Used pro flatbeds - who are they ?

[Matus Kalisky]

There have been many threads already on this topic, though as I am on my way searching for a scanner and leaning towards and older pro or semi-pro (does such a thing exists?) flatbed scanners I thought it may be worthwhile to bring some of these informations under one roof.

My point is simple - what are according to your opinin older/used proffesional flatbed scanners that are worth to have a look. I ask for the flatbeds only as the drum scanners although capable of the highest quality results require to much work for an ordinary photographer to get a scan and tend to be large and also more expensive. Let's put the top price limit on $5000 (although I would probably spend "a bit" less than that)

If possible I would like to ask you to comment on:

- Pros
- Cons
- Caveats considering necesasry software/hardware
- Basic specs (resolution, weight, size)
- Your opinion about the scan quality
- year of production
- Reasonable price range on the used market for a fully working unit
- Price/availability of possible accesories or software

I have in mind scanners like, Creo Eversmart, Agfa Duoscan T2500, Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra, Screen Cezanne, Fuji Lanovia, Creo IQSmart (?), etc ... (to cover a wider range, tha last ones would probably not fit the $5000 limit)

Personally I want to use such a scanner not only for 4x5 but also for 6x6 and maybe for 35mm and would like to be able to get a decent 6x enlargement at 360dpi printed. Print should look good when viewed from 30 cm distance.

thank you

[Peter De Smidt]

I bought a Screen Cezanne for about $1000. The Cezanne Elite is supposed to be faster. One thing to look for is the ability to save in 16-bit, the Cezanne does so for color scans but not for bw scans. (I scan my bw negatives as color positives to get around this.) Generally, you'll be dealing with SCSI II scanners that run on Mac OS9. If you need something different, make sure to look into, as software updates, parts,... are really, really expensive. For example, the software update to allow me to use os10 would cost as much as my scanner did.

Another thing to consider is resolution. While my Cezanne can do a claimed 5300 spi, it only does this as a narrow strip, approximately 1.5" wide. Hence, with 120 and 4x5 negatives, you may have to scan to strips and stitch them together. Some of the Kodak/Creo scanners do this for you, which might be a time saver.

Try to find something that is still supported.

Basically, I bought my scanner as an alternative to a Nikon 9000, with the added bonus of large format scanning capabilities. So far, I'm very happy.

[sanking]

There have been many threads already on this topic, though as I am on my way searching for a scanner and leaning towards and older pro or semi-pro (does such a thing exists?) flatbed scanners I thought it may be worthwhile to bring some of these informations under one roof.

My point is simple - what are according to your opinin older/used proffesional flatbed scanners that are worth to have a look. I ask for the flatbeds only as the drum scanners although capable of the highest quality results require to much work for an ordinary photographer to get a scan and tend to be large and also more expensive. Let's put the top price limit on $5000 (although I would probably spend "a bit" less than that)

If possible I would like to ask you to comment on:

- Pros
- Cons
- Caveats considering necesasry software/hardware
- Basic specs (resolution, weight, size)
- Your opinion about the scan quality
- year of production
- Reasonable price range on the used market for a fully working unit
- Price/availability of possible accesories or software

I have in mind scanners like, Creo Eversmart, Agfa Duoscan T2500, Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra, Screen Cezanne, Fuji Lanovia, Creo IQSmart (?), etc ... (to cover a wider range, tha last ones would probably not fit the $5000 limit)

Personally I want to use such a scanner not only for 4x5 but also for 6x6 and maybe for 35mm and would like to be able to get a decent 6x enlargement at 360dpi printed. Print should look good when viewed from 30 cm distance.

thank you

- Pros
Much higher scanning quality than consumer flatbeds. In some cases, especially the EverSmart scanners, almost on par (or better) than many drum scanners.

- Cons
Big and heavy. Also true of drum scanners.

- Caveats considering necesasry software/hardware
May need vintage computer operating system. Many of the vintage flatbeds work with MAC 0S 9.2.2. Also true of most vintage drum scanners.

- Basic specs (resolution, weight, size)
Again, big, heavy and take up a lot of space. A Scitex/Creo EverSmart weighs around 150 lbs.

- Your opinion about the scan quality
Definitely on a much higher plane than what you can get with the consumer flatbeds. In the case of the EverSmart scanners, close (maybe better) in performance to Howtek D4500 or 6500.
See thread at http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7018#post7018

- year of production
EverSmart scanners, late 1990s to present. Many models, ranging from 2540 spi optical to 5600 spi optical.

