Drum Scanners: Upgrade from Howtek 4500 to Heidelberg Tango?

[EOTS]

Hi,

until now I was happily using a Howtek 4500 for scanning my large format transparencies.
I was very satisfied with the scanner, especially the dynamic range,
except for some tiny aspects like
in the summer it was overheating sometimes (I got a RAM related error code),
or sometimes the scans could get a bit noisy in the shadows ...
but that's relatively easy for me to correct in software ...

Now that my drum scanner's power supply exploded, and I accidentally scratched the interior of my scanning drum,
I'm planning to fetch a replacement (4500 replacement/backup scanner, parts, mounting station, two drums, Silverfast, etc) for 1500 EUR.

However, I was offered to trade some of my Leica equipment for a Heidelberg Tango,
sadly without 16-bit Software (only the 8-bit Linocolor), but with drums and the mounting station.

That would cost a lot more.
I insist on 16-bit, so I would have even to add 2000 EUR for a Silverfast license or see if I can buy the Newcolor 7000 Software somewhere...
Not to mention the transport.


What are the most important advantages of the Tango?
Are there maintenance problems with the Tangos?
Which parts will need to be replaced over time?


I expect scanning speed is better with the Tango.

Weight is a disadvantage (at least for transportation and moving it around in the flat, or course the contrary for IQ).

Here I can see the shadow noise levels are lower with the Tango than the Howtek (D4000 is more or less equal to mine):
http://drumscan.blogspot.co.at/2012/05/comparing-linotype-hell-tango-to-other.html

Here I can see more detail in the texture, but perhaps that's a matter of different sharpening:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/Howtek4500-4x5-fibre-u.jpg (Unsharpened)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/tango-charlie-4x5-fibre-u.jpg (Unsharpened)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/Howtek4500-4x5-fibre.jpg (Sharpened)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/tango-charlie-4x5-fibre.jpg (Sharpened)

Best regards,
Martin

[EOTS]

Here's a comparison thread of a guy thinking about which scanner to tend to
(although referring to an Aztek 8000): http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?31238-Aztec-or-Tango-scans

[Karl Hudson]

I could certainly help you with all issues / questions related to the Tango. However, each time I post something on here, the Administrator/MODERATOR has deemed it a 'sales pitch' and NOT in the best interests of this group's members. Therefore I will NOT be posting on this Forum, where I currently am on the planet for members to take advantage of my "Tours" to service and optimize HEIDELBERG TANGO, PRIMESCAN, TOPAZ, NEXSCAN, ETC. If anyone on here would like to know more about the available options for SERVICE or SPARE PARTS or SOFTWARE...or anything that might aid in a decision on whether to get involved with a High End German Scanner manufactured by Linotype-Hell / Heidelberg...please search the Yahoo Groups: Scan Hi-End, Tango / Primescan, and S3400. There you will find many pleased end users thankful there is still someone around to help with these fine machines and aid in decision making which would include advice tips and pricing for moving, installation, service, software, etc.
Sincerely...Karl Hudson

[EOTS]

Thanks Karl!

I will dig through the posts there!

Best regards,
Martin

[Lenny Eiger]

I would not consider a Tango an upgrade form a 4500. Of course, if one is newer and has been serviced recently that might be a different story.

I find the scan comparisons here not useful in choosing a device... despite all the good efforts.

Lenny

[EOTS]

Hello Lenny!

Thanks for your response!

I finally decided last week to continue the Howtek road.
My 4500's power supply is still under repair ...
After two months I'm suffering severe withdrawal from drum scanning ;-)

From what I saw the IQ differences were not very significant,
and could also stem from noisier PMTs in the Howteks,
although many confirmed that the shadow noise in the Howteks is generally more ...
But I'm not sure, as on the other hand perhaps it's also related to the aperture
(6 um for chromes on the Howtek, versus 10 um for the Tangos) ...
Even so, I didn't notice a large amount of noise on mine,
and I always use Noiseware to denoise (also the color noise) and it works very effectively ...

Another part of the decision was that I already had invested in the DPL Software, and liked it.
Also upgraded last week from DPL Standard to DPL Pro,
I expect scanning negatives will work a bit better with the DPL Custom CMS Features,
but I have to try it yet (my 4500's power supply is still under repair).
From what I've read Tango might be better suited for Chromes than (Color) Negs,
at least with the Newscan software and considering the CMS feature of DPL.

Another thing was the weight issue ... 250kg makes it hard to move it around in our flat ...

And finally the cost issue ... the Howteks deliver a great deal of quality for very small money ...
I will better invest my last bucks in color film stock ...

Regarding regrets it's perhaps mostly the larger mounting area, allowing for at least two 8x10 at once,
but as I do 4x5 mostly, I can live with mounting the occasional 8x10 one by one ...

Another regret is fastness, but I guess I work perhaps 4 to 10 times the duration on postprocessing,
than the scanning duration ... and as I'm not a scan service it's not really worth my money ...

Best regards,
Martin

[Lenny Eiger]

Martin,

Everything I scanned on my 4500 at 6 microns I eventually rescanned at 13. I don't want to use noise reduction programs at all. If you weren't all the way in Austria, I would send the scanner to have the PMT's checked out. I had one go bad and create some noise. When a new one was installed, it had no noise to speak of. I think all these scanners can compare better or worse depending on how perfectly they are tuned.

A local fellow put the Tango he bought in his garage and found that it ripped the floor off. He had to pour a concrete floor to stabilize it. This is anecdotal, of course, and may not refer to all Tangos. However, you are correct in believing that it is a large device that spins very fast.

DPL Pro is great, especially with black and white...

Best of luck,

Lenny

[SergeyT]

A local fellow put the Tango he bought in his garage and found that it ripped the floor off. He had to pour a concrete floor to stabilize it. ...
I bet he would have spent his time better by reading the manuals and learning how to mount the film to properly balance a fast spinning drum.

[EOTS]

Hi,

flirting with the Tango idea again :-)

Does anyone know how much NewColor 7000 for Mac costs?
Does it only work with PowerPC (G4, G5) or also Intel Macs with Rosetta?

Best regards,
Martin

[Bruce Watson]

flirting with the Tango idea again :-)

Don't. The tango isn't an upgrade to a Howtek. It's different, but it's not better. Back when tangos were being made, they were aimed directly at the magazine and advertising markets. That is, small enlargement, and trannies only. If you ever want to take advantage of the much better dynamic range of negative films, a Howtek is a much better choice. If you ever want to make bigger enlargements than a tabloid magazine, a Howtek is a better choice.

[EOTS]

... That is, small enlargement, ....
If you ever want to make bigger enlargements than a tabloid magazine, a Howtek is a better choice.


The Howtek max resolution is 4000dpi, AFAIK the tango resolves 5500dpi optically.
From what I've seen, the Tango's resolution is at least equal, if not better.


and trannies only ...
If you ever want to take advantage of the much better dynamic range of negative films, a Howtek is a much better choice.

I'm only using trannies most of the time.
But of course the Custom CMS feature comes in handy with negs.
At the moment I'm having an issue with light stripes all over the scans, showing especially with negs and linear scans, especially when applying extreme curves.
Still have to isolate if it's caused by the calibration strip.

