Screen Cezanne Users Unite

[jetcode]

It appears there are now 5 of us here that use the Screen Cezanne and Cezanne Elite. Maybe we can use this thread to exchange ideas and scanning experiences. Ted has been a valuable resource and likely the one with the most experience.

It turns out that most of us have Version 1.x software while I believe Ted has version 2.x. I have not seen these releases side by side to know the differences if there are any. As far as I can tell Version 2.x is a rewrite for OSX.

Feel free to share anything here and thanks to the LF forum folks for making this possible.

Joe

[Scott Rosenberg]

Excellent idea for a thread, Joe. I will officially be in the 'Cezanne Club' come the first week of March, as that's when my scanner is due to arrive.

Mine is shipping with a version of CG1.0, so i won't be able to offer any inputs on differences in the applications beyond what Screen USA told me, which is reduced scan times (by half) and as you noted, OSX compatibility.

If you guys have any suggestions for a first timer that would help me along the learning curve, I'd be very grateful for any inputs.

[bglick]

Scott, did you buy a new Elite scanner? If so, what are they selling for now ? Did you buy direct, or a dealer?

When you say it will scan in half the time, I think you are referring to the Elite vs. the Original Cezzanne (non Elite). right? I don't think software was ever the bottleneck...

[Ted Harris]

Scott got a great deal on a used Elite as I recall :). They are still available new but are (almost) made to order. I don't think they sell 10 of them a year worldwide. The last time I asked, which was nearly three years ago, they were selling direct from Screen for 18-24K factory refurished and IIRC over 30K new. IMO, it makes o sense to buy one new when you get better all around performance from the Kodak/Creo IQsmsart 2 and 3 and a lower price.

The Elite's main advantage over the original Cezanne is its speed and it is a hardware/firmware change AFAIK, both machine use basically the same software. In the 2000 Seybold tests the original machine got overall slightly higher marks than the Elite.

[jetcode]

Scott got a great deal on a used Elite as I recall :). They are still available new but are (almost) made to order. I don't think they sell 10 of them a year worldwide. The last time I asked, which was nearly three years ago, they were selling direct from Screen for 18-24K factory refurished and IIRC over 30K new. IMO, it makes o sense to buy one new when you get better all around performance from the Kodak/Creo IQsmsart 2 and 3 and a lower price.

The Elite's main advantage over the original Cezanne is its speed and it is a hardware/firmware change AFAIK, both machine use basically the same software. In the 2000 Seybold tests the original machine got overall slightly higher marks than the Elite.

did you investigate the yellow color cast in your Cezanne scan test?

[Scott Rosenberg]

Scott, did you buy a new Elite scanner? If so, what are they selling for now ? Did you buy direct, or a dealer?

When you say it will scan in half the time, I think you are referring to the Elite vs. the Original Cezzanne (non Elite). right? I don't think software was ever the bottleneck...

hey guys, i picked up a used screen cezanne, not the elite. and yes, i was mistaken - the elite scans faster than the cezanne regardless of the software version.

[Ted Harris]

Joe, not yet. Maybe later in the week. I've been busy with the magazine and scanning on the IQsmart 3 for clients and printing for a show.

However, since I've scanned since that one with no problems my guess is a powerline 'burp' .... I did notice the battery in the UPS is dead which would also kill the power smoothing functions.

[jetcode]

Joe, not yet. Maybe later in the week. I've been busy with the magazine and scanning on the IQsmart 3 for clients and printing for a show.

However, since I've scanned since that one with no problems my guess is a powerline 'burp' .... I did notice the battery in the UPS is dead which would also kill the power smoothing functions.

power is not likely the problem as the power supply in these scanners is pretty high end and it would seem that a brownout would generate a power failure detection which is standard practice on high end equipment over the last 20 years, the yellow color cast appears to be in all the scans not just one and I notice the sharpness of what I suspect is a 3d object isn't that great? was it the elite that improved upon 3d objects, it was some scanner family that I read somewhere

well if you are done with your Cezanne I'm sure someone would like to buy it, the IQ3 sounds like it's serving you well

[Ted Harris]

Joe, what do you mean by "apparent in all scans" there is only one scan in question, all the images you see are crops from the same scan? As I noted the color shift wasn't there in a couple of subsequent scans.

[jetcode]

Joe, what do you mean by "apparent in all scans" there is only one scan in question, all the images you see are crops from the same scan? As I noted the color shift wasn't there in a couple of subsequent scans.

interesting - I suppose it would help if I read the actual test procedures - I would like to scan that target on my Elite to provide yet another sample for the comparison chart - if more than one scan was made how did the one with the yellow cast become the reference for scanner comparison? (not a problem Ted, just curious as it becomes representative for folks on this forum) - also it appears that the Cezanne scans are nowhere near as sharp as the iq3 counterparts and I would have thought them to be somewhat closer

[Peter De Smidt]

Today I tested a custom holder that has an optical glass (low iron glass) sheet held such that a negative taped to the bottom is at the same height as one sandwhiched between the standard Screen anti-newton glass sheet and the plastic anti-Newton holder. I used a 35mm technical pan negative scanned at 5300 spi. The short story is that the Screen AN sandwich holder was sharper by a little bit. I'll have to get out the micrometer and check the measurements, and I'll run another test with a different film, but it looks like good news, since avoiding Newton's rings with the glass holder would probably require wet-mounting.

[jetcode]

Thanks Peter

I think between those of us here we can fine tune the scanning we do. Look forward to hearing more and offering what I can.

[bglick]

Peter, is this overlay glass the same type as Screen sells with the scanner?

[Peter De Smidt]

No, the overlay glass is plain optical glass. In fact, it's the glass tray from an Agfa t2500 scanner. The type that Screen sells with the scanner, and which costs $1500 to replace btw, has a fairly heavy textured anti-Newton surface. My test was to see if that texture causes a loss of resolution. So far, it doesn't look like it.

[Peter De Smidt]

Just FYI the original Screen tray is 5mm thick plastic, probably acrylic. This is good in that any of us are unlikely to break it, but it's bad from the point of view of scratching. Mine is pretty marked. Does anyone know if acrylic can be buffed?

[Peter De Smidt]

Just tried scanning with the negative on top of glass in my custom glass tray. Boy, it's really hard to tell if there's any difference from the Screen holder. Of the three channels, the red was the lightest, the green was darker but of the same contrast, and the blue was contrastier. I really couldn't notice much difference in noise. As an interesting aside, the red channel showed Newton's rings, the green channel showed them even more so, and the blue channel didn't show any.

[jetcode]

Just tried scanning with the negative on top of glass in my custom glass tray. Boy, it's really hard to tell if there's any difference from the Screen holder. Of the three channels, the red was the lightest, the green was darker but of the same contrast, and the blue was contrastier. I really couldn't notice much difference in noise. As an interesting aside, the red channel showed Newton's rings, the green channel showed them even more so, and the blue channel didn't show any.

I have some of the same problems you face but then again I think others do too. My glass is not perfect but it is not that bad either. I find that I have to do a lot of spotting for dust and Newton rings if indeed that is what these swirly patterns are in my images. I am not convinced they are Newton rings because they don't appear to be ring like but again I have not had an expert sit down with me yet either. In any case I can edit images to produce really clean beautiful images.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yeah my standard tray is fairly marked up. I have the combination tray as well. This holds six inserts, either glassless holders or resin sandwich style holder. The resin holder work well, but they are about 5.5" square, and so they don't completely hold a standard strip of negatives. By standard strip I mean one that'll fit in the usual 8.5 x 11 " negative pages. I really hate the idea of cutting roll film up into individual frames. In fact, I won't do it. That's the main impetus behind my finding an easy to remove glass tray.

Btw., does anyone have the part number for the "transparent original retaining plate"? This is the plastic sheet that you put masks on, tape the negative to the sheet, and then lay the sheet down on the standard "glass" tray. I don't want to bother Kristen again at Screen unless I really have to.

[jetcode]

Yeah my standard tray is fairly marked up. I have the combination tray as well. This holds six inserts, either glassless holders or resin sandwich style holder. The resin holder work well, but they are about 5.5" square, and so they don't completely hold a standard strip of negatives. By standard strip I mean one that'll fit in the usual 8.5 x 11 " negative pages. I really hate the idea of cutting roll film up into individual frames. In fact, I won't do it. That's the main impetus behind my finding an easy to remove glass tray.

Btw., does anyone have the part number for the "transparent original retaining plate"? This is the plastic sheet that you put masks on, tape the negative to the sheet, and then lay the sheet down on the standard "glass" tray. I don't want to bother Kristen again at Screen unless I really have to.

I don't have a problem cutting MF strips or 35mm strips for that matter.
I'd bother Kristen - your scanner - Screen service department

[Ted Harris]

I wouldn't bother Kirsten too much unless you are prepared to pay normal industrial prices for the parts. To give you an example, replacement glass tray/scanning bed for an IQsmart 3 is $1700 and an Eversmart Pro is $1400. Bulbs from Screen are $200.

[Peter De Smidt]

Supposedly the tray is $150, which is high but obtainable. But I'll probably try sanding/polishing a few sheets of acrylic from Home Depot first. Anyway, I think I found the number.U0750250-00 TRANSPARENT O. RETAINING PLATE

My latest tests are showing slightly, and I mean slightly, greater detail with my custom tray. I actually found my resolution test slide this morning, though, and so I'll have to run some tests with this.

[hbjornson]

I am new to the cezanne 5500 but am noticing newton rings while scanning 4x5 negs thru the plastic transparency cover that came with the scanner. It is the plastic sheet with the black handles on each side. It's rather heavily textured plastic worries me. I can't help but believe that it cuts down on sharpness. Mine is also scratched!
Are we sure that wet mounting isn't better?
Howard

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Howard,

I'm not sure. My tests last night showed no real difference with the wet mounting, at least with my fine-grained test slide. One issue with wet mounting on a flat-bed is keeping the negative flat if the negative is curled. On a drum scanner, you're fastening to a cylinder, and so as you pull the mylar cover sheet tight, it pulls the negative flat. On a flatbed, you simply can't pull the mylar as tight, and so the negative can still rise up a bit.

So far my tests show a very, very slight loss of sharpness using the AN holders. I have doubts that this would ever be visible. I'm really surprized, though, that you're getting Newtons rings. According to Screen, you're supposed to mount the negatives in the following way. Lay the transparent original retaining plate (TORP) on it's handles. Put a masking overlat on the TORP. Tape the negative emulsion down in the opening of the mask. Finally, lay the TORP down on the standard "glass" tray and scan. Doing this sandwhichs the negative between two textured surfaces, and so you shouldn't get Newton's rings. If you still are, and you're using bw negatives, try scanning as a slide and then examine the color channels in Photoshop. So far I only get rings when using plain glass, but I don't get the rings in the blue channel.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've made some ICC profiles for the Cezanne using Wolf Faust's IT8 targets. If anyone would like them, PM me, and I can email them to you.

You would use my settings in ColorGenius. Then when you import the file into photoshop you'd tag the image with the icc file and covert to your editing space.

[Peter De Smidt]

Just an update. Regarding making a good anti newton cover sheet: so far, no luck. I used methods recommend for making a ground glass using telescope mirror grinding powers, i.e. very fine aluminum oxide. With the acrylic this does produce a nice diffusion, but there must be larger particles in the AO, and this creates a few definite lines. Perhaps this is worse with acrylic than glass since the acrylic is softer. Anyway, I've simply decided to wet-mount all of my stuff anyway.

Recently, I started to scan some 4x5" film. The choice seems to be either to do 1 pass at 2100 spi or 2 passes at 4000 spi and combine in photoshop. Well, even though the settings were exactly the same, the results when manually stitched weren't ideal, as the tonal rendition didn't match up exactly. I'm sure that I could've futzed it some more, but at these file sizes, things are quite slow. (The scanner had been warmed up for at least an hour, and so that wasn't the issue.)

So I tried again. I used the channel mixer to convert both scan to bw using the green channel. I adjusted them using the "contrast" slide to match as close as I could. I then used "automate-->photomerge" to merge the two halves. Well, photoshop converts the BW to RGB when doing this, which is silly. It takes a while, but it did work fine.

I then downsized the bigger file from 4000 ppi to 2000 using "bicubric" interpolation with no added sharpening and compared it to the straight 2000 spi scan . The results are close, but the 4000 spi scans do produce better detail and sharpness on screen at 100%. Darn it. Working with the smaller scans is much faster. I'll have to print off some swatches and see how the prints compare.

With 4x5 a 2100 ppi file gives a 360 dpi print at about 20" x 26".

[jetcode]

I've made some ICC profiles for the Cezanne using Wolf Faust's IT8 targets. If anyone would like them, PM me, and I can email them to you.

You would use my settings in ColorGenius. Then when you import the file into photoshop you'd tag the image with the icc file and covert to your editing space.

thank you peter for your generous offer. I've been so busy working a print process I haven't had time to scan in several weeks.

[fabweb]

I got a Screen Cezanne Elite FT-S5500 without software.

I want to buy (guess I have to...) either a version of ColorGenius or ColorScope that runs with the machine.

Any sellers?

[Peter De Smidt]

Up until now, I've used my Cezanne mainly for BW negatives. It works fine. Recently, though, I've decided to do some shooting with 4x5 color, and so I've had to investigate color issues more closely. I compared scans from Kodak E100G slide film and Portra 160NC color negative film, and I used the profiles I made from Wolf Faust's IT8 targets and PhotoIccMinus profile maker for the slide scans. These profiles lost significant highlight detail. Mr. Faust suggested that I look into Iprof, which he thought would do a better job with slides than PhotoIccMinus. You can find Iprof at: http://lprof.sourceforge.net/ . I used the same scans to make the new profiles as I did the old, and the profiles made with Iprof did a much better job of preserving highlight detail.

[jetcode]

I have the Faust targets and IProf and have had no troubles even with reflective surfaces such as art.

[Dude5360]

My Scanner Operator update the firmware on my Screen Cezanne FTS5000. I can no longer access it using my software (Colorscope Pro 3 on OS 9).
I have called Screen and they told me the only way to change to firmware back is to use Colorgenius EX in OS X.
It took Screen a week to get back with me, at a cost of $1000, I could get the software. One of the techs at screen recommended this news group to reach out and find the software from another user.

I just need to use the colorgenius ex software to change the firmware back.

Can anyone help me out?

I also do not have a SCSI port in my Mac pro. Atto SCSI card is $500. Anybody have other ideas for a cheaper solution for SCSI on a Mac Pro

Thanks,
John Thomas
dudefirst@aol.com

[8x10 user]

I use an adaptec 2930 PCI to SCSI card on a G4. Should be about $20 or less on ebay.

