Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau

I am starting this thread in response to lennys statements about the Eversmart Supreme in comparison to drum scanners and the Aztek plateau.

I want to know if lenny has actually see scans from the Plateau and Eversmart Supreme? I know that he likes to support Aztek but they aren’t even selling these things anymore. I don’t see how a 14k flatbed would beat one that originally sold for 55k. From the stats, components, and my personal experiences I would think the out of all the flatbeds that the Supreme I & II can’t be beat.

A while back Kodak purchased Creo-Scitex and they currently sell and support the Eversmart line of scanners. Most of the new machines go to colleges and governments for high-end scientific research purposes. Kodak still releases software updates (the last one was a few months ago) and they are committed to their customers, and improving their products. I am sure that they plan to support the machine for many more years to come. Of course, it helps that there have been thousand of Eversmart scanners that were sold. Where as, I would be surprised if Aztek has sold more then 150 film scanners. Creo-Scitex, and Kodak are/were multiple billion dollar company’s, to my knowledge Aztek currently has about 4 employees. When Creo-Scitex developed the Eversmart line of Scanners the market for film scanners was a great deal larger, they spent about a decade and who knows how many millions of dollars on improving and expanding the line of scanners. The Eversmart Supreme was their newest, most expensive, and technologically advanced flatbed ever. I don’t see how a small company with limited resources such as Aztek would be able produces a superior machine, especially at a fraction of the price? I am not sure that they could even afford anything but off the shelf parts.

I have seen Aztek’s statements about the Eversmart supreme and vs the Aztek plateau, and I do not believe they are accurate. I have one of these machines and I have done max resolution scans of microfilm, the apparent resolution is much higher then what is shown on Phil’s scanner comparison. My guess is that the scan was flawed (inexperienced operator, focusing error, old bulb, or dirty lens?) and not optimized for maximum quality (no max DR, or non oil mounted). It certainly would not be fair to compare a non oilmounted scan done on the fast settings with one that was oil mounted and done on the highest settings. This may be why the findings were removed from Aztek’s “scannerforoum” site. One more, possible origin for the flawed scan is the settings will default from time to time when you change resolution or start up the software. With a 5,600 PPI scans the default settings are set to produce large amount of unsharpening (the default method is optical defocusing, however the scanner can be set to digitally unsharpened) to remove film grain (this is ideal for a prepress work), for non-press work one really should turn off the unsharpening.

My opinion is based on the actual microfilm scans that I have produced on the Eversmart Supreme. From these scans anyone could see that this scanner truly achieves its stated 5,600 PPI resolution. Every pixel was sharp and contained valuable detail, no pixels were wasted and the image looked fantastic even when I set Photoshop to zoom into the “actual pixels” or beyond. Flare or pixel spill over was 100% non evident, the scan was oil mounted done at 5,600 PPI with the Max DR function turned on. It’s truly amazing that any scanner is able to sample a 4.6-micron spot of film but this scanner can do it. (See http://graphics1.kodak.com/gc/produc...ific_research). Maybe someday I will purchase my own ortho microfilm test target so that I conduct my own tests.

The 45k asking price on the supreme is due to more expensive and higher quality components. The Aztek has the cheaper 10600 lines CCD, while the Eversmart uses a thermoelectrically cooled version of the Kodak anti-bloom, 8000-line tri-linear sensor (the same that Betterlight uses except theirs is not actively cooled). The thermoelectric cooling greatly improves the quality of the scan in regards to dynamic range and CCD noise. U belive the betterlight company states that this sensor has a superior dynamic range and more sensitivity then black and white film. The 8000-line Kodak sensor is regarded as the best on the market, the 10600-line sensor has smaller diameter sensors. With CDD’s you want an array with larger sensors because they have less noise, and more dynamic range. Scanner Resolution is
a factor of the magnification ratio, CCD density, and resolving power of the lens. A company like Creo-Scitex can afford to have the best possible lens custom manufactured for them so they don’t need to relay on a higher density CCD. By using the 10600 pixel CCD Aztek is sacrificing image quality for a more economically resolution. Even with the higher density CCD the eversmart Supreme’s 5,600 optical PPI is a substantial improvement over’s the plateau’s 4000PPI.

