View Full Version : Best option for flat-bed / drum under $2k?
I'm a Linux user, and for us, unfortunately, the highest-end scanners supported by the sane-project (http://www.sane-project.org/) are the Epson V750's.
I've e-mailed the sane mailing list, and have asked regarding this; the response was that they can only develop for what they have hardware access to. Thus, I am considering, at some point, buying a higher-end scanner and sending it to a developer willing to work on drivers for it. Some will do it for free if given the hardware to work on (but it'll take them longer), others would do it for a fee. Thus, this is something I'm considering. The people in the GNU/Linux community have given me a lot, and this would be something I could give back.
I've seen a Howtek 4500 on eBay for $1500, not including shipping (ships by freight, so IDK, could be $200 shipping). So if I'm considering buying one of these and paying a developer to develop Linux drivers for it, which one would you guys recommend? Are there any high-level flatbeds around that price-range? (I just have a regular house, so I don't know how well the ventilation is for wet-mounting). I also figure that, at the same image-quality, flatbeds that don't require wet-mounting and produce the same quality are a better value for not requiring the reagents & time of wet-mounting.
Thoughts, recommendations?
There are quite a few flatbeds of that kind - most widespread probably the Linotype Topaz, but that does not stop there, Agfa, Kodak and Fuji or their subsidiaries had similar scanners. Be warned that the more affordable among them are by now very old and will usually require a correspondingly archaic high-end computer hardware like G3 or even M68k or Nubus Macs, SGI or Sun workstations etc. - merely writing a driver will be no good if the controller card is proprietary or uses a interface that had become extinct by the mid nineties.
But getting someone to write a drum scanner driver from scratch won't be easy either, as that is very different technology. The porting effort to adapt some lower end Flatbed scanner driver to one of the top models from the same manufacturer ought to be much smaller.
Sevo,
Thanks for the response; yea, I'm not interested in anything that would require me to change my computer or get another computer. Then I might as well stick in another hard-drive and install Windows and use VMware or whatever.
It seems like from the LF scanner comparison page, the only brand mentioned on the sane-project page is Microtek. Maybe that would be the place to start?
Peter De Smidt
6-Nov-2009, 16:30
These tend to be very big and delicate pieces of equipment. If it's not local to you, you will have to pay for shipping. And if the developer isn't local, the same thing applies. This could get very expensive very fast. Plus, there are all of the issues in getting the software to work, which could be considerable.
Why not get a computer dedicated to the scanner that'll run the software? These old computers are not expensive. I run my Cezanne with on old G4 in OS9. It works fine.
The software for these machines is complicated, often only working on very specific hardware, and it's expensive, with an upgrade to a version that runs on a newer OS costing approximately $1000--that's just for an upgrade.
The fumes from wet mounting with Kami or Prazio fluids aren't bad at all. I wouldn't worry about it. Avoid using them near open flame and you should be fine.
A cezanne would probably be your cheapest option. I bought mine for $900. A Scitex or Creo Eversmart would probably be a little better depending on the model.
A Howtek 4500 would be great, as long as it's in top shape.
Condition is everything. These things aren't bargains if they need to be repaired.
I find it strange that you are considering getting one of these scanners, which are huge, e.g. the Cezanne is 5 ft wide, but you won't get, say, a G4 which would run some of them properly.
Allen in Montreal
6-Nov-2009, 20:55
.......
Condition is everything. These things aren't bargains if they need to be repaired.
.
Indeed!
I was told today that a basic service call from Heidleberg, for the 2 hr minimum is $775.00 :mad:
IanMazursky
6-Nov-2009, 21:06
I think this might be a bit harder then you think to develop a driver for these type of scanners.
They are SCSI based and you would need to do a lot of port sniffing to figure it out.
I heard form someone years ago that the protocols are very complex for the howteks.
All things considered Aztek is offering a great deal on the basic version of DPL.
Its not linux or osx but XP or win2k will do. Not to mention that they have everything you need in the software without the fun of development.
Im also wondering what the market potential for a driver like this is.
Peter is correct about the scanners, make sure they are in tip top shape.
Fixing them is doable but expensive. Make sure you use an air ride equipped transport van line or pick it up yourself.
Also make sure that the seller locks the scanner down. Its a menu entry on the front panel.
