Leafscan 45, Sprintscan 45, Artixscan 2500: hi-res "desktop" scanner recommendations

[Jonathan Taylor]

Ok, I may well just use AgX for the moment, but I started a research process and I wanted to see it through.

I've been slogging my way through the archives for the past two weeks and found a lot of great info, but also began to get overwhelmed by all the bits and pieces, so I'm hoping some kind souls may be able to help me target some scanners to put on a watch list.

Here's my list at the moment:

Leafscan 45 from leafstuff.com
Polaroid Sprintscan 45
Artixscan 2500
perhaps an Eversmart or iQsmart
perhaps a Howtek
others?

Some more background info:

I've been shooting 645 and 69 very seriously for 4+ years, scanning on an Nikon 9000 with glass carrier, and printing Museo Silver Rag on Epson 4800, 3800, and now 3880 printers. I mostly use the Nikon software to get a NEF file in very wide scanner gamut. This gives me lots of room to work first in Camera RAW than in Photoshop CS5. I currently shoot roughly equal parts color neg and color slide (though I've shot a fair amount of black and white in the past and do have one current black and white project).

I want to find a 4x5 scanner that will let me replicate my current workflow as closely as possible. I have a budget of maybe $2000 for the scanner, plus an absolute maximum of $1000 for shipping, setup, parts, accessories, and so on. I had been planning on wet mounting on a v750, but the info here and the Collaborative Scanner Comparison has me pretty well convinced me that the v750 won't meet my expectations.

I have access to old G3, G4, and G5 Macs and am comfortable setting up and working with old equipment, but I also don't want to spend months tracking down obscure parts and testing and calibrating. I want a scanner I can setup, configure and get to work. I'm game for wet mounting if necessary, but would be glad to avoid it. My studio space is limited, so I can't a accommodate a scanner that is much bigger than my Epson 3880.

The Eversmarts, iQSmarts, and Howteks may be perfect, but the options are a bit bewildering and with all these scanners it seems like the key for me will be finding a seller who I can count on to give me a complete working solution. So besides scanner recommendations, does anyone know any particularly good sources or vendors?

[Henry Ambrose]

None of the above.

Having owned and used extensively a LeafScan 45 and an Agfa version of the 2500 I can say that the newer machines are better in nearly every way. The Leaf is great for roll film but loses out on resolution with 4x5. Your Nikon would be better for roll film anyway. The 2500 was a very good desktop flatbed but its old and I don't know what software there is for them unless you use one of your old computers as a scanning station. That's not a bad solution but if you're cramped for space you just lost some more.

The Epson flatbeds will do great scans from 4x5 and they are faster, easier to hook up and work with current software. And you can do contact sheets of your smaller films in one scan.

Further, if you're only outputting to a 3880 size printer you will likely never see any difference between a skillfully done Epson scan and any of the high end scanners you mention as too expensive.

I'd absolutely buy a new Epson flatbed over anything you mention.

[Jonathan Taylor]

Thanks Henry. I should have mentioned that I have access to 24" and 44" Epsons through my grad school and will be doing final output there after making a good proof on my 3880, and I already have a G5 running my Nikon (next to my Mac Pro).

The v750 samples on the Collaborative Scanner Comparison look so soft though and the math I've seen in other posts indicates it won't really get me beyond 17x22 which is the big reason I'm shooting 4x5.

[Jeff Bannow]

I have a 32" x 40" hanging on my wall that looks great to my eye - scanned on v750, printed on a 44" Epson.

[Jonathan Taylor]

I have a 32" x 40" hanging on my wall that looks great to my eye - scanned on v750, printed on a 44" Epson.

I guess I will just have to try the v750 at the college where I teach as I was planning-- then I can compare it to the Agx Flextight scan.

[Jeff Bannow]

I guess I will just have to try the v750 at the college where I teach as I was planning-- then I can compare it to the Agx Flextight scan.

It's worth a try - I wouldn't say I love my v750, but the price is right and it works very well with VueScan. Ultimately only you can judge what's good enough.