[bagdad child]

Hi,

I have been fortunate to find an old Screen Cezanne. The scanner comes with a Mac with the software and lots of mounting frames for different sizes of originals. There is no operating or transport manual however. The scanner is now sitting inside the car as I am trying to figure out how to separate the cover or flap (I don't know the correct name) that extends out from the scanner bed. There are two grips underneath the flap but the problem is that the flap extends too far out which stops us from carrying the scanner through the door. How can I remove the flap from the scanner? Any help is most appreciated!

Chris

[Gem Singer]

Turn it on edge to get it through the door?

[bagdad child]

Turn it on edge to get it through the door?

The problem is that the flap extends too far out to enable my hands to reach the carrying handles and effectively carry the scanner with another person carrying using the handles on the opposite side of the scanner. The handles are located on the shorter sides of the scanner. There is no need to turn the scanner to get it through the door. The scanner is about 27 inches wide and fits allright through the door. I also don't believe it's a good idea to flip the scanner on its edge.

[bagdad child]

Problem solved

[Tsuyoshi]

Hi,

I have a Cezzane unit sitting here in our studio. It has been so long to get it going.

I bought the entire set and after we transported it to the studio, a hard drive failed. Since then I cannot get it going because it gives me a kernel panic whenever the scanner is on.

The system software is 10.3 and I cannot figure it out as to how to retrieve the log at all. I think I properly installed the driver for Adoptec SCSI card... (does anyone use the software on the later version of OS X like 10.4?).

Will anyone can give me a pointer as to how I can possibly get it goging? I would like to start making digital negatives from 8x10 and 7x17...

Again the whole set up used to work without any problem before it came to Philadelphia.

Thanks for your help!

tsuyoshi

Setup:
G5 Dual 2Ghz running OS X 10.3
Cezanne ET-5000
connected via Adpotec SCSI card with a driver (1.2)

[Peter De Smidt]

Do you have ColorGenius Software? If so, what edition?

[Tsuyoshi]

Hi Peter,

Yes, I do. It is 2.0.6.

Do you have any idea? Thanks!

Tsuyoshi

[Peter De Smidt]

First thing is to go to: http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/download/

Check out the software for your scanner. In the release notes there's often info about compatibility and so on.

After that, call Screen USA and ask for Kristen. Have all of your info ready, scsi card model....She should be able to help.

[Tsuyoshi]

Hi Peter,

Upon looking at their site, the idea came to me that I have not installed driver for the scanner itself. For some reason, I thought it was sufficient to install the driver for scsi card...

Let me see how it goes. If not, I will call Kristen.

Thanks!
tsuyoshi


First thing is to go to: http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/download/

Check out the software for your scanner. In the release notes there's often info about compatibility and so on.

After that, call Screen USA and ask for Kristen. Have all of your info ready, scsi card model....She should be able to help.

[Tsuyoshi]

I have a question. Maybe someone who knows Mac a lot can answer.

I am in OS 10.3, and I am tryng to install a driver for Adaptec 29160 (SCSI card). The file is called "Adaptec29160x.pkg." But the file does not show up as an excutable file, and it shows up as a folder in fact (picture 1).

But, if I take a look at the same file under 10.5 or so, it becomes an excutable file which looks like a a yellow box.

How can show this file as excuable under 10.3? Any suggestion would be helpful.

Thanks!

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

[Tsuyoshi]

OK,

I solved this problem. Someone in a Mac forum suggested me to use Installer in Utilities to open the file.

But that was not why it did not work in the first place. I just learned that I needed 1.3 version driver for this SCSI card (which came with the CD by the way...).

Now the machine is working fine (after 9 months)! I need to learn this software! Looking forward to it.

Thanks for everyone!

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

http://www.projectbasho.org/img/cezanne01.jpg

[Tsuyoshi]

Hi,

I get this banding in the scanned image. Are these because of the dusts on the lamps?

Let me know how I can get these lines off. Thanks again!

Warmly,
tsuyoshi

[Peter De Smidt]

They look pretty wide to be from dust. How are you mounting the film?

[Peter De Smidt]

This isn't related to the lines, but are you placing the film with the long edge parallel to the long edge of the scanner? If not, you want to do so, as the scanner is limited to sampling 8000 points along short edge.

[Tsuyoshi]

Hi Peter,

Looks like it was dusts related. I finally figured out how to open the lamp box and cleaned it very well. Now it is gone.

I have a piece of AN plexi glass to place the negatives under. I need to get larger one to scan 8x10 and 7x17...

I am still trying to figure out the software...

tsuyoshi


They look pretty wide to be from dust. How are you mounting the film?

[Tsuyoshi]

Peter,

Good to hear that. Thanks for your suggestions!

tsuyosh


This isn't related to the lines, but are you placing the film with the long edge parallel to the long edge of the scanner? If not, you want to do so, as the scanner is limited to sampling 8000 points along short edge.

[Bob McCarthy]

Well another Cezanne in the club. This is the unit Scott was using.

The only manuals that came with it were hardware start up and a thin dual language guide on the software. I'm used to 2 inch thick manuals on equipment and hardware. I feel like I'm missing a lot. I have 3 trays, one with a frosted appearance (uses the hold-down appliances), another which is ruled with measurements and a third which has cutouts with inserts for individual sheets.

Oh, where to start

How to clean, lens cleaner or will windex do.

How to manage the inserts, are they useful?

I've made my first scans, sharp but I'm getting some grainy appearance, I may be over-sharpening,

BTW, Scott and his wife are awaiting the birth of there first, false alarm last night, but anytime now, she's a touch over her due date now.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob.

Did Scott include his ICC files and settings? If so, those would be good for transparency scanning.

For cleaning, I've used Windex and scanner wipes, either from Prazio or Aztek. You don't want to scratch the acrylic scanning bed, as it's about $1200 to replace.

I think I have the manual on CD. I'll look. If so, I'll pass it along.

I'd turn off the sharpening in the color genius software. IMO it's better to do that in Photoshop.

Masking off extraneous light on the scanning bed is a good idea. If you don't, you can get flare around the outside of the negative.

I've been meaning to put up a "how I scan" blog with screen captures. I'm pretty busy for the next couple of days, but I'll make it a priority.

[Bob McCarthy]

Scott did sent along a profile for Provia.

The shipper was a disaster but luckily noting serious. But it was just placed in a paletted box, plastic wrapped. On top they threw in a bunch of rigid Styrofoam broken into 3x3 pieces. There were little pieces of little white beads and smaller. They brought it on a truck w/o tail lift (in spite of telling them that was a must - even written on bol), took it down and placed in ion the driveway on it's side.

And drove off.

I got laid down properly and opened box. What a mess.

Had to fix 2 sensors, but they popped back in OK.

Other than I keep finding white crap everywhere, its operating fine.

A "how I scan" article would be fantastic.

So far I'm not overly impressed with ColorGenius (1.0), but if it gets the job done, I guess thats all that matters.

Scott tells me he picked up stuff via trail and error, thats the hard way.

Thanks

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob,

Just a quick thing to try. Click on the expert button, near the bottom of menu on the right. When you click it, it'll bring up a color correction dialoque, and there'll be tabs for sharpening, AI and a few other things. On the first page, it'll list SD (shadow density) for each RGB channel and HD (highlight density), again for each RGB channel. Start by setting the SD density to 0 in each box and the HD to 4 in each box. There's also input/output settings for each channel. To start, put 0 in each of the lower ones and 255 in each of the higher ones. Now click the sharpening tab and turn off sharpening. Then click scan. This should lead to a fairly low contrast scan with no clipping.

What are you mainly going to scan? Slides, color negatives, bw negatives?

Peter

[Bob McCarthy]

Peter, I've been scanning sheet film mostly 4x5, some larger up to 8x10 on consumer level scanners (Epson 4990) for a number of years now. Plus Nikon Film scanners.

Software of choice is Vuescan, on all scanners with the new to me Cezanne being the exception.

Between you and Scott I'll be up to speed quickly. I'm amazed at teh lack of documentation. Nothing on the screen web site.

One quick question, what is the colorspace menu all about, jpcolor, eurcolor Swcolor, obviously color by continent, but how does it apply to color space

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

Just realized I didn't answer your question, for film...

95% B&W - mix of HP5, FP4 and TMax 100, mostly 4x5 sheets,

a little 35mm TMax 400.

5% Color is Provia in 4x5

All other color is DSLR.

[Peter De Smidt]

I put up a very brief post about working with a FTS-5000 with ColorGenius at: http://peterdesmidt.com/blog/?p=361

[Bob McCarthy]

I put up a very brief post about working with a FTS-5000 with ColorGenius at: http://peterdesmidt.com/blog/?p=361

thanks, much appreciated.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

We're now getting good results from the Cezanne. It's a keeper. Last step is profiling more film than provia.

What is the advantage of using CG 2.0 vs 1.0? Worth the upgrade??

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm glad to hear that you're getting good results. The main advantage of CG 2.0 is that you can use it with some versions of OS10. I don't know if there are any other differences. (I've never used CG 2.0. While I'd certainly like to upgrade, especially as OS 9 doesn't see my USB hard drive that I use to transfer files to my Photoshop machine, $1000 is too expensive for me.)

[Bob McCarthy]

I transfered files that way at first with a small WD usb drive. Did you find it dog slow with the G-4 and OS9. I'd have 15 minute file transfers to the WD drive and 30 second transfers off the drive.

Fixed it by connecting to the network. Had to do some wiring was the delay.

If thats all 2.0 is, don't see the value!

I pretty amazed the improvement over my 4990. I was pretty happy with the 4990 which i was getting good scans from at 4x enlargement. This thing has killer lenses and just has opened my eyes to what I was missing.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob,

When I'm done scanning, I re-boot the computer to OS 10.3, which sees my USB 2 card. Once there, the transfers are pretty quick.

[Bob McCarthy]

Peter you mentioned you might have a disk with the manual on it. I would really appreciate a copy if you have it.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

I think so, Bob. I'll check into it tonight.

[Bob McCarthy]

Guys, i'd appreciate some advise on wet scanning.

Which fluid, which holder to use, don't know the names, I have 3, One with places for small inserts (have a bunch), one with plain glass (?) with the holddown assessories and one with ruled marks on the frame.

Scanning 5x7 and 8x10 now.

any comments you can offer is appreciated.

BTW peter, nothing from Howell,

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

The "normal" way to scan is to place the negative emulsion side up on the bed and place a cover sheet, which is a thinner and smaller piece of textured plastic on top to hold the negative flat. You put the masks on the cover sheet.

My standard scanning bed, what looks like a 6mm thick piece of acrylic with a very fine anti-Newton texture on one side, is fairly marked up, and it doesn't sit level in the scanner. As a result, I made a carrier that uses optical glass, and I spent quite a bit of time wet-mounting to it using Prazio fluid, which is easier to work with in this application than Kami. I've heard that prazio might stop selling supplies, so if you want some, it'd be best to call them right away. (Kami will work, though, so don't worry too much if Prazio isn't available. Whichever you use, you will have to clean the negatives afterward, no matter what both companies say.)

I put some fluid on the glass and lay the negative emulsion side down onto the fluid, starting at one of the short edges of the film. Bowing the negative slightly toward the glass will allow you to lay the negative down such that the fluid spreads out with no bubbles. Put some more on top, and lay a sheet of mylar, at least 1.5" bigger than the negative in all directions over the negative in the same way. If there are bubbles, place a sheet of mylar on top and gently rub the bubbles to the edge of the film. Keep that one piece of mylar just for that use. I don't use any tape.

OK. All of that said, Ted Harris was of the view, and I agree, that there's very little to be gained wet-mounting with the Cezanne. I've compared scans and there just wasn't any difference. This is the opposite of what I found with a Canon 9950F, a consumer flatbed, where wet mounting made a big difference, especially with coarser-grained film.

I use the metal frame bed that had 6 openings for clam shell holders for 4x5 scanning, making sure to mask off the bed so no stray light gets through.

If you'd like, you can send me an unimportant negative, and I'll scan it both ways for you.

Peter

PS Thank you for the update on Howell. I have another possible source, but he's gone quiet on me.

[Bob McCarthy]

The "normal" way to scan is to place the negative emulsion side up on the bed and place a cover sheet, which is a thinner and smaller piece of textured plastic on top to hold the negative flat. You put the masks on the cover sheet.

My standard scanning bed, what looks like a 6mm thick piece of acrylic with a very fine anti-Newton texture on one side, is fairly marked up, and it doesn't sit level in the scanner. As a result, I made a carrier that uses optical glass, and I spent quite a bit of time wet-mounting to it using Prazio fluid, which is easier to work with in this application than Kami. I've heard that prazio might stop selling supplies, so if you want some, it'd be best to call them right away. (Kami will work, though, so don't worry too much if Prazio isn't available. Whichever you use, you will have to clean the negatives afterward, no matter what both companies say.)

I put some fluid on the glass and lay the negative emulsion side down onto the fluid, starting at one of the short edges of the film. Bowing the negative slightly toward the glass will allow you to lay the negative down such that the fluid spreads out with no bubbles. Put some more on top, and lay a sheet of mylar, at least 1.5" bigger than the negative in all directions over the negative in the same way. If there are bubbles, place a sheet of mylar on top and gently rub the bubbles to the edge of the film. Keep that one piece of mylar just for that use. I don't use any tape.

OK. All of that said, Ted Harris was of the view, and I agree, that there's very little to be gained wet-mounting with the Cezanne. I've compared scans and there just wasn't any difference. This is the opposite of what I found with a Canon 9950F, a consumer flatbed, where wet mounting made a big difference, especially with coarser-grained film.

I use the metal frame bed that had 6 openings for clam shell holders for 4x5 scanning, making sure to mask off the bed so no stray light gets through.

If you'd like, you can send me an unimportant negative, and I'll scan it both ways for you.

Peter

PS Thank you for the update on Howell. I have another possible source, but he's gone quiet on me.

Thanks Peter, the acrylic bed glass in my case is in excellent shape and I'v been getting superb scans with 4x5 using the side to side hold down sheet. I'm about to scan some 8x10 that unfortunately has some dust on it and hours of spotting work.

I have the wet mount materials, fluid, wipes, mylar sheets and have done a few on a consumer grade scanner. Is the acrylic bed compatible with the aztec fluid is the first question, don't want to mess up a perfectly good bed.

And if not, are the others workable.

Not looking for additional sharpness, that I have in spades. Just to eliminate some cleaning chores.

Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi,

I have no reason to think that Kami and Prazio aren't compatible with the standard scanning bed. As I said earlier, the bed seems to be some type of acrylic, and I think that's what scanning drums are made of. That said, I have no way to know this for sure.

I'm not sure that you'll save a whole lot of time spotting with wet-mounting, as mylar sheets are dust magnets. But there's only one way to tell in your environment, and that's to try it. Carefully clean a negative and scan it normally and then try wet-mounting it.