These tend to be very big and delicate pieces of equipment. If it's not local to you, you will have to pay for shipping. And if the developer isn't local, the same thing applies. This could get very expensive very fast. Plus, there are all of the issues in getting the software to work, which could be considerable.
Why not get a computer dedicated to the scanner that'll run the software? These old computers are not expensive. I run my Cezanne with on old G4 in OS9. It works fine.
The software for these machines is complicated, often only working on very specific hardware, and it's expensive, with an upgrade to a version that runs on a newer OS costing approximately $1000--that's just for an upgrade.
The fumes from wet mounting with Kami or Prazio fluids aren't bad at all. I wouldn't worry about it. Avoid using them near open flame and you should be fine.
A cezanne would probably be your cheapest option. I bought mine for $900. A Scitex or Creo Eversmart would probably be a little better depending on the model.
A Howtek 4500 would be great, as long as it's in top shape.
Condition is everything. These things aren't bargains if they need to be repaired.
I find it strange that you are considering getting one of these scanners, which are huge, e.g. the Cezanne is 5 ft wide, but you won't get, say, a G4 which would run some of them properly.
ahhh, I didn't realize these were like 5-6 feet. Yea, I'm not considering getting another computer because my workstation area is basically full. I didn't realize these were so big. Is the Howtek 4500 that big? It didn't look so big on eBay.
Maybe the Epson V700 is my only option, given my constraints. Maybe I'll have to contemplate more seriously moving to 8x10 also, so the V700's smaller enlargement capabilities would be more adequate.
I got a response from M. Allan Noah, presumably a sane-project developer:
Required:
1. It should use some standard port (i.e. SCSI).
2. It should have a complete copy of the windows software and any
dongles required to run it.
Extremely helpful:
1. protocol documents from the maker.
2. other user documents
3. any calibration targets
I doubt this class of machines will really share any brains with their
cheaper brothers, so don't worry about sticking with a particular
brand. The SCSI protocol is more likely to enforce consistency than
the name plate.
Peter De Smidt
6-Nov-2009, 21:49
The Howtek is smaller. Aztek should have info on their site. If you go that route, you'll want a usable drum and a mounting station.
Just got the Epson V700, with $150 off. For prints I'm going to exhibit for sale larger than what I deem to be the minimum acceptable enlargement with the V700, I'll send them off for drum-scanning.
Peter De Smidt
7-Nov-2009, 05:08
That's probably the best choice. Make sure to test for the optimum film height above the glass.
That's probably the best choice. Make sure to test for the optimum film height above the glass.
To get the most from your scan you might want to consider fluid mounting. Have a look at the mount offered by Better Scanning (http://www.betterscanning.com/) which in addition also provides a mechanism for adjusting the height of the holder to the plane of best focus.
Sandy King
Peter De Smidt
7-Nov-2009, 18:30
I haven't used one, but I've heard very good things about the Better Scanning holders. Wet mounting can make a big difference, especially with regards to grain, with some scanners.
One way to get an instant increase in image quality, without having to use/rent/purchase a better scanner, is to increase the size of the film.
When going from 4x5 to 5x7, we go from 20 to 35 square inches, a 75% increase. A scanner of even modest quality can make a stunning 16x20 from a good 5x7 negative.
Of course, a 16x20 from an 8x10 negative is even nicer still.
yea, I have a 305/9 G-Claron, and could go 8x10 with that. But I also like it for my 4x5 for it's reach...so I'd want some way where I wouldn't have to unmount it from the lens-board.
Btw, my impression is that the perceived quality that can be produced from an image goes up in proportion to the dimensions of the length and width, not the area. What we really notice is "that print is twice as big as the other", which means length and width, not area.
Although I suppose it is area too. Thinking about it, if you just do a pano of 2 4x5's, that isn't nearly as impressive as a 8x10. Part of my desire for 8x10 would be the pleasure of looking at the trannies on a light box. That's like a print right there.
Frank Petronio
8-Nov-2009, 00:49
No offense, nothing personal, but you know your whole logic is bizarre. You're going to waste hundreds of hours attempting to run a scanner on Linux because you won't spend $500 on used Mac. And then you don't want to use Photoshop but you want to buy a drum scanner or to shoot tri-color separations or $8 per sheet 8x10 film because you want maximum quality. Yet you haven't even made a print yet...