[streetlevelfoto]

For your stated need, I'd look at an Imacon, but I don't know that you'd find one in your price range.

[Frank Petronio]

I'd shoot more 6x9 and work that Coolscan 9000 to the bone. That is the probably the best $2000 desktop scanner that will ever be made, I wouldn't trade an Imacon for it. Personally, and without hard evidence or testing, I think a good 6x9 Coolscan 9000 scan equals or betters a decent 4x5 Epson 750 scan, with the added advantages of roll film.

I love shooting large format but it's more for the awkwardness and beauty of using big cameras, not for ultimate image quality. If I was after the ultimate, I'd be one of those sickos drum scanning 8x10 to make 2gb files.

Frankly if I had the resources and room, I'd go for the latest Scitex Creo Kodak EverSmart. But note that any of these, other than the old Polaroid SprintScan/Artixscan gizmo, dwarf an Epson 3880 not only in footprint but in gadgetry/working-handling space. The Leaf especially, is a giant lumbering bear (which I owned back when they cost $14K and took an hour to scan to a Quadra.)

By all means get an Epson 4990-700-750. They are good versatile scanners for all sizes of film. Just be realistic.

[Jeff Bannow]

I'd shoot more 6x9 and work that Coolscan 9000 to the bone. Personally, and without hard evidence or testing, I think a good 6x9 Coolscan 9000 scan equals or betters a decent 4x5 Epson 750 scan, with the added advantages of roll film.

That seems like a reasonable assumption to me as well, Frank. P

[Noah A]

I'm with frank. I think the 6x7cm scans I did on my Nikon LS9000 were better than my 4x5 scans on an Epson 750.

I routinely print my Mamiya 7 negs to 32x40. There is some grain but it's far from objectionable. The only problem with the Nikon scanner is keeping the film flat. Even the expensive glass carrier doesn't do it for prints that size.

I decided the best way to improve on the Nikon was to go to a drum scanner. I am using a Howtek 8000 which was under $5k, all-in. I don't know if one of the chaper Howteks could fit your budget, but if so it would probably give you the quality you want.

I've never used an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner, but I've had flextight scans done at a lab and I found them only slightly better than a good Nikon scan and not as good as a real drum scan.

[sanking]

If you could find a Leafscan 45 in good working condition, and only wanted to scan medium format B&W film, it will still do a better scan than anything on the new or used market outside of a drum scanner. I have owned one for a bunch of years and scan MF up to 6X12 cm in two passes at 5080 spi and stitch in Photoshop. It takes 20 minutes per pass for a 6X9 cm negative, about 35 minutes for a 6X12 cm. The result is much better than the LS-9000 at 4000 spi or the Imacon at 3200 spi or any of the other scanners mentioned in this thread, and yes I have made the comparisons with the LS-9000 and an Imacon Flextight Precision III. I have made prints up to 40" X 60" from Leafscan 45 scans of 6X7 cm Mamiya 7II negatives and the sharpness is just stunning. I was on the verge of buying an 8000 spi drum scanner last year but after looking at the 40" X 60" print I asked myself, what would be the point?

BTW, I use a fluid mount system with the Leafscan 45 that was not widely available even back in the day, and would probably be very hard to find today. But it improves scan quality very significantly.

For 4X5 I don't believe the Leafscan 45 is worth the trouble. One pass resolution is only 1200 spi. You could always scan ate 2400 spi in two passes and stitch, but even at that resolution the Epson V700 is almost as good.

For scanning LF film I use a Creo Eversmart Pro, and while resolution is limited to 3175 spi the results are oustanding. And frankly, there is rarely any need to scan anything 4X5 and larger at more than 2400 spi.

Both of these scanners have very big footprints, and may also require vintage MAC computers and software so one needs to have the space and be prepared to deal with the vintage computer issues. But believe me, there is no comparison in scan quality between a 4X5 done on an Epson V700 and one done on an Eversmart Pro or Supreme. Yes, the V700 is good enough for a lot of work, and I have one myself that is used primarily for editing and early contact proofing.