From what I hear the build quality of the Tango is superior,
and there is a possiblity to have the scanner tuned professionally, which does not exist in Europe ...

Best regards,
Martin

[Daniel Stone]

Martin,

Contact Karl. He's been helpful with some of my questions in the past, wouldn't see why he wouldn't be now. Sometimes it can take a while to get a reply, as he can be busy doing jobs. He still operates a EU-based office, IIRC, in addition to his US office. Heidelberg scanners WERE made in Germany, remember ;)!

I'd have purchased a Heidelberg if I had not purchased a DPL8000 early on in my search for a drum scanner. Nice small unit, but having a larger drum to mount on would be nice, especially for those of us who use larger formats, or want to mount many shots all at once during a scanning session.

But talk with Karl, he'll set you straight on software/hardware questions.

-Dan

[EOTS]

Thanks Dan!

I'm planning to, but didn't want to disturb him before being sure about doing it.

Wow, isn't the Aztek DPL8000 is a larger and higher resolving scanner already, at least larger drums than SM4500?

Best regards,
Martin

[Lenny Eiger]

The Howtek max resolution is 4000dpi, AFAIK the tango resolves 5500dpi optically.
From what I've seen, the Tango's resolution is at least equal, if not better.
From what I hear the build quality of the Tango is superior,
and there is a possiblity to have the scanner tuned professionally, which does not exist in Europe ...

Best regards,
Martin

Martin,

You appear to want to believe your own words vs listening to the people taking the time to answer your questions. Bruce Watson is an accomplished and experienced expert, one of the people here who really knows what he is talking about.

Your statements are simply not true. The Tango doesn't resolve to 5500. Both the 4500 and the Tango are 6 micron engines. They are tuned to be able to deliver 4000. The 8000 and Premier are tuned to 3 microns and when tuned can deliver about 7400 optical.

I have a Premier now and its build quality is excellent. It is smaller and more compact than a Tango and everything is put together very well.

Your issues are probably with bulbs, and you probably shouldn't be doing curves that are too dramatic on a scanner. Scanners are best used to deliver a full range of tonalities that you then manipulate (if you want) in another program, such as PhotoShop.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[SergeyT]

NewColor runs on a G4 with OSX up to 10.2.8.
Beyond that there is no SCSI support from Apple.
Talk to Karl about NewColor.
Tangos are excellent no matter what people (without owning them) say.
Check out the http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/ if you have not done so. Tangos' shadows are virtually noise free.
If you planning on scanning Color Negs and happen not like what NewColor does for you - scan them as positives and do the conversion in PS (a 5 minute job). All scanners scan Negs as positives anyway.

Good luck,
SergeyT.

[sanking]

I don't know anything about Tango scanners, but what I read is confusing and some clarification would be appreciated. Some drum scanner operators who use Tangos advertise 11,000 spi optical, but my understanding is that the minimum aperture of this machine is 10 microns. How do you get 11,000 spi optical with 10 microns? For example.

We offer a professional drum scanning service with our Heidelberg Tango drum scanner. The Tango offers an impressive 11,000 ppi optical scanning resolution with a dynamic range of 4.2 DMax; scanning film up to 16″ x 18″, color negs, transparencies, or B&W; and sets the industry benchmark for precision quality and true colour output.

The question has personal interest to me because I correspond with a photographer who use TMY and develops in Pyrocat and he has shared some scan samples with me. This photographer owns a Howtek 4500, but sends his 35mm TMY negatives to a Tango operator to scan at 11,000 spi optical, which he says is necessary to scan beyond grain aliasing which is evident at 4000 spi - 5000 spi. But I don't understand how you can get 11,000 spi from a 10 micro aperture without interpolation.

Any ideas about this?

Sandy

[koraks]

Just speculating here, but there could (should) be overlap of the aperture between consecutive samples, resulting in some information being recorded beyond the smallest aperture size. Local contrast would be low, due to averaging of the output.

[EOTS]

Hello Lenny,


You appear to want to believe your own words vs listening to the people taking the time to answer your questions. Bruce Watson is an accomplished and experienced expert, one of the people here who really knows what he is talking about.

Your statements are simply not true. The Tango doesn't resolve to 5500. Both the 4500 and the Tango are 6 micron engines. They are tuned to be able to deliver 4000. The 8000 and Premier are tuned to 3 microns and when tuned can deliver about 7400 optical.


I have read his words, but at the same time have read opposite words,
therefore I'm having a hard time bringing all of them into accord.

From the Tango, I have had the information that 11000dpi is the max resolution, but only 5500dpi is delivered optically.
I have not done side by side comparisons of my slides yet, which is what I have to do anyway.
From the only tests I had seen, a setting of 6000dpi made an improvement over a setting of 4000dpi:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T6EkiAZYUmM/UDnjUcQ5i2I/AAAAAAAAALs/spvyRjEQ36w/s1600/zugPPI.jpg
(which I found in this blog: http://drumscan.blogspot.co.at )

So are you saying, that when setting the scanner is set to 6000dpi, only 4000dpi are effectively ("optically") delivered?
And when setting to 4000dpi, even less.



I have a Premier now and its build quality is excellent. It is smaller and more compact than a Tango and everything is put together very well.


I know about the excellency of the Aztek Premier, but sadly from its price point it's out of reach for me.



Your issues are probably with bulbs, and you probably shouldn't be doing curves that are too dramatic on a scanner. Scanners are best used to deliver a full range of tonalities that you then manipulate (if you want) in another program, such as PhotoShop.


Sorry for my inprecision, with curves I was referring to PhotoShop-Curves.
But the stripes can also be seen without applying a curve, it only makes them more obvious.

Thanks for the hint with the bulbs, I've already ordered bulbs and will see if replacing them helps.
It could also be an issue with the calibration area.

Best regards,
Martin

[fishbulb]

Wow, isn't the Aztek DPL8000 is a larger and higher resolving scanner already, at least larger drums than SM4500?



Well, the Howtek HR 8000 and the Howtek SM 4500 have drums that are almost exactly the same. The 8000 has a scanning area of 11.5" x 12" and the 4500 has a scanning area of 11.0" x 11.8". The drum is the same physical size, but the 8000 drum has thinner edges (calibration strips) to increase the scannable area.

The Aztek DPL 8000 is an improved version of the Howtek HR 8000 that uses a bit different drum and can scan 12x12". The Aztek Premier is a further improved version of this scanner, and also scans up to 12x12" at 8000 DPI.

As Lenny said, the 4500 is 6 micron and the 8000/Premier models are 3 micron. Roughly speaking, 4000 DPI and 8000 DPI, respectively. Your results may vary of course.

The big advantage of Howtek/Aztek scanners is that they are still very well-supported by Aztek. If you have an issue, they are very helpful with tech support and also carry a lot of spare parts. They are located in California, so if you're in the USA, it is hard to beat. Plus, their DPL software is great, and you can use it on a modern computer with Windows 7.

If you are in Europe though, a Heidelberg or Imacon might be preferable in order to have service close by.

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't know anything about Tango scanners, but what I read is confusing and some clarification would be appreciated. Some drum scanner operators who use Tangos advertise 11,000 spi optical, but my understanding is that the minimum aperture of this machine is 10 microns. How do you get 11,000 spi optical with 10 microns? For example.