It's entertaining to watch, really. But please, come down to Earth. If you want to fiddle around that's a great activity, a good hobby, it will keep you off the streets ;-) But if you want to make photographs, start with good-basic-simple-proven equipment and software and proven real-world workflows. I mean if you want to actually have some photos to show for it....
I'm sure my logic does seem bizarre :-)
I don't have room for another box (also another reason I forgot about the drum-scanner). The Lian-Li A7010B tower I have is already enormous. As someone here mentioned how much larger these drum-scanners would be than a flatbed, I also don't have room for one of them (the 4500 is questionable). Re wasting hundreds of hours to get one to run on Linux, I'd simply be handing that off to a developer. And the Epsons basically work flawlessly on Linux (I believe Epson releases their hardware specifications or assists in some Linux driver development; releasing hardware specs is really an industry standard).
I don't want to use Photoshop as I haven't found anything lacking with GIMP for my purposes. It seems ludicrous to me to spend hundreds of dollars (from Adobe's website, CS4 is $700, an upgrade to it is $200), when I have a program that is sufficient for my needs and free. Although I saw a CS4 on eBay for ~$200. Still, for my uses, that is absurd, as I have something that works for me. Then when I want an upgrade, that's another few hundred dollars.
I've been using Linux exclusively for years, and made the workstation I'm on now a little more than a year ago. I'm sure I saved money building it myself from parts, and certainly got precisely what I wanted; I have enough room for plenty of extra-hard drives, and it's built to be pretty future-proof for what I do. Yea, I do things a little differently (I enjoyed building my computer); but I haven't had to worry about viruses, system crashes, data-loss, or security to a significant extent. You Mac OSX guys can largely say the same, of course, and having used OSX, it's a wonderful OS. But I like being able to click "upgrade to latest version of operating system" and then my entire OS and all relevant packages upgrade to the latest version without me having to do anything else.
Btw, I have made prints, just not yet from 4x5 transparencies. I've made 12x9's from my Olympic E-3, one of which I have in my living room. From my workflow in making that print, I really see nothing lacking in the software available on Linux for my purposes, nothing where I'm sensing a functional deficiency in the software that I use.
My thinking regarding 8x10's is partly the ease of getting more detail from the consumer-level scanner that can work for me; it's also partly because I enjoy looking at my transparencies on a light-box, and I can tell looking at an 8x10 would be really quite great.
No offense, nothing personal, but you know your whole logic is bizarre. You're going to waste hundreds of hours attempting to run a scanner on Linux because you won't spend $500 on used Mac. And then you don't want to use Photoshop but you want to buy a drum scanner or to shoot tri-color separations or $8 per sheet 8x10 film because you want maximum quality. Yet you haven't even made a print yet...
It's entertaining to watch, really. But please, come down to Earth. If you want to fiddle around that's a great activity, a good hobby, it will keep you off the streets ;-) But if you want to make photographs, start with good-basic-simple-proven equipment and software and proven real-world workflows. I mean if you want to actually have some photos to show for it....
It's no problem at all to run an V700 on Linux. Just get Vuescan and learn how to use it.
The OP did not want to run a V750 - he was asking for more esoteric scanners. Which generally will not work with Linux, with whatever software - but neither will their drivers and software run on Windows XP/Vista/7, OS X (or indeed any Intel Mac). If you use a legacy scanner, you'll generally have to use a contemporary (or only moderately younger) computer with contemporary OS along with it.
Sevo
The OP did not want to run a V750 - he was asking for more esoteric scanners. Which generally will not work with Linux, with whatever software - but neither will their drivers and software run on Windows XP/Vista/7, OS X (or indeed any Intel Mac). If you use a legacy scanner, you'll generally have to use a contemporary (or only moderately younger) computer with contemporary OS along with it.
Sevo
Well he bought a V700 so ....
Scanner drivers are not rocket science. You do not need a Motorola or Power Cpu. Those guys just want yer $s. They like to charge thousands for simple stuff, they learned at the feet of the mighty Gates, cursed be his name. ;)
I haven't used one, but I've heard very good things about the Better Scanning holders. Wet mounting can make a big difference, especially with regards to grain, with some scanners.
With some scanners wet mounting can indeed make a big difference. Although it will not increase real resolution wet mounting will reduce the appearance of grain with most scanners, and add micro-contrast which can make the image look much sharper.