Sandy King

[Jonathan Taylor]

Leafstuff.com has refurb SCSI LeafScan 45 for $1200-- a very appealing option, but I guess despite it's great performance with medium format it not going to meet my needs for 4x5. I don't understand why the LeafScan and Flextight quality declines so quickly for 4x5. Does the Polaroid Sprintscan 45 have the same problem?

6x9 on my LS-9000 gets me to a 2'x3' print which is nice, but I'm shooting 4x5 to get bigger. Sounds like 4x5 on an Eversmart will get me to 3'x4' which is... good enough. :-)

I guess I need to find an Eversmart or a cheap drum. I see alot of Scanmakers around. Do those pass muster?

Anyone have tips for finding a good Eversmart? Anyone know any refurb Eversmart dealers?

_For under $3000._

[Lenny Eiger]

The Howtek is the best bang for the buck of any of these choices. Certainly the best quality. If you have the opportunity to get a drum, go for it, especially if you are looking at med format scans.... To compare any drum scanner to some of the lower choices is just, well it doesn't make much sense.

Lenny

EigertStudios

[Peter Mounier]

I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 45. Generally I've been happy with its performance for such old technology. The scans are good, but the dmax is only 3.4. When I bought it used about 10 years ago, the only film with a higher d-max was Velvia (3.7). I've attached a scan of a 4x5 neg., and a couple of crops to show the shadow details and sharpness. One drawback to getting an old scanner is the lack of support, should it need repairs.

Peter

http://www.MorroBayGiclee.com/BountyBW_07191992.jpg

http://www.MorroBayGiclee.com/crop.jpg

http://www.MorroBayGiclee.com/FishScales.jpg

[Jonathan Taylor]

The Howtek is the best bang for the buck of any of these choices. Certainly the best quality. If you have the opportunity to get a drum, go for it, especially if you are looking at med format scans.... To compare any drum scanner to some of the lower choices is just, well it doesn't make much sense.

Lenny (or anyone else) what's the minimum entry fee for a Howtek? Is is realistic to hope for a complete working outfit for under $3000 (excluding a G3, G4, or G5 workstation that I already have)?

[Jonathan Taylor]

I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 45. Generally I've been happy with its performance for such old technology. The scans are good, but the dmax is only 3.4. When I bought it used about 10 years ago, the only film with a higher d-max was Velvia (3.7). I've attached a scan of a 4x5 neg., and a couple of crops to show the shadow details and sharpness. One drawback to getting an old scanner is the lack of support, should it need repairs.

Great info, Peter-- thanks! Do you know where I can find further specs? It looks like Silverfast supports the Sprintscan 45 Ultra. Is that what you have? Does the Polaroid have ICE? What's the bit depth?

[Peter Mounier]

Jonathan
I use VueScan for my scans.

It doesn't have ICE.

Here is more info from the Sprintscan Hardware Manual...
Max scan time: 26ms/RGB line.
Actual resolution: Min:72 dpi, max: 2000 x 4000 dpi
Density range: 0.0 - 3.4 OD
Sensor technology: single-pass, RGB CCD
Bits per color: 12-bit A/D conversion per RGB; 8-bit or 12-bit output to host.
Light source: Cold cathode fluorescent.
Signal processing: Software based, real time color processing.
CCD calibration: Auto white point adjustment and dark field subtraction.
Interface: SCSI-2 (1 50 pin connector,and 1 25 pin connector).
Operating voltage: Voltage: 100-240VAC; Frequency: 47-66 Hz
Power: 40 watts.

Peter

[sanking]

I don't understand why the LeafScan and Flextight quality declines so quickly for 4x5. Does the Polaroid Sprintscan 45 have the same problem?