We offer a professional drum scanning service with our Heidelberg Tango drum scanner. The Tango offers an impressive 11,000 ppi optical scanning resolution with a dynamic range of 4.2 DMax; scanning film up to 16″ x 18″, color negs, transparencies, or B&W; and sets the industry benchmark for precision quality and true colour output.

The question has personal interest to me because I correspond with a photographer who use TMY and develops in Pyrocat and he has shared some scan samples with me. This photographer owns a Howtek 4500, but sends his 35mm TMY negatives to a Tango operator to scan at 11,000 spi optical, which he says is necessary to scan beyond grain aliasing which is evident at 4000 spi - 5000 spi. But I don't understand how you can get 11,000 spi from a 10 micro aperture without interpolation.

Any ideas about this?

Sandy

I'll try and help.

There are two kinds of resolution - as you know - one is how many pixels a scanner can create; and the other is the optical resolution, which is how many bars it can separate on the test target. They are only somewhat related.

The "how many pixels" number is a factor of how many stops there are on the stepper motor. Apparently the Tango has 11,000, or more. The Premier has 18,000 steps on the stepper motor. In discussions with Phil Lippincott he told me that they chose to do only 8,000 because they could only optically resolve 8,000 and he didn't want to deliver "fake" or interpolated pixels, only "real data".

The second number, the optical rez, is a factor of the quality of the overall system and the micron setting. It's like a modern lens that has a coating that is perfected within some very small tolerance all over the lens. The are other factors that come into play such as film and developer choice (and appropriate development time, of course).

The Tango was built to a 6 micron spec, and should be capable of 4,000 ppi, same as the 4500. Apparently, for most of its lifetime, everyone believed that the aperture on a Tango was fixed to 11 microns, however, Karl corrected me on this a couple of years ago. (This is why they said that it couldn't do color neg, which is often done at 19 microns, and would be an anti-aliased mess at 11.) I don't know where the adjustment is, but Karl is a decent guy, and he wouldn't lie to me.

The 8000 and Premier were built to a 3 micron spec. There are aperture settings every 2-3 microns and one can clearly see the difference from one to the other. I have personally had a scan done on a Tango that was awful in comparison to my old 4500. Mine had been recently tuned and the Tango was very new so I assume it was tuned as well. However, while the operator was supposed to be very good, maybe he just blew it on that day..

To get optical resolution, one matches the width of the silver clumps on the film to the aperture. The clumps vary all over the place but it is fairly easy to see which one is better if you try a few apertures. Anti-aliasing happens when you oversample, which is when you choose an aperture smaller than the width of the grains. The drum spins around and samples a portion of it again. (No, koraks, these are not averaged, there is no function to identify each grain.)

The statement that the lab you quoted makes is entirely and totally false. The idea that at 11,000 you will get less anti-aliasing is pure hogwash. Further, there is no scanner that does 11,000 optical, or that has a Dynamic Range of 4.2. Given that they are outright lying to your friend, or have no idea what their scanner can or can't do, I would suggest he never return there. He would do better to learn how to scan his images on his machine. There is a lot to what one does with the curves that makes a huge difference. (Once again, we are talking about resolution which is far less important than separating tonality - almost to the point of meaninglessness.)

The 8,000, the Premier, and the ICG 380 are the only machines built to the 3 micron spec. These are exceptional. However, when comparing the 6 micron engines, both the 4500 and the Tango are excellent machines, especially when tuned up. All of these machines are capable of excellent scans in the right hands (a scanner operator vs a lab is a good start). The Tango is not an upgrade from a 4500, its a similar machine, there will be things it does better and things it does less well. My machine was quite a bit sharper than the Tango, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't an unusually sharp one. It could have been the new PMT that Evan installed. On any given day one can make a good scan with either.

Lenny

[sanking]

Lenny,

Thanks, so the claim to 11,000 dpi is based on the maximum number of stops on the stepper motor at 11,000. You certainly will not get 11,000 of effective resolution from a 10 or 11 micron aperture, but perhaps scanning at 6000 spi - 11,000 spi, and then downsizing, might result in a better scan. Seems to be just a form of interpolation done in the scanner software.

Sandy

[sdzsdz]

Hi all!


A very interesting discussion! Perhaps I can help a bit too. I´m by far not a scanner expert but I owned a Scanmate 11000 and gave it away for a Tango. I don´t know the Howtek. But there is some way of comparison, because the SM 11000 is also an 3 micron machine. And I made a rudimentary comparisons between an Howtek 4000 and my Scanmate regarding shadow performance and tonality. The Scanmate was a probably a little bit better in this respect, it was not worse.

But the SM never made me happy in terms of colour, shadows and tonality. Scanning Velvia slides that were not perfectly even regarding the lighting and exposure was a real pita.

What I can tell you is the following:

The Scanmate is sharper than the Tango, but it is a hair, not more. You could only see this at the most extreme magnifications. There is in my opinion absolutely no difference for "real world photography".

The Tango is VASTLY superior in terms of shadow performance, tonality and colour. There are worlds between the SM and the Tango. For me this is much more important than the question of 3 or 6 micron. But I can´t tell anything about a direct comparison between the Tango and Howtek regarding this aspect.
I have also read so many things about the Tango not beeing able to scan negatives. This is not true! It scans perfect B+W. Colour negative scanning has the same issues of the "orange mask problem" like the Scanmate has, but if one has a good workflow it gives very good colour negatives.

I´m living in Germany. If you like contact me. You could send me some pictures and I scan them for you, so you can compare.

The picture below was scanned as a positive in Linocolor (8bit only) and converted via Colorperfect in PS. There were made only very minor adjustments in PS afterwards and absolutely no noise reduction. It is from Portra 800! This is an amazing scan and the Scanmate can´t do this better, thats for sure.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/16353427807_5d1458aa8f_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/16353427807/)
10-14-5-2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/16353427807/) by sdzsdz (https://www.flickr.com/people/88626385@N03/), on Flickr

Best regards,

Sebastian

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,
Thanks, so the claim to 11,000 dpi is based on the maximum number of stops on the stepper motor at 11,000. You certainly will not get 11,000 of effective resolution from a 10 or 11 micron aperture, but perhaps scanning at 6000 spi - 11,000 spi, and then downsizing, might result in a better scan. Seems to be just a form of interpolation done in the scanner software.
Sandy

Sandy,
Once you articulate the grains you are there, at the maximum resolution you can get. It happens when you match the grain clumps to the width of the sample. Downsampling from a higher pixel count will actually "average" things and you will have less resolution , rather than more...

Lenny

[EOTS]

Lenny, thanks for the insightful and detailled explanations about scanner resolution!

Sebastian, thanks a lot for the offer, much appreciated! PM sent.

Best regards,
Martin

[cdavis324]

I've owned or operated many drum and high end scanners in production environments, and the problem is that they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Some are geared toward resolution, some are geared toward reducing grain, and some for extracting shadow/highlight detail. Don't worry about the minimum aperture settings - they won't be used for film scanning(I've heard the reason 11 is the smallest aperture on the Tango is because they realized there's no reason to go any lower unless scanning test targets. Apparently the rest of the machine was designed to handle 11k dpi.)