With the Better Scanning holder you can choose to either dry mount or fluid mount. And just as important, there is a mechanism for placing the holder at the plane of best focus. This requires a bit of trial and error but once determined should not change for these conditions.
Sandy King
A short follow-up to my previous message. Just thought I would show an example of scanning with the Epson V700 and the Better Scanning fluid mount system.
Basically I adjusted the shims on the Better Scanning fluid mount to optimize the best plane of focus. I determined that this was about 3.0mm above the surface of the glass of the scanner. I then fluid mounted a high resolution film target to the bottom of the Better Scanning fluid mount, emulsion side down, covered with a piece of thin mylar.
The scan was at 6400 ppi. Real resolution is no where near 6300 ppi, as one would expect. The effective resolution of the image file of the target is about 45 lp/mm, which is basically 2300 ppi, if we base resolution on discrimination of both the horizontal and vertical line pairs. Based on only the resolution of the vertical line pairs resolution is on the order of 65 lp/mm. This is of course real resolution, but only in one direction.
These results don't come close to what we would expect with a professional flatbed like the Eversmart or Cezanne, or with a drum scanner. But I think the results do indicate that a very good quality 4X print (16X20" from 4X5" negative) is not beyond the range of the possible, assuming good post scan processing, from an Epson flatbed.
I also compared results at scan resolution of 2400 ppi, 3200 ppi, and 4800 ppi. There was a slight improvement from 2400 ppi to 4800 ppi, but none above that. In other words, no point in making huge files with scans of 6400 ppi because results are virtually identical with 4800 ppi, and even 3200 ppi.
Sandy King
Ed Richards
9-Nov-2009, 17:44
Sandy,
What scanning software were you using? Did it trigger the secondary optical system at 6400? I am curious if have tried the 750 which claims to have better coated optics.
Sandy,
What scanning software were you using? Did it trigger the secondary optical system at 6400? I am curious if have tried the 750 which claims to have better coated optics.
Ed,
I was using the Epson software for the V700. According to Epson literature the high resolution optical system (6400 ppi) is activated whenever one chooses the Film Holder option in setting scanning space. The lower resolution lens (4800 ppi) is automatically activated if you choose Film Area Guide.
The V750 has an anti-reflection coating on the glass that covers the CCD. The anti-reflection coating of this glass should reduce bloom, and might marginally increase resolution. That is speculation on my part since I have not actually made the comparison. There is no difference in the quality of the lenses of the V700 and V750, at least so far as I understand it.
Sandy King
sanking
10-Nov-2009, 09:13
I also compared results at scan resolution of 2400 ppi, 3200 ppi, and 4800 ppi. There was a slight improvement from 2400 ppi to 4800 ppi, but none above that. In other words, no point in making huge files with scans of 6400 ppi because results are virtually identical with 4800 ppi, and even 3200 ppi.
Sandy King
Instead of just stating this as fact I have included the actual target scans made at 2400ppi, 3200ppi, 4800ppi and 6400ppi. There is some slight increase in effective resolution with the increase in scan resolution, all the way to 6400ppi, but the differences are very small. In practice I don't believe one would see much, if any, difference in print quality at 16X20" size from a scan of a 4X5" negative at 2400ppi and 6300ppi. BTW, I resized the 2400ppi and 3200ppi scans to 4800spi so that they would all appear at about the same size. Sizing up does not create any new resolution, just more pixels.
Sandy King
Instead of just stating this as fact I have included the actual target scans made at 2400ppi, 3200ppi, 4800ppi and 6400ppi. There is some slight increase in effective resolution with the increase in scan resolution, all the way to 6400ppi, but the differences are very small. In practice I don't believe one would see much, if any, difference in print quality at 16X20" size from a scan of a 4X5" negative at 2400ppi and 6300ppi. BTW, I resized the 2400ppi and 3200ppi scans to 4800spi so that they would all appear at about the same size. Sizing up does not create any new resolution, just more pixels.
Sandy King
Thanks for the post. I really see no increase after 4800.
deatojef
10-Nov-2009, 21:58
As far as drum scanners go, the Howtek 4500 is a good choice as there are usually a good number of them on the used market and they still have good support from Aztek with regards to some maintenance items (pads, drums, lube, etc) and software is available for them (Silverfast and Aztek DPL).
