Scan the ULF neg

[Tri Tran]

Dear Friends,
How do you digitize the file if you have a negative size bigger than 8x10. What would be the cost to scan the 12’x20’ negative excluding the cost of the print if I want the print size 4’x 8’. Any suggestions? Thanks. TT

[sanking]

Dear Friends,
How do you digitize the file if you have a negative size bigger than 8x10. What would be the cost to scan the 12’x20’ negative excluding the cost of the print if I want the print size 4’x 8’. Any suggestions? Thanks. TT

Tri,

You have several choices, some more expensive than the others.

At the lower end, try an older Epson 1600 or Microtek 9800XL. Scan resolution is 1600 dpi, enough to enlarge a 12X20 negative to 4' X 8', but just barely.\

For bertter results, consider the Epson 10000 XL or the Microtek 1000XL. You get up to 2400 dpi or 3200 dpi.

With any of these scanners you will have to stitch since they are 12X17" tabloid types, but this is easy to do with current Photoshop CS2 or CS3.

At a higher end you might want to consider an EverSmart or Cezanne.

Sandy

[Michael Roberts]

TT:
one option is to scan it in sections and use the stitching feature in Photoshop to assemble the multiple scans into a single image file.

[Lenny Eiger]

Dear Friends,
How do you digitize the file if you have a negative size bigger than 8x10. What would be the cost to scan the 12’x20’ negative excluding the cost of the print if I want the print size 4’x 8’. Any suggestions? Thanks. TT

The best option is to either purchase or find someone with a Howtek 7500 drum scanner. These scanners can scan an original up to 18 x 24, super sharp. If it's over that size, just make a contact print.

Lenny
EigerStudios.com

[Tri Tran]

Thank you for your suggestion. I offered the customer contact print, but he chose to go with bigger print size. I guess size does matter to him. Customer is a King.
Sandy, I will shop for the scanner. Best. TT

[sanking]

Thank you for your suggestion. I offered the customer contact print, but he chose to go with bigger print size. I guess size does matter to him. Customer is a King.
Sandy, I will shop for the scanner. Best. TT

Tri,

With all due respect to Lenny Eiger, I would suggest that you discard his advice re: the Howteck 7500. This is a very complicated piece of equipment and one that is difficult to keep going.

Much better in my opinion to look for one of the high end flatbeds, say EverSmart or Ceanne Elite. These units, though large, are much more reliable than drum scanners, and they provide way more performance than you will need for 12X20 scans for any size print up to 48" X 80".

Sandy

[IanMazursky]

Sandy,

Cant argue with you about the 7500. I have 2. I do love my Howtek's!
They are the best but like all pieces of very expensive equipment, you have to baby them.
I would watch out for all of the used scitex/creo scanners. With the state of Kodak (they bought out creo), I wouldn't put it past them to put support out to pasture. If someone does buy one, make sure its a recent one and see if you can get one for parts.

[Tri Tran]

Tri,

With all due respect to Lenny Eiger, I would suggest that you discard his advice re: the Howteck 7500. This is a very complicated piece of equipment and one that is difficult to keep going.

Much better in my opinion to look for one of the high end flatbeds, say EverSmart or Ceanne Elite. These units, though large, are much more reliable than drum scanners, and they provide way performance than you will need for 12X20 scans for any size print up to 48" X 80".

Sandy

I hear you, Sandy. Now I have to google to find info for these EverSmart or Ceanne Elite .Where can I get those? Are these scanner cost and an arm, a leg and a body too? Thanks again. TT

[sanking]

Sandy,

Cant argue with you about the 7500. I have 2. I do love my Howtek's!
They are the best but like all pieces of very expensive equipment, you have to baby them.
I would watch out for all of the used scitex/creo scanners. With the state of Kodak (they bought out creo), I wouldn't put it past them to put support out to pasture. If someone does buy one, make sure its a recent one and see if you can get one for parts.