It's all about workflow now, especially with such great de-noise, and sharpening plugins, not to mention color perfect.

I think a tango with newcolor would be a great long term solution(with the build quality, having a tech to help troubleshoot, and a big drum, not to mention the overall scan quality), but don't forget about other software processing options that can make a good scan look great! You could also take a look at the Eversmart scanners - they're every bit as good as the top end drums unless you're scanning chromes... in which case stick to a tango, premier, or ICG(if there's still service).

[fishbulb]

It's all about workflow now, especially with such great de-noise, and sharpening plugins, not to mention color perfect.



This is a very good point. A lot of issues can be resolved, or at least improved, with editing. For example, the tech who trained me on my Howtek recommended scanning at 4000 dpi / 6 micron but then actually applying a very light blur effect in photoshop to smooth out the grain a bit.

Some people even will do two scans of the same negative, one for shadows and one for highlights, and then combine them in Photoshop, as Tim Parkin describes here: http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/aztek-dpl-experience-2314/

[SergeyT]

All pixels delivered by a scanner are as much fake(or interpolated) as much as real. Film has no pixels to begin with...

Here is some data published by Heidelberg for their Tango\Primescan machines:

Transmissive / excellent and High quality

Scale Resolution(micron) Aperture# Aperture Size(micron)
3000% 4.0 4 15.9
2083% 4.0 4 15.9
1700% 4.9 5 18.5
1300% 6.4 2 11.7
1049% 8.0 3 13.6
833% 10.0 4 15.9
651% 12.8 5 18.5
555% 15.0 5 18.5
502% 16.6 7 25.1
416% 20 6 21.5
etc

An obvious conclusion is Resolution <> Apeture Size (as many believe)

Image size in Tango is a <Scale> x <Output Resolution>. One sets too much of a value for Output resolution and it results in a smaller Scale - read softer image.
That alone probably explains some reports of Tango scans being soft.

SergeyT

[georgl]

I think Tim Parkin worked hard on creating profiles to scan Portra with his Tango properly.

The weak point of the Tango is it's software:

- Linocolor: limited to PowerPC-based Macs and 8bit
- Newcolor for PC: unusable due to sharpening bug (you turn sharpening off but extreme sharpening still occurs)
- Newcolor for Mac: works only with Macs up to 10.2 (G4?), sharpening still occurs but is negligible in most cases
- Silverfast: crazy expensive for a no-longer supported software, only works with very specific hardware configurations

I tried to reactivate Silverfast to come to terms with the decision of spending additional 1500€... but failed.

Mine works perfectly with slides, dynamic range is excellent, high resolution up to the limitations of Velvia or Provia - my predecessors explained the correlation between aperture, sampling size and actual resolution quite well.

The Tango was manufactured with high investments by a groundbreaking company and it shows by it's build quality and actual scan quality.

[sdzsdz]

I think Tim Parkin worked hard on creating profiles to scan Portra with his Tango properly.

The weak point of the Tango is it's software:

- Linocolor: limited to PowerPC-based Macs and 8bit
- Newcolor for PC: unusable due to sharpening bug (you turn sharpening off but extreme sharpening still occurs)
- Newcolor for Mac: works only with Macs up to 10.2 (G4?), sharpening still occurs but is negligible in most cases
- Silverfast: crazy expensive for a no-longer supported software, only works with very specific hardware configurations

I tried to reactivate Silverfast to come to terms with the decision of spending additional 1500€... but failed.

Mine works perfectly with slides, dynamic range is excellent, high resolution up to the limitations of Velvia or Provia - my predecessors explained the correlation between aperture, sampling size and actual resolution quite well.

The Tango was manufactured with high investments by a groundbreaking company and it shows by it's build quality and actual scan quality.

Did yoh check the yahoo Tango group lately? Two members worked out a way to turn off the sharpening in Newcolor completely. Could not try this, because I still don't have Newcolor.

Best regards,

Sebastian

[timparkin]

I've owned an operated well mainted Howtek and Heidelberg scanners.. In fact I still have a Tango and a Howtek and I choose to use the Tango for all of my scanning. Why? First the shadows are cleaner - it may not get more out of the shadows than the Howtek but what it does get it gets smoother and hence more usable. It does render more than the Howtek (about 5000dpi from the Tango and 4000 from the Howtek). I use silverfast as I had a problem with Newcolor applying sharpening but a couple of colleagues have recently got around this problem.

As for all this talk of apertures, do not think that a smaller aperture equals more resolution. I tested my Howtek, an Aztek Premier and an ICG380 at various apertures for scanning Fuji Velvia and Kodak Portra. On the Howtek it was a hard call between 6 and 13.. I ended up choosing 13 for most of my work but for 35mm I'd use 6 and do more noise reduction. On the Premiere, anything smaller than 10 micron would have enough noise to start hiding detail - this made me realise that the Heidelberg people may have been on to something with their choice of 10 micron as the smallest limit.

Here's an interesting aside though - when I scan at 2000dpi on both the Howtek and the Tango, the Tango shows more detail... This came clear when I did some side by side comparisons for a client who wanted 4000dpi scans of an 8x10 and so I made samples of sections of his 8x10 at 4000 and 2000 on both the Tango and the Howtek to show how pointless it was. I was surprised to see the Tango produce more detail so I rescanned and got the same result.

There is a certain aperiodic 'dither' to Howtek files that is a little strange too - I can't describe it but it's like a small amount of signal processing in areas of low frequency detail.

At the end of the day though I'd be happy with the Howtek if I was an amateur for a couple of reasons, 1) you can get them very cheap 2) they're light enough to move around easily 3) easy to mount and don't spin stupidly fast (which can cause it's own problems if you cock up a mount - think shredded celluloid).

Then again - if I were to buy again I would get the Tango.. Bigger drum means more throughput, nicer files, Karl Hudson is a star.

p.s. size is a funny topic. The Tango has smaller footprint than the howtek but people forget that most of the space is taken up by the mounting station and the Tango station is HUGE!

[Lenny Eiger]

I'd rather have a Howtek or Premier any day. I have discovered that the autofocus needs to be checked regularly, it's the reason some of my tests were off. The wear pads on the drums need to be changed out. When those two items are in place these scanners can't be beat.

Of course, all of the top machines require regular maintenance every couple of years. Without a maintenance of both machines within a certain period of time, new materials, like wear pads, experts in both software, it is impossible to make a fair comparison. Lack of detail in the shadow areas could easily be a weak PMT in one of the channels. One simply can NOT say that one drum scanner vs another has more detail (or more noise) in any area.

We have to remember that there are 2 types of issues. There are things that are larger than the diffusion pattern on an inkjet printer, and those that aren't. Many of the times we are looking at an image at 100% and saying this scan has more this or that, the distinctions are below the resolution level of the printing technology.

I would posit that all drum scanners can create files that are excellent for printing. They all create files that on any given day might exceed each other. My experience with a Tango wasn't as good as Tim's but the scanner wasn't tuned by Karl.

Lenny

[fishbulb]

At the end of the day though I'd be happy with the Howtek if I was an amateur for a couple of reasons, 1) you can get them very cheap 2) they're light enough to move around easily 3) easy to mount and don't spin stupidly fast (which can cause it's own problems if you cock up a mount - think shredded celluloid).