When it comes to the lens I am sure that Scitex, Creo, and Kodak use the best possible lens. After all, the Supreme was meant to be the best flatbed scanner without regards to cost. More advanced (and costly) lens designs incorporate moving elements to change the focal length of the lens. You see this a lot with 35mm and medium format lenses. For large format the depth of field is so short that people are required to use smaller apertures which limits the maximum theatrical resolution which makes it impossible to increase resolution past a certain point regardless of lens design. That, along with cost is why you don’t see 13 element zoom lenses for large format. I suspect that the reason why the plateau uses 4 fixed focal point lenses is that there were available as an off the shelf component, and that Aztek did not have enough capital or large enough production plans to have the best possible lens custom made for them. Scitex, Creo, and Kodak have all spent millions of dollars in developing the Eversmart supreme.

Another feature of the Eversmart supreme is what they call MaxDr; basically this is multisampling where you scan the film multiple times at different exposures to create an image with exceptionally low noise and high dynamic range. Both the Aztek and Eversmart use a technology known as XY stitch where the different portions of the film are scanned individually and combined digitally to create one large film.

In terms of dynamic range the Eversmart stats a higher dynamic range then the Aztek Premier (drum scanner). I know that the dynamic range surpasses chrome films such as provia by a great degree because I have done some scans where I could see a part of the image where the mask overlapped with the black edge of the film, there was a bit of gaffers tape that was used on top of that and I could see the difference from the gaffers tape + mask + film edge and just mask and film edge.

So basically with the Eversmart Supreme your negative or chrome is scanned hundreds or even thousands of times with a betterlight back using the best lens with perfect lighting and focusing calculated to the micron (BTW their scientific software allows you to control focus to the individual micron)

One advantage of the Aztek is that it is very fast; much faster then the Eversmart supreme. I have done scans my Eversmart that took almost 24 hours to complete (I only use the scanner on its highest quality Max DR mode). To me the Plareau sounds like a good option for a return on investment minded individual. But I don’t think it’s the answer for ultimate quality in a flatbed.

Anyway that is my current opinion on the Eversmart supreme vs Aztek plateau. If anyone has one of these Plateau scanners I would like to engage in a head to head comparison, it would be interesting to see how a 45k scanner compares to a 14k one.

BTW I don’t have a problem with Aztek, in fact, I am in the process of purchasing one of their drum scanners and they seem like very good people to me. I just feel that there is a lot of misinformation out there about their plateau line of scanners in comparison to the Eversmart and about the Eversmart line of scanners in general.

Sounds to me like you are trying desperately to talk yourself into something. I'm not sure what.

The bottom line with scanners is you should pick the scanner that offers you sufficient quality for what you are trying to accomplish, while at the same time offering you a workflow with which you are comfortable. I suggest that rather than invest much of yourself in marketing hype, you do some real world testing with your own film. Get the best scans you can (same pixel dimensions of course to help with an apples-to-apples comparison) from various machines/operators, make prints from the scans, and compare prints side-by-side under real world lighting.

Then, make your choice and go on your way. What do you care what anyone else thinks about your choices? They can't effect you in any way, unless you let them.

I think the answer here is to request that Aztek scan something for you as a comparison on their Plateau. They are usually more than happy to do this, or at least have been in the past.

I can't really answer these questions as I don't have a Plateau. If you want to buy some test film I will scan it for you on my Premier.

Unless one also wants to scan flat art or glass negs, with the kind of money either one costs, I see no reason for a flatbed when drum scanners are available. Certainly not if things are going to take 24 hours to scan. The Premier is rated at almost 8,000 ppi, way higher than the Eversmarts. If you are looking for the ultimate quality, why bother buying something from Kodak? I have heard multiple reports, however unsubstantiated, that they are discontinuing, down to 6 people at the factory, etc. It appears these may all be false, but it is clear that it is not Kodak's intention to make a big splash selling scanners.

I don't like working with Kodak as a company. It's like working with any large company like Microsoft or Apple. I would rather work with a smaller company who might have your interests at heart. Many labs bought Tango's - because of the reputation Heidelberg had in the printing industry. The scanner wasn't as good, was limited in its aperture settings and whatnot and in the end they closed up shop. They would have been better working with some of the other choices.

Your are incorrect about Aztek's buying off the shelf components, they also designed the Premier and the Plateau to be the best that could be made, regardless of cost. It was a different time and they invested heavily. I know what it costs to make a Premier in parts. It's unfortunate that it costs so much, but when one knows what is underlying, it makes some sense. They have been a company that has been seriously committed to the scanning industry since it began. Phil Lippincott, who passed away last year was a huge contributor.