Ian,

I agree with you about ultimate quality of Howtek scanners. In fact, I am working with someone right now with 4X5 negatives on a Howtek 6500 which provides performance beyond my scanning ability. However, drum scan performance of over 5000 ppi is simply overkiil for 12X20 negatives, unless you plan to make billboard size prints that will be viewed at 10"-12". This is the nature of my remarks re: Lenny Eiger.

As for Kodak support of the older EverSmart scanners, useless in my opinion. I will try to keep mine going with 3rd party support since Kodak/Creo is crap, or below crap. I woud never buy an IQSmart from Kodak based on the crappy support I have gotten with my EverSmart.

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

Tri, contact me off the Forum for info on sources for used Screen Cezanne scanners and new and used Kodak/Creo. Right now Kodak has a $2000 rebate going on the IQsmart2.

Sandy, how about some details on the support issues? Your talking about your Eversmart Pro, correct?

[sanking]

Sandy, how about some details on the support issues? Your talking about your Eversmart Pro, correct?


Ted, don't get me started on the support issue, please. Basically it is useless unless you have a support contract with them. No one will even talk to you about any technical matter unless you spend something like a minimum of $200 for a support call. When I got my scanner I tried to find out if there was any way to make it work with oXYgen, which would allow high bit saves. All I wanted was a simple yes or no answer. I eventually found the answer, but no thanks to Kodak.

I understand this is the old Scitex way of doing business, adopted by Creo and then Kodak. But it does not work for folks like me.


Sandy

[jetcode]

I hear you, Sandy. Now I have to google to find info for these EverSmart or Ceanne Elite .Where can I get those? Are these scanner cost and an arm, a leg and a body too? Thanks again. TT

I purchased a Cezanne Elite shipped to my doorstep for $5900. Like Sandy said. I find that the scans are everything I will ever need from a scanner. In fact in my recent work my choice of film, Bergger 200, made a greater impact on the images then the lens I used or the scans I made at 3600spi.

[jetcode]

However, drum scan performance of over 5000 ppi is simply overkiil for 12X20 negatives, unless you plan to make billboard size prints that will be viewed at 10"-12".
Sandy King

I recently scanned a 4x10 image at 3600ppi (Cezanne Elite). Using a print resolution of 720dpi the image (cropped) is 3' long, at 360dpi 6' long and at 72dpi (100% on my monitor which provides great image detail including film grain) 30' long. The Elite is spec'd to scan up to 5300spi.

I suspect the high end drum scanners make a significant usable difference with smaller film formats.

[Dan Schmidt]

Dear Friends,
How do you digitize the file if you have a negative size bigger than 8x10. What would be the cost to scan the 12’x20’ negative excluding the cost of the print if I want the print size 4’x 8’. Any suggestions? Thanks. TT


I feel like Tri Tran was looking for an option which was not buy a scanner, but where to find an outfit that will scan the negative and find out about how much would it cost.

If you can't find someone who will do this with a negative, what about making a nice contact print and having a local graphics place with a decent large flatbed scanner scan the print? Then print enlargements from that.

[sanking]

I feel like Tri Tran was looking for an option which was not buy a scanner, but where to find an outfit that will scan the negative and find out about how much would it cost.

If you can't find someone who will do this with a negative, what about making a nice contact print and having a local graphics place with a decent large flatbed scanner scan the print? Then print enlargements from that.

You may be right in that Tri was looking for someone to scan his negative. If so he might contact Ted or Lenny or someone else who can make the scan.

Making a contact print and then making a digital file from the print is not a good option IMO because it will result in a great loss of detail and sharpness going to 4' X 8'. To make a print that size that takes full advantage of the negative will require a scan with resolution of at least 1440 ppi.

Sandy King

[Tri Tran]

You may be right in that Tri was looking for someone to scan his negative. If so he might contact Ted or Lenny or someone else who can make the scan.

Making a contact print and then making a digital file from the print is not a good option IMO because it will result in a great loss of detail and sharpness going to 4' X 8'. To make a print that size that takes full advantage of the negative will require a scan with resolution of at least 1440 ppi.

