Joe,

What were these differences between the Cezanne and the Cezanne Elite?

Asher

jetcode

27-Oct-2007, 15:21

For the past few years I have mainly taught credit classes at the Art Institute of Chicago and at the View Camera conferences. Watch my website for notifications. Thanks for your interest.

I want to take your class in Prague if you decide to offer that. That city is so rich with architectural treasure.

jetcode

27-Oct-2007, 15:22

Joe,

What were these differences between the Cezanne and the Cezanne Elite?

Asher

The Elite is faster, has a 14 bit A/D instead of 12 bits, and may have improved optics. It doesn't really matter they're both top shelf scanners.

Joe

David_Chanter

10-Nov-2007, 18:31

I saw a question asked that I did not see an answer , which was how much should I expect to pay for a DRUM scan of a 4x5 transparency as I do not have nearly enough work flow to facilitate the expense of a real good scanner as of yet. I was quoted 40 $$$USD......

Ted Harris

10-Nov-2007, 19:40

$40 is a good price if the scanner operator knows his/her stuff, is using a properly calibrated machine, is providing you with a 500+MB file, etc. It's a hair less than I charge for a one-off.

jetcode

10-Nov-2007, 21:19

Ted,

Do you dust bust your profesional scans?
What do you use to clean the flatbed and film holder on your Cezanne?

Thanks in advance,
Joe

Doug Dolde

18-Dec-2007, 16:24

Is the software for the iQsmart scanners supporting Leopard yet?

supercoolguy

1-Feb-2008, 16:05

i wanted to revisit this topic and ask if anyone had a good recommendation between the IQSmart models (do I want the 2 or the 3?) or an Aztec Plateau. I was about to acquire an Imacon, but enough perusing and researching your respected and wise advice has turned me off of that avenue. But now I face the dilemma of what to get. Most everyone here agrees that the IQs or the Cezanne are the way to go, but where would I find one? I can't seem to find any info on the Cezanne outside of this forum, and I'm not sure if Kodak still sells the Creo scanners, and which one is the one I should get. Are there some good refurb or used outlets I should check?
I'm looking for a really good scanner that I only need to buy once. I don't like the idea of oiling my film, so I would like to avoid drums, but I am also very interested in getting excellent to perfect scans. (Maybe it was the drum tech at the lab I worked at, but it seemed too easy to damage film during oiling or cleaning.) I didn't care for the reflective scans a Scitex did at a previous lab I worked at, but we never scanned film on it.
And what is the big difference between the IQ 2 and 3? Speed is not an issue for me, but flatness and alignment is (I shoot scores of 55 p/n and I like frame edges, so I rarely ever use scanning masks or racks).
I'm currently using an Expression 1640 with Silverfast and I loved it, but I'm noticing that it's getting old and now I can afford a really good scanner, so I should.
Help! I need a really good 4x5 and 6x7 scanner and I can't find one!

Kirk Gittings

1-Feb-2008, 17:24

Try Genesis for refurbs:

http://www.genesis-equipment.com/news.cfm

I have found them professional and knowledgeable.

Ted Harris

2-Feb-2008, 09:33

First the dustbusting question .... yes and generally I use the Giotto's rocket thingy. When there is more persistent gunk clinging to the film I use a modified divers tank setup. I also use prazio film cleaning fluid to clean film. I clean the scanning bed with lintless wipes from Prazio and sometimes alcohol.

For supercoolguy -- I only know of one Plateau installed for photographic use and users re satisfied with results. For the Screen Cezanne Elite you need to contact Screen direct in IL and they will point you to the closest regional rep. For the Kodak/Creo IQsmart scanners the answer is the same as it is for almost every piece of equipment mentioned on this Forum .... call Jim at Midwest Photo (61-261-1264) they are an authorized dealer. Differences between the IQ2 and the IQ3 are small for photo use they are:

1) The 2 comes with the Lite version of the software (upgrade is 900-1000). The Lite software gives you all the control most need for photo scanning. There are working in the background operations you can't do .. not a concern in a non-production environment.

2) The 3 does batch scans somewhat faster than the 2.

3) The 3 has slightly higher resolution ... not enough to worry about.

4) The 3 comes standard with a very special/expensive anti-newton ring coating on the glass scanning bed. The 2 comes with a frosted glass bed that usually works as well.

The Leopard version of the software, according to Kodak, will be out in April (so I'm thinking June at the latest).

BTW, Kirk and I will have an IQsmart 3 for participants to work with during our Scanning Workshop in Ft. Collins right before Foto3 in June. May also be doing an IQsmart and Imacon specific Workshop in April, PM me for more info.