- Reasonable price range on the used market for a fully working unit.
Depends on model, but from $5k for EverSmart Pro to $10K for EverSmart Supreme. These prices are from dealers who guarantee the product. Bargains sometimes available on ebay for much less, but you take a chance.

Newer models not often seen on market.

- Price/availability of possible accesories or software
Quite a number from Creo/Kodak, but expensive.

The great selling point of EverSmart scanners, and IQSmart also, is that they employ a proprietary software that allows one to scan at maximum optical resolution anywhere on the bed, and over the entire bed. This is unique to high end flatbeds. In other words, if your computer can handle it, you can scan a 12X17" negative at true optical resolution of 5600 spi (EverSmart Supreme and above), 3175 spi (EverSmart Pro and Pro II), and 2540 spi (EverSmart, EverSmart Jazz and Jazz+).


Sandy King

[Matus Kalisky]

- Peter -

What resolution does the Cezanne delivers acrossthe whle bed ? I guess I would only rarely go beyond 3200 dpi even with smaller formats.

- Sandy -

Which software/harware should come along with EverSmart Pro (II) models ?

How does the Jazz/Jazz+ models compare to EverSmart Pro scanners ?

I was not upto now involved with Mac computers so I do not have a good idea about their OS. What is considered old and what new? Were there some major changes in the archistecture/design of the Macs that do not allow to run older software on more recent OSs?

[jetcode]

the Cezanne interpolates up to 20,000 dpi, I am working on a 4x10 image scanned at 3600spi and I cannot tell that is was interpolated, the image is clean minus the usual dust issues

[sanking]

- Sandy -

Which software/harware should come along with EverSmart Pro (II) models ? And if you have a firewire conversion you can run OSX.

How does the Jazz/Jazz+ models compare to EverSmart Pro scanners ?

I was not upto now involved with Mac computers so I do not have a good idea about their OS. What is considered old and what new? Were there some major changes in the archistecture/design of the Macs that do not allow to run older software on more recent OSs?

You can use oXYgen with the EverSmart Pro II. This allows saves in high bit.

Most JAZZ/JAZZ+, EverSmart and EverSmart Pro models use the older EverSmart Scanning Application, which only allows 8 bit saves and must be used with the older OS 9.2.2. However, if using OS 9.2.2 does not turn you off these scanners will work as fast and as well under a MAC G4 running OS 9.2.2. as under OSX.

There is a very big difference in the operating system of MAC OSX and all previous MAC systems, including OS 9.2.2 which was the last of the classic MAC systems.

Sandy King

[sanking]

What resolution does the Cezanne delivers acrossthe whle bed ? I guess I would only rarely go beyond 3200 dpi even with smaller formats.



This answer was posted recently on the Scan Hi-End forum on Yahoo.

"The scanning resolution of a Cezanne over the entire bed iis 589ppi (the Cezanne has a 13.5" wide flatbed that has to be covered by one 8,000 pixel CCD.

The Cezanne can only stitch in line art and Copy Dot modes so you've only
got one pass of the CCD to capture color artwork."

The fellow who posted this information seems to know what he is talking about so I assume it is accurate, though I don't know enough about how the Cezanne works to say for sure. However, apparently the Cezanne zooms in to cover smaller areas, and then the resolution increases.

Sandy King

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . scanner and leaning towards and older pro or semi-pro (does such a thing exists?) flatbed scanners . . . . . top price limit on $5000 (although I would probably spend "a bit" less than that)

If possible I would like to ask you to comment on:

- Pros

Major one for me is a greater true Dmax and Drange. You are more likely to capture colour in shadow areas, which can be important if you shoot transparency film. Resolution is a different comparison, and considering file size limits of some older software, it might not be the best way to compare.



- Cons

Older software needing older computer, or often a SCSI connection. Set-up can be tougher, though once it is up and running should be seemless. There is also a Ratoc FR1SX FireWire to SCSI, though it doesn't work on every flatbed scanner, and it is not easy to get working properly.



- Basic specs (resolution, weight, size)

Seriously, investigate Dmax and Dmin. The better older gear will give real numbers. You can probably work with 3.2 Dmax on most transparency scans, though ideally 3.4 to 3.8 would be better, especially if you do lots of night photography. A better Drange could allow more subtle transitions in colour.