Sandy King

Thanks everyone for the great advises and suggestion.I called several graphic art lab and they all suggest to reproduce the contact print with digital scan back . I fully agreed with Sandy that it will lost some details vs scan at high resolution. But for high ticket item scan I don't think I have enough use for that machine especially 98% my works are contact print . The solution for me is better off paying somebody to do this kind of work as far as I go .If you know someone would do this kind of service please forward me the info off site is much appreciated.Thanks again and have a good one. TT

[Kirk Gittings]

Email Ted Harris on this forum. He can scan 12x17. So you will end up with a single stitch.

[Lenny Eiger]

Tri,

With all due respect to Lenny Eiger, I would suggest that you discard his advice re: the Howteck 7500. This is a very complicated piece of equipment and one that is difficult to keep going.

Much better in my opinion to look for one of the high end flatbeds, say EverSmart or Ceanne Elite. These units, though large, are much more reliable than drum scanners, and they provide way more performance than you will need for 12X20 scans for any size print up to 48" X 80".

Sandy

That doesn't sound like all due respect to me, telling someone to discard my advice. You are always welcome to disagree. Telling them to discard my advices suggests that I am giving people incorrect information, and that you know better. Apparently, you don't have a Howtek drum scanner, or any drum scanner, for that matter, so I don't know how you can speak to their complexity or reliabilty.

The 6500/7500 is not a complicated piece of equipment - certainly not any more than a high end flatbed. They are available as refurbished equipment, and they are currently supported by Aztek. It's easy to get a refurb drum, have a maintenance done, etc. It's also easy to mount an image and do a great scan.

I know this is a point in contention, partially because of Bill Gillooley's assertions that a couple of the top flatbeds can equal the output of a drum scanner. I respect Bill, and I know he believes what he says, but I don't believe it for a minute, and no one has been able to come up with any evidence to this effect. As far as I am concerned, a drum scan is far superior, sharper, PMT is clearly better technology.

I now have a Premier, which is a new machine, but I ran a Howtek 4500 for years and I never had to take it apart, or do anything special to it.

There was one other questions as to why one would need 5000 dpi on such a large neg. The 6500/7500 (same machine) had two drums. the smaller one did 5000 dpi, the larger one does only 2500. It's still a lot, but one doesn't have to use it all....

Lenny
EigerStudios

[sanking]

Lenny,

How plain can it be? I believe you are giving bad advice and should stop it. Suggesting that someone needs to make a scan of a 12X20" negative with a drum scanner for a final print of the size indicated by the OP (4' X 8') is ludicrous. Your answer to every scan question appears to be, get a drum scan. Well, a drum scan is not necessary for everything.

I have had scans made with drum scanners, I have worked with drum scanners, and I have spoken to numerous people about them and I feel every bit as qualified as you to comment about them. The comments I have had from people in the industry is that they are much more prone to breaking down than high end flatbeds.

I have never said that a top professional flatbed can output a top of the line drum scanner. In fact, I am absolutely certain that a Howtek 6500/7500 is capable of better absolute performance than the very best professional flatbed. But your suggestion that someone needs to scan a 12X20" negative with a drums scanner is simply absurd. Unless you plan to print at more than 8' X 16', in which case the proposition might make some sense. You really need to do some calculations about image quality before running off your mouth about the advantages of a drum scanner every time someone asks about a scan. Have you ever made a scan of a 12X20" or larger negative? I have made many, and your suggestion that a drum scanner is needed for the print size indicated by the OP is just flat false. And the file size is further severely limited by potential of your computer and software. A scan of a 12X20 negative on my EverSmart Pro at 3175 ppi, at 16 bit, gives a final file size of over 4.5 gig. Even half that much resolution (1600 ppi at 16 bit at 1.15 gig) gives way more than needed for a 4'X8' print. And files of 1.15 gig and 4.5 gig take a long time to process here where I work.

Sandy King





That doesn't sound like all due respect to me, telling someone to discard my advice. You are always welcome to disagree. Telling them to discard my advices suggests that I am giving people incorrect information, and that you know better. Apparently, you don't have a Howtek drum scanner, or any drum scanner, for that matter, so I don't know how you can speak to their complexity or reliabilty.