Addendum, in addition to Genesis mentioned by Kirk there is also Bob Weber for used.

supercoolguy

3-Feb-2008, 10:02

thanks for the helpful posts!
i did later think of another criterion that is very important: Dmax. i often shoot very dark chromes, and my BW often have very dark shadows as well (in the positive). is there one of these good scanners that does better than the others in this realm?
And ted (thank you for your personal attention, by the way)--you mentioned the difference in scanning beds between the IQ models, and i read on an earlier post that these are removable for easier set-up or wet-mount, so is there anything that stops me from paying too much for the anti-newton IQ3 bed and putting it on an IQ2? from product literature, the boxes seem to be the same.
and photocraft imaging in boulder, co (where i used to work) i believe has a plateau. (they went through 3 or 4 different scanners including my epson before settling on whatever they have.) i think i'll drop by and visit them on monday, if anyone has anything they want to know about it, i'll ask.

hikaru

4-Feb-2008, 13:21

Hello -

It's now 2008.

Anyone out there able to recommend a scanner
for 4 x 5 and 35mm?

Looking for results at least on a par with the
Scitex Eversmart.

Thank you -

Ted Harris

4-Feb-2008, 13:50

supercoolguy ... I believe the removable trays are interchangeable between the 2 and the 3 but not 100% sure ... will check when I can. As for the Plateau, as I noted the one installation that I know of is happy with the machine; however, I believe it is much more expensive than the IQ2. As for Dmax I haven't tested the 2 but suspect it will be very close to the 3. The IQ3 tested at near 4. Bottom line is both have more range than any film you are going to scan.

hikaru --- all of the scanners we have been talking about in this thread will do a good job with both 35mm and 4x5. The IQsmart 2 and 3 and the Screen Cezanne will all produce results superior to the original Eversmart which is what I assume you mean since you used the name Scitex.

bglick

4-Feb-2008, 18:49

Long thread..... lots of good information, combined with lots of confusion... don't want to beat a dead horse, but a few comments...

ppi of a scanner is the amount of "captured" data points, i.e. grid pattern of the scanned media. It is NOT the amount of "resolved" data points, this is a HUGE distinction. Epson does not claim to resolve each data point as well as a higher end scanner. This is analogous to comparing 2 8x10 pieces of film. One shot using the best lenses, and the best film, the other shot on with lousy film and a pinhole camera. In the end, you have 2 pieces of 8x10 film. Yet, they are worlds apart.

Although two scanners can grid up film in 4k ppi, it doesn't mean each captured pixel will be equal. The same can be said for a pocket digicam at 12MP and a Canon 5d at the same MP's. Yet, compare pixels, and they are light years apart.

This comes down to the quality of the scanners lens, f ratio of the lens, focus capability of the lens, size of the image the lens sees on each pass, A/D converter, firmware in the scanner, lighting system, accuracy of the stepper motors, refractive index of the glass, scanning fluids, etc. etc.

So surely, these high end scanners are in a class by themselves, however, like many things, their benefits are only fully appreciated when enlargement is pushed.

A good point was raised early regarding MF shooting and high end scanning, vs. LF shooting and low-end scanning.... as with MF, the enlargement is so much greater for the same size end print, the demands on the scanner become exploited....so often, a better scanner is often required. However, the beauty of LF (assuming you want to end up with a digital file) is an 810 piece of film only needs to be enlarged 5x for 50" print. Most all the lower end new scanners can perform this task equally as well as the higher end scanners, as it relates to final resolution on the print. The ability to capture the full tonal range of the film depends on how well the shot was recorded. If you have an excellent chrome or neg., the lower end scanners do exceptionally well when comparing final prints.

So this was a valid point, and IMO makes a strong case for 57, 810 film combined with lower end scanners for a very effective means to produce digital files which yields large prints ..... still beating the best $50k+ digital set ups of today. This of course assumes good image capture skills.

Of course, if you have no desire to make 50" prints, why not shoot 5d and simplify your life and make gorgeous 16" prints. It all comes down to the desired end-goal and working backwards from there...

Also, although I never owned one, i have seen excellent scans from the Minolta MF scanners, rivaling drum scans up to 12x.... too bad this market sector ended so short in its life cycle.

> The Elite is faster, has a 14 bit A/D instead of 12 bits, and may have improved optics.

yes, Elite is 2x faster, quite significant. 14 A/D vs. 12 bit A/D, this represents 2x the tonal ranges, very significant. Yes, the Elite has improved optics, but Screen has never specified the lenses in either, so one can only judge on their comments and the test results.

Like most low volume, high end products, the improvement in output rarely ever justifies the added price. With all electronics falling drastically in price over the years, high end Scanners has defied this protocol. Why? Volume keeps getting lower, so no economies of scale. When I ordered my new Screen Cezz. Elite, they actually hand built it in Japan, then shipped it overseas...14 weeks. Yep, digital captured has all but killed high-end scanner sales. The Screen rep told me in 06, Screen USA sold 3 scanners, in 00, they sold 600+ scanners. I would consider this an ol fashion beat-down. But the continued conversion to digital keeps the used market healthy....

As for the high end flat beds vs. drums.... I agree with Ted... the differences are so subtle, they are not worth discussing, at least up to 5000 ppi... so it really comes down to, other issues, such as... is the scanner still supported... does it hold the size films you want to use... are you willing to spend the time and energy to get the film on and off drums all day, clean-up of drums is quite messy, software support, does it run on your platform, etc. That being said, taking a chance on a $2k Howtek 4500 is still quite the bargain, assuming its in working order. Lot of quirks with the drum scanners... test it first.