- Your opinion about the scan quality

Most of the mid to high level gear within the last ten years is quite good. However, lamps can age and colour shift, sometimes beyond the ability of the software to work around. There can also be an issue of noise during scanning, especially RFI with SCSI connections; sometimes really tough to trouble shoot and figure out. These things can compromise scan quality.



- year of production

The main issue as you find older gear is the sofware. SilverFast make some updated versions for some Heidelberg/LinoType/LinoColour and other scanners, though it is not really that cheap. Then you still have an issue of making the SCSI connection work.



- Reasonable price range on the used market for a fully working unit

Unless you are really lucky, I doubt you can get into anything not needing service nor software for under $1000. However, if you find a good deal on a full working set-up, definitely don't wait too long making a decision.



- Price/availability of possible accesories or software

Outside of SilverFast for some older scanners, there might be a newer version of software for Screen or Creo/Kodak that might work on some scanners. Oil mount kits are something else, though usually expensive. Then there is a nice scanning starter pack for wet mounting that Prazio (http://www.prazio.com) make, which is quite affordable and works on many flatbeds.



I have in mind scanners like, Creo Eversmart, Agfa Duoscan T2500, Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra, Screen Cezanne, Fuji Lanovia, Creo IQSmart (?), etc ... (to cover a wider range, tha last ones would probably not fit the $5000 limit)

I think that AGFA was just a reworked MicroTek, like some Linotype scanners were reworked UMAX; not that it is a bad choice, but your software is very limited and you should not pay much for something like this. The Polaroid is surprisingly good, though service might be an issue. There is also an old Nikon scanner for 4x5, but not easy to find and no longer supported. The really good Heidelberg flatbed was the Topaz, though it is somewhat large and heavy for what you get. Better/best AGFA was the XY15, though in reality that is an older Fuji flatbed (FineScan?), and I think getting the actual Fuji would be better, but only if it has all the software and film holders.

So that leaves Dainippon Screen, and Creo/Kodak. Just be careful on older software, and be sure to have all the holders. You should be able to replace the lamps on most older Creo scanners (some Scitex too) yourself, though any other service would be expensive. Missing software would be very bad. Same goes for Fuji, which I would never consider without the software.



Personally I want to use such a scanner not only for 4x5 but also for 6x6 and maybe for 35mm and would like to be able to get a decent 6x enlargement at 360dpi printed. Print should look good when viewed from 30 cm distance.

thank you

Kein problem! One nice thing is batch capture mode on some of the older flatbed, which can make doing many 35mm scans much faster. When you see speed performance specifications on some older scanners, it is often scans per hour based upon 6x7 (cm) film. Anyway, 6 times 360 is 2160 . . . so I think that part is somewhat in reach. More usual is 300 times 8 for 2400, and quite a reasonable target; though I still suggest putting more emphasis on Dmax.

Ciao!

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

[Ted Harris]

Sandy's comments on the operation of the Cezanne are correct.

One needs to be bit careful with the Creo Jazz and Jazz+. These are good scanners but they were not manufactured by Creo, they are rebadged Microtek 4000 XY scanners, In fact, the 4000XY, which is still manufactured and sold in a few markets, has never been available in North America because of the marketing agreement (still in effect) between Creo and Microtek.

[Matus Kalisky]

Thank you for all you answers. I get the point of the importance of the completness of the scanner considering the necessary software and hardware accesories.

I also agree that the Drange and Dmax is more important than the resolution as all the scanners discussed have high resolution anyhow.

I found THIS (http://www.fotokabinett.de/download/ppw_scannertest.pdf) file with list of high-end scanners and it seems that at least on paper all of them bring at Dmax at least 3.8

Still, I would have a few questions considering the accessories. I have not found yet any webpage with detailled descriptin or technical specifications for any of the scanners mentioned so I would like to ask which hardware and software should come along with following scanners so that nothing is missing and the scanner can be used. What would be optional accessories that are not necessary but useful? Pleas, if possible, be detailled:

- Creo EverSmart Pro
- Creo Eversmart Pro II
- Screen Cezanne (FT-S5000)
- Screen Cezanne Ultra (FT-S5500)
- Fuji Lanovia Quattro
- Fuji Finescan 2750 & 5000
- Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra
- ....

I mean - if there is a scanner for sale - I would like to know wheter it is complete or not.

