Creo EverSmart Supreme, Cezanne FT-5000, or Other?

[solrage]

Firstly, I want to say that I primarily shoot 6x7 120, but this seems to be the only forum with decent discussion on high-end scanners. Secondly, I'm considering these two scanners to use with my Mamiya 7ii. I have an offer for a Supreme for $6k, it's this one. (http://www.jklstudios.com/misc/supreme/supremesale.html) There's also a Cezanne FT-5000 on eBay for $3500 here. (http://cgi.ebay.com/SCREEN-Cezanne-FT-5000-Hi-End-Flatebed-Scanner-/140492394225?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20b5ffcef1) Obviously, the Cezanne is significantly cheaper. I'm mostly looking to do 30x24 prints with some rare 40x32 and a rarer 50x40 thrown in if possible. It seems like either scanner is capable of doing that all the way up to 300dpi, but I'm wondering if there's even 5600dpi worth of information in a 6x7 frame, of course assuming tripod, perfect focusing, sharp lenses, 25-50 speed film, etc. I also don't know how harder it would be to use the Cezanne with its 5300dpi being limited to a portion of the scanner. I mean, how much real world difference is there between the Supreme's 5600dpi and the FT-5000's 5300dpi?

[Bob McCarthy]

I use the Cezanne and what you ask is a non-issue.

Both scanners have great optical systems, are built like a tank, and will require an old computer to run. You can upgrade both to run with current computers but it will cost you a scsi card and software, and it's not necessary to do so.

Both scanners are XY, the only difference is the Creo does it within the scanner software, the Cezanne exports multiple files to do the combining in Photoshop. It is automatic using batch processing and I combine with CS5.

I elected to save the money and bought the Cezanne. Never looked back. But either way you'll have a competent machine.

bob

[Peter De Smidt]

+1 to what Bob said. Both are very good scanners. Condition is very important, as are accessories, as these tend to be very expensive. IMO $3500 is very expensive for a Cezanne, especially with no info on what's included. $2000 in full working order with lot's of accessories would be more reasonable. You need Color Genius V2 if you want to use the scanner with OS 10.

[Lenny Eiger]

Firstly, I want to say that I primarily shoot 6x7 120, but this seems to be the only forum with decent discussion on high-end scanners. Secondly, I'm considering these two scanners to use with my Mamiya 7ii.

Are you ruling out a drum scanner for some reason?

[Peter De Smidt]

If you're shooting transparencies with really high densities, such as on Velvia 50, than a drum scanner might be better than a flatbed. A top-of-the-line drum scanner, such as Lenny has, would be even better, but that's a lot more money than we are talking.

I've compared a BW scan on a Howtek 6500 (or 7500, I can't remember) to one I made on my Cezanne. There was no clear winner, but that was with that negative, those specific operators.... In any case, it was only one comparison.

[solrage]

The only reason I ruled out drum scanning was the supposedly steep learning curve. I've used flatbeds before (though nothing on this level), and considering that scanners like the Supreme were made to compete with drums I didn't think I'd be losing much.

[sanking]

I'm mostly looking to do 30x24 prints with some rare 40x32 and a rarer 50x40 thrown in if possible. It seems like either scanner is capable of doing that all the way up to 300dpi, but I'm wondering if there's even 5600dpi worth of information in a 6x7 frame, of course assuming tripod, perfect focusing, sharp lenses, 25-50 speed film, etc.

I am not going to comment on the Eversmart Supreme versus the Cezanne verus drum scanner. However, I have been using the Mamiya 7II system for several years and I can say for sure that if you use a slow speed B&W film of ASA 100 or lower (I use Fuji Acros), the camera on a tripod, and choose the optimum aperture for the conditions, it is definitely possible to get 5600 spi of useful information on the 6X7 cm frame. I scan my Mamiya 7II negatives at 5080 spi and about 20% of the time this resolution is not enough to capture all of the detail from the negative.

Sandy King

[Peter De Smidt]

What type of film will you be scanning?