This is very true; I got a 4500 with three drums, mounting station, spare parts, chemicals, tape, cellophane, wipes, SCSI card, DPL 7.8, the works, for a neat $1000.

Also, on one of my first 4500 scans, the plastic sheet came loose from the drum (not enough tape overlap) and two of the 4x5's went flying out, along with a lot of flapping noise. Amazingly, no significant damage to the negatives. The scans probably take longer than with a faster drum, but I'm not in a hurry.


I'd rather have a Howtek or Premier any day. I have discovered that the autofocus needs to be checked regularly, it's the reason some of my tests were off. The wear pads on the drums need to be changed out. When those two items are in place these scanners can't be beat.

By the way, how do you tell if your drum pads need to be replaced? Do you use a micrometer to compare the thickness of old vs new?

I have a zillion extra pads from the previous owner, but I can't see any difference between the new pads and the ones on my drums so I haven't changed them yet.

[Lenny Eiger]

By the way, how do you tell if your drum pads need to be replaced? Do you use a micrometer to compare the thickness of old vs new?

I have a zillion extra pads from the previous owner, but I can't see any difference between the new pads and the ones on my drums so I haven't changed them yet.

I'd change them every few months... It's their responsiveness and stretch capability. Ones that are too old do not bounce back, they feel kind of flat...

Lenny

[timparkin]

... Without a maintenance of both machines within a certain period of time, new materials, like wear pads, experts in both software, it is impossible to make a fair comparison. Lack of detail in the shadow areas could easily be a weak PMT in one of the channels. One simply can NOT say that one drum scanner vs another has more detail (or more noise) in any area.


Both machines were serviced about 3 months before the test



...

I would posit that all drum scanners can create files that are excellent for printing. They all create files that on any given day might exceed each other. My experience with a Tango wasn't as good as Tim's but the scanner wasn't tuned by Karl.


I have seen that various scanners need good servicing to get the most of out them. For instance, one of the best scanners I've seen used is the Imacon. A photographer in Europe sent some of his scans to me and they were as good as my drum scanners apart in everything apart from some pattern noise. Then again, every other Imacon scan I've seen has been pretty poor..

Tim

[georgl]

Would somebody be willing to share the secret to turn off sharpening when using Newcolor? They deactivated my Yahoo-account and I don't want to create a new account...

Thank you!

[EOTS]

Hi Georg,

quoting Rafael from the Tango-Primescan-Group:


Hi there,

I and Derin Korman have been making quite a number of tests during the last week and we have reached some really nice conclusions about the use of Newcolor (Mac) for scanning both negatives and transparencies.

Basically, as many of your know, one of the problems of Newcolor is (was?) the impossibility to scan without a certain amount of sharpening applied "behind your back". On the other hand, many of us want to scan as raw as possible, making conversions (inversions for negatives) later on on Photoshop.

Well, basically there is a workaround way to "fool" Newcolor.
The instructions to do so are:

1) Make custom profiles for positives. Hutch target recommended.
2) In Scan - Special Functions - Sharpening, make sure you have NO Sharpening for NEGATIVES. This is the important bit. newcolor does not apply ANY sharpening for NEGATIVES when you select here no sharpening at all. However, even if you click on the box "reduced sharpening for transparencies", you will always get a certain amount... Read further and you will understand the implications of this.
2) Scan negatives by selecting "negative" in the scan setup, but making sure you have NOT activated the automatic button (A button) in the base densities tab of the color corrections assistance BEFORE you launch the prescan. You should have values of 0 for highlights and 5 for shadows.
3) When the pre-scan is finished, even if you selected negative in the setup, the image will appear as positive. That means the transparency will look as you see it on the light box, and color neg un-inverted. This is ok.
4) Launch the scan, again, without touching that A button and making sure the values are at 0 and 5.

Now, the tricky part:
- Both for scanning negs or positives, make sure you have included the custom profile made for POSITIVES in the input RGB tab of Color Management>Profile Manager.
- Idem for the tab Scanner under the same menu Profile Manager. The trick thing: make sure the profile of the scanner for NEGATIVES (this is the trick) points to the POSITIVE custom made profile you introduced in the RGB input.

If you do this, the machine will scan without making any inversion (even if we selected Negative as setup), therefore giving us the possibility of doing that on PS. As Negative has been selected, the sharpening is actually ZERO. As the profile for POSITIVE as been introduced for the negative material, the correct profile will be applied when scanning "as is" without any inversion. The resulting colors will be spot on.

As a side note, we realized as many other members of the group that when scanning the Hutch target with Newcolor with "raw" values of Base density 0 and 5 and correction 0, some partial almost-clipping in the shadows took place. We were scanning the target by using Scanopen and saving the scan, and realized that from this configuration changing the values of Color Correction assistance, curves, etc, gave no difference to the results. Basically, from scanopen Newcolor gives a "raw" scan of the target (or at least as raw as possible), and the ONLY parameters that change the result are the Base density values and the correction that lies below. As we could not get rid of the clipping, we saved several scans of the target with different values of Correction. We realized the optimum results were obtained with the profile generated with correction +5. All my scans show really good detail in the shadows, and basically the amount of clipping in the Hutch target scanned with the profile becomes marginal, almost at the level of scanner noise.

I will be testing with real scans during the next months, but we think we might have found the way to use newcolor giving great colors, no sharpening at all, great focusing every time and ease of use.

I hope this might be of help to some of you!
I really thank Derin for his time and help, without which I would be still getting horrible bandings, noisy scans and grain sharpened looking like golf balls. He is such a wonderful guy.

cheers,

rafael

[georgl]

Thank you very much, I will try that!

[timparkin]

Thank you very much, I will try that!

Hi Georgl,

I spent a whole week trying different settings to get the scans in Newcolor (in negative mode) to be as good as Silverfast and I'm sad to say I failed. Whatever I did I ended up with either clipped highlights or blocked shadows or colour banding. I think there is some processing going on in negative mode that can't be switched off. however, you might get something that is 'adequate' for your needs. I've gone back to Silverfast (which is a bit annoying as it can't drive the autochanged on my 8400)

Tim

[sdzsdz]

Hi Tim!

I don´t know, if I´m doing something wrong but I get very good files from Newcolour for Negative conversion. If you are interested this is the way I do it and it works very well for me.