For really large prints, ULF film (with min. DOF) which can fit on the large flat beds, such as the Cezz. at 13" x 21" or a few others with even larger beds, will produce the most stunning murals ever seen.... and with 60" printers becoming mainstream these days, it sure opens up possibilities for those who love HUGE ultra sharp prints!

audioexcels

7-Feb-2008, 08:55

I don't think digital images look like film images even at 4X6, but maybe my eyes need to be in blind folded tests. Point in case is, if there is a difference in "the look" of film vs. "the look" of digital, the 5D is pointless to those that want the look of film. Besides, MF 67 film has more resolution than the 5D and is as easy to shoot with. Not to knock on the 5D. It's a nice camera, but at 3.5K with lenses, you can buy a Fuji 690, a Jobo, and the Howtek 4500.

Kirk Gittings

7-Feb-2008, 10:29

Besides, MF 67 film has more resolution than the 5D and is as easy to shoot with. Not to knock on the 5D. It's a nice camera, but at 3.5K with lenses, you can buy a Fuji 690, a Jobo, and the Howtek 4500.

Resolution of 6x7 with a drum scan yes (with a consumer flatbed not really), but if you think drum scanning MF is as easy to shoot as a 5D you are profoundly misinformed.

mrladewig

7-Feb-2008, 10:38

Resolution of 6x7 with a drum scan yes (with a consumer flatbed not really), but if you think drum scanning MF is as easy to shoot as a 5D you are profoundly misinformed.

I would have to agree. And on top of that, the cost equation quickly flips back to the 5D where there is basically no incremental cost to a shot. With the 670, you'll be paying to develop each shot whether you choose to scan it or not.

And having read the original related post, regarding the "look" of film. If you really want that with digital and are willing to invest the time on the monitor to develop the skills, I'd say chances are good that you can get a 5D print to very closely resemble the look of almost any slide or negative film. There are a number of tools and add ons designed for this purpose. The one place where there is a bit of a challenge is that digital seems to fall somewhere between color negative and color slide in dynamic range. Going to less dynamic range is easy, just push the contrast and clip the ends. Going to more dynamic range isn't always so simple but there are options in some situations.

Kirk Gittings

7-Feb-2008, 10:42

I would have to agree. And on top of that, the cost equation quickly flips back to the 5D where there is basically no incremental cost to a shot. With the 670, you'll be paying to develop each shot whether you choose to scan it or not.

And if your time is worth anything..........

And before anyone goes off on this, I am solely to his point about ease and cost-not aesthetics. Drum scanned 6x7 can be very beautiful

Rob_5419

7-Feb-2008, 11:51

audioexcels

7-Feb-2008, 11:58

I've been following, or trying to, follow this thread and come up with a decision about a high quality flat bed scanner, and somehow my ADHD won't let me.

Can anyone simplify in very elementary terms, what the advantages of the Creo vs Iqsmart vs Howtek vs Screen Cezanne are, possibly with a banana thrown in for comparative measure (e.g. the Epson v750).

Wading through the thread just isn't making sense of these fine differences to me yet. Maybe I have some kind of digital impairment.

It has most to do with the size you are enlarging to, but also the degree of output. For example, take the digital camera world and you have a point and shoot camera vs. the camera being discussed above (Canon 5D). Point and shoot will give a nice clean image to a certain size. 5D will give a cleaner file from the get go, but noticeable differences will not be there until you get to a certain print size. At least that's my understanding of it all.

audioexcels

7-Feb-2008, 12:12

I would have to agree. And on top of that, the cost equation quickly flips back to the 5D where there is basically no incremental cost to a shot. With the 670, you'll be paying to develop each shot whether you choose to scan it or not.

And having read the original related post, regarding the "look" of film. If you really want that with digital and are willing to invest the time on the monitor to develop the skills, I'd say chances are good that you can get a 5D print to very closely resemble the look of almost any slide or negative film. There are a number of tools and add ons designed for this purpose. The one place where there is a bit of a challenge is that digital seems to fall somewhere between color negative and color slide in dynamic range. Going to less dynamic range is easy, just push the contrast and clip the ends. Going to more dynamic range isn't always so simple but there are options in some situations.

So then, aside from having movements, which one debated can be successfully achieved with a digital file and photoshop, LF is really useless until the print size is large enough that it outresolves the 5D or looks apparently better on print. In other words, if most people are never going to print any larger than say, 20X24, there's no point in shooting LF since we have all the tools to make digital look like film, and tools to make an image look like it was shot with an LF camera's movements, correct?

Not to start a debate, but a person that has worked with the 5D and 1DSMKII for a couple of years now says a 6X6 shot with a Rollei camera and 80mm Planar lens outresolves any file he has ever seen with his 5D/1DSMKII setups...and he has the very best glass you can use on a Canon. BUT, here's the catch...he is viewing his 6X6files obviously on a high end calibrated monitor and with scans done with an Epson 750!