The 6500/7500 is not a complicated piece of equipment - certainly not any more than a high end flatbed. They are available as refurbished equipment, and they are currently supported by Aztek. It's easy to get a refurb drum, have a maintenance done, etc. It's also easy to mount an image and do a great scan.

I know this is a point in contention, partially because of Bill Gillooley's assertions that a couple of the top flatbeds can equal the output of a drum scanner. I respect Bill, and I know he believes what he says, but I don't believe it for a minute, and no one has been able to come up with any evidence to this effect. As far as I am concerned, a drum scan is far superior, sharper, PMT is clearly better technology.

I now have a Premier, which is a new machine, but I ran a Howtek 4500 for years and I never had to take it apart, or do anything special to it.

There was one other questions as to why one would need 5000 dpi on such a large neg. The 6500/7500 (same machine) had two drums. the smaller one did 5000 dpi, the larger one does only 2500. It's still a lot, but one doesn't have to use it all....

Lenny
EigerStudios

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

How plain can it be? I believe you are giving bad advice and I don't have a lot of respect for people who give bad advice.

The feeling is mutual. I believe you are giving bad advice. I don't choose to disrespect you over it as I don't think its necessary to get personal here. We are talking about things, and concepts like sharpness. Your answer is almost always a flatbed scanner. Preferably the one you bought.

I am in my 50's, have been doing photography since I was 9, have at least as much experience as you in every aspect of the sport. I have Masters degrees and everything else, and I am a serious artist (or at least I take myself seriously). I run a drum scanner every day, and I have for years. There is no reason for any disrespect, it is beneath you.

It's easy enough to direct a comment towards a person that with respect suggests that you disagree wholeheartedly, or that your experience has been quite different. That's healthy for everyone.



Suggesting that someone needs to make a scan of a 12X20" negative with a drum scanner for a final print of the size indicated by the OP (4' X 8') is ludicrous. Your answer to every scan question appears to be, get a drum scan. Well, a drum scan is not necessary for everything.


I'm sorry, if I was going to make an 8 foot print, I'd want to use a drum scanner. Plain and simple. I just made a 20 foot print - and you better believe I used a drum scanner, and at the highest setting. Do I think he needs one for a 40 inch from a 20 inch neg? No. But if I had 5K to spend and I had my choice of flatbed or drum scanner, it wouldn't be hard choice. Especially if we are talking about the low to mid range flatbeds. These things are with the reach of many people.

Does every amateur need a drum scanner? No, of course not. There are many people who want to print to 8x10 or 11x14 and never go any larger. They have a lot of choices.



I have had scans made with drum scanners, I have worked with drum scanners, and I have spoken to numerous people about them and I feel every bit as qualified as you to comment about them. The comments I have had from people in the industry is that they are much more prone to breaking down than high end flatbeds.


Maybe I have just been lucky. Haven't been down for a single day in 6 years. I know that there are a lot of scanners out there that are a lot older than mine have been, and some where someone is repairing things with parts from another and all... all to save a buck. It's great, if someone has more time than funds... and the desire to tinker a bit. And I don't think that you can be every bit as qualified as someone who actually uses a drum scanner unless you have one yourself. There's plenty to learn.



I have never said that a top professional flatbed can output a top of the line drum scanner. In fact, I am absolutely certain that a Howtek 6500/7500 is capable of better absolute performance than the very best professional flatbed. But your suggestion that someone needs to scan a 12X20" negative with a drums scanner is simply absurd. Unless you plan to print at more than 8' X 16', in which case the proposition might make some sense. You really need to do some calculations about image quality before running off your mouth about the advantages of a drum scanner every time someone asks about a scan. Have you ever made a scan of a 12X20" or larger negative? I have made many, and your suggestion that a drum scanner is needed for the print size indicated by the OP is just flat false.


Of course, no one "needs to" do anything. However, I've made a few 8 foot prints in my time. One thing I noticed is that every little detail is right there for everyone to see - even at half that size. I also noticed that unless there was a barrier in front of the image, every person walked right up to it and got as close as their eyes could focus. The concept of a viewing distance that people will adhere to in their own, is simply unrealistic. When people get that close to my work, I'd want whatever pixels they get to see to be as sharp and clean as possible.