[bagdad child]

I am just starting up the Screen Cezanne for the first time... I have a few questions.. I am on a G3 with OS 9.2. I have installed Color Genius 1.0, both client and server on the same computer. I have the manual for Color Genius but unfortunately I have no manual for the scanner itself.

1. The SCSI cable that runs from the scanner to the computer has 25 nails on the end that connects to the G3 computer. Is this the right cable? The G3 doesn't have a proper SCSI card installed it seems like but the cable that came with the scanner fits nicely.

2. Do I need to stick a SCSI terminator in the empty SCSI slot in the scanner?

3. Do I need to turn on the scanner before I turn on the computer?

4. When I turn on the scanner (before I turn on the computer) there are four lights on the front panel: from left to right:

1. flash symbol is lit green - I guess it means power is on
2. A question mark which is lit red - what does it mean?
3. Hourglass symbol is unlit - what does it mean?
4. House symbol is blinking green - what does it mean?

Any help is much appreciated!

Chris

[bagdad child]

An update:

When I try to start the ColorGenius server application I get the following Error message:

"The initialization of Server application failed. Server can't start.

<Scanner initialization error: Left cover is open.>"

What does this mean? I cannot see that any covers are open...

[Peter De Smidt]

1. Didn't the G3 have built in SCSI? If it does, and the cable fits, then you should be fine.

2. Yes.

3. Yes. The scanner is the first thing that should be turned on and the last thing to be turned off.

4. The scanner goes through a self-check when it's turned on. Off of the top of my head, the flash symbol is power, the question mark is that the scanner is in the process of calibrating itself on the calibration strip in the scanner, the hour glass means that the scanner is undertaking an activity, such as moving the bed, and the house symbol indicates when the scanning bed is at the home position.

[bagdad child]

Thank you Peter for your prompt reply! The questionmark red light doesn't go off although I have waited for 20 minutes so is there a problem with the white calibration? I remember seeing a photo here of a white strip which was visible. I cannot see any white strip. The only white strip I can see is on the metal holder for templates where there is a small black and white striped sticker. The scanner bed isn't moving when powering on the scanner. Is it supposed to?

There is a long button just right of the 4 lights. What is it for?

I have localized the left cover, opened it and closed it properly but still I get the same error message when I try to start the Color Genius Server application. I am really puzzled by this. All 4 lamps are working.

Chris

[Peter De Smidt]

1. Make sure that the shipping plate is not in the locked position. Open the front panel. It's hinged on the bottom. Near the lower right you will see a knurled knob with a metal plate. There are two positions that the plate can be in. If it's attached to the lower threaded post, then the bed is locked for shipping. Unscrew the know, remove the plate, and place the plate over the threaded rod up and to the right. Re-attach knob.

2. The white reference unit is to the left of the scanning tray as you face the scanner. It's a metal strip that can be lifted up and out. On the bottom is a very delicate white strip. Do not damage this! Do not mess with at all, other than checking that it is there looks good. As Screen says, "Never touch the white film surface for it is very delicate and easy to make dirty. If the white film becomes dirty, then the output quality will be adversely affected."

3. The Display panel holds the following indicators. Moving from left to right, the leftmost light is the power indicator. The Question mark light is an Error Indicator. The manual says, "An error code relating to the type of error detecte3d will appear on the computer screen." Next, is the Busy indicator. This LED flashes during scanning. If you open the upper cover at this time, scanning or tray table movement will stop immediately to ensure safety. Next is the Home Position Indicator. This LED illuminates when the tray table has stopped at its home position. By opening the upper cover at this time, you can set the original and perform other such operations. Finally, there's the Overview Scan/Stop Key. Pressing this key when the scanner is not scanning will put the unit into the overview mode. Pressing the key while the scanner is scanning will stop the scanning operation. With the overview scan mode, the whole tray is scanned at high speed to determine the position of the original on the tray.

Start-up procedure. Turn the power switch on. The tray table automatically moves to its home position and all indicators on the display panel begin flashing. After a few moments, the power indicator lights u steadily and the other indicators turn OFF. This indicates that the scanner is ready for operation.

Note: It takes about 30 minutes for the scanner to fully warm up after being turned on.

The left cover is the large wing that the bed moves into when scanning. It can be completely removed from the scanner.

To attach, open the front panel of the scanner. Attach the left cover to the scanner by slipping the cover attachment brackets over the narrow portion of the four pins on the front and rear of the scanner, two at each location. Then push the left cover back so that the cover slips over the large section of the pins. Insert and tighten the left cover retaining screw.

Hope this helps.

[bagdad child]

Peter,
Thanks a lot! You saved my day! I thought the left cover was the one where the lamps are located but now I realize its the large wing. I disengaged it a few times before I found the right position. Its funny that the screw fits perfectly and still the big wing is in the wrong position! Now the scanner behaves just as you described when powering it on and I can start the Server application.

[Peter De Smidt]

Excellent. I'm glad to help.

[Bob McCarthy]

Peter,
Thanks a lot! You saved my day! I thought the left cover was the one where the lamps are located but now I realize its the large wing. I disengaged it a few times before I found the right position. Its funny that the screw fits perfectly and still the big wing is in the wrong position! Now the scanner behaves just as you described when powering it on and I can start the Server application.

Must be a Cezanne trait. Mine did the exact thing when ever I move it and reinstall the wing. I think there a microswitch in there that's touchy.

bob

[bagdad child]

Bob, that's what I think as well!

I have now managed a few scans with the Cezanne! At 800 dpi the "setup" process after a scan is quick but after having tried a few scans at 2000 dpi I am puzzled. The setup after each scan takes what seems like at least an hour to complete probably more. If I understand correctly after the scan a recipe file is created which is then processed into a tiff-file. Any ideas how it can be so slow for a 16-bit 2000 dpi scan when it's very quick for a 800 dpi scan?

[bagdad child]

Actually it doesn't complete the setup process now...
Error message:

***Error***
4007
A data transmission time-out error occurred during communication between Client and Server.

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, that's what I think as well!

I have now managed a few scans with the Cezanne! At 800 dpi the "setup" process after a scan is quick but after having tried a few scans at 2000 dpi I am puzzled. The setup after each scan takes what seems like at least an hour to complete probably more. If I understand correctly after the scan a recipe file is created which is then processed into a tiff-file. Any ideas how it can be so slow for a 16-bit 2000 dpi scan when it's very quick for a 800 dpi scan?

I'm fairly new to the C, not to scanning. I'm running on a G4 with 9.2. 2 gig of memory.

First blush, I'd want to know how much computer your driving.

Peter is the expert and has been very helpful to me.

bob

[bagdad child]

Bob, I am pretty much a novice with Macs but I have managed to check "about this computer"

it says: built in memory 384MB
virtual memory: off
largest free block: 188,7MB

below it says:
ColorGenius 66,2MB (shows near max)
ColorGeniusServer 65,4MB (shows near max)
Mac OS 55,6MB (shows full)

It's a Power Macintosh G3. I have been doing 600MB scans with ColorQuartet on a Scanmate flatbed on the same computer.

Chris

[Peter De Smidt]

Chris,

I'm not an expert. That was Ted Harris. I've just had my scanner a little longer than Bob.

I have a G4, and I'm running OS 9.2 or 9.3, I can't remember which. When I started, I had <500 mb of memory, and high res scans took 7 or 8 hours. Since then, I maxed out the ram to 2 gb. Unfortunately, OS 9 will only see 1.5 gb, but in any case hi-res scans now only take about 10 to 15 minutes.

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, I am pretty much a novice with Macs but I have managed to check "about this computer"

it says: built in memory 384MB
virtual memory: off
largest free block: 188,7MB

below it says:
ColorGenius 66,2MB (shows near max)
ColorGeniusServer 65,4MB (shows near max)
Mac OS 55,6MB (shows full)

It's a Power Macintosh G3. I have been doing 600MB scans with ColorQuartet on a Scanmate flatbed on the same computer.

Chris

I'd start seeing if you can find some memory. We're playing with pretty sizable files and you don't want virtual memory (which you have off) to come into play.

Your LF scan files are going to be 300-350 meg. You'll also have memory dedicated to the OS plus other apps your running including color genius.

You've run out of memory already. Luckily its cheap.

bob

[bagdad child]

Peter and Bob,

I suspect you are both right about my computer and too little memory. Color Quartet v.5 probably requires a lot less memory than ColorGenius. ColorGenius seems to be more powerful and better designed than ColorQuartet on the other hand.

I am now going to try to install ColorGenius on my other Mac, a G3 450 MHz with 1GB of RAM but with OS 8.6 instead of 9.2. It has a different SCSI card - one called Ultra 2 SCSI. Luckily I have found a SCSI cable which fits both in the scanner and the computer.

Since I have two Macs I may try to set up a Client-Server environment with two different computers, although I cannot really see the point of doing so since the Server side doesn't seem to be able to scan files and process the already scanned files simultaneously. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bob, I have never used a large format camera yet in my short photographic career. I am shooting a lot of 6x7, some 6x6, 6x4.5 and 35mm. I do hope very much to shoot large format one day. Here on the large format forum I find very knowledgeable, kind and generous people like you and Peter.

Thank you!

I'll keep you updated on my experiences with the Cezanne.

Chris

[bagdad child]

Peter and Bob, I hope both of you are having a great weekend. Mine is turning out fine although I am spending nearly all my time awake with Cezanne. Fortunately I am not married yet..

I am running the scanner on my 1GB G3 with OS 8.6 now. I have managed to scan a 6x7 color negative at 2000 dpi (~150MB) in about 20 mins which is ok. But when I scan the 6x7 negative at 4000 dpi (~550-600MB) the blue Setup bar in the display window didn't start to climb in over an hour. Apparently I have a problem with my settings. I am still not very familiar with how the Mac works and therefore I am pretty much guessing the settings. Any ideas what I am doing wrong?

I have tried various settings:

Scan 1.
Scratch: Startup disk
Scratch disk (for prescanning): Startup disk

Memory allocated to ColorGenius: 64MB
Memory allocated to ColorGeniusServer: 64MB

Result: worked good for 800 dpi scans but not more

Scan 2.
Scratch: Harddrive
Scratch disk (for prescanning): RAM disk

Memory allocated to ColorGenius: 90MB
Memory allocated to ColorGeniusServer: 90MB

Ram disk was set to about 75% ~204MB

Result: worked good (scan and setup complete in less than 20 minutes) for 2000 dpi (~150MB) but not 4000 dpi

Scan 3.
Scratch: RAM Disk
Scratch disk (for prescanning): RAM Disk

Memory allocated to ColorGenius: 90MB
Memory allocated to ColorGeniusServer: 150MB

Ram disk was set to about 75% ~204MB

Result: Immediately got error message "Fatal error (1005): Disk is full" and scanning didn't even start


Scan 4.
Scratch: Harddrive
Scratch disk (for prescanning): RAM Disk

Memory allocated to ColorGenius: 90MB
Memory allocated to ColorGeniusServer: 100MB

Ram disk was set to 100% 258MB

Result: Setup process seemed to be working reasonably quick but after approx 15 minutes got error message "Fatal error (1005): Disk is full"

About this computer after scan no 4:

Built-in memory: 1 GB

Virtual memory: 997 MB is used on Harddrive. I don't understand this since I have virtual memory turned off in the memory settings.

Largest free block: 788,9 MB

ColorGenius: 85,8 MB
ColorGeniusServer: 97,7 MB
Mac OS: 284,8 MB

The cache was set to 8160 K for all scans

[Bob McCarthy]

Chris,

Your experience is perfectly explained by creating a wall in scan size by not having enough DRAM. As long as you stay under (some number hmm, about 200 meg - give or take) the machine will zip along. You hit a hard wall after that. The box will continue to operate, swapping in and out of memory pieces or will use the drive as a memory. Some programs have there own virtual memory routines built in. CG???

4000 dpi 35 mm is just over 100 meg in 16 bit color

2000 dpi 120 is in the same ball park

Both of these will run fine

up the dpi on 120 and you exceed the limit and hit the wall

If your going to scan 4x5 B&W, plan on adding memory, I have 4x5 files that hit close to 1 gig in size. I was doing 8x10 at 2000 dpi yesterday. big files.

Oh just noticed, turn off ram disk (0 out the allocation). This is separating this much ram from main memory (which you need) and holding is to be used as a high speed disk is not useful here.

You need main memory which fits your processing requirements for best (fastest) efficiency.

Anything else you do, is like farting in a high wind. Will likely not even be noticed

2 gig in this box, never stutters,

bob

[bagdad child]

Thank you Bob

So if I understand you correctly I turn off RAM disk altogether and then I set the preferences in ColorGeniusServer to:

Scratch: Harddrive
Scratch disk (for prescanning): Harddrive

or Startup disk?

I only have the choice between Harddrive and Startup disk after turning off RAM disk.

Will it matter how much maximum memory I allocate to ColorGenius (recommended is 64 MB) or ColorGeniusServer (recommended 64MB)?

The G3 450 MHz I am using apparently has a maximum memory of 1GB which I already use so I have hit the wall there. I don't want to buy another old Mac so hopefully I can get this thing going... If I must get one, which G4 do you recommend? What if I find one with OS later than 9? Can I downgrade it?

Chris

[Bob McCarthy]

Thank you Bob

So if I understand you correctly I turn off RAM disk altogether and then I set the preferences in ColorGeniusServer to:

Scratch: Harddrive
Scratch disk (for prescanning): Harddrive

or Startup disk?

I only have the choice between Harddrive and Startup disk after turning off RAM disk.

Will it matter how much maximum memory I allocate to ColorGenius (recommended is 64 MB) or ColorGeniusServer (recommended 64MB)?

The G3 450 MHz I am using apparently has a maximum memory of 1GB which I already use so I have hit the wall there. I don't want to buy another old Mac so hopefully I can get this thing going... If I must get one, which G4 do you recommend? What if I find one with OS later than 9? Can I downgrade it?

Chris

If you only have one hard drive in the box, scratch disk doesn't matter in any way I am aware. I suppose one could partition the disk, but someone else will have to comment if this is an advantage in any way.

It seems 1 GB should be enough for 4x5 16 bit.

up to 2000 dpi, if you keep the OS simple. I'm not up on OS9. I am more knowledgeable on Windows and OX X. Use OSx now, was windows up to 3 years ago.

When I get back to the house, I'll check how my box is configured, that might help.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

this might help

These were some ancient Mac format.

Only thing I could open them with was QT, so there saved as .mov files


aggg, this site doesn't support either pic nor .mov

any ideas on conversion software

bob

[bagdad child]

Bob,

I use a free converter called "Super". It converts pretty much everything I think. I used it to extract audio from video files and it works very well.

http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html

You can also e-mail me the files if you wish and I can try to convert them.

Thanks!