I know this will lead to some questioning of this person, but he's got tons of money in all types of camera systems and anything he cares to use, and is an avid shooter, an extremist, almost...in other words, he knows his Canon stuff inside and out, and to say he sees "a lot" more resolution with scans of 6X6 film on an Epson V750 leaves me wondering about all these things....

BTW...for the MF film setup, I said that one could buy a Fuji 69 camera (6X9), Jobo processor (that means only fluids for developing costs), and a Howtek 4500 or better...never referenced to a Fuji scan on a flatbed, though my friend above has seen the greater resolution of 6X6 roll film off an Epson V750.

Actually, lets break down the prices:

Fuji Camera=$600
Jobo CPE2+=$300
Howtek/Eversmart/IQsmart/Cezanne=$2000

So about $3K for the film setup on the used market.

Canon 5D=$2K
Lenses...say...$1K buys you the nice zoom or a couple of primes.

Kirk Gittings

7-Feb-2008, 12:25

Besides, MF 67 film has more resolution than the 5D and is as easy to shoot with. Not to knock on the 5D. It's a nice camera, but at 3.5K with lenses, you can buy a Fuji 690, a Jobo, and the Howtek 4500.

You strung that together in one paragraph as a single point. If you don't include how the images are processed you are leaving out half the process/effort/cost and as someone who has made their living with both systems there is simply no comparison from a workflow, time or cost effectiveness point of view. And the last point is simply not true unless you are using really crappy lenses on a 5D. As a matter of fact I would rather have a file from a 5D than a file from a good 6x9 on a 750. You see I do both every week and up until 13 months ago, I made my living almost exclusively shooting 6x9 and scanning it on a 750.

jetcode

7-Feb-2008, 13:08

I just printed a 4x10 image (cropped down) to 9"x19" at 600dpi and I must say I see detail in this print that I have never seen before. I'm not switching LF for anything when it comes to landscapes. Shooting models however is a different story. Unless I am going after a well defined image that is staged the 5D smokes in terms of ease. I can literally have the best images processed hours after the shoot and have a CD in the mail the next day. The film path takes much longer and with color requires outsourcing the processing not to mention there is no visible feedback for exposure like the 5D's histogram. I think we are living in a rich age of imaging, certainly from a technical standpoint.

Doug Dolde

7-Feb-2008, 13:14

"Unless you are using really crappy lenses on a 5D?" Does that mean shooting non Canon brand lenses then? It's a real crap shoot if you hope to get a good Canon branded lens.

jetcode

7-Feb-2008, 13:33

"Unless you are using really crappy lenses on a 5D?" Does that mean shooting non Canon brand lenses then? It's a real crap shoot if you hope to get a good Canon branded lens.

that's not my experience - I have a 135mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 that are pretty clean

Kirk Gittings

7-Feb-2008, 14:16

"Unless you are using really crappy lenses on a 5D?" Does that mean shooting non Canon brand lenses then? It's a real crap shoot if you hope to get a good Canon branded lens.

Its not a crap shoot if you know which lenses to buy and test them and yes a few of my lenses are aftermarket. My point though was more about comparing say DSLR zooms to Hassleblad 6x6 scanned on the 750.

that's not my experience - I have a 135mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 that are pretty clean

Those are two of the better ones from Canon.

Doug Dolde

7-Feb-2008, 14:51

But if you want wide you are SOL.

bglick

7-Feb-2008, 14:57

> As a matter of fact I would rather have a file from a 5D than a file from a good 6x9 on a 750.

Probably true.....but that same 6x9 scanned on a good MF scanner, drum or high end flat bed, would produce a much better 6x9 file. Of course, this assumes the shot is not diffraction limited due to huge DOF, and the lens used on the 6x9 is a modern hi rez lens.... bottom line is, 12.8MP does not record as much data as 6x9 film, specially chrome film, which should be the comparison, as they have equal exposure latitude.

I know this thread is going all over the place, but a sporadic comments....

Yes, its true, if you are not pushing the enlargement factor, one can be very happy with low end scanning gear, hence why I previously suggested how cost effective LF combined with low end scanners are, if your final print is not that large (dependent on size of film you are shooting)

But the sad reality is.... soon, 25MP chips will be commonplace and relatively cost effective in DSLR's.... (courtesy of Sony) this will change all the rules, again! And it might really put a hurtin on this discussion..... once again, raising the bar for film and LF cameras. As much as I hate buying film, processing film, scanning film, I still do it, because currently it meets my objectives..... but if those 3 steps can be avoided via digital, and I can still meet my objectives, well, I may slowly convert. I feel this has already been happening over time..... most of us have our "break point" where we will abandon film. The better and cheaper DSLR's become, the more breaking points will be reached.