[solrage]

Mostly Velvia 50 and Astia 100 for color. I can develop and print B&W myself, but I may even start doing scans of it as getting good 40" prints from an enlarger can be a pain for someone without a dedicated darkroom (I have a good makeshift one that works fine for smaller enlargements). For B&W I typically shoot Ilford Pan F, FP4, or some Rollei Pan 25, occasionally pulled one stop and developed in Ilford Perceptol.

[Bruce M. Herman]

I have an Eversmart Supreme and would note the following with respect to scan resolution. The manual for the scanner recommends using the wet mounting station and its associated mounting glass for scans over 800%. I've scanned up to 3000 dpi with my scanner on the standard glass (anti-newton, no fluid) with no problem, but you do see a lot of small imperfections on your original that would be less of an issue (perhaps no issue?) with a wet scan.

You should ask the seller of the Eversmart when he last ran a Install&Util. This program, which is part of the suite of programs that comprise Oxygen Scan, checks the electrical, mechanical, and optical systems, and then builds calibration tables. Not only should all of the systems pass the tests, but the tables should build successfully.

Three other things that you may already know, but I'll mention for completeness. First, this scanner weighs about 160 lbs. That may not be a problem if you are going to go to the seller's place of business, but shipping requires careful packaging. There are instructions in the user manual for locking the system prior to moving it.

Second, you should plan to run this on a dedicated computer. The Oxygen Scan software loads its own Firewire driver. That's not a problem, but my experience is that it doesn't seem to play well when anything other than the scanner is attached to a Firewire port and the Oxygen software is running. I am using Oxygen 2.6.3, which is the version being supplied with the scanner.

Finally, Kodak still sells and services the scanner, but you must be a photography or graphics art business to work with them. I don't know why this is, but it is. I spoke with John Wanner at Genesis Equipment last summer who told me that even he was unable to obtain parts from Kodak anymore. He did not understand why, nor could the Kodak service manager explain it to me.

I am happy with my Eversmart. I made a conscious decision not to purchase a drum scanner because I did not want to work with those chemicals unless I had to do so. But Lenny is probably correct when he asserts that a high end drum scanner will pull more from your film than will the Eversmart scanner.

[Noah A]

The only reason I ruled out drum scanning was the supposedly steep learning curve. I've used flatbeds before (though nothing on this level), and considering that scanners like the Supreme were made to compete with drums I didn't think I'd be losing much.

The learning curve isn't too bad. No matter what scanner you choose, there will be a learning curve for the software. All that's different with the drum scanner is learning to mount your film.

When I bought my Howtek the guy I bought it from spent an hour or two showing me how to mount the film and how to use the software. It didn't take too long for me to pick it up.

I've never used a high-end flatbed, but the drum scanner is infinitely easier to get good scans out of than the Epson flatbeds or Nikon film scanners I've used in the past. Loading up the drum takes maybe 10-15 minutes, but I can load and batch scan four 4x5 negs or nine 6x7 negs, the results are accurate and repeatable and I spend far less time spotting scans in PS.

[Peter De Smidt]

Wet-mounting film isn't hard, although with a drum scanner having the appropriate mounting station would really, really help. On a flatbed it's pretty easy, although whether it helps or not is something that would need to be tested. On my Cezanne, it does not help, but it really did on a different scanner that I used to have. That's one of the advantages of the Cezanne, in that wet-mounting isn't needed to get the best from it.

No matter how careful you are, physically wiping a negative will damage it at the microscopic level, at least a little bit, and scanner fluid, such as Kami, does need to be cleaned off of the negative. If done properly, cleaning the film will have minimal effects, but the effects are cumulative. If you wipe a negative multiple times, at some point you'll start to see damage. If you do end up wet-mounting, it's a good idea to make the best scan that you can so that you only have to do it once.

[Lenny Eiger]

and scanner fluid, such as Kami, does need to be cleaned off of the negative.

I generally do not clean film, unless it is very dirty, and then very carefully (like everyone here, I am sure). I also don't feel the need to clean the Kami off of the film, I just wave it in the air until the Kami disappears. It's volatility is one of the things I like about it.

Do you feel that the slight residue that is left there on occasion is a problem?

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

If it's ever going to be traditionally printed or dry-scanned, the residue could be a problem.