The lower resolution with LF film is due to the nature of the scanner. The CCD on both the Leaf and Imacon is quite small. When scanning 35mm the CCd can be placed very close to the negative to be scanned and the resolution is very high. To scan MF the CCD must be moved farther away to cover the entire negative, and resolution decreases. It increases even more with LF since the CCD must be moved even farther away.

Both the Leafscan 45 and Imacon function pretty much like a reverse enlarger, with the light source at the bottom, the negative to be scanned next, the lens above the negative, which focuses the image on the CCD. If you think about it, the resolution of an enlarger at any given spot on the baseboard decreases as you move the negative farther away from the baseboard. Same is true with the Leafscan 45 and Imacon. Both the Leafscan 45 and Imacon Flextight scanners use very high quality Apo enlarging lenses to focus the image on the CCD. The Leaf, for example, uses a 75mm Apo-Rodagon D so it should not be a surprise that the resolution on the CCD is very high, about 90%-95% of theoretical in my experience. So when scanning at 5080 spi the effective resolution is at least 4600 spi, which is about 90 lp/mm. For comparison purposes, that is way better than a Howtek 4500. Very few MF cameras are capable of that much resolution on film, which explains why the Leafscan 45 is still one helluva scanner for B&W film.

But for color forget it if you are working with MF and want to scan at 5080 spi. The Leafscan 45 has a linear CCD (not tri-linear) so color scans are made in three passes with Red, Green and Blue filters, which triples the exposure times I noted earlier for MF scans in two passes at 5080 spi.

Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny (or anyone else) what's the minimum entry fee for a Howtek? Is is realistic to hope for a complete working outfit for under $3000 (excluding a G3, G4, or G5 workstation that I already have)?

The last few I saw were about $1500. Many folks end up adding the newer software at $500-$1500, depending on what you need. Sometimes you get lucky and have a drum and mounting station that comes with it.

It's possible, just depends how lucky you get, or how long you are willing to wait. I had one of these and it was terrific. I have its big brother now, but the 4500 was a great machine. The dealers are always overpriced and almost none of them have any idea about the high end equipment (I've been floored at the incompetence, generally). They come up for sale here, EvilBay and on the Scan High-End list regularly.

Good luck with whatever you get,

Lenny

[Findingmyway4ever]

But for color forget it if you are working with MF and want to scan at 5080 spi. The Leafscan 45 has a linear CCD (not tri-linear) so color scans are made in three passes with Red, Green and Blue filters, which triples the exposure times I noted earlier for MF scans in two passes at 5080 spi.

Sandy King

In layman's terms, what exactly happens when one scans color film at 5080 spi or is it damaging to the point that it plainly looks ugly and should be scanned at a lower rez?

When you are talking about that 40X60 print from the Leafscan, what sized LF film does it take off your Eversmart to make an equally nice print OR where are you beginning to see the differences between the one and the other?

To add to Lenny's thoughts, the 4500 can come around for $300 locally to $3000 on Ebay. It all depends on the market, one's luck, etc. They are very large machines, but are not as "fat" sized as the pro-flatbeds like Creo/Eversmart/Cezanne.

[Lightbender]

I had a polaroid sprintscan 45, the original version not the ultra.
Vuescan will work with it. They were great scaners for thier time but they have no support now - if you can even find one.
The scanning system that the polaroid/microtek used was not all that different than a flatbed without the glass. The sensor was quite a distance away from the film. There was a mirror involved which would get dusty. Otherwise it was a great machine.

I have an epson 750 now and I am very happy with it. The scans are good for 35mm (and great for MF and LF). Beyond that, I cannot help.

What I dont understand is why you need such detail from your negs. (I'm not trying to make a point im honestly curious). A good 35mm neg can easily handle a 10X enlargement. A 4x5 neg enlarged to 10x makes a 40x50 inch print. What are you missing in the magnified areas of a print that size that make or break the image?

[sanking]

In layman's terms, what exactly happens when one scans color film at 5080 spi or is it damaging to the point that it plainly looks ugly and should be scanned at a lower rez?