Chris

[Peter De Smidt]

I mainly work with PCs. With them, it's better to have the scratch disk be on a different physical drive than the operating system is on. I'd expect that would be the case here. Note, though, that I have a 450mhz single processor G4 with one hard drive. Adding memory made such a huge performance increase that I haven't investigated doing anything else. I do have some xtra memory for my G4. I can check what modules I have. If they'd work in your G3 you could have them for the cost of shipping.

The very best solution would be to get version 2.x of the colorgenius software and use it on a G5 with 10.3. Next best would be a later G4 which boots into 0S9 with maxed-out memory. Still, I'm happy with my early G4. If I were cranking out a bunch of scans a day, then I'd upgrade. But given my low volume of scans, it doesn't make much sense.

[Bob McCarthy]

this might help

These were some ancient Mac format.

Only thing I could open them with was QT, so there saved as .mov files


aggg, this site doesn't support either pic nor .mov

any ideas on conversion software

bob

Cleared up my brain fart, just had to make a screen shot of the .mov file, dahhh

here they are

bob

[bagdad child]

Peter, thank you for your very kind offer to send me the memory. My G3 has 1GB installed so I believe it's maxed out already. I may well follow your advice and get a G4 and if it won't have enough memory installed I will gladly accept your offer.

Bob, thank you for the screen shots. Can I also ask you how much memory you have allocated to ColorGenius and ColorGeniusServer? To check that you need to have those applications closed, then click once on the ColorGenius and ColorGeniusServer icons (the icons you start those applications with) so they're highlighted and then click 'file' and 'show info' and choose 'memory'

Chris

[Bob McCarthy]

Peter, thank you for your very kind offer to send me the memory. My G3 has 1GB installed so I believe it's maxed out already. I may well follow your advice and get a G4 and if it won't have enough memory installed I will gladly accept your offer.

Bob, thank you for the screen shots. Can I also ask you how much memory you have allocated to ColorGenius and ColorGeniusServer? To check that you need to have those applications closed, then click once on the ColorGenius and ColorGeniusServer icons (the icons you start those applications with) so they're highlighted and then click 'file' and 'show info' and choose 'memory'

Chris

sorry, been out and about today

here you go

bob

[bagdad child]

Thank you Bob!

Chris

[bagdad child]

Mysteriously my G3 setup started working very well this morning. I used your settings Bob which I believe were the ones I used originally when the hi-resolution scans failed. A 4000 dpi 550 MB scan all of a sudden completed in around 20 minutes which is perfectly fine for my needs.

So far I have scanned my negs in the metal film holders that fit in a metal tray with three or possibly six inserts. Included is also a frosted glass (?) tray and two large clear glass plates which are put on top of eachother without anything to hold them together. Any ideas what the frosted tray and glass plates are for?

Then there is a 4x5 inch resin holder where I would like to put more than one frame of 6x7 rollfilm but I probably have to cut it. I also have two glass plates which looks like wet mounting plates. One is 6x7 and one 35mm, only a single frame with black painted glass around the frame. On the edges there are small things that look like rain gutters. Except for that various metal film holders for glassless scanning and a rubber cover which must be for reflective scanning.

[Bob McCarthy]

haha, the computer decides it's had enough and gives in. It it were a PC, I would have said a reboot after setting changes, but....

I use the acrylic bed for most everything with the hold down trays.

I got the line art glass bed and also the bed with removable inserts along with a dozen inserts, mostly for oil mounting. A dry mount insert for 6x9 and 35mm slides was also included. This is a good thing as they will come in handy on occasion.

Did a test over the weekend of wet mounting an 8x10 against dry mounting.

I'm not seeing much reason to wet mount.

I also tested 35mm Provia @ 4000 dpi against my Nikon 5000 at same scan resolution. Not much reason to own a Nikon 5000 any more.

bob

[bagdad child]

Bob,

that's good to know that you don't see a reason to wet mount. I do have a dust problem in my home but I am not keen on wet mounting either. I am not familiar with the Nikon scanners. I have a Canon 8800f which does a god job for small enlargements, especially with color negatives. I also have a Scanmate F10 which made lovely scans for some time but has now developed some banding. I suspect I must change the lamps but they are rather expensive.

When I open the Cezanne tiff files with ACR and pull down the exposure way down I see that there is some banding in blue skies as well. I hardly think that it will pose a problem but I may need to clean the scanner since it has been sitting in a dusty environment for some time. There is also the white strip which I have found which may need cleaning.

I am now scanning 120 film with the resin holder. Looking in the hardware manual I see that I don't have any Resin holder masking sheets. Would you know what material they're made of and how thin they are?

[Peter De Smidt]

Chris, I'm glad to hear it working better. Three of us have now found no significant improvement with wet-mounting film on the Cezanne. That's a good thing.

[Bob McCarthy]

I am now scanning 120 film with the resin holder. Looking in the hardware manual I see that I don't have any Resin holder masking sheets. Would you know what material they're made of and how thin they are?

They are a thin black plastic. Can't be very much, I'd call screen and see how how cheap they are.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Unfortunately "can't be very much" and "Screen supplies and service" don't go hand-in-hand. But the masks are simply something that blocks light. Lot's of things will do that.

[bagdad child]

I use the resin holder where I put the negative emulsion side facing down, which means I have to mirror the image in ps. Does it matter which side is up or down?

When I scan 6x7 it seems like the max resolution is about 5084 dpi but sometimes its about 4900 dpi. Are these true resolutions or interpolated in any way? I thought I read somewhere that the Cezanne scanned medium format at max 4000 dpi? I place the long side of the neg parallel to the long side of the scanner like Peter describes on his blog.

The scanning lamps are constantly lit even when the scanner is not scanning. Is there a way to turn off the lamps between scans?

Chris

[Bob McCarthy]

I use the resin holder where I put the negative emulsion side facing down, which means I have to mirror the image in ps. Does it matter which side is up or down?

When I scan 6x7 it seems like the max resolution is about 5084 dpi but sometimes its about 4900 dpi. Are these true resolutions or interpolated in any way? I thought I read somewhere that the Cezanne scanned medium format at max 4000 dpi? I place the long side of the neg parallel to the long side of the scanner like Peter describes on his blog.

The scanning lamps are constantly lit even when the scanner is not scanning. Is there a way to turn off the lamps between scans?

Chris

I always put the dull (emulsion) side facing the lamps (up).

8000 ppi./width of scan (I assume your cropping a touch and avoiding the rebate). That sound like the difference


Good question on the lamp, I don't know either, and how does the light table work?

Goes out as I'm placing film all too often???

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

The Cezanne has an 8000 element ccd sensor. The maximum stated optical spi (samples per inch) is 5300, which means that the scanner will scan a strip 1.5" wide at full optical resolution. Usually, I scan 35mm at 5300 spi, 120 film at 4000 spi, and 4x5 at 2700 spi.

That said, according the Seybold report, the scanner can achieve higher real resolution, something along the lines of 5600 spi, if I remember rightly. The explanation is that while the ccd limits resolution in one direction that the precision of the stepping system limits resolution in the other dimension.

Will scanning at those higher resolutions give more real info? That depends on the negative. You should also take into consideration the complex interaction with sample size and grain. Some films will look better scanned at lower resolutions. The only way to tell is to try it.

The best way to test is to think about the largest print size you'd make from a given negative. Scan at a couple of resolutions, both higher and lower than what I listed above. Now re-sample to print size/resolution, sharpen, and compare prints. Is there an advantage to the higher resolutions? If not, then all you're doing is wasting time and storage space by scanning that high with that film.

Of course this brings a whole bunch of factors into play, such as re-sizing, interpolation, and sharpening, but what really matters is what comes out on a print.

Make sure to lay the negative such that the long side of the negative is parallel to the front of the scanner.

[bagdad child]

Bob, I haven't noticed the light table going out. I don't keep the lid open for long though so I am not sure. The light table is kind of useful to spot those dust specks that I missed when putting the neg in the resin holder. Maybe you need to replace the lamp illuminating the light table? It looks like my light table goes on when I open the lid. Or could it be a bad micro contact? I had a look in the hardware manual but I cannot find anything about the light table and what kind of lamp is underneath it. As far as can tell the light table is not illuminated by the reflective scanning lamps.

Peter, doesn't a higher optical resolution give you a higher enlargement factor? If I for instance scan at 4300dpi instead of 4000dpi I can print a little bigger if using a set printing resolution like 300dpi. Even if the extra pixels from scanning at 4300dpi don't yield any extra real information they are still there and will enable me to print larger?

Chris

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Chris,

If there's not any extra real info, I doubt that there'd be a difference between doing the interpolation in the scanner, PS, or the print driver. But this isn't anything I've tested. I have a small 13" printer :(.

[bagdad child]

If there are any differences I am sure they are insignificant for the final result!

I noticed that the software CD contains a few updates of ColorGenius to 1.0.4 I believe. I am running 1.0.1 and I see no reason to update really or should I?

[Peter De Smidt]

If you go to the Screen Japan site, http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/download/ , they have readme files for each of the updates. In the readme files, they say what they've done. I'm running 1.0.4, but I can't remember why :)

[Bob McCarthy]

1.0.4 is the last upgrade of version 1.X, that's ot folks.

I've been trying to run down a copy of 2.0. so far no luck...

The light table goes off after a while, as if its on a timer or has a temp limit- I don't know, but it's not consistent.

Anyone have a digital copy of the hardware side for maintenance issues. I'd like to see how clean the optics are, and if there is any scheduled maintenance that I can do.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob,

Sorry, I don't have a service manual. My guess is Screen made a lot of money selling service contracts to their customers. Hence, they probably keep it in a heavily fortified bunker.

[bagdad child]

I will link to a few of my first scans with the Cezanne. Scroll with the arrows. I am not color managed so colors may be off. The color negative presets in Color Genius are pretty good after all, but I think I have used nearly every one of them with one or two color neg films.

Screen Cezanne scans (http://cceder.com/screen/pro400h_03.html)

[Bob McCarthy]

Chris, I have a profile for Provia if you want it.

Scan native and assign the profile in photoshop. After the image has the profile attached, convert to Adobe98.

I'll send it to your email address

Bob

[Bob McCarthy]

I have a simple question, I think I know the answer, but

If I scan a black and white negative, with settings on 16 bit RGB transparency

how close to b&w should the scan be?

Mine come out with a strong red cast, I'm assuming this scanner can be calibrated, is that correct?

Now by building a profile (for provia in this case) I can pretty much nail the correct colors.

Are two wrongs making a right????

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

When scanning a black and white negative, to get 16 bit you want to scan as a positive, as you know. However, there is no reason to assign a color profile to this scan. Simply import the file into Photoshop and look at each of the color channels. Pick the best one, which is usually the green one, and change the mode to grayscale, which will discard the unnecessary channels. Whether the three channels produce a good grayscale in a color mode in Photoshop is irrelevant.

Scanning a Stouffer 31 step 4x5 step wedge is a good way to investigate what scanner settings work best.

If you want to get really picky, you can scan a step wedge and create grayscale ICC files using QTR's create ICC application for negatives of different dynamic ranges. This would linearize the scanned file. I don't think this is worth it, though. While a color image might occasionally be captured exactly as intended in camera, BW negatives very rarely are. The main reason for ICC files is to get rid of unwanted color casts, which can be very difficult to do manually, and obviously these casts aren't a problem for BW. Using a Provia profile with bw could very easily lead to clipping of highlight or shadow information.

[Bob McCarthy]

Thats what I did Peter. I scanned a negative (b&w) with the settings I mentioned before.

I import the file into photoshop w/o assigned color space. Here I was looking at each color layer, and there were huge differences between them, not at all like my previous scanner where the differences were subtle.

The overall scan is strongly red, almost as if it were the only channel operating, well almost!

The other channels were very different, almost significantly underexposed. If I use the provia color profile, I don't get back to B&W, I should at least get close.

I've just read the manual, did you calibrate your Cezanne with the Software "Toolkit".

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob,

No, I didn't. From what I can gather, that would give a generic profile. I prefer to have one for each slide type.

By any chance was the negative you scanned developed in a staining developer?

[Bob McCarthy]

No its done with a standard type developer (D23-2 bath) and is neutral in tone, not tobacco stained.

I totally agree about profiles for each film type. But when I scan rgb it appears I am really off and the custom profile has to really work to optimize the final file. It seems it should be closer to neutral and the profiles tweak the output to (near) perfection.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well.

If you could do me a favor, would you scan a b&w using the 16bit RGB settings and tell me if the resulting file is even "near" neutral. Mine are darkish red.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

I just looked at a 16 bit positive scan of a grayscale stouffer test wedge.
Step two:R255, G254, B252.
Step 13: R37, G60, B55.
Step 31: R2, G18, B19.

So my file looks cyan in color mode with each of the channels intact.

[Peter De Smidt]

Is the file red after it's been inverted? I'm just guessing, but if the scanner is in color negative mode, this leads to a much more sensitive green channel to counteract the orange film base. If the file is inverted in photoshop, then this could lead to a strong orange cast. So make sure that you really are scanning as a positive. Color Genius can be a bit of a pain with various "hidden" settings.

[Bob McCarthy]

your numbers are close to what I would expect, scanned as a positive and very red.

Wish I had a densitometer.

I'm going to redo a scan this afternoon.

I'll send you a small jpg.

Thanks,

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

The story only gets worse. I just ran a maintenance diagnostic check. Everything passed with flying colors.

Now the scans look fine, barely a hint of color in both the prevue window and in the final scan?? Even that is likely monitor calibration, don't have a proper way to calibrate this old mac,

What is happening here!!!

I guess I should be happy, but I would sure like to know what was wrong before.

Sorry for wasting your time.

bob

[bagdad child]

Peter and Bob,
I would just like to know if my monitor looks reasonably well calibrated judging by the scans I linked to? My concern is if they're too bright/washed out? My monitor is an old Mitsubishi diamond pro. It's huge and should be a good monitor but I have no idea how to calibrate it properly. The provia 400 scan looks like it has some stray light coming in from the bottom and lower left edges. I am still scanning without a black mask so I guess it may be straylight.

Chris

[Peter De Smidt]

Chris,

You really need a profiling system for your monitor. This is the most important element of the whole color management chain. I use a Spyder 3 Elite, which isn't too expensive. Otherwise, check out: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

[Bob McCarthy]

I strongly second Peters comment. I use the X-rite system, but they're all very good now.

Until you look at your files with a calibrated screen, you don't know how to edit them, especially for color. But much more importantly, if you calibrate properly, you can predict what your prints will look like within the constraints of transmitted/reflected light.

If you print your work, it will save TONS of paper and ink. That alone will save you enough in a weekend of heavy printing to pay for a quality unit.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

The story only gets worse. I just ran a maintenance diagnostic check. Everything passed with flying colors.