There are plenty of calculations that one could do. Some times they work and some times they don't. I asked Phil Lippincott about the Nyquist theorem once. He just laughed and told me it just didn't work in real life... Now, I can't judge that one - I am not going to dismiss either Lippincott or Nyquist, both giants in their own way. However, I have noticed that some things that ought to work mathematically don't, maybe there's a few more variables not counted for, and results on the physical plane are a little different. Do I think you can make an 8 foot print from the flatbed - of course. Would it be better off the drum? I would be willing to bet it would... that's just my opinion, tho'. Depends on what someone wants out of the print.

Lenny Eiger

[sanking]

Your answer is almost always a flatbed scanner. Preferably the one you bought

Lenny Eiger

No, I recommend the right tool for the job, taking into consideration cost and final print size. When that means getting maximum potential from my Mamiya 7 negatives I recognize that a drum scan at 5000 ppi or more is needed. And I have said so many times on various forums.

When I need to make a 4'X8' print from a 12X20" negative, a scan from high end flatbed like the EverSmart or Screen Cezanne provides an excess of detail and sharpness.

With 4X5 or 5X7 negatives, one could make a case for a drum scan, a scan with a high end flatbed, or "God Forbid" even a scan with a lowly Epson. Depends on final print size. Ken Lee, and a number of other photographers, have shown beautiful prints in sizes up to 16X20 from 4X5 and 5X7 negatives scanned with the Epson 4990.

You, on the other hand, always recommend a drum scan. Regardless of negative size, regardless of final print size, regardless of intended us.


Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

You, on the other hand, always recommend a drum scan. Regardless of negative size, regardless of final print size, regardless of intended us.
Sandy King

Unlike yourself, I haven't seen prints I like at 20 inches made from an Epson, or similar scanner. I can't say its impossible, altho' maybe improbable. It's possible I am looking for different things in a print. I do have high standards, as I am sure do you. If someone has succeeded in creating a great result with an imperfect tool, then - if its real - we can all celebrate.

I have two general concerns. The first is that people should have good information. I think the Epson scanners come with coke bottle lenses. Epson wants you to believe they can scan at a real rez of 6500. That's obviously not true as you know and have stated. As you say, there is an appropriate tool for any job. I think people ought to know the limits of the tool they are buying, despite deceptive advertising. I think people should know that an Imacon is a CCD scanner, not a PMT, for instance, and that they could get one hell of a better scanner (in terms of quality) for 18K (or even half that), as one example. I also think its great when people know that despite the fact that they have a 35mm camera, they are aware if they want more print quality, that stepping up to medium format would make a big difference - that 35mm is not the end-all in print quality. They will then shoot what they do knowing they have choices. 35mm might be just the perfect balance for them and their chosen subject and print needs.

I also don't ascribe to the "scan for the job" philosophy. I think that digital cameras will get better over time and that one day most of us will be using them. Scanners will ultimately go the way of all things. How long that will take I have no idea.... but I think I am right about this. Given this, wouldn't it be nice if you had full size scans of the images that are your best, or your favorites. Not only should they be full size, but given that there is not any real scanning improvement coming along because of digital, shouldn't they be scanned with all the richness of the best technology available. This way, years from now you won't need a larger scan to do a larger print - or simply a better one. You will already have one. If you don't need the pixels, you can archive the master copy and downsize to what you need right now.

That might explain some of why I like drum scans so much. I also think they are a lot more within reach than many people think.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[Kirk Gittings]

95% of the people on this forum are amateurs and hobbyists who do not have the resources, time or interest to only pursue the "final [quality] option", ie a drum scanner for their day to day photography pursuits. It is one thing to suggest this as the best quality option. It is quite another to suggest all other possibilities are so inferior that they are without merit to anyone.

A few weeks back a contributer here took me to task for this very same error and he was right. I was not taking into account where people are at. I was looking at their scanning by my goals, based on my needs and resources.