Could you elaborate on the software side a bit more for some of the models if possible ? I mean - what was a standard software for a given scanner and what was an update ? What are the differencies ?


- Gordon -

you mention that Heidelberg Topaz as "somewhat large and heavy" - could you be a bitmore specific? Which Fuji scanner(s) do you ahve in mind?

- Ted -

What is Wrong with Creo/Microtek Jazz scanners ? Hm, they do not seem to be abundant in Germany..

- Jetcode (or others) -

could you elaborate a bit more how do you scan with Cezanne scanners?

thanks

[Matus Kalisky]

One very short question on top of the previous ones. What does it mean if the the resolution of the scanner is different in each direction eg: 1200x2400 (Heidelberg Linoscan 1440) or 1250x2500 (Agfa DuoScan T2500) .. ?

thanks

[Peter De Smidt]

With the Cezanne, you can scan a 35mm frame at 5300 spi, a 120 film at 3650 spi, and a 4x5 at 1400 spi in one pass, assuming you lay the long edge of the frame parallel with the front of the scanner. It's really easy, though, to scan multiple strips. The Color Genius software gives a good readout of scanning position, and you can queue up a bunch of scans all at once, and so you don't have to wait for the end of the a scan before specifying the next ones. No doubt this is less convenient than the Eversmart, at least for high resolutions with 4x5. However, as I said earlier, I paid less than $1000 for mine in good working shape, and I've never seen an Eversmart with 16-bit software for that little. The choice will really depend on what you can find locally, the price, condition, included elements, and whether there's a local service place or not. These things are very big and heavy, and shipping should be avoided if possible.

[Matus Kalisky]

- Peter -

could you please list all the accesories that should come with this scanner?

Also - what is the difference between Ultra and non-Ultra models?

thank you

[jetcode]

Peter there is no need to compare or discount the Cezanne because someone gave it to you for gas money. It's a fine scanner. I routinely scan 4x10 negs at 3600spi and get great results with scans containing interpolated data. I paid $5900 for mine shipped.

[Peter De Smidt]

You'll need:

The Standard tray. (This is a very expensive piece of acrylic with a very fine anti-newton texture. It does scratch fairly easily.)

Hold down sheets. (These are thin acrylic sheets with a very fine anti-Newton texture on one side. They are meant to be laid on top of the negative to hold it flat. They have a very fine anti newton texture. You don't need them if you're going to wet-mount, which I recommend.)

Calibration strip. (This is a very delicate white reference strip. It's installed on the left end of the scanning bed. If it is damaged, you'll need a new one, which could be expensive.)

Bulbs (The FT-S5000 has four, two for transparencies and negative and two for reflective scans. These bulbs are about $200 a piece. Make sure they look in good working condition.)

Software. (Colorgenius EX version 1 will work only on Mac OS 9. Version 2 will work (with the right scsi card) on a G5 with OS10.)

If you're going to do dry scans, make sure that the Standard Tray has a big enough area that isn't scratched. (Here in the USA, a new Standard Tray costs $1000.) Personally, I made a custom tray with clear optical glass. I wet-mount to the top of the glass with Prazio Anti-Newton oil. Kami fluid works OK as well, but the Prazio is a little easier to work with.

The Cezanne Elite FT-S5500 is faster and has two bulbs instead of 4. Screen claims higher image quality but Seybold Report rate the original Cezanne a little higher. Honestly, I'd pay a little more for the Elite, mainly because it'd likely be a newer machine. I have the regular Cezanne FT-S5000.

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Joe,

I'm not discounting the scanner. I'm very happy with it. And I didn't include the costs of my driving to pick it up, which easily doubled the price. That said, if cost were no object, I'd prefer one of the newer Kodak/Creo scanners, assuming 16-bit per channel output, or an Aztek Premier drum scanner, the former for their stitching abilities and the latter for ultimate scan quality.

[claudiocambon]

Do the high end flatbeds such as the Eversmart that are still being made new today still use SCSI and OS9 or have they been brought forward into the 21st century with USB or, heaven forbid, even firewire?! Which ones have updated hardware?

[Ted Harris]

Claudio,

We're into the 21st C .... firewire and run on OS 10.4.x with an upgrade to 10.5 due momentarily.

Matus, the Seybold report referenced above i probably the most comprehensive report on these scanners. Email me if you want a copy.