Of course, there is always some % that will always prefer film, such as, film loyalist, those who shoot very little and already own all the gear they need, B&W shooters, contact printers, unusual formats such as 6x24, 4x20 (whereas the subject is not still, and digital stitching is not an option) etc. etc. My position excludes these groups.... but based on current film sales, these represent a very tiny % of film sales...

I still say, a Mamiya 7 kit, combined with a Minolta MF scanner is an amazing 1-2 punch vs. digital..... assuming the camera meets your needs. Very cost effective package, and gorgeous final prints.

Asher Kelman

7-Feb-2008, 14:58

Its not a crap shoot if you know which lenses to buy and test them and yes a few of my lenses are aftermarket. My point though was more about comparing say DSLR zooms to Hassleblad 6x6 scanned on the 750.

Those are two of the better ones from Canon.

I agree with you Kirk!

I use the 50 1.2 L for most of my work with the 5D. For some artistic work images could go to 6 ft high, for detail rich landscapes, only 16x20.

However one can stitch images perfectly for architecture.

Also one can use the 5D on the back of a 4x5 camera.

The 50 1.2L is only about $1300 or so and has excellent resale value so it's cost is say $140 potential resale loss.

The 5d again is an item to resell overnight at little loss. just start with a used camera.

It's a great error to compare LF with the 5D. The latter is mainly for events, portraits and products limited to a double page spread.

The LF lens gives a huge image circle which can be captured on one sheet of film and simply processed without waiting 30 min to 1 hour for Autopano Pro to assemble the components and then have flaws.

I love stitching but I prefer one shot and get it right. Especially for landscapes where things move, one shot cannot be matched.

Asher

Kirk Gittings

7-Feb-2008, 15:03

Bglick, I have said that same thing many many times even on this thread.

Asher,

t's a great error to compare LF with the 5D. The latter is mainly for events, portraits and products limited to a double page spread.

The discussion was about MF vs. 5D, but I totally agree with your point, as I make my living shooting architecture largely for magazines mostly with a 5D these days.

bglick

7-Feb-2008, 15:04

jetcode

7-Feb-2008, 15:06

But if you want wide you are SOL.

They introduced a new 14mm that is supposed to fill that gap. I think it is $2k so my guess is it is pretty nice. I shoot 4x10 for wide.

jetcode

7-Feb-2008, 15:08

The discussion was about MF vs. 5D, but I totally agree with your point, as I make my living shooting architecture largely for magazines mostly with a 5D these days.

thanks, that's what I wanted to know - joe

bglick

7-Feb-2008, 15:16

> Bglick, I have said that same thing many many times even on this thread.

I assume this was RE: the M7 and Minolta scanner? If so, yes, I have seen it mentioned on this thread, and many others....the sad part is, I am sure in a year from now, even this remarkable cost effective combo will be trumped by the 25MP DSLR's. The up front cost of the DSLR may be a bit more, but even a lite shooter will probably make up the difference in film and processing within a year or two....

In early 2000's, very few ever fathomed that a company like Sony would be matching the best MF film cameras / drum scanners. Sheeesh.... Big companies, big markets, Wall Street funding, huge design teams.... It's hard to believe that a 150 year industry, will experience a 95% evolution, literally turned upside-down, in a period of ~10 years.

Harley Goldman

7-Feb-2008, 15:18

I know someone who bought the new Canon 14mm and returned it after conducting sharpness tests. For the money, he did not find it all that impressive in the corners. And he really wanted to like that lens.

Doug Dolde

7-Feb-2008, 15:33

All I can say is my next camera will be a Nikon D3 and not a Canon.

Kirk Gittings

7-Feb-2008, 15:48

Harley, I am interested in, but have not tested the 14mm. Most people think arch photo is about extreme wide angles, but that is simply not true. I very very rarely use anything wider than 24mm and when I want something wider I prefer to stitch with shift lenses, because there is less distortion by stitching. My needs are different than many DSLR users as I am always on a tripod and have no interest in wide open lens performance. Many of the complaints about this lens is the corners wide open. I am much more interested in like f11. But since I would rarely use it, the purchase of the 14mm is not a priority.

Doug, I understand, the Nikon FF products look very very good, but you know there would not be a FF Nikon without the phenomenal success of Canon with FF. The competition will drive Canon. It is all good. I love it. Unfortunately when I got into it 1.5 years ago there was only one FF game in town. But it was still a great investment. I had the most productive and profitable commercial year of my career with the 5D and my back and knees applaud.

audioexcels

7-Feb-2008, 18:29

Here are his exact words and he has more glass to list including Zeiss/Leica/Pentax/and of course Canon.

"Ease of use doesn't really figure into this, this is pure obsession, medium format delivers a portrait quality orders or magnitude beyond 35mm DSLR, the DoF is amazing, and the extra work is worth it imho. Shooting the Rollei is also a joy, the viewfinder is simply stunning. With forethought you can capture shots that people would not expect on medium format."