When you are talking about that 40X60 print from the Leafscan, what sized LF film does it take off your Eversmart to make an equally nice print OR where are you beginning to see the differences between the one and the other?

To add to Lenny's thoughts, the 4500 can come around for $300 locally to $3000 on Ebay. It all depends on the market, one's luck, etc. They are very large machines, but are not as "fat" sized as the pro-flatbeds like Creo/Eversmart/Cezanne.

The color looks great when scanned at 5080 spi, and it is entirely feasible if scanning 35mm. When I said no way for color at 5080 spi I meant scanning MF, where you have to scan in two passes and stitch. Each of of the passes, one for Red, Green and Blue, takes about 25 minutes, so you would need 6 X 25 minutes to scan a MF color negative or transparency. That gets into the totally out of the question area for me.

The 40X60" print was from a MF Fuji Acros negative, and to get a print that size from MF requires a great negative to begin with, in terms of exposure and development, a great scan, and very good post scan processing, and just a bit of rezzing up. A print that size from 5X7" would not be all that difficult as we are talking only about an 8X magnification, which is nothing for a decent scanner like the Eversmart.

If you can buy a good working Howtek 4500 for under $1500, with drum and software, that would be a very good deal. Yes, you see them sometimes on ebay for a few hundred dollars, but with no software, no drum, and no guarantee that it will even work. I would never buy a high end scanner, either a drum or flatbed, with guarantee that it will work. I did it once and it worked out for me ok in the end but I will never do it again.

Sandy

[Jonathan Taylor]

I have an epson 750 now and I am very happy with it. The scans are good for 35mm (and great for MF and LF). Beyond that, I cannot help.

What I don't understand is why you need such detail from your negs. (I'm not trying to make a point I'm honestly curious). A good 35mm neg can easily handle a 10X enlargement. A 4x5 neg enlarged to 10x makes a 40x50 inch print. What are you missing in the magnified areas of a print that size that make or break the image?

Another forum member offered me a like new Sprintscan 45 Ultra for $150 with the full frame 4x5 glass carrier-- it was an offer I couldn't refuse. VueScan gives me multi-exposure and results that are a significant bit better than what I've read I would be able to get from wet mounting on the v750. I will try the v750 sometime soon, but if the SS45 resolution is better for a quarter of the price of a v750 there's really no contest.

It also really goes back to the collaborative scanner comparison. The Sprintscan looks like it's getting more and better detail than the v750.

Here's my math:

6x8 neg (I almost always crop 6x9) on Coolscan 9000 gets me:
26x35 inch image @ 360 dpi or 40x52 inch image @ 240 dpi

4x5 neg on Sprintscan 45 gets me:
29x36 inch image @ 360 dpi or 43x54 inch image @ 240 dpi

Ok, looking at the math a 6x8 neg gets me really close to the 4x5/Polaroid results, but my 4x5 camera gives the potential for more DOF through movements and even larger prints if I eventually get drum scans. Three, four and five foot prints is where I want to take my images, and at least for right now I don't have the budget for drum scans. The Polaroid will be a good avenue for really getting me into shooting 4x5 (and it seems to me at the moment a better avenue than a v750).

[Lenny Eiger]

Here's my math:

6x8 neg (I almost always crop 6x9) on Coolscan 9000 gets me:
26x35 inch image @ 360 dpi or 40x52 inch image @ 240 dpi

4x5 neg on Sprintscan 45 gets me:
29x36 inch image @ 360 dpi or 43x54 inch image @ 240 dpi

It comes down to the math, and it doesn't. First of all, if I read your numbers right, that's around 4000 or 4200 spi at the scan. Most of the members here would agree that the scanners you are using don't have that kind of optical resolution, it's more like 2000-2400 for most ccd's. To push it past that is just interpolating.

I would not choose to do a 50 inch print from a ccd scanner. Lots of people ask me to make large prints from smaller files - I've done a 20 foot print at 90 dpi - but I don't do it for my own work. Even if you want to avoid drum scans because of the cost, my guess would be that you would also want to keep the number of 50 inch prints down as well; also because of cost, amount of storage, cost of framing and glass/plexi, difficulty of transporting and other issues.