I think if you want to set up tests properly, I, for one, would be all for it. I think you have to lay out the criteria very carefully, both in resolution and in sensitivity. Then you have to utilize expert operators, give them multiple attempts, etc. to get the best results with every machine.

I'd love to help, but I gotta go make a living...

Best of luck,

Lenny

I have been meaning to ask Lenny a couple of technical questions about the Aztek Premier just out of curiosity.

1. I thought the light source for scanning was a laser with an adjustable aperture. Maybe three lasers for RGB? No LEDs' are used?

2. I thought no highly corrected lens was involved - maybe just a lens to demagnify the laser beam.

3. I was under the impression that the detector was a photomultiplier tube - hence capable of great sensitivity so superior DMax capability.

Am I off the mark Lenny?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Potter

I have been meaning to ask Lenny a couple of technical questions about the Aztek Premier just out of curiosity.

1. I thought the light source for scanning was a laser with an adjustable aperture. Maybe three lasers for RGB? No LEDs' are used?

---

The light source is not a laser, it is a halogen bulb. However, it travels thru a fiber optic tube and then a focus illuminator, thru the film to an element which further collimates the light to a single point. Then it is read by the PMT. One of the main benefits of a drum is that the optics box as well as the illumination mechanism stays still while the film moves. In a flatbed, the film stays still while the sensors move.

This results in a +- 1 micron margin of error between where the sensor thinks it is reading and where it is actually reading. In a flatbed, you are doing well if this margin of error is within 30 microns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Potter

I
2. I thought no highly corrected lens was involved - maybe just a lens to demagnify the laser beam.

---

you are correct, no lens. collimator, possibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Potter

I
3. I was under the impression that the detector was a photomultiplier tube - hence capable of great sensitivity so superior DMax capability.

---

Yes, they all use a PMT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Potter

I
Am I off the mark Lenny?
Nate Potter, Austin TX.

---

Nope, you are right on track.

Lenny

Larry, I visited your web site, I sure appreciate your passion and thoroughness towards your craft. I read this below on your web sit regarding scanning vs. digital...

> Oh, yeah, the 16,000 x 20,000 pixels of my 4x5 scans multiply out to 320 megapixels. I do my 8x10's at 2666 dpi and end up with 568 megapixels. Which would you want - 22mp or 568mp? Do you think there might be a difference in a large print?


I am curious, do you feel a 4x5 scan is equal to a single image formed by a 320MP digital back? I see this logic applied often, and I disagree with the premise. But to be honest, in my early days in digtial / scanning, I was often fooled by this.


To compare digital capture to film/scan is subjective....however, we can draw some very sensible conclusions, as although the images have a different look, we can still compare resolution without much difficulty. To compare digital capture vs film/scan, I think a final print must be made of equal size, both worked over however is deemed best in their respective work flows.


Since, digital capture is a first generation capture, the recorded pixels represent the basis for the file that will be printed. The combining of the MTF of the lens, combined with the MTF of the sensor (1/R) is a process that is carried out once. As you know, with film capture and then scanning, this is a two step process... so we are combining capture lens MTF with film MTF, then when we scan, scan lens MTF with sensor MTF. Its amazing how much more data is required to grab the original capture info. However, all this added data is not the same as adding more data to the original digital capture method, and this is where the analogy starts falling apart.


Without turning this into a deep math thread, my position is, in the end, for color trannie LF capture on 4x5 capture, then scan, I would consider the resolution of such to equal about a 60 MP single digital capture. Certainly not 320 MP. Would you agree with this?

I am not Larry, but I sure would like to know where one can get a single image 320MP digital back?

Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bglick

I am curious, do you feel a 4x5 scan is equal to a single image formed by a 320MP digital back? I see this logic applied often, and I disagree with the premise. But to be honest, in my early days in digtial / scanning, I was often fooled by this.

---

Sandy, it was hypothetical back, or a stitched digital capture image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bglick

Larry, I visited your web site, I sure appreciate your passion and thoroughness towards your craft. I read this below on your web sit regarding scanning vs. digital...

---

It's Lenny. And thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bglick

I am curious, do you feel a 4x5 scan is equal to a single image formed by a 320MP digital back? I see this logic applied often, and I disagree with the premise. But to be honest, in my early days in digtial / scanning, I was often fooled by this.