- In Newcolour I assign my Profile for positives also to the negatives
- I tab the negative scanning button in the Scanning setup
- I turn off EVERY automatic settings in the corrections setup, densities are set to 0 and 5. Now I see the image as seen on the lighttable
- I scan in LAB (I think thats important in terms of clipping) and with the highest quality setting

Now I go to Photoshop:

- First I convert to RGB and assign the ProPhotoRGB working space (this makes also a big difference)

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5669/21374698214_55de702921_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yyNV6y)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 17.57.56 (https://flic.kr/p/yyNV6y) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

- Now I use Curves and slide the endpoints for shadows and highlights of every RGB Channel so there is exactly no clipping in this channel. In my case I have to remove some blue and add some red from the midtones by setting points to the middle of the curves:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5824/21376304883_b1c62302d0_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yyX9GK)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 17.59.24 (https://flic.kr/p/yyX9GK) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5732/21985232292_67c35afe02_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zuL4Bb)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 17.59.30 (https://flic.kr/p/zuL4Bb) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

- Now I set the gamma in Levels:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/641/21374679694_9b459bf307_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yyNPAf)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 17.59.41 (https://flic.kr/p/yyNPAf) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

[sdzsdz]

- And finally some contrast:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/628/21809285310_15350f995d_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zedhGw)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 17.59.46 (https://flic.kr/p/zedhGw) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

And look at the 100% view, I´m sure there is no clipping and defenetly no blocked shadows or highlights:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/679/21376279203_d6c75795fb_o.png (https://flic.kr/p/yyX24Z)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 18.00.01 (https://flic.kr/p/yyX24Z) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

Does this help?

Best regards, Sebastian

[timparkin]

- And finally some contrast:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/628/21809285310_15350f995d_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zedhGw)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 17.59.46 (https://flic.kr/p/zedhGw) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

And look at the 100% view, I´m sure there is no clipping and defenetly no blocked shadows or highlights:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/679/21376279203_d6c75795fb_o.png (https://flic.kr/p/yyX24Z)Bildschirmfoto 2015-10-06 um 18.00.01 (https://flic.kr/p/yyX24Z) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

Does this help?

Best regards, Sebastian

I've just had an email from Derin today saying that using LAB mode is key to avoiding the posterisation issues I was getting. I'll experiment... many thanks!!!

Tim

[sdzsdz]

Hi Tim! Did you see my post #40 in this thread? Exactly thats it what I wrote here sime days ago:

LAB AND also very important: ProPhoto RGB! I use this for every scan (positive and negative) since I own Newcolor which is since lasr winter. Made many comparisons when I got it and found out that this is the best combination. I wrote that to the group in may but my writing may have been not clear enough so Derin told me that I'm wrong, I don't clearly understand WHAT was wrong.

The only thing is: I have come over Colorperfect. The scans are not linear enough for this program. So I switched to the method I described here and now my results are very good (for my taste):

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/589/21626541154_5b3f9f3b41_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yX4Fed)Giants Causeway Sunset (https://flic.kr/p/yX4Fed) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

[sdzsdz]

And LAB is also the best for shadow headroom in positive scanning. Also in combination with ProPhoto RGB. The scans may look a bit dark and dull on first sight. On first sight RGB scans look better but Lab scans converted to ProPhoto have more headroom for editing in Lightroom or PS. One hint to "switch on the light" in these scans: use "Shadows/Highlights" in PS with Highlights set to 0 and shadows set between 1-5 and look what happens.

Best regards

Sebastian

[georgl]

@sdzsdz

Thank you so much for your helpful advice! You changed profiles so it is scanned as a negative though you used the positive function? How did you do that?

[sdzsdz]

Hi! I´m glad if I can help. But it seems that I have to make the workflow a bit clearer.

1. Assign an it8 profile to positive and negative scans in the profile manager:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5759/24047222822_cb414ed6ff_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CCYiy3)DSC_1743 (https://flic.kr/p/CCYiy3) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

2. use LAB and 16 bit TIFF in the Scan-Setup, hit the negative tab in the scanning setup first and then disable any adjustments in the colour assistant by unchecking this small box that is named "Colour Assistant". Use 0 and 5 for Highlights and Shadows:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1579/24155300635_663904e1c6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CNwejB)DSC_1744 (https://flic.kr/p/CNwejB) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5829/23528516233_53f08056cc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BR8N9Z)DSC_1745 (https://flic.kr/p/BR8N9Z) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

(You can save these adjusments to a preset on the left upper corner of the program. I made myself a preset for negatives and positives taht are nearly the same despite of the one with the negative button hit, the other with the positive button hit.)

Now you will get a raw (positive, no inversion) scan of your BW or colournegative without any visible sharpening. For positive scans I use exactly the same workflow BUT I hit the positive button in the scanning setup. But that maybe obsolete because the scans are now the same. I never tried. But I get no sharpening issue in positive scans either so I don´t think of it any more. Maybe the most important part is to completely disable the color assistant.

3. Important: Convert to RGB and Prophoto colour space in Photoshop before you do anything. And now you can use different ways to convert your negatives in PS. I use the above described for colour negatives and nearly the same for BW. It works best for me. In my oppinion the files are excellent and have a phantastic tonal range and accuracy to work with them.

Hope this helps,

Best regards,

Sebastian

[georgl]

Thank you so much!

It's obvious to me that my scanning has been really sub-standard by comparison, your scans (Ektar and Provia) are quite impressive!#

One last question since I'm not really experienced with ICC-profiles in Newcolor: you created "8-2015 Provia.icc" yourself? With a specific setup? Or is it possible to use just one generic/native positive-profile?

The rest I am familiar with, you always have to use the negative setup because otherwise the sharpening-bug will kick in again

[sdzsdz]

Hi!

You are welcome!

This profile is an it8 calibration profile I did with an it8 Target from Wolf Faust. You really should profile your scanner too!

And for positive scans I do use the positive mode. I have no sharpening issue with positives. But despite that I do exactly the same things with positives as with negatives. Use Lab and disable the colour assistant.

Best regards,

Sebastian

Best regards

[georgl]

I did a first quick test and it looks much better than before!

Finally I can test some Portra 400 4x5^^

Do you use a special software to create the profile from the target?

I see some sharpening (you can't control) on every positive scan in Newcolor (even when sharpening is reduced under special scanner functions).

[Grumium]

@ georgl: Please consider post #37 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98888-Drum-Scanners-Upgrade-from-Howtek-4500-to-Heidelberg-Tango&p=1230082&viewfull=1#post1230082) within this thread in order to get rid of any sharpening. I attached a comparison between NewColor (Mac) and Silverfast for negative and positive mode. As per instruction negative mode is the way to go even for positives (yielding no difference compared to Silverfast).

149303 149304

@ sebastian: Do you "convert to" (post #46) or do you "assign" (post #40) ProPhoto profile in Photoshop?

I am also wondering how you are scanning your gorgeous black and white negatives (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?44249-Large-Format-Landscapes&p=1319347&viewfull=1#post1319347). Are you using grey (UniversalNegGray.icc?) or negative color mode? I guess LAB is also the right choice for BW?

[SergeyT]

Grumium,

One should use the "Convert to profile" when going from LAB to RGB or between RGBs.
I noticed that your aperture on the color scan is set to -5 and the image looks bit too "noisy". I never felt like there was a need to overrride the default (0) aperture setting.

SergeyT.

[SergeyT]

This is what I have been doing since pretty much day one with NewColor:

All scanner output goes into LAB, no exceptions.
Sharpening is enabled but all values are set to 0.
Both Negative and Positive settings do point to the same Color ICC profile. I have made a variety of profiles scanned off a variety of targets and also with different scanner settings (by that I mean White Point and Exposure ? slider). The rest of controls is disabled.) Keeping the dark point at 5.00 or letting NewColor chose one does not make a difference. So I let NewColor chose it with the added benefit of enabling NewColor to suggest the White point value for me. Which I usually override based on my prefs.
By having multiple profiles I have an extra flexibility to choose one most suitable for the particular emulsion or image content.