Now the scans look fine, barely a hint of color in both the prevue window and in the final scan?? Even that is likely monitor calibration, don't have a proper way to calibrate this old mac,

bob

Bob,

I'm glad it's solved. Hopefully it was just an inadvertent setting error. I've made a few of those.

[bagdad child]

Hi Bob and Peter
Thank you for your recommendations! Will it really make sense though to buy one of these calibration tools for such an old monitor? Will they be able to properly calibrate the monitor? Its a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro2045u which supposedly is a good monitor but maybe the colors and luminance have faded so much over the years that calibration of it would be useless? I have only used it for a couple of weeks so I cannot tell really but judging by my limited experience the monitor is in ok shape. What do you think?

Chris

[bagdad child]

I did some testing with the dpi discussion we had a while ago in mind. Scanning pro400H 120-film at 4300 dpi seems to give nothing but more noise in shadow areas compared to 4000 dpi. At 4000 dpi it still looks rather too noisy in some scans, depending on the scene and exposure, while other scans look fine.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, it is worth it. Until very recently, I used a 21" Samsung Syncmaster CRT. Calibrating it helped, although it eventually got to the point where it got too dim. All displays slowly lose brightness. Anyway, if you can't calibrate your monitor, then you shouldn't be using it for photo editing unless you're very good at reading/interpreting/using the color numbers in photoshop. In any case, profiling made a big difference with that monitor. It also greatly improved an old Sony CRT monitor, which is the one I use on the scanner.

I've been a little sloppy with terminology here. Calibrating a monitor amounts to adjusting the settings on the monitor to get as close to the ideal figures as possible. After the monitor is calibrated, which any of the measuring pucks should help with, you then profile the monitor. Using the pucks is the easiest and most accurate way to both calibrate and profile your monitor, but you can use test images to do a calibration. The Norman Koran link I posted earlier goes into how to do that.

[Peter De Smidt]

I did some testing with the dpi discussion we had a while ago in mind. Scanning pro400H 120-film at 4300 dpi seems to give nothing but more noise in shadow areas compared to 4000 dpi. At 4000 dpi it still looks rather too noisy in some scans, depending on the scene and exposure, while other scans look fine.

Yep, exactly. The interaction between grain, dye clouds, and the scanner hardware is complicated. For the highest quality, each film should be evaluated for the scanning resolution that gives the best results. With BW film, the same film might give different results when developed to a different contrast index, or with a different developer.

Remember, though, that a scan at a higher dpi with be more magnified when viewed at 100% on the screen than a scan done at a lower dpi. The best way to compare is to make prints, if that's the final product. But you can try matching image size by lowering the resolution of the higher scan. For example, suppose you are comparing two scans. The first is one done at 4000 spi, and the second one is done at 5000 spi. In photoshop, using the image size dialog to lower the 5000 spi scan to 4000 spi, just for the comparison. That'll show you the images at the same magnification. The down-rezzed file will benefit from the averaging that takes place with down-sampling, but it also might lose a little sharpness. Comparing these types of thing is more of an art than a science.

[Bob McCarthy]

BC,

Peter had a good suggestion a couple of weeks ago. I use the scanner in a RAW mode of sorts. I believe it's on his blog.

I use the expert mode and set the exposure at LD/HD at 0 and 4.0 for all channels. Also the (forgot what's its called, I'll call it..) DR at 0 and 255.

Made a preset so it scans all film that way, both color and B&W.

When you open the file in CS3, the entire histogram is squashed into the center. Levels and curves, recast the data into a more normal distribution.

I am not seeing any noise, and if there is detail on the negative, it shows up on the scan. No detail on film, nothing the scanner can do about it.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

A trick I discovered. I do not use the Cezanne for reflective scanning.

The Cezanne is happy with just the upper lamps installed.

Now I have a spare set. Those puppies aren't cheap.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Good tip, Bob. Thanks!

[Bob McCarthy]

Hi Bob and Peter
Thank you for your recommendations! Will it really make sense though to buy one of these calibration tools for such an old monitor? Will they be able to properly calibrate the monitor? Its a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro2045u which supposedly is a good monitor but maybe the colors and luminance have faded so much over the years that calibration of it would be useless? I have only used it for a couple of weeks so I cannot tell really but judging by my limited experience the monitor is in ok shape. What do you think?

Chris

yes, yes it will make a difference. If the crt, looks even reasonably lifelike, the phosphors are doing the job. The only potential issue is you may be required to calibrate more often as the crt drifts a bit as it ages. LCD screens are pretty stable, I only check mine every couple of months and even then the change is almost nothing. The software I use tracks this, A crt is inherently less stable so it might require a monthly checkup.

bob

[bagdad child]

Bob and Peter,

I have finally taken the plunge and ordered the monitor calibration kit. Thankyou both for your very useful recommendations.



A trick I discovered. I do not use the Cezanne for reflective scanning.

The Cezanne is happy with just the upper lamps installed.

Now I have a spare set. Those puppies aren't cheap.

bob


Bob, that's a great tip, but how does the scanner do its white calibration without the lower lamps? The white strip is illuminated by those lamps to get calibrated isn't it? Or do you merely install the lower lamps once in awhile to calibrate white point once and then the scanner remembers the last calibration?

Chris

[bagdad child]

BC,

Peter had a good suggestion a couple of weeks ago. I use the scanner in a RAW mode of sorts. I believe it's on his blog.

I use the expert mode and set the exposure at LD/HD at 0 and 4.0 for all channels. Also the (forgot what's its called, I'll call it..) DR at 0 and 255.

Made a preset so it scans all film that way, both color and B&W.

bob

Bob, are you referring to HD/SD (Highlight density/Shadow density) numbers in the Manual fine adjustment window? I can set those numbers, but only when scanning slide film, not with color negative when those boxes are greyed out. I haven't tried B&W yet.

I reckon what you call DR is whats called MIN and MAX. If I set MIN values to 0 the scans normally become too dark. I sometimes set them at around 30 for color negative.

Chris

Chris

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Chris,

Yes, that's right. I've got some screen shots on my blog.

Peter

[bagdad child]

I've seen those tips and screenshots on your blog Peter, they're are very useful! Especially where you say:

"Click “Scan”, and proceed to the fridge to get a beverage. And maybe a sandwich. And some pudding. There might still be time for a nap if you’re doing a really high res file."

I often follow that advice of yours but at times I also do gardening during scans. Kind of like combining work and work...

[Bob McCarthy]

Chris, I do all adjustments in Photoshop .
As long as the histogram has open space at the shadow and highlight area,
Density adjustment is just a levels setting.

I shoot very little color negative. B&W or color transparency
is 99% of my shooting and I scan all as a positive.

Would I shoot Ektar for example, I would try first at scanning as
a positive, neutralizing mask and inverting. Work that work??
Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob,

There's a recent thread on this.

I also don't scan color negative film very often. In fact, I've only done so once on the Cezanne. I'd start by trying ColorGenius's color negative mode. If that didn't work well, I'd try the following. Take a MacBeth Color Checker. Build a small square shade out of stiff paper and black velvet that'll shield the black square from direct light but not shade any of the other squares. Make sure that what you use doesn't create a color cast on the black square.

Photograph the color checker using the color negative film that you want to scan in a standard light. I'm not sure how much lighting conditions would matter. There would be differences, but they might be easy to correct. You could always expose the chart under different circumstances. Develop the film. Scan. Bring into Photoshop an invert the image. Make a curves adjustment layer. Use the white, gray, and black eyedroppers to click on the white square, middle gray square, and black square of the color checker. This will neutralize the color in those patches, which should give very accurate color.

The reason that you shade the black square is that if you don't, things in a picture could very well be darker than that patch if they are shaded. If so, then doing what I suggest would lead to a clipping of shadow detail. Shading the black square prevents this.

Save the curve with an appropriate name. Now whenever you scan that type of film, apply the curve. It should get you very close.

[bagdad child]

I have now calibrated my monitor. The old Mitsubishi was impossible to calibrate as I could only get a luminance value of 30 when I was aiming for 100. So now I'm using my old crt which I calibrated pretty near the target value. Scanner has been resting for a while. Seems like I need to get a black mask soon for the resin holder since it often looks like there is stray light along the edges of scanned slides. Haven't seen that with color negative film though so it may only affect slide film?

[Peter De Smidt]

It's a good idea to mask all film.

[bagdad child]

Peter,
I found a good solution to the masking issue. I removed the lid from the 6x7 wet mount holder. Its not a lid really but a frame with rubber pads which will hold a mylar sheet on top of the neg. The wet mount holder is basically a modified resin holder. So I removed the glass lid from the normal resin holder and attached to the wet mount holder. The wet mount holder has the 6x7 mask glued to the resin glass. The mask is very thin. This works nicely and I was surprised by the great difference masking does. Without masking there is a lot of haze and/or noise in scanned images. I can now scan negatives at 4500 dpi without any real noise like Bob suggested earlier.

There is one issue though that I have discovered with masking negatives and that's film flatness. If the masking surface is in contact with the neg it may cause a loss of sharpness in corners and along edges, since it seems like the automatic (?) aperture the Cezanne scanner uses is very large resulting in a very shallow focus. Ideally the mask should be placed exactly along the edges of the neg not getting in underneath the neg, but trying to mask like that is highly impractical and near impossible.

Bob,
I have scanned some color negatives as positive and then inverted them in photoshop. After that I use auto levels and/or curves and correct the cyan color tint. This works very well. I got the idea from a good tutorial about scanning color neg in linoscan:

http://www.neilsnape.com/color/scan_neg_film/in_psd.html

[Bob McCarthy]

Good timing. I stuck a 6x9 holder in the view camera over the weekend.

Ektar roll film. Will give it a try when it gets back from the processor.

Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Chris,

I agree. I mainly scan 4x5, and so making a mask isn't a problem. I'm going to build a holder for 120 and 35mm film strips that'll hold a standard length strip of film, i.e. 4 frames of 6x6 cm film and 6 frames of 35mm film. If it works out, I'll see if I have enough anti-newton acrylic to make you one.

[Tsuyoshi]

Peter,

Where did you get anti-newton acrylic sheet?

I was just about to place an order to AN glass for 8x10 and 7x17... That would be quite helpful.

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

[bagdad child]

Thank you Peter, you are most kind! Such a holder would make life a lot easier for me! The wet mount holder I am using works well but it lets me scan only one frame at a time.

Bob, I have shot quite a few rolls of Ektar and I think its quite a nice film but it has a tendency to block the shadows quite abruptly if not given enough exposure. On the other hand it can be overexposed quite wildly. I think I overexposed it by four stops by mistake and it came out really nice and punchy! I took four or five rolls in Turkey but I haven't got them scanned yet and I have only scanned Ektar with my Canon flatbed before. Apparently Ektar is the most fine grained color negative film but my experiences are still too limited to tell how it compares to films like the Fuji Pro160. ANother negative film I can recommend is the Fuji pro400H. It scans very smoothly and colors are good with little or no correction. Luckily I brought 400 speed film to my trip to Turkey. The whole summer there was very blustery which is very unusual. I had also brought Velvia 50 but didn't shoot a single roll of it becuase of the constant wind.

Chris

[Bob McCarthy]

Chris I'm an old B&W zone guy with a spot meter. Gotta be careful now days, it's in a pistol type holster. Every time I pull it out I worry about a policeman getting the wrong idea.

Figure out film speed, expose for the shadows, pray for the highlights.

I'll try the 160 too.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

I never thought about a spot meter looking like a pistol. I'll have to be careful!

Non-glare acrylic picture framing glazing can usually be used on top of a negative to hold it down. It has a texture that prevents Newton's rings.

For my 120 holder, I'm going to carefully cut good sections out of my standard screen anti-Newton tray using a sled on a table saw. I don't know of a source other than Screen for this super high quality AN acrylic. I wish I did.

[Bob McCarthy]

I never thought about a spot meter looking like a pistol. I'll have to be careful!



I got spooked one day when wearing it on my belt. Looked like a 6 gun from the old west. Mounted cop asked me about it (mounted on a bicycle). I showed him the meter, he wasn't sure for a split second, could see it in his eyes...

Scared crap out me....

Can see the headline "cops blast armed photographer" news at 6

The holster/meter stays in the camera case..

bob

[tylerscaife84]

I was wondering what the best way to adjust the density levels in scans are... I am trying to scan an 8x10 negative and for some reason the light areas are being blown out. What is the best way to correct this. I was also wondering if anyone had any profiles for Kodak 160vc for a ft-s5000? If so could you possibly direct any help or profiles to TylerScaife@gmail.com. Thank you.

[bagdad child]

Hi Tyler,
Welcome to the forum! I am a quite new user of the ft-s5000 so be aware that my experience is limited. I do scan quite much color negative though so I might be able to give you some advice on that. At first I was using the film presets in color genius (are you using color genius as well? There is also software called color scope if I am not mistaken) and most of the time I was able to get a fine scan from those. Sometimes though I just couldn't get detail in the shadows and when I tweaked the presets (under preferences in color genius there is a way to edit the film presets) I would get detail in the shadows but at the cost of a cyan color cast that I just couldn't get rid of in a pleasing way in photoshop. So what I do now is that I scan my negatives as positives like Bob here on LF does and then I invert them in photoshop and after that I correct the levels for red, green and blue. After that I save the tiff and (re-)open it in ACR to set white balance and brightness etc if needed. Really simple and works really well. Peter who is very helpful gave me the idea to shoot gretaf macbeth color targets with those films I use and create film profiles and hopefully I will get around to do it come spring. In theory it should work very well but I don't know how it would get around the problem of blocked shadows or a cyan cast which I just couldn't tweak away. Peter also gave me the excellent link to Don Hutcheson's RGB scanning guide which contains a wealth of information on how to improve your scans with a high end scanner.

http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Scanning_Guide.pdf

Scanning the color negative as a positive is simple. I have found that the scanner automatic exposure settings after the prescan is pretty much spot on every time. If you click "manual adjustment" you can set the levels but unless the negative is badly misexposed I just let the scanner do its thing. I always uncheck sharpening. Remember to set your resolution before doing manual adjustment or you'll have to do the adjustments all over again.

You can have look at some of my scans from the cezanne at my website (http://cceder.com/gallery_main.html)

Chris

[bagdad child]

One word of caution to all of you. If you haven't already noticed it, the excellent anti newton acrylic gets scratched very very easily even by kinetronics anti statics gloves. Camel hair brush works fine though.

[JJCNER]

I have just picked up a Cezanne FT S5000. Everything that was with it when it was new was included and is in good working order. I am in the process of making a place for it. I have many 4x5 B/W negs, and 6x6, 6x4.5 and 35mm chromes to archive. I do have one question that has not been addressed here. Does anyone know what the depth of field is for this scanner? I am anxious to get it up and running and see how it performs.

[Peter De Smidt]

Not much. It does autofocus, though, and so minimal depth-of-field shouldn't be a problem for film scanning. I have some settings suggestions on my blog.