---

I think its superior, actually. I think its close in the way you are thinking, as I have a lot of faith in PMT's, as well as the scanners very good specs. However, that said, film has much more dynamic range that digital. I believe the next step in capture software will be the ability to both stitch and do HDR at the same time. I think that will be exciting, and offer many good possibilities, once the price of it comes down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bglick

To compare digital capture vs film/scan, I think a final print must be made of equal size, both worked over however is deemed best in their respective work flows.

---

Of course. I believe both Tyler and Sandy echoed this very same thing in the last discussion we had over this. However, then the problem becomes very subjective. Tyler and I might disagree on what the ultimate print should look like. If I were to guess, not having seen them, I would be closer to a Sandy print. Tyler is an excellent printer, he simply works in a slightly different style, or has a different aim. There are subtleties that are very important to him that I don't focus on, and vice versa. So how do you judge a print?

Then there are all the beginners and non-photographers who may not even see the difference we focus on. Who gets to say when "it doesn't matter", or that's "good enough?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bglick

Without turning this into a deep math thread, my position is, in the end, for color trannie LF capture on 4x5 capture, then scan, I would consider the resolution of such to equal about a 60 MP single digital capture. Certainly not 320 MP. Would you agree with this?

---

No, I don't agree. Sandy said the other day he thought it was in the 125-150mp range. I honestly don't know. I am certain a better scanner gets you a better result, as I have seen this with my own eyes. The scanner I use has a optical resolution close to its max output of 8,000 ppi. Can it be that good? I think answering the question would take a fair amount of research, and utilize tools (and time) I don't have. I also think there are parts of the question that aren't framed well enough to have an answer.

Hope that helps.

Lenny

I want to make it clear that my comment about the effective pixels in a sheet of 4X5 film was meant to refer to practical results. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that very few sheets of exposed 4X5 film have effective resolution of over about 50 lines per millimeter, or 2500 spi. That gives about 125 mp of useful information.

Bear in mind that LF cameras are typically used at small apertures to get as much depth of field as possible. At f/22 diffraction limits resolution to about 60 lppm, so this is the theoretical maximum resolution possible, regardless of the film and quality of the optics. At f/32 the theoretical maximum drops to 43 lpm.

I have said this before. If the detail is not on the film you are not going to be able to pull it out, no matter the quality of the scanner or the resolution of the scan. So make your scan, then look at the negative with a microscope at about 20X, which would correspond to a print of 80" X 100", and see if there is detail in the negative not recorded by the scan. If there is, you should scan at a higher resolution, if not you have it.

It is certainly possible to shoot fine grain film at optimum apertures that will give much more than 125 mp of useful information. I have seen files made with modern Leica cameras and Leitz lenses that had more than 150 lpm of information. That for sure would require a scan of around 8000 spi to pull out all of the information.

Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

No, I don't agree. Sandy said the other day he thought it was in the 125-150mp range. I honestly don't know. I am certain a better scanner gets you a better result, as I have seen this with my own eyes. The scanner I use has a optical resolution close to its max output of 8,000 ppi. Can it be that good? I think answering the question would take a fair amount of research, and utilize tools (and time) I don't have. I also think there are parts of the question that aren't framed well enough to have an answer.

Hope that helps.

Lenny

---

> I have said this before. If the detail is not on the film you are not going to be able to pull it out, no matter the quality of the scanner or the resolution of the scan.


Yep, this is the point often overlooked and is the basis of all the confusion of how much information is in a 4x5 scan, (in terms of MP's). This also relates to the scanned film vs. digital capture comparisons. Consider this.....


A 4x5 Provia capture of a landscape image, at f22 = a max. recorded resolution of 32 lp/mm assuming 1500/f and 60 lp/mm for Provia at a given contrast that is practical. Lets assume at f22, the lens IS apt. diffraction limited. As we know, often you must stop down futher for DOF....of course, if you shoot an infinity shot, you can open up a stop or two, based on the lens MTF data... (most LF lenses only perform well at f16+, but some of the newer modern designs can get to f11, (such as the SSXL's) Anyway, so f22 is nice middle of the road f stop for 4x5. We also know that there is other issues, such as film alignment, depth of focus at film plane, etc. All slightly degrade image quality, but lets assume there is no losses here, since f22 provides decent leeway for a decent camera set up.