[sanking]

Still, I would have a few questions considering the accessories. I have not found yet any webpage with detailled descriptin or technical specifications for any of the scanners mentioned so I would like to ask which hardware and software should come along with following scanners so that nothing is missing and the scanner can be used. What would be optional accessories that are not necessary but useful? Pleas, if possible, be detailled:

- Creo EverSmart Pro
- Creo Eversmart Pro II
- Screen Cezanne (FT-S5000)
-

You need EverSmart Scanning Application for the EverSmart Pro, and oXYgen for the EverSmart Pro II. The software is similar in operation, but oXYgen allows 16 bit saves.

You will also need a calibration slide to install the scanner and set all of the parameters.

Masks are useful but not essential unless you plan to do a lot of batch scanning.

You don't need any kind of hold-down sheets becaue the top glass is spring loaded and automatically presses down on the material to be scanned when you close the top. Also, both the glass on the bed and the top glass have an anti-newton coating so wet mounting is not needed to prevent Newton rings, though it may be useful for giving a clear scan that requires less work in the post-scan.

Sandy King

[sanking]

One very short question on top of the previous ones. What does it mean if the the resolution of the scanner is different in each direction eg: 1200x2400 (Heidelberg Linoscan 1440) or 1250x2500 (Agfa DuoScan T2500) .. ?

thanks

This means that the optical resolution is greater in one direction than the other. This is due to the travel of the stepping motor as it takes more samples in the direction of travel.

My EverSmart Pro scanner, for example, has optical resolution of 3175 spi X 8200 spi. Anthing over 3175 spi is considered to be interpolated resolution, but in fact part of the resolution in one direction is real. For example, if you were to scan a target with bars in the horizontal and vertical direction at 8200 spi with this EverSmart you would find that the bars in one directions would indicate much higher resolution in lines/mm than the bars in the othr direction.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Do the high end flatbeds such as the Eversmart that are still being made new today still use SCSI and OS9 or have they been brought forward into the 21st century with USB or, heaven forbid, even firewire?! Which ones have updated hardware?

The software of current production IQSmart and EverSmart scaners has indeed been updated and runs on the latest versions of OSX with firewire.

Sandy King

[Matus Kalisky]

- Peter -

thank you for the list. That is exactely what I hoped to find out.

Do I understand well that the "Standard tray" is by default installed as the bed of the scanner (the one to be seen on a photo when the scanner is "opened"), or ... ?

How to check the bulbs?

I guess the Cezanne needs a callibration slide too. Are these standard IT8 targets or some special ones ?


- Sandy -

is the scanning software the only difference between the EverSmart Pro and Pro II ?

- Ted -

That would be very kind. My email is on the way.

------

All of the scanners discussed so far (and within financial reach) are SCSI. Should a cable and SCSI card come along or are (were) there some "standard SCSI cards"?

It was mentioned many times that a missing software could be a problem as it is expensive and sometimes even hard to find. On the other hand there seem to be many users around here so is it such a problem to get the software (and here I mean the standard one that orignaly came with the scanner, but maby the nstallation CDs got lost over the time) should be, uhm, well - possible :o ? I saw already a few auctions where the scannar was there but software was not. One Cezanne Ultra is on the ebay right now (though it misses probably more than just the software)

[sanking]

-
- Sandy -

is the scanning software the only difference between the EverSmart Pro and Pro II ?



No, the EverSmart Pro II contains a different (faster chip) processing board.

The EverSmart Pro can be upgraded to Pro II category with a new board, with firewire connection, but the upgrade is very expensive. About $5k.

However, there is no difference in scan quality between Pro and Pro II. Both scan at optical resolution of 3175 spi, anywhere on the board and all over the board at once.


Sandy

[Matus Kalisky]

No, the EverSmart Pro II contains a different (faster chip) processing board.

The EverSmart Pro can be upgraded to Pro II category with a new board, with firewire connection, but the upgrade is very expensive. About $5k.

However, there is no difference in scan quality between Pro and Pro II. Both scan at optical resolution of 3175 spi, anywhere on the board and all over the board at once.
Sandy

But is sounds that the firewire and high bit saves would be worth it .. or not ? With which operating systems are these two versions of the EverSmart compatible?