It follows that if you are doing only a few large prints, from your best images, perhaps, that the drum scanning budget can also be low.

I think most here would agree that there is a difference between ccd scans and drum scans, more visible as the prints get larger.

Lenny

[Jonathan Taylor]

It follows that if you are doing only a few large prints, from your best images, perhaps, that the drum scanning budget can also be low.

I think most here would agree that there is a difference between ccd scans and drum scans, more visible as the prints get larger.

Oh I absolutely agree, drum scans are where I'm headed, and I have no doubt that a drum scanned 6x9 would be better than from my Nikon-- but I'm fairly certain my Nikon 9000 with glass carrier is doing much better than 2000 spi. Maybe it isn't reaching all the way to it's optical 4000 spi resolution but I've done 25 x 34 inch prints from 6x4.5 cm Provia 100 film that worked and exhibited very well. The Nikon Coolscans are the best case scenario for CCD scanners-- and it's not just me-- many others have had similar experiences.

The Polaroid is another matter of course. From what I've read though it really does test out as getting somewhere near it's 2571 spi optical resolution-- no where near the Nikons or a drum scan, but it looks like it'll be a good scanner for smaller work prints-- and a better stepping-stone scanner for me (perhaps!) than an Epson v750.

I do appreciate all the thoughts and info-- this forum has been an incredible resource!

[Lenny Eiger]

but I'm fairly certain my Nikon 9000 with glass carrier is doing much better than 2000 spi.

I always thought the Nikon scanners with a glass carrier were pretty good...

I'm not a fan of Epson, so I'll just be quiet on that front... ;-)

Lenny

[Bruce M. Herman]

Looks like you already purchased your solution, but for the benefit of others who look at this thread, I offer the following based on my personal experience with an Eversmart Supreme scanner that I own and have under a Kodak service agreement.

A downside to ownership of scanners in the Eversmart and IQ Smart families is that you must be a photography business to deal with Kodak, and that seems to include the purchase of parts or new bulbs. Anyone considering one of these scanners should first establish a business and then verify that Kodak will sell parts to you. Even Genesis Equipment seems to be unable to purchase parts from Kodak.

These scanners are generally well built, but the folks that designed them are no longer working. They are basically black boxes that have been reverse engineered by the techs who service them now. That doesn't mean that they can't keep them working, but some solutions to problems appear to me to be less robust than others.

The ScanHi-End discussion site has numerous posts by folks who purchased scanners that are no longer being made and who cannot get them to work either due to a lack of parts or knowledgeable support providers. I personally would be wary of purchasing a scanner that is no longer being made.

[eduardtoader]

How Lenny Eiger said, this forum (you all) has been an incredible resource!


I´ll try to avoid the scan comparisons because I´ve not worked with any film scanner for scan bigger transparencies than 35mm.

I have 4x5" Tmax 50 sheet shot and developed (well said -35 shets if i think in some tank accidental light leaks or a second time developer -with unpresentable results) but I still haven´t any digital archive.:( I´ve tried digital shots of the negatives with the flash bounced against the camera,:D some scans in a normal scanner with a table lamp against the negative and more..

I´m looking to purchase a used 4990 or something similar. Today I meet a Heidelberg 1400 linoscan in mint condition for 100 $ here in Spain but the LF reviews deflate me.
Recently, a friend gave me a Duoscan T1200 but I can´t connect the SCSI to my Pc. There are a lot of SCSI trying adapters and theories but I don´t know who has the reason - so I don´t know wich part or cable or wich gadget I should buy.

I look for a scanner that bring me an archive to print untill 30x40cm or little bit more without interpolate. I´m usually printing the 50x70cm size but I should go to a drum scanner - in this case.

My budget - 200 dollars.

Thanks for your patience.


Best wishes for this days and the coming year.