The Howtek 4500 is about 3-4 feet long, about 2 feet deep, and about a foot high. Not including clearances to get a SCSI and power cable into the back and a little room for cooling. Plus the darn thing weighs near 150lbs.
Also keep in mind if you're wanting to drum scan, then you're going to need room to setup the mounting station to mount your film to the drum...probably a good 2' x 3' of desk space, minimum. ...regardless of the model of drum scanner.
The 4500 might set you back ~$2k. Software is expensive - $500 for DPL Standard, and > $800 for Silverfast. Color calibration targets aren't cheap. Same goes for wet mounting supplies.
So if you decide to purchase software to drive the unit then your only choice is to run Windows in a VM with VMWare Workstation (~$100). Why? Because the last I checked VirtualBox (free) can't pass through a SCSI device to the VM. I know VMWare can pass through SCSI devices from the host (your linux box) to the VM so that's going to be your only option. If you somehow manage to get a SANE driver written (or written for you) then you're probably good, but that seems like a very iffy road to travel. I mean, how will you really know if you're controlling the scanner correctly and therefore getting the best image, even assuming you get the SCSI command protocols from the original manufacturer? If you're prioritizing risks, trying to get a SANE driver developed seems like a much bigger risk to your quality goals than incurring the financial risk to your pocketbook by purchasing software.
...and we haven't even talked about trying to maintain a color managed work flow. Unless things have improved with GIMP 2.6 (is that the latest version now?) and KDE/Gnome getting color calibration on the desktop was an extreme challenge.
Honestly, I think you're going to have to make compromises somewhere along the line. I can sympathize with your desire to minimize the number of additional computers filling up floor space and trying to minimize costs, however, I think you're either going to have to ratchet 'er back down and go with a scanner that SANE already supports and deal with lower quality scans or live with the fact that quality scanning also includes overhead (ex. space, software, and costs). That's just the way it goes, staunch principles or not. ;)
-Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for your post. For those reasons, I've already ordered the Epson V700. I barely have room for that in my computer work-station area, and certainly don't have room for a 3-4 ft long device. Not to mention the enormous cost-difference. Of course, there's also an enormous quality difference, but that's priced in; I believe that for what I'm paying, I'm not getting ripped off. The Epson V700 cost me $470, which is for effectively ~2000 dpi; a Howtek would cost $2000 + software, which is for ~4000 dpi & a greater dynamic range. A reasonable price-difference given the specs (about 4x greater resolution, about 4x greater price). Which also means it is reasonable in reverse.
I also decided to get the HP B8550 13x19" printer. It's clearly on the low-end for printers, but it's again what fits on my desk and is affordable (and it also has full Linux-support).
Instead of just stating this as fact I have included the actual target scans made at 2400ppi, 3200ppi, 4800ppi and 6400ppi. There is some slight increase in effective resolution with the increase in scan resolution, all the way to 6400ppi, but the differences are very small. In practice I don't believe one would see much, if any, difference in print quality at 16X20" size from a scan of a 4X5" negative at 2400ppi and 6300ppi. BTW, I resized the 2400ppi and 3200ppi scans to 4800spi so that they would all appear at about the same size. Sizing up does not create any new resolution, just more pixels.
Sandy King
The 6400 spi is a bit clearer ... look at the numbers as well. If you really blow em' up there is a bit more useful info in the hi res one.
It's really not much at all though. Looking at that I may try scanning a bit higher than the 3200 spi I use although it probably would not normally be worth it. I just use hi res B&W film, TMY and now some Ilford 100 Delta.
Just got the scanner Thursday and the printer Friday. I haven't set up the printer yet, but I have the scanner up and running on Linux. Unfortunately, the sane-epson2 drivers don't yet fully support the V700, so I can't scan at 6400 dpi or use ICE. However, even at 3200 dpi, I'm really pleased with what I'm getting. I re-scanned the railroad shot that Frank Petronio scanned with his 4990 for me, this time using 3200 dpi. Even at 1:1 without sharpening, it is still fairly sharp (a little blurry, but there is clearly detail down to the pixel level, imo). This is without doing any adjustments for height or what-not to get the sharpest image.
I may buy Vuescan, but am not sure yet. The free programs Image Scan and xsane work well (just can't scan at 6400 dpi or use ICE).
Sometime I'll put the initial scan results online and link to them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.