[joolsb]

Matus,

if you're in Germany, you might want to keep an eye on this site... (http://www.pressresale.com/offerslink-d.php?search=2&groupid=2&typeid=202&order=1&PHPSESSID=78ca25144ab16e27150de59c88f18406)

I think you'll find the scanners you are after are more common than you think.;)

[Matus Kalisky]

Matus,

if you're in Germany, you might want to keep an eye on this site... (http://www.pressresale.com/offerslink-d.php?search=2&groupid=2&typeid=202&order=1&PHPSESSID=78ca25144ab16e27150de59c88f18406)

I think you'll find the scanners you are after are more common than you think.;)

I found it yeasterday :). But first I am trying to find out now what I want to get, what has to come along with it and how much it is reasonable to pay for it. Yeas - there are at least two Cezanne and thre EverSmart Scanners waiting. I just do not have those few thousands right now.

[joolsb]

The software of current production IQSmart and EverSmart scaners has indeed been updated and runs on the latest versions of OSX with firewire.

Sandy,

Does this mean that oXYgen is now compatible with Intel Macs?

If I was to get an IQSmart1 and then scan a 5x4 in two strips to get extra res, how easy would this be and would there then be much advantage to paying the hefty premium for an IQSmart2?

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi,

The Standard Tray is the biggest scanning surface. It's what most people would call the "scanning bed", much like the scanning glass on a copier. It is easily removable though. I also have a multi format tray, which is a metal try with spaces for 6 separate holders. The holders are clamshell type designs with anti-newton plastic. They are nice, especially for 4x5, but they don't easily hold negative strips, and I don't like cutting up my negative strips because that makes them much harder to store.

I basically built a frame that holds a sheet of optical glass at the right height. Optical glass is much, much cheaper than the Screen supplies, and it's harder to scratch. You have to wet-mount, though, or you'll probably get Newton's rings. If you get one of these, and you'd like to build a holder, pm me and I'll send you some pictures and measurements.


There is a function in the maintenance tool of ColorGenius for calibration. It uses a standard IT8 target, but there's some question as the the form that the reference file needs. I wasn't able to get mine to work with Wolf Faust's targets. I prefer to make separate icc files for various film types in any case. I use Wolf Faust's targets and some free software he lists on his site. This works very well color slides. For BW, I don't worry about ICC files at all. I've done very little color negative scanning, and Howard has a thread about some issues he's having.

The Colorgenius software allows 16 bit color scans but 8 bit BW ones. This is no problem though as I scan BW as a color positive. I then pick the best color channel in Photoshop to make my BW image.

[Gordon Moat]

One very short question on top of the previous ones. What does it mean if the the resolution of the scanner is different in each direction eg: 1200x2400 (Heidelberg Linoscan 1440) or 1250x2500 (Agfa DuoScan T2500) .. ?

thanks

Hallo Matus,

Depending upon the scanner, either the sensor or the optics move. The limitation on resolution is usually the combination of the sensor and optics. The stepper motor that moves either of these (or both) can allow more finite capture. What then happens is that firmware (or software) takes that extra half step data, analyzes the overlap from each pixel captured, and creates the final resolution in the files. So while the chip and optics might be good for 1200, having finite movement gets 2400 in one direction, mostly by moving half the chip pixel dimension. Functionally, the true resolution tends to be the lower number, though measured resolution can sometimes be better in the other direction.

An example is that if you scan at 1200, then you should get close to that actual resolution in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. If you scan at 2400, then your file will be 2400 in both dimensions, but the actual measurable resolution will be closer to 1200 in one direction, and somewhat short of 2400 in the other direction. When you are scanning smooth transitions of colour there is a slight advantage to scanning at the greater setting. If you are trying to capture greater detail that you might see on a loupe when looking at the film on a light table, then you might find the higher settings do not capture the extra detail.

This brings up how much you actually need in a scanner. It is tempting to look at file sizes and output, but again that misses some of what you actually might find useful. If we look at C. Perez (et al) tests of lenses, we find that around 60 lp/mm is a good target of useful resolution with large format film. Converting that to scanning settings gives us 3048 ppi, which I think is a better functional target. If we look at a common commercial printing request of 300 dpi, that gives us about a 10 times increase/enlargement above our (4x5) film size; functionally a good limit from 4x5 film. However, remember that this is only along horizontal and vertical axis directions. So if we have finite detail along an oblique (off axis) angle, there can be an advantage to have greater scanning resolution capability.