As Sandy said. The plain fact is most people here could get what they want from a careful Epson 750 scan for small prints and an occasional drum scan for larger prints.

[sanking]

Lenny,

I don't disagree (ast least strongly) with anything you have said here, so I am going to close down this personal exchange, hopefully on a good note. I have sent you a personal pm and hope you consider the contents.

Regards,

Sandy King







Unlike yourself, I haven't seen prints I like at 20 inches made from an Epson, or similar scanner. I can't say its impossible, altho' maybe improbable. It's possible I am looking for different things in a print. I do have high standards, as I am sure do you. If someone has succeeded in creating a great result with an imperfect tool, then - if its real - we can all celebrate.

I have two general concerns. The first is that people should have good information. I think the Epson scanners come with coke bottle lenses. Epson wants you to believe they can scan at a real rez of 6500. That's obviously not true as you know and have stated. As you say, there is an appropriate tool for any job. I think people ought to know the limits of the tool they are buying, despite deceptive advertising. I think people should know that an Imacon is a CCD scanner, not a PMT, for instance, and that they could get one hell of a better scanner (in terms of quality) for 18K (or even half that), as one example. I also think its great when people know that despite the fact that they have a 35mm camera, they are aware if they want more print quality, that stepping up to medium format would make a big difference - that 35mm is not the end-all in print quality. They will then shoot what they do knowing they have choices. 35mm might be just the perfect balance for them and their chosen subject and print needs.

I also don't ascribe to the "scan for the job" philosophy. I think that digital cameras will get better over time and that one day most of us will be using them. Scanners will ultimately go the way of all things. How long that will take I have no idea.... but I think I am right about this. Given this, wouldn't it be nice if you had full size scans of the images that are your best, or your favorites. Not only should they be full size, but given that there is not any real scanning improvement coming along because of digital, shouldn't they be scanned with all the richness of the best technology available. This way, years from now you won't need a larger scan to do a larger print - or simply a better one. You will already have one. If you don't need the pixels, you can archive the master copy and downsize to what you need right now.

That might explain some of why I like drum scans so much. I also think they are a lot more within reach than many people think.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[sanking]

Just a brief epilogue.


I was too abrupt, and perhaps rude, in my response to Lenny regarding his suggestion that the OP have his 12X20 negative scanned on a Howtek 7500. I should have simply remarked that the suggestion was one that would give optimum print quality, but that IMO doing a drum scan was overkill given the projected print size of the OP.

Although I have some fundamental differences of opinion with Lenny, I respect his commitment to quality, and on the whole we probably agree about more things than we disagree. I apologize for any lack of respect toward Lenny in my exchange on this subject.

Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

95% of the people on this forum are amateurs and hobbyists who do not have the resources, time or interest to only pursue the "final [quality] option", ie a drum scanner for their day to day photography pursuits. It is one thing to suggest this as the best quality option. It is quite another to suggest all other possibilities are so inferior that they are without merit to anyone.

As Sandy said. The plain fact is most people here could get what they want from a careful Epson 750 scan for small prints and an occasional drum scan for larger prints.

Kirk,
Point taken.
I know there is a large hobbyist presence. At the same time, some of them become pros, or want to get pro-level results. I think its very important to have a few pros around who can explain how to get these results. A number of folks lately have asked questions as a preparation for printing an exhibition. They have also asked whether there will be any difference in certain products, or results from those products.

We all know that there isn't going to be any difference (given no wind) if someone goes out shooting with a cardboard camera with a great lens vs the latest Ebony with the same lens. But there will be a difference if they are using a piece of tin foil with a hole in it. It will still produce a photograph, but its important to note that there will be a difference. I only get riled up when people suggest there won't be.

I don't mean to suggest that all else is useless, and if it comes across that way, I apologize to everyone. I'm just trying to set the record straight.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

I suspect that anyone who takes the time, energy and resources to make a ULF negative will soon opt for a scanning means that will hold the detail of the original.

[Ted Harris]

Boy am I glad I was at Photo LA and in Monterey while most of this was going on :).