"Medium format just has a wonderful quality to it in combination with good film (Portra or NPH/NPS). I can't afford a digital back, and to be
honest I'm not sure I'd want one. For anything else where convenience is required, the 5D comes out every time. If there's action or the weather turns, then I almost always have my 1dmkii with me. Unfortunately it's away for canon having a broken meter fixed!."

So in a way, he agrees and disagrees with you guys.

D. Bryant

7-Feb-2008, 21:14

"Unless you are using really crappy lenses on a 5D?" Does that mean shooting non Canon brand lenses then? It's a real crap shoot if you hope to get a good Canon branded lens.

Try the EF 100 f/2.8 or the EF 50 f/1.4. Neither are L branded but the IQ is excellent for me.

Don Bryant

audioexcels

7-Feb-2008, 22:07

Try the EF 100 f/2.8 or the EF 50 f/1.4. Neither are L branded but the IQ is excellent for me.

Don Bryant

The 50 is one that the person I mentioned above uses;). I think he has the 85/1.2 as well.

Gordon Moat

8-Feb-2008, 01:22

> . . . . . . . It's hard to believe that a 150 year industry, will experience a 95% evolution, literally turned upside-down, in a period of ~10 years.

The history of photography contains many similar changes. I am amazed any of this surprises anyone. Also, there is more to photography than convenience . . . shit, if painters only considered convenience, we might never see oil on canvas in the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

bglick

8-Feb-2008, 10:21

Asher Kelman

8-Feb-2008, 12:45

> Also one can use the 5D on the back of a 4x5 camera.

Unfortunately, the canon bodies have their sensors very recessed, which greatly limits how many captures can be made using rear rise/shift, due to the rays being vignetted by the lens bayonet. I have this set up, very disappointing...

But once 25MP sensors are the norm, its possible with the proper fl lens, you can net a 100MP image, which is quite amazing....
bgick,

(I hate calling people names crunched down like a closed perfectly good camera, just my little tiny peeve! I wish people would use real names but that's O.T.)

I am reporting shortly experience with taking pictures with the 5D on the back of LF cameras. I have found the camera functions pretty well. I need to test more extreme movement but so far, there's no big issue as long as one crops the penumbra slivers that occur at the extremes. Send me a PM and I'll let you know when my article is up. A better camera to use would be the inexpensive Canon Rebel which has a smaller sensor and therefore the throat of the Eos has less effect. However, cropping 1 in 5 pics is the same.

I don't want to continue this here but I will when the article is online.

Asher

Gordon Moat

8-Feb-2008, 12:49

> The history of photography contains many similar changes. I am amazed any of this surprises anyone.

Huh? Lets see, 150 years of chemical processing of film and/or prints, completely trumped (95%+) in 10 years, to full electronic capture, electronic manipulation and electronic printing? What 10 year period in the past 150 years has seen this kind of evolution?

. . . . . .

All those chemical processes were not the same. George Eastman turned the entire industry on it's ear with the "You Take The Picture, We Do The Rest". Take a look at all the various processes that were replaced by other processes. Since the beginning with dagguerreotypes, there have been many revolutions. Polaroid was another one, though the SX70 in the 1970s seemed to have been their greatest impact.

So daguerreotypes replaced by better wet processes, often faster or simpler. Then negative to positive processes. The glass plates replaced by paper, or later on different negative materials. There were industries and factories devoted to making albumen paper, followed by Printing-Out Paper (POP). Even platinum paper was available in boxes for a while, then largely replaced by silver papers.

Evolution or revolution, the photographic industry has not been static for 150 years. The changes are numerous and often.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

sanking

9-Feb-2008, 12:09

S

Not to start a debate, but a person that has worked with the 5D and 1DSMKII for a couple of years now says a 6X6 shot with a Rollei camera and 80mm Planar lens outresolves any file he has ever seen with his 5D/1DSMKII setups...and he has the very best glass you can use on a Canon. BUT, here's the catch...he is viewing his 6X6files obviously on a high end calibrated monitor and with scans done with an Epson 750!

This thread sure has a long life.

In terms of your friend's finding, I suspect that he is right. Ted Harris has stated that the Epson V750 is capable of effective resolution of 2400 ppi. If you convert that to lp/mm it will be about 47 lppm. The Canon DSLR is capable of about 60 lp/mm, but the much larger film area of a 6X6 negative should give your friend's negatives scanned on an Epson V750 an advantage in resolution. The advantage would be even greater withe 6X7 or 6X9 format.

Of course, resolution is not the whole story. Film grain, how the files are processed, and work flow all have an important role to play in determining individual preference.

My experience with digital to this point, except some testing with a Canon 5d, has been limited to work with a 12.2 Canon G9 point and shoot. However, even working with this camera has shown me that there are some situations where working with a digital camera offers significant advantages. For example, if you are working in conditions of very subdued light it is much easier to see and adjust the image on the digital screen than in a film camera viewfinder. Also, for color work the ability to take several different exposures and merge with HDR is very exciting. In working with the G9 in conditions of very high brightness range I found it possible to obtain results that would simply not have been possible with a film camera and one exposure.