Now, assume you had a scanner that was 100% eff and could extract every bit of that 32 lp/mm from the film. 4x5 film is 90x120mm.... extract the math, at 64 dots per mm, you have a 44MP worth of clean, captured data on the film. Of course, to extract this data, you are forced to oversample by a factor of 3 - 6, you can end up with 150MP to 300MP file....but that is only because its second generation image, again, Nyquist (1/R) is the cause of these large file sizes. They key is, there is only 44MP of recorded data in the entire 4x5 film.


Now, lets look at a 60MP digital back capture.... lets use a hypothetical 40x50mm sensor size, which it would take a 7000 x 8750 pixels = 61 MP. This equates to 88 pp/mm (pixel pairs per mm) To get the same DOF in the smaller format at the same size final print, you can reduce the f stop by the enlargement factor (and also the lens fl, but thats not relevant here) , which is 2.3x. (2.3 x 40 = 90 mm)... f22/2.3= f9.6. Of course, this assumes same composure.

Now run the math....

9.6 f stop
157 lp/mm aerial rez of lens (1500/f stop)
56 lp/mm 1/R

2.3 format factor to match 4x5 final size
25 lp/mm at 4x5 size


This demonstrates how a typical 4x5 color image shot at f22, scanned with perfect efficiency will match a 60MP digital capture on a smaller digital format. So why do scanned files have 6x more data? It's due to second generation oversampling requirement, which is Nyquist, regardless of what Phil once said. It's can't be more obvious.


Now you can see why those touting a 4x5 film capture is equal to 150 - 300MP digital capture is simply NOT comprehending all the issues at play. Many have stated, they believe what they see. Well, this explains why Mike R's Luminous Landscape test, of scanned 4x5 film vs. 39MP capture were very close, with the film just barely edging out the digital capture. this example above, suggests he is right. And even if his eyesight is poor as suggested, it's the same set of eyes being laid on both images. Also, he had several other people come to the same conclusion.


But then you have variables...such as Velvia will record more resolution than Provia, so the 4x5 film capture will win by maybe 15 - 20%......if you go to Tmax, the 4x5 capture will destroy the digital capture, probably by 40%+. But, as a more fair comparison, to match the DR of the MF digital capture, one must go to color neg film, now the 60MP digital capture will exceed scanned 4x5 film probably by 15%.

Anyway, the numbers are close, except B&W films like TMAX. Hopefully this will shed some light on how many MP are actually in scanned 4x5 film......vs how massive the scanned files are.

> Then there are all the beginners and non-photographers who may not even see the difference we focus on. Who gets to say when "it doesn't matter", or that's "good enough?"


This discussion was based around, how to compare the two.... vs. at what size you will see the difference.... as this introduces printing technique, printer type, viewing distances, resolution of the persons eyes, etc.

Bglick, many thanks for the well reasoned comments. Can I ask one question which bothers me - how does the Bayer interpolation (if I've got the right term!) affect this? Surely with a one shot back you need to reduce the effective number of pixels to take account of the distribution of the colour pixels? Also presumbaly the interpolation itself loses some resolution? If you do adjust for this how would the revised numbers look?

David Whistance

David, thanks for the kind words......

> Surely with a one shot back you need to reduce the effective number of pixels to take account of the distribution of the colour pixels? Also presumbaly the interpolation itself loses some resolution? If you do adjust for this how would the revised numbers look?


This is a great question....and it relates to what I described above as.... "color of subject", which is an issue with Bayer sensors, but NOT an issue with film (within reason, as even film has color recording characteristics). I assume the issue you raise relates to the RGGB Bayer color distribution.... The short answer is....


When shooting B&W targets, this issue is moot. White is compromised of RGB, so every pixel can detect white. Black is the absence of color, which all the pixels can sense this as well.


With Green targets, you have the benefit of 50% of the pixels being green. Since green is NOT a primary color, its a mix of Yellow and blue, the blue pixels sense the green subject. So Green targets hold about 75% of the total pixel count, or reduce the pp/mm by 25%. When run through 1/R, you will see Green targets resolve almost as well as B&W targets. I have been testing this for many years, and the test results always pan-out as expected.

But now it gets worse....

When shooting Red targets, obviously there is resolution degredation. The Blue and Green pixels can NOT sense red. You have effectively reduced your pixel count by 75%. The same applies to Blue. If you shoot TRUE RED or BLUE targets, you can easily see the resolution degradation. On avg, I have noticed about a 25 - 30% reduction in recorded resolution.

Of course, this makes the assumption, the subject is TRUE red, or TRUE Blue, often times this is not the case...for example, Blue often has a bit of green, making it recordable...