BW Negatives are scanned as Color Negatives with inversion done at the time of scanning. In other words, they come out from NewColor the way I expect to see a BW picture - with Whites being White and Blacks Black. Goes into LAB originally. The scanner settings and conversion done for BW Negatives by NewColor are hard to beat, so why bother...

Color negatives are scanned as Color positives. The inversion, conversion to RGB and editing are done in PS.
What's interesting is that for Color Negatives LAB + Invert + "Convert to a profile (RGB)" produces slightly different colors than LAB + "Convert to a profile (RGB)" + Invert

Color Positives are scanned as Color Positives. I keep and edit my Color Positives scans in LAB and only convert them into a particular Printer RGB at the time when I need to print them.

I still feel like the older LinoColor produces better results on darker slides or in darker image areas than NewColor does and sometimes use it for just these images.

SergeyT.

[Grumium]

Sergey,

Thank you very much for your response.

A year ago (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98888-Drum-Scanners-Upgrade-from-Howtek-4500-to-Heidelberg-Tango&p=1219242&viewfull=1#post1219242) you stated that the Tango's IQ is also depending on the selected scale and output resolution:


[...] Image size in Tango is a <Scale> x <Output Resolution>. One sets too much of a value for Output resolution and it results in a smaller Scale - read softer image. That alone probably explains some reports of Tango scans being soft.

As I am still looking for maximum performance of my Tango, I run a few test series in order to verify your statement. Unfortunately, my results differ. Please find an example below (135 film, target resolution = 6000 dpi).

Overview:
https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160415/XvkNx_o.jpg

Comparison of most extreme settings:
https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160415/GqwxY_o.jpg

Comparison of most extreme settings (sides swapped):
https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160415/Nrlq2_o.jpg

Settings in NewColor (Maßstab = Scale, Auflösung = Output Resolution):
https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160415/n2YXN_o.jpg

Conclusion:
- No difference in IQ visible to my eye
- Re-scanning using the same settings shows variation in sharpness (sharpness not always spot on)

Sergey, and others, what do you think?

Port du Guilvinec

149680

Contax T2 | Kodak Portra 160

[Grumium]

I performed another run in order to check if varying the parameters <Scale> and <Output Resolution> while maintaining <Scale> x <Output Resolution> = constant effects image quality. Aperture 0 this time in order to allow the Tango automatic adjustment in both directions.

https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160416/MO7F0_o.jpg

Conclusion:
- No difference in IQ visible

Regarding the aperture setting:

I always select Aperture -5 as I don't trust Tango's automatic (and not visible) determination of the "best aperture" for a given size. I compared Aperture setting -5 to 0 and checked if it is possible to "blur" a -5 scan to a 0 scan. It is by applying a Gaussian blur. I also tried to go the other direction with different methods of sharpening: It didn't work - information is missing.

https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160416/SzERO_o.jpg

Conclusion:
- No reason to go for 0 if you long for maximum resolution

Note: This is grainy Tri-X souped in HC110. Guess how this would look like if shot on TMAX 100 ...

[onnect17]

I dont see the point of scanning at 4000 dpi if Blur is applied. The image without it looks pretty good.

[Grumium]

Yes, that's why I always scan at -5.

For those who don't have a Tango and would like to see how a scan at 11000 dpi (aperture -5) looks like:

https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160416/fTJK1_o.jpg

This section has a width and height of 1.85 mm (or 0.07") on the negative (full scan would have more than 750 megapixel) ;-)

[onnect17]

IMHO grain is the best way to evaluate the scan, to sense what's going on. I love to see all the imperfections in the emulsion (I can clean it later).
I wonder why the software use -5 as the aperture value instead of the physical sample. Have you ever checked the optical output using a resolution target?

[Peter De Smidt]

Are there flexible high resolution targets?

[Grumium]

Lasersoft Imaging aka Silverfast (http://www.silverfast.com/show/resolution-target/en.html) sells them.

[onnect17]

If located in the US, B&H resells Silverfast targets.

[Peter De Smidt]

Interesting. I wish they said more about it. For instance, from their data I can't tell if it's flexible or not. My hi-res target is chrome on glass from Edmund Optics, and it's anything but flexible.

[onnect17]

I purchased it via B&H like a year ago. Back then the cost was $55. Now is like $70.
It's a positive copy of the USAF 1951. Comes in a slide frame. The last element of the group seven is not perfect, it's OK all the way to 10'000 dpi.

[sanking]

Interesting. I wish they said more about it. For instance, from their data I can't tell if it's flexible or not. My hi-res target is chrome on glass from Edmund Optics, and it's anything but flexible.

It is a flexible target on film. You could use it on a drum, or on a flatbed. The target comes in a snap together slide holder, easy to remove. Pretty much identical to the chrome on glass USAF 1952 targets, except it is on film and requires careful handling.

Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

That's good to know, and it's reasonably priced!

[Grumium]

Sandy: Did you perform resolution tests with your drum scanner?

[sanking]

Sandy: Did you perform resolution tests with your drum scanner?


Yes, it was very easy to do. I just wrapped the target around the drum and fluid mounted it.

I did not do extensive testing but I made several scans of the target with the smallest aperture, 6, to see how close I could get to the theoretical maximum optical resolution. 5000 dpi was best possible, I got around 4000 dpi.

Sandy

[Grumium]

I performed a few test runs and determined a maximum resolution of about 4000 dpi for my Tango. Considering that it was marketed to up to 11000 dpi, this is on the low side. On the other hand, 4000 dpi translates to roughly 80 lpm, which is way more than most films and most lenses are able to resolve.

[Pali K]

Makes me wonder how much real dpi I am getting from Scanmate 11000 which is also rated at 11000 dpi. I have always heard great things about the tango and am surprised that it doesn't even resolve 50% of rated resolution.

Is yours properly calibrated?

[Tyler Boley]

there are many ways to create pixels.. resulting in dpi. Actual resolved detail has a lot to do with aperture as well as making big files. So resolution tests without attention to that setting, as Sandy mentioned in his, don't tell the whole story. There seems to be some confusion about controlling the Tango's aperture, I don't know about the Scanmate. Would be worth looking into.

[Grumium]

The Tango features 25 apertures that can't be directly selected by the operator but are chosen by the scanner based on the scan settings. By selecting aperture setting -5 and a resolution in the range that we are discussing it's very easy to force the scanner to use the minimum aperture size (10.0 µm). Please keep in mind that 10.0 µm translates into 50 lpm or 2540 dpi. Higher resolutions are the result of scanning overlapping areas (the Tango's stepper motor is capable of steps up to 2.3 µm!) and internal algorithms.

It's not easy to determine the maximum resolution by scanning the test target, thus the results should be taken with a grain of salt, as:
1) The Tango doesn't provide raw data, thus interpolation always takes place.
2) The transition between black and white on the test target isn't perfectly sharp (this is definitely the case for the Silverfast target).
3) The transition might not fall between two rows/lines of pixel-lines.
4) Reading the test is subjective.

@ Pali: Yes, my Tango is properly calibrated (by Karl).