[Peter York]

Hi all,

I purchased a Screen Cezanne (5000 model) a few days ago (thanks to all who helped with some questions). I have a lot to learn but all I can say is Wow! Wow! Wow! I am so glad I purchsed this unit.

I have a few basic questions:

1. Right now I am scanning linear (HD=0, SD=4, 0,255 output). I recall reading in Diallo's "Mastering Digital B&W" that an image should be optimized only when the scanning software makes hardware-level adjustments. Do you know if ColorGenius is such software? What are your preferences for optimizing scans (curve adjustments and HD/SD/Output adjustments)?

2. I'm noticing a significant improvement when scanning 4x5 in 2 strips at 4000 dpi, versus one-shot at (interpolated) 3000 dpi. I simply moved the trim from one strip to another. However, Photomerge in PS will not merge the two, and when I try to do this manually, it looks like many pixels are missing between the strips. When scanning for a stitch, do you overlap the strips? If so, by how much?

3. When I start up and run a prescan, I am getting a message from the server (# 9602) that the light intensity for transparency scanning is low. The message does not repeat for an entire scanning session (all prescans following the first do not display this message), but the message reappears the next day when powering up again. So far I have not warmed up the unit before my first prescan. Do you know if these bulbs are indeed near the end of their life, or should I give the lights sufficient time to heat up? If the bulbs are near extinction, what are the pros and cons (besides $) of running them to exhaustion versus replacing them? Also, do you know how long the bulbs will last until failure?

4. My first try at color negative was a disaster! I scanned the image as a positive using the presets from the prescan, inverted the image in PS and tried to set black/gray/white points. There is horrible banding in sky. Do you have any tips/tricks for C-41 films?

5. My standard tray is pretty scratched, so I will have some glass or plastic cut to wet-mount on. Do you have any idea if one medium is better than the other?

6. Have you tried wet-mounting with mineral oil? I read somewhere that drum scanner operators are using it, and I'd like to save money on fluid if possible.

Thanks!

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi,

Congratulations!

1. Resolution and scanning area are hardware adjustments. I don't think that any of the others are, but I could be wrong.

2. You need to overlap by a little bit, say 10%? Bob's done more of that than I have.

3. Screen says to wait 30 minutes after powering up for serious scanning. Your scanner has 4 bulbs. You can remove the two bottom ones, the ones for reflective scans, and replace the transparency bulbs. You don't have to have any bulbs in the reflective sockets in order to do transmissive scans. I've never had the message (#9602) that you're getting.

4. There's been a fair bit of talk on here about various methods. Doing a little reading should help.

5. I'd use optical (i.e. water white, low iron....) glass which doesn't have a tint instead of regular glass. Acrylic is also clear, but it does scratch easier. I made a glass tray holder out of mdf, which I sealed many times with shellac before using. I also let it dry for weeks before using. You don't want any out-gassing from the finish (or dust from the mdf), getting inside the scanner. BTW, as long as one place on your standard tray is ok, you're good to go because of the x-y positioning.

6. I have not used mineral oil. It should work fine, but it'll be messy to clean up. I know people who use naphtha.

[Cesar Barreto]

Hi, Peter.

Maybe I could add my two cents.
I've been doing a lot of stitching from pano negatives scanned on Nikon 9000ED and also from digital files, and I would suggest bigger overlapping when dealing with areas with few features or image elements wich could help the software to recognize and merge two scans sucessfully.
And about C-41 scanning I would suggest not even think about this route you're following without 16bit files, otherwise the chances of banding are really great.

Good luck!

Cesar B.

[Peter York]

Thanks Cesar and Peter,

I think the photomerge issue is solved. I'm now trying to create an action or droplet that opens two files, photomerges and saves, but when I add 2 files onto the droplet, PS only opens one file. Any suggestions?

Peter, how are you optimizing your scans without a histogram in ColorGenius? I read earlier that you scanned a step tablet - are you using this information to set HD and SD for B&W? Using the presets? Do you make any curve adjustments?

[Peter De Smidt]

I've been doing what I state in my blog article, which is similar to what you've been doing. Basically, I'm just making sure that no clipping takes place. Since it's so much easier to adjust tonality in Photoshop, that's what I do.

I had been experimenting with a step tablet to get closer numbers, but things came up, and I haven't worked on it in awhile. I doubt that there's really anything to be gained. It's just software manipulation of the data, which is what Photoshop does. Eventually, I'll get around to messing with it again.

[Bob McCarthy]

I've been away from the thread, let me drop in a comment or two.

I have extensive experience stitching smaller formats, mostly digital. In the case of the scanned images, I find just a small amount of overlap is fine. 10% overlap is more than enough fpr photomerge in CS3 to work correctly.

As for exposure, I leave a small area of the clear film within the trim window. I use the eye dropper to set the "zero" point for maximum black and experience to set highlights. I've adjusted my "N" development to hit around 3.50 on the highlight side, This gives me some overhead if I boot the exposure.

I have gone backward to my old zone days, just not using an enlarger. There's a touch of Ansel and Fred Picker methodology in my approach.

As I've refined the technique, my prints are more and more luminous in spite of being rather ordinary otherwise. I am no longer convinced, that stretching pixels is an innocuous thing anymore. A small amount is fine, but massive stretching with levels and curves looses 'something"

My last step is bending the shape of the film/dev curve with photoshop. I standardized on TMax 100 (sharpness and fine grain). I'm working on creating a few actions that revise the toe and shoulder so it can replicate/represent any other "style" of film. I wish Sandy would do this, his scientific method is more sound than mine.

Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob makes an interesting point. One view on scanning is that it's best to scan a low contrast negative, since shorter development will lead to less grain in the film, and the small contrast range will be easy on the scanner. This method does lead to finer grain, but it does require a fairly significant curve, and as Bob has pointed out using big curves can lead to a loss of tonal quality. I expect that the stronger the curve the less distinct pixel values we'll have in the file, which is why too strong of a curve leads to spikes and gaps in the histogram, and less smooth tonal transitions in the print.

Another scanning method would be to try and match the range of the negative to the range of the scanner. An advantage would be that a less extreme curve would be needed on the file, whether imposed in the scanning software or in Photoshop. Doing this would probably maximize the number of tones captured in the file. The disadvantages would be larger film grain and more digital noise in the highlights. Given that we have very fine-grained film available to use, such as Tmax and Acros, the tonal benefits might outweigh any noise issues.

I have some old technical pan negatives that have an extreme tonal range, much too much for optical printing. I'll have to try scanning one.

[Peter York]

Bob, thanks for the information.

Do you find that the density measured by the scanner is equivalent to that from a densitometer, or at least translateable?

I switched the position of my bulbs and I do not get a low light warning. I wonder how long that will last. I hope the 2 used for reflective are in good condition.

I tested wet versus dry mounting on the standard tray. Wet gives no additional resolution, but a very slight edge in luminosity when pixel peeping. The photographer I bought this scanner from suggested reusing mylar by cleaning it with film cleaner (I'm using Aztek brand). I tested this method versus new mylar and see no difference. Looks like a very economical way to go.

I'm running some tests on color negative today. Tomorrow, B&W. I had standardized on Tmax 400 w/ 4x5 and the Epson 4990 because it looked sharper and had more local contrast. Now I suspect I will return to Delta 100 and Tmax 100, at least when the wind decides to comply.

As for developing B&W to a lower density, I have some soul-searching to do. With 4x5, I use pyrocat-hd and develop (roughly, since my densitometer will not read color or UV) to match a diffusion enlarger. The 8x10s (very few at this pioint) are developed to roughly match AZO/Lodima. I do not have a darkroom, or even Lodima paper, but I'm still clinging to the dream of contact prints on silver chloride. I doubt that a lower CI will affect 8x10 films on this scanner, though.

[Peter De Smidt]

If I were you, I'd develop the negatives with optical printing in mind, if you might end up printing that way. Pyrocat-hd is a great developer. You're scanner should have no trouble with negatives processed that way.

[Peter York]

I have been scanning color negative for the past few days.

Since I have v.2 of the software I can scan 16bit negatives with various film presets. My C-41 film of choice, Fuji 160s, is not one of these presets, and neither (if I'm remembering correctly) are the Kodak 160 films. There is a preset for Fuji 160NPL. The good news for those of you with v.1 is that with all of these presets I'm getting shadow clipping. It is not enormous, but I personally use C-41 for nice open shadow detail, and for my needs I will scan the negative as a positive, then invert.

I also compared a linear (HD=0, SD=4, 0,255) inversion against setting HD and SD on a per film basis, and the per film basis wins hands down. The method does too much pixel mashing and I end up loosing detail, especially in the highlights, as well as "vibrance," for lack of a better word. I think this is similar to what Bob wrote concerning B&W.

My tentative method is thus:
1. Prescan, trim and preview the film using a negative preset. This helps me identify the whites and blacks and I set the eyedropper on these.
2. Change from negative to positive and set HD and SD based on the eyedropper points I set in #1. I usually have an easy time finding a black - white is often not so clear-cut. You can set a light value and then manually add to each channel for the SD (I'm finding +.1 to .2 works well with white clouds in the sky - you probably have to adjust each channel more carefully when your light value is not white or neutral).
3. Run a scan at a low ppi (I'm using 1,000)
4. View the scan and if everything looks good, run a final scan by recalling the setup for #3. If not, go back to #2, readjust and repeat #3.

Yes it is tedious, but I prefer to invest the time now to get a good master scan.

Hope this helps someone out there.

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Peter,

That sounds like a good method.

[jr@tshore]

Hi all,

I found this group and would like some help. We've had a Cezanne Elite S5500 for over 7 years now. We use it daily but now can't get support from Screen anymore. We're having some problems with dirt and getting flare around the white areas. We also get the low light intensity error and aren't sure the cause of that. We've just replaced the three bulbs in the scanner but don't know where to go from here.

Does anyone know how to clean one of these or have a Service manual? Does anyone know someone that services them we could call?

Any help would be appreciated.

Jeff Rhoades
Thomson-Shore

[Peter De Smidt]

Screen was no help? Kristin at Screen (Chicago branch) was helpful the last time I talked to her, although that was over a year ago. The other places to check are the places that sell printing equipment. Google is your friend. I have a 5000, which uses 4 bulbs. I thought the 5500 used two bulbs. It's possible that you have grime on the lenses or mirror, but these are probably very delicate. "...problems with dirt..." doesn't sound good. What do you mean?

[Bob McCarthy]

Screen was no help? Kristin at Screen (Chicago branch) was helpful the last time I talked to her, although that was over a year ago. The other places to check are the places that sell printing equipment. Google is your friend. I have a 5000, which uses 4 bulbs. I thought the 5500 used two bulbs. It's possible that you have grime on the lenses or mirror, but these are probably very delicate. "...problems with dirt..." doesn't sound good. What do you mean?

Peter,

If your only scanning film, you can remove the bottom 2 lamps and get more life from the lamp set. Save the removed lowers for the day the uppers go.

Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Bob,

Yep, that's what I do because of a tip from you. I only mentioned the bulb numbers since Jeff mentioned replacing three on his 5500, which surprised me.

[Bob McCarthy]

Gotcha, I thought we discussed this before.

Sounds like the new guys unit needs some good housekeeping. I'm anal how I keep mine - always covered against dust when not in use. The screen manual actually has a spec. for number of dust particles/cubic meter.

I never did find a full blown service manual for the day it becomes necessary.

I know guys who run dust cleaning equipment in their work rooms. Actually sounds like a good idea.

Hopefully life is treating you well.

bob

[JJCNER]

I was digital imaging field engineer for 14 years and worked on all types of film scanners, flatbeds, dye subs, digital print heads both VFPH and LED and other imaging equipment. I have owned a FT5000 for several months. It has performed perfectly and the scans are great. When I first obtained the unit it needed a good cleaning. I could see the mirror was very dusty and in general it was very dusty in all areas. I knew it had be be dusty inside as well. Equipment is equipment. It was a fairly straight forward task to remove the cover plate and light table to access the camera and mirror area. It has one mirror and the camera/sensor on X Y rails with stepper motors inside. That's about it. I have a step by step annotated series of photos showing how to access and clean the scanner. I can email to anyone interested.

Jim

[Bob McCarthy]

I was digital imaging field engineer for 14 years and worked on all types of film scanners, flatbeds, dye subs, digital print heads both VFPH and LED and other imaging equipment. I have owned a FT5000 for several months. It has performed perfectly and the scans are great. When I first obtained the unit it needed a good cleaning. I could see the mirror was very dusty and in general it was very dusty in all areas. I knew it had be be dusty inside as well. Equipment is equipment. It was a fairly straight forward task to remove the cover plate and light table to access the camera and mirror area. It has one mirror and the camera/sensor on X Y rails with stepper motors inside. That's about it. I have a step by step annotated series of photos showing how to access and clean the scanner. I can email to anyone interested.

Jim

That would be appreciated.

Also Peter has a bit of Cezanne info on his site. Would be a good place to keep it also.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Jim,

It's great to know of a knowledgeable scanner tech! Thank you for posting to this thread.

Like Bob, I keep my scanner covered when not in use. I also run a Honeywell room HEPA unit. It helps.

[JJCNER]

I have decided to post the steps for dis-assembly and cleaning on the web.
Here is a link. I would think the 5000 and the 5500 should be similar. If someone with a 5500 would comment on that it would be good to know.

I want to add a word of caution that I hope will be self evident. Just to be on the safe side, I wouldn't move or touch the camera, bellows or camera body and electronics. The only thing on the camera you should touch would be the front of the lens when cleaning it.

Jim

http://www.thepwvhiline.com/FT5000_Clean_Up.jpg

[Peter De Smidt]

That's great, Jim. Thanks!

[Peter York]

Jim,

This is fantastic. Thanks!

[jr@tshore]

Thanks also to Jim,

We followed the instructions and were able to clean the items he described. Put it all back together and it's working like new. We're not getting the flare anymore and the scans are much cleaner.

Jeff

[Peter De Smidt]

Jeff, that's good to hear!

[Willem]

Thanks for the expert info on this thread!
I vaguely knew the Cezanne was a good unit - and when one came up at eBay for a steal price I went for it - only to realize much later that (a) it's to big to easily transport it across the Atlantic, as I must and (b) it may not have the bolts Ted mentioned that need to be in place when transported. It was obviously a case of when it's too good to be true...

Still, enjoyed the reading, trying to cancel my purchase in consultation with the seller (who found the item in a building his company purchased). It was $299 so perhaps good for spare parts. No software. What was I thinking?

[Willem]

Is it still possible to get Colorgenius for OSX from Screen? Could not find it on their website. If so, how expensive would it be?