Of course, if you really want to "bring out the worse" in Bayer sensors, try shooting a Yellow-Orange.... Yellow Orange is the farthest from Red and Green on the color wheel...not fun.


Then, the next big issue is orientation of the targets. Obviously, the checkerboard pattern of digital sensors prefers the same orientation targets. Once the targets turn radial, again, another degredation of resolution.... to put this in perspective, working from memory, a blue radial target will produce half the resolution as B&W targets oriented the same as the sensor.

Of course, often these issues are only issues in testing, but sometimes they do surface in real world shooting. Of course, most of this loss of resolution is only evident when the image is enlarged to the point it becomes an issue....

Green is a primary of additive (ie. transmissive) color:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color

Red, Yellow, Blue are primaries for subtractive (ie. reflective) color.

Bglick

Many thanks for the additional thoughts/explanation. I have followed the discussions on both this and the other thread with interest and enjoyed your original analysis which made sense to my non-mathematical mind (I gave up maths when I stopped being an engineer and became an accountant 25 years ago!). What slightly concerned me was that, when printing images for others, I have found that images made with one shot MF digital backs don't enlarge as well as your original analysis would suggest. Sadly, as I mostly print for landscape photographers, I haven't had the opportunity to print any images made in tethered multi-shot mode which would prove whether it is indeed the Bayer filtering that is causing this or whether it is something else - it could of course just be bad technique! However I have printed lots of images made with a Betterlight scanning back (I have one for my business) which hold up really well to enlargement so I suspect that the Bayer filtering is at least part of the problem.

David Whistance

Dave, how many MP of the BL back? How many MP of the MF back? Are you cropping down the MF? What colors are the subjects? What f stops are you shooting at? When MF lenses are you using? What size are you printing to? All these factors can significantly effect the recorded resolution, which in return will effect the final prints size, at a desired resolution.

Quote Lenny Eiger "I think its superior, actually. I think its close in the way you are thinking, as I have a lot of faith in PMT's, as well as the scanners very good specs. However, that said, film has much more dynamic range that digital. I believe the next step in capture software will be the ability to both stitch and do HDR at the same time. I think that will be exciting, and offer many good possibilities, once the price of it comes down."

I don't know how much lower the price needs to be but I will post a couple of links that you may find interesting.

http://www.autopano.net/

http://www.paris-20-gigapixels.com/en/

Hope this provides information that is helpful.

Hi, the BL back is a 6000-HS - 6000x8000 pixels - 48 MP although I think Betterlight class it as 144 MP. I typically use it with Super Symmars (80XL, 110XL, 120HM, 150HM) and Apo Symmars (210, 240) generally at f11 or f16.

The MF back belongs to a client/friend. It is a Phase One P45. He uses it on a Linhof 679 with predominantly Scheider digital lenses. I am not sure what aperature he typically uses which could of course have a big impact on image quality.

The images I was printing that gave rise to my comment were at 32"x40" and were essentially uncropped (clearly they did need cropping slightly to fit this format but no other cropping was done). They were all autumnal Scottish landscapes if that helps describe the colours. I also scanned (on a Howtek 4000) and printed a few 4x5's for the same photographer at the same size (for the same exhibition, hence the format of the digital images). Of the two I felt the 4x5 images were sharper and showed more detail at this print size. When I printed them I did wonder about his technique with the digital images as, having photographed with him, I know he finds using movements much harder than he did with 4x5. He was also relatively new to the camera/back which may explain why the digital images didn't hold up so well.

I only use the Betterlight indoors but would have no hesitation in printing images of this size or even larger with it. I have never tried to compare it with 4x5 film on the same image (life is too short) but have always felt they were fairly evenly matched, its just that, for my purposes, the workflow with the Betterlight is much quicker and easier. Before I bought it I did, briefly, consider a MF digital back as an alternative but felt that for my purposes the Betterlight was better as well as cheaper.

I hope this is vaguely helpful, albeit hardly conclusive or scientific.

David Whistance

> I am not sure what aperature he typically uses which could of course have a big impact on image quality.


not a "huge" impact, but rather a HUGE impact :-) AT f4.5 on Digitar lens, a P45 can resolve up to 66 lp/mm... if the image is at infinity, this is close to reality. The same lens stopped down to f22 would record 37 lp/mm...almost half. See the significance here? That means at 3 lp/mm final print size, at f4.5 you can print 35 x 43" (using 40mm height of sensor). But at f22, at the same final print rez, you can only print to 19x24".