Three small points:

1) Sandy you are right about the support model and it is part of something I have stressed in every article I have written about purchasing high end scanners (flatbed or drum) in the used market; simply that when you do so you are purchasing a highly sophisticated industrial machine for something in the range of 5 cents on the dollar. Having done that you have to pray that you don't need much in the way of support or replacement parts because you can expect to pay for those parts and that service just as if you were one of the original industrial users. The folks that buy these machines new and even those that buy some of the used ones from brokers are used to the world of service contracts. I have always found that paying for service contracts is a wise investment for equipment I need to earn a living. Alternatively, doing the cost tradeoff of living without and perhaps just replacing something when a machine goes down and fixing it is too expensive. Same holds with software tech support.

2) Lenny, no one here or in other threads where these these issues have come up, has been comparing drum scanners. They have been comparing them to high end flatbed scanners for use with 4x5 and up film sizes. My point is and always has been that they perform the same for normal enlargement sizes .... say up to 8x. This is born out by the only objective comparative test ever made of a large group of high end scanners, the Seybold tests which I have referenced frequently. It's really not a question of "mine is better than yours" all of these machines do what they are manufactured to do. If I were making a print that was 5' on its smaller side I might look at results from a drum v. those from an IQsmart 3 or Howtek or Screen flatbed and only after seeing that test would I make the final decision. When a client wants a final print that size we are talking about a commission that warrants such a comparison. Frankly I don't thin a 40x50 does. Finally, I am not at all convinced that the results at the huge size would be that different but I won't know nor am I willing to speculate until I have the need for such a large print. Kirk's post above says it all.

3) Kirk slightly underestimated the size of my scanning bed. No stitching required for a 12x20. Either scanner goes to 12 x 23.

[QT Luong]

With all respects due to Sandy, this thread started on the wrong footing with his answer.

Unless you anticipate having the need to do a lot of scans, it doesn't make sense to purchase your own scanner. Many drum scanners and a few high-end flatbeds can do your negative size.

You are looking at a RGB file size of about 800GB if printing at 240dpi (double that if you want 360dpi printing). The cost of such a scan is in general in the $200-$300 range, regardless of the scanner used. I would email the participants in this forum (in particular those who have replied to you in this thread) for a custom quote. I think they will have better pricing for such large scans than the usual labs.

[sanking]

With all respects due to Sandy, this thread started on the wrong footing with his answer.

Unless you anticipate having the need to do a lot of scans, it doesn't make sense to purchase your own scanner. Many drum scanners and a few high-end flatbeds can do your negative size.

You are looking at a RGB file size of about 800GB if printing at 240dpi (double that if you want 360dpi printing). The cost of such a scan is in general in the $200-$300 range, regardless of the scanner used. I would email the participants in this forum (in particular those who have replied to you in this thread) for a custom quote. I think they will have better pricing for such large scans than the usual labs.


My thinking on this is that many people will want to do their own scanning for both artistic control and for reasons pertaining to work flow. Since the issue here is scanning a 12X20" negative for output at 4' X 8' one can get by, with no loss of quality IMO, with a fairly inexpensive scanner. In fact, although the conversation got diverted to high end flatbed versus drum scanner, one can get very high quality from 12X20" negatives in 4'X8' size from much less expensive scanners such as the Epson 10000XL or the Microtek 1000XL, both of which can be had for around or under $3k. If you were to scan at maximum resolution with these scanners you would have 600 ppi or 800 ppi at output size of 4' X 8'.

If the going rate for such a such is indeed $200-300, one would only need to do 10-12 scans to recoup investment. If I were in the position of Tri I would consider having one scan made with a very high end flatbed or drum scanner, and another with the Microtek 1000XL or Epson 10000XL. Make 4'X8' prints from the two files, evaluate, and draw conclusions.

Sandy King

[jetcode]

the beauty in owning your own scanner is that you can spend as long as it takes to get the kind of image you want, this alone is precious, add that the cost of my scanner is recouped in 60 $100 scans and it becomes obvious why this investment is essential for anyone who wants to fully explore every image they produce