[Peter De Smidt]

When last I talked to a rep at Screen USA, which was about a year ago, upgrades were still available. Upgrading from CG1 to CG2 was around $1000. That means that the non-upgrade version was probably available as well, but I expect it would be very expensive.

[8x10 user]

Do you have the lock down instructions for a Cezanne Elite?

[Peter De Smidt]

Do you have the lock down instructions for a Cezanne Elite?

I don't, but I'm sure Screen-USA has the appropriate manuals.

[Tim Shawcross]

Hi all,

I've been using my screen elite now for 18 months or so and I'm getting some really good results on some chromes and negatives. I'm really struggling with others though. Below are two versions of the one chrome - one from a canon i9950f and one from the Screen. I scanned the canon with silverfast but it was some time ago and I cannot remember what corrections I made with the silverfast software before opening in photoshop, but don't believe it would've been too many. The screen one was scanned as a raw scan as well. As you can see the result is much darker in the shadows on the Screen. I've attached some edited (in photoshop) crops from the two scans, bringing out the shadows. As you can see the canon I think has better colour and it is much easier to get shadow detail out. My photoshop skills are not sufficient to get these two scans to look alike. I do not think this should be the case as the screen should have better DMAX. I believe it may be down to ICC profiles. Colorgenius seems to save TIFF's with no ICC profile. I therefore have no profile to assign when opening in photoshop with the exception of the default screen s5500 profile which results in a even darker scan than assigning AdobeRGB (my preferred working space). I suppose custom ICC profiles should improve this, but the difference is rather vast and I would've thought that a custom ICC profiles for individual film would've been only slightly better than the generic Screen profile.
(Canon scan is the first of each group)

[Peter De Smidt]

Tim,

I have some suggestions for scanning with a Cezanne on my blog at: http://peterdesmidt.com/blog/?p=361. In short, don't use the Cezanne ICC profile. Instead, get IT8 test slides of the type you use from Wolf Faust, and make your own icc profiles. I suggest some settings on my blog. Then, when you import the file into Photoshop, assign the custom icc file and convert to your working space, usually Adobe 98 or Prophoto RGB. Note that "assign" and "convert" have very specific meanings in Photoshop. Doing anything else will lead to serious color issues.

[Bob McCarthy]

There is a utility embedded in colorgenius that allows one to make their own profiles with an it8 target.

My provia target is spot on. Read the manuals, it should be in there.

Bob


Hi all,

I've been using my screen elite now for 18 months or so and I'm getting some really good results on some chromes and negatives. I'm really struggling with others though. Below are two versions of the one chrome - one from a canon i9950f and one from the Screen. I scanned the canon with silverfast but it was some time ago and I cannot remember what corrections I made with the silverfast software before opening in photoshop, but don't believe it would've been too many. The screen one was scanned as a raw scan as well. As you can see the result is much darker in the shadows on the Screen. I've attached some edited (in photoshop) crops from the two scans, bringing out the shadows. As you can see the canon I think has better colour and it is much easier to get shadow detail out. My photoshop skills are not sufficient to get these two scans to look alike. I do not think this should be the case as the screen should have better DMAX. I believe it may be down to ICC profiles. Colorgenius seems to save TIFF's with no ICC profile. I therefore have no profile to assign when opening in photoshop with the exception of the default screen s5500 profile which results in a even darker scan than assigning AdobeRGB (my preferred working space). I suppose custom ICC profiles should improve this, but the difference is rather vast and I would've thought that a custom ICC profiles for individual film would've been only slightly better than the generic Screen profile.
(Canon scan is the first of each group)

[Tim Shawcross]

Thanks - I've ordered some IT8 targets from Wolf Faust so I'm hoping they will significantly improve how the scanner performs with transparencies like this. As an aside, do you guys have a suggestion for a suitable cleaner to use on the anti-newton scanning bed? I remember reading on the high end scan group sometime ago about not using ammonia based cleaning products on the eversmart anti newton glass so I assume the screen is as delicate? I had tried emailing Screen in Australia with this question, but no response. (It is possible my contact has left the company- in the two years I have had the scanner I think I've spoken to two or three different people over that time).

Tim

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, I would be very careful with the scanner bed. It scratches very easily. Mine was so bad that I don't use it anymore. I'd recommend clean microfiber cloths or scanner wipes for cleaning. Avoiding ammonia is probably a good idea. There are some isopropol based glass cleaners out there, which would probably be safer. Don't scrub! Treat the surface as if you are cleaning a lens.

[Bob McCarthy]

It's a given that the first approach is prevention. Clean room, good filters, keep scanner covered when not using. That said I use scanner wipes along with a high quality cleaner w/o ammonia. I'm lucky, my bed is in beautiful shape. I use Perfect Glass, however I can hardly call that a recommendation as I don't know what the long term effects are!!

Screen just said use a high quality glass cleaner (no ammonia) when I called. The shop I bought it from just used Windex. I got my scanner from the same production company that Peter did??

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

[QUOTE=Bob McCarthy;640518 I got my scanner from the same production company that Peter did??

bob[/QUOTE]

I think so, Bob.

[Bob McCarthy]

I think so, Bob.


Peter, I've been trying to contact Howell (for Ken Lee) with no luck. What I have isn't working.

Would you happen to have his contact info. PM me if you do.

BTW, what brands are isopropyl alcohol and is there a reason to use it over...

bob

[estudio321]

Yes, I would be very careful with the scanner bed. It scratches very easily. Mine was so bad that I don't use it anymore. I'd recommend clean microfiber cloths or scanner wipes for cleaning. Avoiding ammonia is probably a good idea. There are some isopropol based glass cleaners out there, which would probably be safer. Don't scrub! Treat the surface as if you are cleaning a lens.
Hi there, i am from Brazil and i just got a cezanne 5000. I am learning about it and would like to ask you guys how to scan film without the scan bed? Its possible? Mine is very scratched, like Peter's, I think. And when I open my files on Photoshop this scratches are too big and take's me hour to clean digitally. There is any holder for film scanning? I have no accessories and no masks. And I'm using the 1.0.4 version for Os 9.0 (power mac G4).

Thaks a lot.

Danilo

[Bob McCarthy]

If you have a manual, it describes a frame that replaces the acrylic bed and the frame allows inserts that hold slides, 120 or 4x5 sheet film. In addition there are glass holders that also insert into the frame.

I got very lucky in that my acrylic bed was in beautiful shape. Actually really lucky as I got both systems with my unit.

Remember it is an XY scanner and "any" part of the bed is usable, that should be where you work. Nothing sacred about top center.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Danilo,

I use the metal frame with 6 openings for clam shell holders that Bob mentions for 4x5" film. For larger film, I made a carrier out of MDF and optical glass. I can take some pictures for you sometime soon. The smooth glass usually requires wet-mounting to avoid Newton's rings, which is something of a pain.

Here is a note from Jim, a scanner servicing tech and a Cezanne owner:

"I found a plastics company in Colorado (PlastiCare) Non Glare Acrylite P99. They cut to order. I checked out the specs on this product and it seemed nearly the same as what Screen is using. I ordered it for around 50.00 including shipping. I made a new frame from aluminum and have been using it as my new bed. I did a old bed and new bed scan of a Kodachrome 35mm slide, bw 2 1/4 and 4x5 bw neg. I could not see any difference between the two beds. The product is .236 inches or 5.9 mm thick (I believe the Screen bed is 5mm) thick and NG on one side, as is the Screen bed."

The P99 acrylic is available at a number of plastics suppliers. I haven't ordered any yet myself, but I probably will down the road.

Peter

[estudio321]

Hi Bob and Peter,

Thanks for the tips and information about acrylic P99. I will try to find it here in Brazil. And Bob, my bed is all scratched.
I have another problem that I can not solve. I'm trying to do a reflection scan of a work on paper with an adhesive on the surface. But the highlight is getting clipped. I also have an Epson V750, in which i did the same job without the clipping in the highlights. Do you have any idea about what I should try? Perhaps an adjustment, calibration or a new profile? I used the instructions that Peter posted on his blog.

Thanks again.

Danilo

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Danilo,

I don't do many reflective scans. I've even removed those bulbs at Bob's suggestion so that I have two spares. The range for a reflective scans is much lower than for a negative or transparency scan. You've chosen reflective as a scan type, right?

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/Picture-4.jpg

In the picture above, I've chosen "positive film" in the area for scan type.

After making the appropriate pre-prescan settings, you can "manual fine adjustment."

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/Picture-9.jpg

Move the cursor, you can use the mouse or the tab key, to the HD area. When you do this, you can click on the white of the paper in the image preview to set the white point. Look at the numbers in the HD section. You can then adjust them a bit to make the bright areas of the scan darker.

[estudio321]

Hi Peter, I have tried a few adjustments but I think the problem was with the original that I was scanning. It was too bright, the reflecting surface, somehow, clipped the highlights.
I am now thinking about replacing the original anti newton acrilyc of the bed to an anti newton glass because its too scrached. Have anybody already done this? What could be the cons?

Thanks.

Danilo

[Bob McCarthy]

One trick is to set max black by clicking in the clear film area along the edge created by the film holder. This is the same as Fred Pickers " maximum black.

Bob



Hi Danilo,

I don't do many reflective scans. I've even removed those bulbs at Bob's suggestion so that I have two spares. The range for a reflective scans is much lower than for a negative or transparency scan. You've chosen reflective as a scan type, right?

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/Picture-4.jpg

In the picture above, I've chosen "positive film" in the area for scan type.

After making the appropriate pre-prescan settings, you can "manual fine adjustment."

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/Picture-9.jpg

Move the cursor, you can use the mouse or the tab key, to the HD area. When you do this, you can click on the white of the paper in the image preview to set the white point. Look at the numbers in the HD section. You can then adjust them a bit to make the bright areas of the scan darker.

[Tocal]

Hello everybody,

recently I was able to pick up a Cézanne (non-elite) in a good working condition.

Using an old PowerMac G4 with OS 9.2.2 and ColorGenius 1.0.3, everything worked out so far. The only problem I experienced are striping artifacts all over the scan when looked at it at 100%.

I uploaded a full-resolution jpeg of a 4000dpi scan here (http://www.quik-photography.de/quikphotography.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Scan001final.jpg). Especially in the shadows you might discover the stripes I´m talking of. The picture was scanned 90° counterclockwise, so the direction of the stripes is parallel to the CCD.

Do you experienced guys have any suggestions how to avoid these stripes?

Best wishes from Germany,

Tobias

Edit: Added a 200% Crop to show the problem.

[Bob McCarthy]

Not, seeing much on your sample.

Striping frequently comes from a dusty/dirty calibration strip. To the left of the bed is the strip. There is a metal piece stamped outward to form a sort of handle. Pull up and remove and inspect. A non ammonia cleaner carefully applied should help.

Bob
B

[Peter De Smidt]

I saw some stripes in the shadows on the big jpg. You're scanning slides, right? How dense are those shadow areas?

[Peter York]

My scanner occasionally produces these stripping artifacts, though I cannot tell you what they are due to. If I find an answer, I'll let you know. Come fall, I'll be dissassembling the scanner for a full clean, and if necessary, some servicing by a technician.

[Tocal]

Not, seeing much on your sample.

Striping frequently comes from a dusty/dirty calibration strip. To the left of the bed is the strip. There is a metal piece stamped outward to form a sort of handle. Pull up and remove and inspect. A non ammonia cleaner carefully applied should help.

Bob
B

I´ll try that, although I have in my mind that the strip was in a pretty good shape. Thanks for that suggestion!


I saw some stripes in the shadows on the big jpg. You're scanning slides, right? How dense are those shadow areas?

Yes, the sample was a 6x6 medium format slide. I put the slide straight on the tray and covered it with the smaller glass which came with the scanner.

The shadows are pretty dense. Almost black. I mean don´t get me wrong. I´m pretty impressed about what the Cézanne is able to handle but there is always room for improvement right? ;)

Is it possible that the scanner needs a more stable desk to stand on? It is now located at a pretty stable wooden (almost three inches thick) desk. Maybe that´s not enough?!?

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't think the table part is the problem. If it was a vibration problem, it should show up throughout the scene. This could be a dirty calibration print, as Bob mentioned, or it could be sensor noise because of the density of the slide. Drum scanners really do have an advantage there.

[Bob McCarthy]

I finally saw the sample on a decent screen (ie not iPhone). Can you see that in a print? Dirty sensor.cal strip is usually more prominent.

Are the stripes in direction of travel or across?

B

[Peter York]

I don't think the stability of the table or the density of the slide is the issue. My scanner rests on a very heavy wooden desk, on top of a 1/2" thick sheet of rubber, and I have experienced "striping." Furthermore, the "striping" occurs in highlight and shadow areas of my slides, thus I doubt density is the culprit.

As Bob mentioned it may be a dirty calibration strip. I have experienced this "striping" AFTER cleaning my calibration strip. However, my strip has a few marks (depressions) on the outer edges of the strip. Let me know if your "striping" goes away after cleaning the calibration strip.

My tentative hypothesis is that this is due to a problem with the computer interface. The "striping" looks like the incorrect assemblage of data into a final TIFF. I'd suggest that you check your SCSI cables and the general health of the computer you are operating. At first, I thought that my G4 had insufficient RAM (only 500 megabytes), but Peter hasn't experienced this with the same amount of RAM in his Mac.

When I clean out my hard drive and reboot the computer, my "striping" seems to go away for many scans.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've got two gigs of ram in my G4. When I had less than 500mb, hi-res scans took forever, as in overnight. I agree about density not being a problem if you see it in the thin areas of the negative.

[Tocal]

I finally saw the sample on a decent screen (ie not iPhone). Can you see that in a print? Dirty sensor.cal strip is usually more prominent.

Are the stripes in direction of travel or across?

B

Since it was one of my first scans I don´t have any prints yet. I checked the cal.strip. It has one small dent/depression (size is one square-millimeter). It has no dirt on it though.

The stripes are across the direction of travel.



I don't think the stability of the table or the density of the slide is the issue. My scanner rests on a very heavy wooden desk, on top of a 1/2" thick sheet of rubber, and I have experienced "striping." Furthermore, the "striping" occurs in highlight and shadow areas of my slides, thus I doubt density is the culprit.

As Bob mentioned it may be a dirty calibration strip. I have experienced this "striping" AFTER cleaning my calibration strip. However, my strip has a few marks (depressions) on the outer edges of the strip. Let me know if your "striping" goes away after cleaning the calibration strip.

My tentative hypothesis is that this is due to a problem with the computer interface. The "striping" looks like the incorrect assemblage of data into a final TIFF. I'd suggest that you check your SCSI cables and the general health of the computer you are operating. At first, I thought that my G4 had insufficient RAM (only 500 megabytes), but Peter hasn't experienced this with the same amount of RAM in his Mac.

When I clean out my hard drive and reboot the computer, my "striping" seems to go away for many scans.