On the other hand, the quality possible from a good scan of a 6X7 or 6X9 Tmax-100 or Acros B&W negative can not be touched by any DSLR. It is true that when working with a very high quality MF camera, Mamiya 7 for example, a drum scan is really necessary to get all of the detail from the MF negative. However, even a scan with the Nikon LS-9000 at 4000 spi, or an EverSmart Pro at 3175 spi gives a superb file from a 6X7 or 6X9 Tmax-100 or Acros negative, one that can easily be enlarged to 18X22, and even larger with good interpolation procedures.

Sandy King

bglick

9-Feb-2008, 13:40

> Evolution or revolution, the photographic industry has not been static for 150 years. The changes are numerous and often.

Gordon.... I think its obvious that photography has changed over 150 years......... but this has nothing to do with my point....

Find me a 10 year chunk of time that has had such incredible advances vs. the 2000 - 2010 era in photography? And not only did photography advance in this era, it nearly completely replaced the technology of chemical based photography, ...then add in digital processing, digital printing, the ease of super LARGE PRINTS, a plethera of new inks and papers, and most all of these new technologies can be implemented by the home based hobbyist, vs. big-time photo labs with highly specialized equipment.....

anyway, we can agree to disagree on this....

bglick

9-Feb-2008, 13:48

> On the other hand, the quality possible from a good scan of a 6X7 or 6X9 Tmax-100 or Acros B&W negative can not be touched by any DSLR.

Sandy.... this is a good point.... quite often, many of us make statements and tend to leave out the film type being considered. B&W film such as Tmax is much superior to chrome film in its ability to resolve... this point is often overlooked when comparing scanned film to digital capture. With greater resolution, you do need better scanning equipment to extract all the detail (assuming you need it all).

Previously I mentioned the Minolta MF scanners producing files as healthy has Howtek files....but this was only for color chrome and color negs. I do agree, Tmax will supersede this scanners capability...., and might supersede a 4000 ppi drum scanner. The Howtek 8000 would be a more appropriate scanner for Tmax.

Gordon Moat

9-Feb-2008, 14:11

> . . . . .

Find me a 10 year chunk of time that has had such incredible advances vs. the 2000 - 2010 era in photography? .....

anyway, we can agree to disagree on this....

Well, I guess we just disagree then. The great revolutions happened before my time (except the SX70), and probably before your time too. That we see this now perhaps makes it more prominent. Digital imaging is much beyond 10 years too; take a look at the patent on the Bayer pattern, early still video cameras, or even what year saw the introduction of PhotoShop 1.0 . . . . maybe it only seems like ten years.

The first somewhat affordable D-SLR was the Nikon D1, and that was less than ten years ago. Sometimes it might seem that these things have been around a while, though I run into people who think PhotoShop only recently appeared on the market, or who think things possible in PhotoShop today were not possible in earlier versions (which anyone who has worked with it long enough know is simply not true).

I think the pace of change was certainly greater in the late 1800s, though we should consider that in the context of those times. Communication was much slower, movement of knowledge was slower, and even getting from one place to another was slower. Read a little about George Eastman, and you will find your first ten year revolution that drastically changed photography.

Anyway, the reality I see in comparing scans and direct digital capture misses one important fundamental aspect. If we were to stand at the same scene as in many photographs, the amount of detail we would notice with our eyes would be less than what we could find in a piece of film, scan from that film, or from a digital capture. All these devices are better than human vision. I think that makes judgements easier, in that these things only need to be better than us . . . and not better than each other.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

bglick

9-Feb-2008, 14:29

I agree digital capture started prior to 2000, hell so did PS, I think it was first released in 1990. However, it took time till Wall Street money got behind all the hardware and software vendors.... so IMO, the industry did not really surface to prosumer level till about 2000 when Canon rocked the world with the D30?, at 3MP. By this time, digital was in full swing, including film scanners....

I was not demonstrating that digital started in 2000, but this is about when it start appearing to be a real competitor to film. Then, it was like a snowball rolling down the hill, every year you looked, you just could not believe how big the ball became.

Your point is valid regarding how difficult developing anything was in the late 1800's with limited communications, sharing of knowledge, no computers, lack of capital vs. todays massive companies, etc. But this is the times we live in, and is part of the reason for such remarkable advancement.

> Anyway, the reality I see in comparing scans and direct digital capture misses one important fundamental aspect. If we were to stand at the same scene as in many photographs, the amount of detail we would notice with our eyes would be less than what we could find in a piece of film, scan from that film, or from a digital capture. All these devices are better than human vision.

A bit over generalized.... of course, if we all shot 16x20 film, with good lenses and technique, and viewed the film on a light-box, I would agree....but when you enlarge, you continually reduce the resolution, of course, at some point, less than what humans can resolve. Plus, you must consider the FOV we take in while viewing the real scene.... But regardless, many of us, are captivated by this desire to produce a "look" that is sharper than what we would have seen in person. It's a bit of an addiction to some of us, to state it mildly :-)

sanking

9-Feb-2008, 22:08

Previously I mentioned the Minolta MF scanners producing files as healthy has Howtek files....but this was only for color chrome and color negs. I do agree, Tmax will supersede this scanners capability...., and might supersede a 4000 ppi drum scanner. The Howtek 8000 would be a more appropriate scanner for Tmax.