[onnect17]

I don't know if Silverfast changed the source for the USAF targets but the copy I received seems fine (sharp). The only defect was in the last element of the last group (7,6) so is good all the way to 10'000 dpi. Ideally should be mounted slanted, around 5 degrees.

Here's a pic I took using the target while testing the Howtek lens.

150459

[Grumium]

I took a photomicrograph (200x) of group 6 and 7 of the latest batch of Silverfast targets:

https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160505/XkxW7_o.jpg

[onnect17]

It seems a little worse. Any samples with the scanner?

[Grumium]

Plenty. Please find one of the samples below.

Heidelberg Tango
New Color
Aperture -5
Resolution (Factor x Resolution) 11kdpi
Scan as negative
No sharpening
No post treatment

https://s1.shotroom.com/img/160506/YfnZq_o.jpg

How to read the sample? Click here (http://www.silverfast.com/PDF/resolution-target/Resolution-Target_long_en.pdf).

[onnect17]

If I am reading this correctly the resolution is not even 4000 dpi. But I don't think the issue here is the target. I would double-check the focus using pieces of 1 mil overlays.

In any case, if the scanner smallest aperture is 10 microns then that's as good as you gonna' get.

[Grumium]

Looking forward to seeing the results (and scans) of others ;-)

[onnect17]

Sure. Here's one from a Howtek scanner using Silverfast's target. 8K dpi native. No adjustments of any kind, of course.

150515

Same image interpolated to 11K dpi, for comparison purpose only.

150516

[Pali K]

I bought a Tango which arrived earlier this week. I haven't played with it much to know if this is best I can resolve but posting a Tango vs Scanmate 11000 resolution comparison as a FYI. Both were dry mounted. Will repost if I am able to resolve more resolution from the Tango.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/Tango/Tango%20vs%20SM11K%20-%20DPI%20Test.jpg

Both scanned at 11000 DPI.

Pali

[Pali K]

Hi! I´m glad if I can help. But it seems that I have to make the workflow a bit clearer.

1. Assign an it8 profile to positive and negative scans in the profile manager:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5759/24047222822_cb414ed6ff_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CCYiy3)DSC_1743 (https://flic.kr/p/CCYiy3) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

2. use LAB and 16 bit TIFF in the Scan-Setup, hit the negative tab in the scanning setup first and then disable any adjustments in the colour assistant by unchecking this small box that is named "Colour Assistant". Use 0 and 5 for Highlights and Shadows:

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1579/24155300635_663904e1c6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CNwejB)DSC_1744 (https://flic.kr/p/CNwejB) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5829/23528516233_53f08056cc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BR8N9Z)DSC_1745 (https://flic.kr/p/BR8N9Z) by Sebastian Dziuba (https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/), auf Flickr

(You can save these adjusments to a preset on the left upper corner of the program. I made myself a preset for negatives and positives taht are nearly the same despite of the one with the negative button hit, the other with the positive button hit.)

Now you will get a raw (positive, no inversion) scan of your BW or colournegative without any visible sharpening. For positive scans I use exactly the same workflow BUT I hit the positive button in the scanning setup. But that maybe obsolete because the scans are now the same. I never tried. But I get no sharpening issue in positive scans either so I don´t think of it any more. Maybe the most important part is to completely disable the color assistant.

3. Important: Convert to RGB and Prophoto colour space in Photoshop before you do anything. And now you can use different ways to convert your negatives in PS. I use the above described for colour negatives and nearly the same for BW. It works best for me. In my oppinion the files are excellent and have a phantastic tonal range and accuracy to work with them.

Hope this helps,

Best regards,

Sebastian

Hi Sebastian,

I am trying to follow these steps with my own IT8 profile and am unable to get positive scans in the negative mode. I am using Newcolor 2.5.7 on Mac and even after turning off the Color Assistant (including [A] icon) I get inverted previews and scans. Would it be possible for you to share your profile that I can try this with?

Regards,

Pali

[Pali K]

Answering my own question which I get asked via PM occasionally. I did finally figure out how to scan negatives as positives with no USM and I follow these steps to do so using Newcolor 7000. Hopefully this helps anyone else looking at this thread for the same answer I was when I first got my Tango. BTW, I use the same method for scanning slides with USM completely turned off. This is as RAW a scan you can get from Newcolor 7000 software.



Here are the steps to make sure you are scanning negatives as positives with sharpness turned off.

1. From Scan - Special Scanner Functions: Set Negative USM to No USM
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/Tango/Negative%20Scanning/Picture%201.jpg

2. Set your positive profile for negative scans
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/Tango/Negative%20Scanning/Picture%205.jpg

DO THE FOLLOWING EACH TIME YOU NEED TO SCAN NEGATIVES BEFORE PRESCAN.
** You can save this as custom settings so you can simply toggle from the drop drown list without having to remember each of these settings below.

3. Select Negative scanning icon from the top list and select Color from the Mode. I also scan in RGB ProPhoto profile but that is upto you.

4. Uncheck the [A] on the 2nd tab under Color Assistant
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/Tango/Negative%20Scanning/Picture%204.jpg

5. Uncheck the check boxes in boxes labeled 1 first, 2 second, and 3 last - This order is very important. At the end, you should have everything unchecked.
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/Tango/Negative%20Scanning/Picture%206.jpg

From this point forward, you can prescan and scan as normal. You should get a positive scan of your negative in both the preview window and the file you save.

Pali

[georgl]

I haven't been able to use my scanner for a while but recently I've tried your tipps on Portra 400. The results are just lousy, something is still completely off:



I've scanned it in Lab with switched profiles and without any Newcolor/Colorperfect adjustments (density 0-5) - sharpening is turned off - that worked:

185636

But the results cannot be altered in photoshop in any acceptable way, I converted them to RGB in the Pro color space:

185635

(left is converted in PS; right scanned with the regular negative functionality of Newcolor in RGB/Adobe 1998 color space)

What am I missing? Thank you!

[sdzsdz]

Could you send me the whole raw scan?

[georgl]

I am not with my scanner/files for the next couple of weeks...

I'll try to arrange something. The screenshot is a lossless png of the lab-scan, but I am pretty sure it's not 48bit anymore...

Strangely, I have followed the procedures and saved them with a new preset, but I hardly had the chance to test it with a negative with underexposed areas like this one. Difficult to tell if it is the scanner or ps.

Thank you.

[Gentoo]

Hello Sebastian, Georgi,

I followed your instructions and tried various settings to get positive "raw" data from CN originals. Unfortunately I failed and I wonder if it could be the combination New Color 2.5.7 and Primescan D8200 could be the reason. I used the settings as recommended but had no luck. I attached the profile manager configuration and hope to find the root cause there ...

USM is disabled for both positive / cn. This is one config i tried:

185833

185834

185835

What I find suspicious is that when I create a new frame and configure it for preview the default under corrections -> Color Assistant -> Standard the options / check boxes are already disabled. So I also tried to reset to original setting (pressing the double red arrow) and followed the instructions disabling the options A, B and C (steps from above). Didn't (yet :-) work. Maybe you have a hint or already identifies the issue(s).

Thanks + Regards
Stefan

[georgl]

I'll try to to make another scan and reproduce the issues you are having and solving mine scanning negatives without blocking.