I think when we look at the capabilities of some medium format cameras (Mamiya 7 for example), we could make use of even greater capture resolution from scanners. Some 35mm cameras and lenses, in combination with certain films, can also allow great capture resolution. These systems can exceed the resolution of large format film, but are doing that in a much smaller film area. So while our scanning requirements for 4x5 or larger films can be less demanding, to really get everything out of medium format and 35mm requires even greater capability from our scanners. Functionally, a 100 lp/mm capture on film would need a scanner of 5080 or greater resolution (remember, horizontal and vertical directions, compared to oblique). However, with our tendency to use smaller cameras hand held, I doubt we approach the limits of our gear too often; it would be easier to assume 45 to 50 lp/mm capability from hand held cameras. So unless your smaller gear is tied to a tripod, or running flash in most of your shots, then you can get by with a less capable scanner.

All this, and the fact that many times we do not need giant files to make giant prints (we might make many more smaller prints, or only need to meet publications specifications), means that colour capture capability should be the primary decision comparison for getting a scanner. If you are getting less than 3.0 Dmax, like many new consumer low to mid level scanners, then you are missing colour information in the darker/denser parts of your images; at this point, I think it makes no difference what the resolution capability might be, you are missing information. In the commercial realm, you are more likely to have someone complain about colour than any other aspect; lower resolution can be tricked to making a sharp appearing image during post processing, but missing colour or too dense shadows cannot be faked nor corrected. The true Dmax capability is what you should investigate.

On the older Creo and Scitex, some of them are capable of greater scans per hour than others. In a production environment, this can be important. I think for your needs, you can get away with a lesser specification, and save a bit of money.

Newer versions are FireWire, and much easier to run. It does seem that Mac OS X 10.3.9 is a more stable way to run a scanner, though you can use 10.4.? with several of the newer software versions. If it is for a work environment, I don't recommend 10.5.? because there are still too many changes and updates happening. If you want to live on the bleeding edge of operating systems and technology, then expect some trouble using 10.5.? and any of the high end software packages. I think it is better to dedicate a slightly older stable computer to a scanning workstation.

Ciao!

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

[sanking]

But is sounds that the firewire and high bit saves would be worth it .. or not ? With which operating systems are these two versions of the EverSmart compatible?


Yes, in a production environment I think the upgrade would be worth it.

So far as I know the EverSmart Pro and EverSmart Pro II are only compatible with MAC operating system, OS 9.2.2 for the Pro (or older). I think the Pro II may be compatible with OSX with a firewire conversion.

Sandy

[Matus Kalisky]

On the older Creo and Scitex, some of them are capable of greater scans per hour than others. In a production environment, this can be important. I think for your needs, you can get away with a lesser specification, and save a bit of money.

Gordon, thank you for a detailled information. Could you maybe mention a few of older scanners that you have in mind ?

[Peter De Smidt]

When Ted sends you the Seybold report, there will be a number of other scanners listed.

[Scott Rosenberg]

matus,

i also recently picked up a screen cezanne, and while i am still just getting familiar with it, i am extremely impressed with it's capabilities. it will, without question, be the last scanner i will ever need. i still use my polaroid sprintscan 45 ultra for quick web scanning, but for printing, the cezanne has eliminated the need for sending out for drum scans.

in tests i conducted (supports what you'll read in the seybold comparison, which i can send you if you have trouble reaching ted), my cezanne yielded better scans than a creo eversmart pro II and was comparable to the tango drum scan. they are big, but are designed and built to a standard one would expect on a unit that sells in the mid 5 figures when new.

as peter mentioned above, the resolution is limited by the width of the scan, but if you're working with 4x5, you can scan at 4000 dpi in two 2" wide passes and have enough information to print a billboard. this really is not a hassle at all, as you can work in batch mode, so it's merely a matter of setting up the two scans, sending them to the job queue, and hitting go. the software will then make both scans. assemblimg the 2 files into one takes seconds in photoshop, as the alignment is always perfect. it's really no trouble at all, if you should ever need to print that large and don't want to use interpolation.

i bought an older power mac G4 to drive the cezanne, which is really nice, as i can have that computer dedicated to scanning while i edit files on my primary computer. files are ftp'd from one to the other, so it's really quite seamless.

for what they sell on the used market, i can't imagine why anyone would consider dropping nearly $1k on a prosumer unit - there is simply no comparison between high-end flat beds and prosumer units. they are simply in an entirely different class.

[sanking]

Sandy,

Does this mean that oXYgen is now compatible with Intel Macs?