Although it is a fairly old piece of equipment the Leafscan 45, which will allow scans of 3cm X 12.7cm at 5080 ppi, gives very impressive results with MF negatives if you can live with two pass and stitch scanning. Effective resolution is about 93% of stated, which puts it at about 4700 ppi *effective*.

Caveats are that the equipment is, 1) quite old and hard to find in perfect working condition, and 2) dynamic range is only about 3.7, and 3) it is fairly slow in RGB.

For less critical needs you can always scan MF negatives with the Leafscan 45 at 2540 ppi in one pass. And of course, if you have one of those panoramic adaptors for MF formats cameras the Leafscan 45 works well for you in that it scans the 3cm X 12.7cm strip at 5080 ppi.

Some people have used the Leafscan 45 for scanning 4X5, but I don't recommend it for that purpose since you have to do two pass and stitch scanning to even get 2540 ppi, which makes it not much better than the Epson V750 for the 4X5 format.

Sandy King

Rob_5419

10-Feb-2008, 18:44

It has most to do with the size you are enlarging to, but also the degree of output. For example, take the digital camera world and you have a point and shoot camera vs. the camera being discussed above (Canon 5D). Point and shoot will give a nice clean image to a certain size. 5D will give a cleaner file from the get go, but noticeable differences will not be there until you get to a certain print size. At least that's my understanding of it all.

Thanks Audio -

I think the digital files from a 5D are exactly why I shoot with film. I don't like antiseptic sterility when it comes to aesthetics.

So I'm hunting for as scanner.

It seems that the scanners with higher Dmaxs are more expensive, even if they don't do particularly large negatives (A4). Still seems to be a huge variation in cost between the scanners and a lot of useful information, white noise, disinformation, just noise, and genuine insights.

Unfortunately I don't have the skill to unpack which is what. I wish I could find a simplified comparison of the specs, user profile for people who buy certain scanners to make a decision. By the time I read up on a scanner, a new one comes out, and then it's back to square one, trying to understand it all again..

Doug Dolde

10-Feb-2008, 18:49

Buying a Leafscan is just asking for trouble. I know from experience. Don't do it. Seriously obsolete piece of hardware.

sanking

10-Feb-2008, 22:22

Buying a Leafscan is just asking for trouble. I know from experience. Don't do it. Seriously obsolete piece of hardware.

The same could be said for any number of old drum and high end flatbeds. However, I bought a used Leafscan 45 several years ago and it is still working like a charm. I have not had any trouble with it at all, and I use it both with MAC OS 9.2.2 and the Leaf 2.2 plugin for Photoshop, and with MAC OSX and SilverFast AI. Slow, yes, but superb results. And I know quite a number of people who are still using their Leafscan 45 with no problem. Course, when I bought mine I picked it up from a regional seller and knew it was working from the start.

Like most professional scanning equipment such as drum and high end flatbeds, there is a very big risk in buying vintage scanning equipment. Many people buy older scanning equipment on ebay and expect it to work, and wind up very disappointed.

I am not suggesting that anyone buy a Leafscan 45, or a used drum scanner, or a used high end flatbed. But if you want a scanner for under $1k that will scan 35mm at an *effective* resolution of 4800 ppi, and MF at the same resolution if you scan in two passes and stitch, the Leafscan 45 can do it. For these formats it gives performance beyond my Creo EverSmart Pro. To put this in perspective, *effective* resolution of 4800 ppi is not possible even with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner. To do much better you have to go to a Howtek 6500/7500.

The Leafscan 45 is indeed an old piece of equipment, but not obsolete where I live.

Sandy King

audioexcels

11-Feb-2008, 03:16

Thanks Audio -

I think the digital files from a 5D are exactly why I shoot with film. I don't like antiseptic sterility when it comes to aesthetics.

So I'm hunting for as scanner.

It seems that the scanners with higher Dmaxs are more expensive, even if they don't do particularly large negatives (A4). Still seems to be a huge variation in cost between the scanners and a lot of useful information, white noise, disinformation, just noise, and genuine insights.

Unfortunately I don't have the skill to unpack which is what. I wish I could find a simplified comparison of the specs, user profile for people who buy certain scanners to make a decision. By the time I read up on a scanner, a new one comes out, and then it's back to square one, trying to understand it all again..

Well...someone already said that Digital can be made to look the same as film...in other words, with a smaller print sizes, the film "look" doesn't even play a role in anything since it looks no different than a print from the 5D and should be for any digital camera for that matter.

I'd be interested to hear from more that can manipulate digital files to look like film shots...if digital looks like film, we may as well have adapters made so that we can retrofit bellows to the 5D and have the movements of LF in order to have the same look of film up to a certain enlargement size.