I use a G4 PowerMac with 733 Mhz and 1,25 Gig of RAM. The system is just new installed and the only application that is run on that machine is CG 1.0.3.

My SCSI cable is 2 meters long. It might be an issue although it is not way to long (Screen writes in the manual that a SCSI-chain longer than six meters is not recommended). I try to get a cable not longer than one meter and go from there.

I have the second Bus terminated at the scanner and I use an Adaptec AHA-2940U2B SCSI-card. Are there known issues about that?

Thank you all for your help so far!

Tobias

[Bob McCarthy]

Stripes across the direction of travel take the chip out of the equation. It sounds more hardware/software related if this is the case. I suppose its "possible" the stepper motor is in play, possibly lubrication? but I doubt it.

I would start with making sure your software is up to date ( a clean reinstall can't hurt, assuming you have software Plus upgrades), and that other processes (ie. Photoshop) are not running while scanning.

Your sample is at 200%, is it visable at 50%? Are you looking at the file with too much magnification for practical purposes?

Note, I do not see similar scanning lines with my Cezanne, so there is an issue, just a small issue if it not visable.

bob

[Peter York]

I suppose its "possible" the stepper motor is in play, possibly lubrication? but I doubt it.

I, too, doubt that it is the stepper motor because the "striping" I have experienced occurs alongside non-striping. The file looks fine until you hit a band of "striping." I also doubt that it is a problem with the CCD array (ie, some bad sample areas), because the striping I have experienced varies in width, and occurs in different areas of my images. Granted, I'm not placing transparencies in the exact same location with each scan, but I suspect they are placed similar enough so that if areas of the CCD were bad, I would not see the variation in striping that I do.

[photoSmart42]

Just bought an FT-S5000. It comes with the workstation, I think some of the masks, spare lamps, software. I'm stoked to see how much better the scans are over my V750 (which I may still keep for proofing since it's pretty fast at that). It comes with a G3, so I'm guessing it won't have a ton of RAM. I may decide to upgrade to a G4 since they're really cheap.

Is there such thing as a user's manual somewhere online where I can download it? Any tips that'll help me get up and running as fast as possible?

-Dragos

[Peter De Smidt]

Screen's download page is at: http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/download/

If you don't find what you need, I think I have pdf versions of the manuals.

A G4 with maxed out ram is a good idea. If you have Color Genius version one, you'll need OS 9 . Version two works on some versions of OS 10.

[Bob McCarthy]

I might also mention, version 2.0 is for intel macs, version 1.0 is for the older ppc.

I can see no functionality difference. A older Mac runs the software just fine if the machine is given adequate dram.

But maintaining an old Mac can be a touch frustrating at times, OS 8/9 is nothing like OSX and occasionally requires some head scratching to solve an issue.

Bob

[photoSmart42]

Screen's download page is at: http://www.screen.co.jp/ga_dtp/en/download/

If you don't find what you need, I think I have pdf versions of the manuals.

A G4 with maxed out ram is a good idea. If you have Color Genius version one, you'll need OS 9 . Version two works on some versions of OS 10.

Thanks, Peter. I've looked at that Screen page before, but couldn't find anything that looks like a user's manual, just software uploads. The workstation G3 comes with ColorScope 3, so I'm not sure how that compares to Color Genius. Looks like ColorScope may be an older version of the Cezanne software, but not sure.

[photoSmart42]

I might also mention, version 2.0 is for intel macs, version 1.0 is for the older ppc.

I can see no functionality difference. A older Mac runs the software just fine if the machine is given adequate dram.

But maintaining an old Mac can be a touch frustrating at times, OS 8/9 is nothing like OSX and occasionally requires some head scratching to solve an issue.

Bob

Thanks, Bob! I'm not yet ready to shell out the cash for the updated version of software that runs on OS X. I'll play around with OS 9 until I get frustrated. :)

[Peter De Smidt]

Version 2 also works with powerpc macs in os 10.3, as that's what I use. For me, the biggest difference is that OS10 supports USB 2 add on cards, and I use a USB 2 drive to shuttle the files to my Photoshop PC. There are many ways to do this, though, and I never had any issue using CG in OS9, as long as there was enough memory in the machine. I recommend 1.5gb.

[Bob McCarthy]

I can see where that would be useful. I'm using Ethernet to a storage raid which I access with my Mac Pro for editing.

I guess the differentiator between v1 and v2 is OSX. I stand corrected. I forgot OSX was introduced on the ppc., my bad. Does it use emulation to run on the ppc CPU?

I thought about putting v2 on my intel Mac and driving the Cezanne with it, but figured the old CPU was working great, why mess with a good thing, the old cpu came with a ton of memory for that generation so it has been trouble free.

Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob,

In your situation I would continue exactly as you are. Why mess with a good thing? In my case, I had to reboot my G4 from os 9 to os 10 every time I wanted to transfer files. It was a pain.

I'm not really a "mac guy", and so I shouldn't be trusted about this, but I don't think that V2 requires being run in emulation mode on my G4. I simply installed it (and run it) as I do all of the other programs.

[photoSmart42]

How weird - I could've sworn I'd just posted a message. Anyway, here goes again: I just got my FT-S5000, and I think the shipping plate may have been set wrong during shipping. It's in the upper right position with the pins outward. Is it supposed to be in the other position with the pins inward on the lower left for shipping? The manual is a bit confusing on that.

Thanks!

[Bob McCarthy]

Yes, pins inward to capture internal workings.

If you want a picture, I'll put up one tomorrow.

Boh

[photoSmart42]

Yes, pins inward to capture internal workings.

If you want a picture, I'll put up one tomorrow.

Boh

Thanks - that makes sense to me as well. Well, I'll fire it up and see how broken it is... :(

[Bob McCarthy]

Fixed to frame with pins out is how you store locking plate to prevent it being misplaced. If it was shipped locally, you're likely ok, assuming it wasn't manhandled. It's a well built piece of equipment

Good luck.

Bob

[photoSmart42]

Fixed to frame with pins out is how you store locking plate to prevent it being misplaced. If it was shipped locally, you're likely ok, assuming it wasn't manhandled. It's a well built piece of equipment

Good luck.

Bob

Unfortunately it was shipped cross-country, and for sure moving it up the stairs wasn't a gentle experience riding on the appliance dolly (was assuming it was locked down since I asked the seller specifically to do that, and he said he would). The G3 that came with it doesn't want to sync up with my VGA display at the moment, so I can't even check it out. A bit frustrated right now, but I'll find a cheap mac monitor locally tomorrow.

[Bob McCarthy]

One quick test is to fire it up and let it run through the start up sequence. If you get green, with no error message, you might be ok.

And not all error messages are a problem, I had a stuck micro switch. No big deal to resolve.

Good luck, your scans will make up for the hassles.

Bob

[photoSmart42]

One quick test is to fire it up and let it run through the start up sequence. If you get green, with no error message, you might be ok.

And not all error messages are a problem, I had a stuck micro switch. No big deal to resolve.

Good luck, your scans will make up for the hassles.

Bob

Actually got it up and running late last night, and the quick scans I made seem to come out OK. More testing today. So far so good - thanks for your help! I'm also getting a G4 with 2GB of RAM to replace the G3 I got with the scanner, which should speed up the scans.

[Peter De Smidt]

That's good to hear. The scanners seem very well built.

[photoSmart42]

Was looking at the scanner in more detail as I learn about it, and I'm noticing that the white reference bar has a little bit of grime on it by either end. The middle part looks clean. I know the manual says not to touch it, but what can I do about the grime at the ends?

EDIT: found Bob's advice to use non-ammonia based cleaner and microfiber cloth to try and clean the strip. I'll attempt that tonight. Getting some good scans so far with it.

[Pavel Banka]

Does anyone from Elite Cezanne scanner have experience with light narrow strips on the scan, regardless if transparency or reflective art? I recently bought the unit looking quite good, I have even purchased a newer [faster] software but if I scan simple image, the light lines are visible. I am very sorry from this, it appeared after detailed examination of the minimalistic images...,
any help with advise? I tried to clean glass, the round mirror next to the bulb, no help yet. Thanks for a response! I live in Prague, in Czech Republic, there is no servise for Screen.
Pavel

[Bob McCarthy]

Do the scan lines run across the bed or in the direction of bed travel?

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Pavel,

If you can post an image, or a link to an image, that might help.

What is the condition of the calibration strip?

[photoSmart42]

Ran into a new glitch with the new G4 I bought. Was hoping to simple swap drives from my G3 to the G4, but unknowingly I bought the version of the G4 that can only run with OS X. Am I stuck using the G3? I don't feel like paying another $1000 for the software to run under OS X. Will the older ColorGenius software run under OS X at all?

[Bob McCarthy]

I don't believe so. But a G3 full populated with lots of ram is plenty fast.

My setup is

Cezanne

G3

Raid

Current 8 core Mac pro

Fast ethernet really moves the data along too.


No bottlenecks anywhere and plenty of redundancy.

Bob

[photoSmart42]

I don't believe so. But a G3 full populated with lots of ram is plenty fast

Thanks, Bob! I may have to breathe some life into the G3 starting with a new, larger hard drive. The 4GB stock drives (two SCSI drives mirrored) are making some weird noises.

As an aside, do you happen to know how far off the glass the scanner can auto focus? I'm trying to see if I can use my betterscanning holders from my V750.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm not sure that raising the negatives up is such a good idea, although the only way is to try it. The reason is that the bed has an anti-newton texture, and this might cause some softness if the film isn't right up against it.

[Bob McCarthy]

I wouldn't have a clue. Personally I would never deviate from using the screen process. If I can get crisp 5000+ spi scans from the bed, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

My g3 only acts as temporary storage until I get the files onto the main storage.

I would concider wet mounting with acetate over using a betterscan holder. The bed is made of same acrylic as a drum, it works like a champ.

Bob

[Pavel Banka]

Thank you both, Bob and Peter for trying to help with my problem. Strips are going the way scanner runs. I will try to post samples when I come to my studio.
Pavel

[Bob McCarthy]

Thank you both, Bob and Peter for trying to help with my problem. Strips are going the way scanner runs. I will try to post samples when I come to my studio.
Pavel

If the strips are traveling along the path of the sensor it is likely generated by sensor or calibration strip. Dust, dirt are likely culprits. A good housekeeping may be the solution. There was a good writeup posted (or link to) here sometime in the past.

Bob

[photoSmart42]

Upgrade to G4 completed, new (older) SCSI card installed, and it works!! Many thanks to Peter and Bob for their help! Here's a sample shot (100% crop) between the Cezanne and my V750 at best focus height:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6073/6055282904_b504923fc3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chueto/6055282904/)
Cezanne_V750 comparison (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chueto/6055282904/) by photosmart42 (http://www.flickr.com/people/chueto/), on Flickr

P.S. - it should be obvious, but I should mention that the Cezanne is on the right.

[Peter De Smidt]

That's good to hear!

[gigi75]

I am a new to this forum and also I new owner of screen cezanne fts5000 scanner.

I am really glad to have this new scanner as part of my work station that includes also an Icg 355 drum scanner.

I made a few tests ( 5x4 films negative at highest res / mac g4 799ram) and I realised a strange banding effect on the images. They look like thin coloured line running through the whole length of the image.

image link: http://www.gigicifali.com/1.jpg

I contacted by private message Mr Jim about it as I intercepted one of his email sent long time ago talking about to how open and clean internally the scanner .

If you have any ideas to resolve the problem contact in this forum or at gigicifali@gmail.com

regards,

Gigi

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Gigi,

I haven't seen that before. Is your calibration strip clean?

Peter

[gigi75]

Hi Peter,
can you tell me where is the calibration strip?
Gigi

[gigi75]

The white calibration strip is not present in the scanenr. What should I do now?

Can you tell me where to get one?

Than

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, you can contact the closest Screen division. Last time I checked, they still sold parts. Otherwise, I'm not sure what would be a good replacement, and I'm not sure that it is the cause of your problem.

[gigi75]

This it what I think as well Mr Peter and the reason is because the picture looks just fantastic as great as if not better colour wise that the same image scanned with ICG drum scanner I have got. So, what it could be?? dust on the lens or on sensor? Placing maybe the film directly on the screen bed? Scanning at highest resolution?
tell me what you think out of experience you gathered with this beast.

Thank you

GIGi

[Peter De Smidt]

I doubt very much that it is dust. Dust is not that colorful, and it makes blobs and not defined lines like that. Do you see at at other resolutions? It could also be a computer/connection issue, where the system runs out of bandwidth for a moment. What type of computer are you using, and with what sort of ram? Are you using a SCSI-2 connection, or a scsi-firewire? Do you get the same issues when scanning on a different part of the bed?

[Bob McCarthy]

Sorry late to the thread. I think you are on the right path Peter.

I always suggest running no other programs in the background other than what is necessary, and memory load the computer, it's cheap and avoids many issues.

Bob

[gigi75]

Ok guys these are the specs:
Mac powerpc G4 speed 733mhz
Partition with 2 Hard drives : 1 harddrive mac os10.0.2 / 2 harddrive mac os9.9.2
Color genius v102 and color server run on OS9
Ram 1.25 tree slots of 256mb 512mb 521mb
card type: scsi card adapec 2930u card rom 4.0b4(wrapped)
scasi cable long 2 meter long! May be the case to use 1 meter?

Let me know and thank you again

Gigi

[gigi75]

sorry yes i have the same issue when I tried on different positions. Scanned at 200dpi and 3130dpi.

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, that's a faster mac than I have, although I have a bit more ram, but I doubt that your issues are being cause by lack of ram. (If you had 256mb, though, that'd be a different story.) My SCSI cable is about half as long as yours, but again it seems unlikely that it's the culprit. If you have another cable handy, then by all means give it a try.

Have you updated the firmware and CG version to the latest available? How about the driver for the scsi card?

[gigi75]

the last available is it cg 1.0.3? the driver for the scsi it has been installed. I ll try with 1 meter cable. could it be the scanner itself?
could I try working with the mac os panther? At moment cg is running on mac os9.
gigi

[Bob McCarthy]

I'll admit I'm reaching, but I see issues like this when ram is exausted and the machine temporarily hits the hd. For virtual memory. Are you scanning at 16 bit rgb at a high scan sample rate. If another program in the background is also consuming memory, I get odd effects in the scan. I have 4 gb in this old girl and no issues have shown up since loading her up.

As I say I'm reaching.

Bob

[Peter De Smidt]

Color Genius 1.x.x won't work with os 10. You would need version 2.x.x.

Does the G4 have 4 memory slots? I might have some spare memory. OS 9 will see a max of 1.5 gig, whereas OS 10 might see up to 2 gig. (I'm sorry I'm not sure. I'm not really a 'Mac' guy.)

[Bob McCarthy]

Just checked. The Mac connected to the scanner has 2 GB not 4. Brain fade I guess.

Bob