If I was to get an IQSmart1 and then scan a 5x4 in two strips to get extra res, how easy would this be and would there then be much advantage to paying the hefty premium for an IQSmart2?

I don't know if oXYgen works with Intel Macs. You could probably get that information from Creo/Kodak.

Not sure why you would need to stitch 5X4 scans with the IQSmart1? It has resolution of 3200 spi and I assumed that would be all over the bed as with the EverSmart scanners.

Sandy

[jetcode]

I will spend time this week working with the Cezanne. I just spent the last 3 weeks getting inside CS2/3 and the ipf5100. One thing for sure, there's no shortage of things to do when it comes to digital imaging and photography. Scott and Peter, thanks for the inspiration to get deeper into the Cezanne. I'll keep you posted if I learn anything new that may be of interest to either of you.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon, thank you for a detailled information. Could you maybe mention a few of older scanners that you have in mind ?

http://www.genesis-equipment.com/products.cfm?prodTypeID=6

Check through here, even though you are in Germany, and you can see a few, some with a brochure in PDF for download. The EverSmart Pro and Pro II are quite good, and I would choose either over an iQSmart 1. I think any of the Screen Cezanne models are a good choice, though only if they have the full package included. Last of recommendations would be a Fuji FineScan 2750 or 5000, though again only with software included.

You can get by with a Heidelberg, AGFA, or UMAX, but software is a big issue. The other thing is that if it breaks, parts are very hard to get . . . almost a throw-away scanner at that point. So if you find a refurbished unit, then maybe, but avoid used ones. Also, you need to price SilverFast, because the older software just is not that good to work with and locks you into very old computers. I don't think I would spend over $1000 for any of these, including price of software, and that includes the big units like the Heidelberg Topaz.

Ciao!

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

[claudiocambon]

So how much are these new Eversmarts? (Bracing myself...)

[joolsb]

Not sure why you would need to stitch 5X4 scans with the IQSmart1? It has resolution of 3200 spi and I assumed that would be all over the bed as with the EverSmart scanners.

The snag with the IQSmart1 is that it doesn't have the XY-Stitch facility of the more expensive models so resolution for 5x4 is limited to 2100 spi, hence the question.

[Ted Harris]

I don't know if oXYgen works with Intel Macs.

Yes, oXYgen runs on Intel Macs.

As for prices on the IQ2 and IQ3. The 2 is ~ 10K and the 3 is ~ 19K. Both these prices reflect a rebate (2K on the 2 and 2.5K on the 3). This rebate is available from select North American dealers who do a reasonable volume of business with the scanners. Jim at Midwest is one of these dealers. The rebates will not last forever but they have now been extended several months. Again, I know the rebates are right but don't know the exact sale prices. I do know that Jim's are the best you will find.

[Matus Kalisky]

Thanks for all your replies.

- Ted -

thank you for the Report. You say the oXYgen works under intel macs. So it sounds as the EverSmart Pro || would be the best choice followd by Cezanne and EverSmart Pro. Also - do I understand it correctly that the "Pro II" version goes via firewire ?

-------

I have seen some EverSmart Pro on sale for 3500 euro, Pro II for 4500 and Cezanne for about 3500. Does this sounds right (given that all the necessary accessories are along) ?

[Ted Harris]

Matus,

oXYgen works on Intel Macs. AFAIK neither the Pro or Pro II will work on an Intel machine without the 5K upgrade. As the sit the are firmware limited i terms of both hardware and software.

[Scott Rosenberg]

matus, just curious, what is it about the eversmart pro II specifically that is making that the best choice? i'm not trying to be argumentative in any way, i am simply curious. my own experience from testing both the eversmart pro II and the screen ceaznne, i found the cezanne superior. if it is the XY capability, yes, that is one difference, but i found scanning in two passes on the cezanne so easy that i didn't consider it a hindrance in any way.

just curious about your process...

[Matus Kalisky]

- Ted -

hmmm,I probably missunderstood this a bit. I thought that EverSmart Pro II is the EverSmart Pro updated both with hardware (firewire u.a.) and software (oXYgen) and so that it runs on Intel Macs... :confused:

- Scott -

see above. I do not claim that EverSmart Pro II is "better" but if it runs on Intel Macs that is what I would consider an advantage. The stitching on Cezanne is just a minor issue I do not consider decisive. The quality - according to Seybold Report - leaves no space to dislike this scanner.