But more importantly, these are "best case numbers"..... add in some camera shake from wind, subject movement, long exposure, lens tilt which would greatly degrade the f4.5 shot, orange / red colors will really degrade the above values, etc. Again, details matter.... they REALLY matter....



> Of the two I felt the 4x5 images were sharper and showed more detail at this print size.


As you suggest, technique could be part of the problem, or the other variables I mentioned previously.... But, regardless, herein lies the beauty of 4x5 film....I will assume the photo used Velvia on the landscape, and assume f22, with good technique... This will record about 37 lp/mm to film (using 1/R), throughout most of the entire image, even if the scene had lots of DOF or at infinity. As at these higher f stops for LF (unlike MF), the resolution at the point of exact focus becomes nearer to the defocus positions (near / far). so at 37 lp/mm, your Howtek should extract most all this data, lets assume 90%, or 33 lp/mm, this will yield a 44x55" print at 3 lp/mm resolution on the print.


The punchline is here, the devil is always in the details..... MF digital capture is impressive, however, when a shot requires a lot of DOF, and you must stop down, its recording capacity is greatly minimized. In addition, if you view the MTF charts for MF digital lenses, their designs are optimized in the f5.6 - f8 range.... smaller apt. further degrade image quality, as apt. diffraction is not the only aberrations at play. OTOH, LF lenses are optimized in the f16 -32 range...some of the longer fl's in the f22 - f45 range.... this is why LF capture is a perfect match for Landscape photography....


I concur on your position on the BL back...if the subject is always static, you get more bang for your buck with a scanning back. The problem most people have is, they still need a one-shot capture back for non static subjects, so often the scanning back becomes a bit redundant. The added RGB per pixel site certainly adds a bit to resolution and tonality.....but certainly NOT the 144MP the maker claims.

Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any

Thanks

I suggest you join the Scan Hi-End forum on Yahoo. Ther was some discussion just a few weeks ago. Join the forum and do a search on EverSmart and you should find the messages. I don't know the answer to your question about the cleaner but there is someone on the Yahoo forum who used to work for Scitex and he has a lot of information about the EverSmart. I believe there is also a maintenance manual in the files section which descreibes how to open the scanner to access the mirrors, optics and CCD for cleaning.


Sandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCG

Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any

Thanks

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCG

Does anyone know how to clean the CCD's on the Eversmart scanners there is suppose to be a special chemical that doesn't leave streaks that i believe is no longer available. I tried to find tech notes on line but could not find any

Thanks

---

If you fail to find the proper cleaner, you might look at the cleaners made for sensors in digital cameras. I have a kit that I have used on one of my 5Ds and it leaves no residue.

thanks good tip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bglick

> I have said this before. If the detail is not on the film you are not going to be able to pull it out, no matter the quality of the scanner or the resolution of the scan.


Yep, this is the point often overlooked and is the basis of all the confusion of how much information is in a 4x5 scan, (in terms of MP's). This also relates to the scanned film vs. digital capture comparisons. Consider this.....


A 4x5 Provia capture of a landscape image, at f22 = a max. recorded resolution of 32 lp/mm assuming 1500/f and 60 lp/mm for Provia at a given contrast that is practical. Lets assume at f22, the lens IS apt. diffraction limited. As we know, often you must stop down futher for DOF....of course, if you shoot an infinity shot, you can open up a stop or two, based on the lens MTF data... (most LF lenses only perform well at f16+, but some of the newer modern designs can get to f11, (such as the SSXL's) Anyway, so f22 is nice middle of the road f stop for 4x5. We also know that there is other issues, such as film alignment, depth of focus at film plane, etc. All slightly degrade image quality, but lets assume there is no losses here, since f22 provides decent leeway for a decent camera set up.


Now, assume you had a scanner that was 100% eff and could extract every bit of that 32 lp/mm from the film. 4x5 film is 90x120mm.... extract the math, at 64 dots per mm, you have a 44MP worth of clean, captured data on the film. Of course, to extract this data, you are forced to oversample by a factor of 3 - 6, you can end up with 150MP to 300MP file....but that is only because its second generation image, again, Nyquist (1/R) is the cause of these large file sizes. They key is, there is only 44MP of recorded data in the entire 4x5 film.


Now, lets look at a 60MP digital back capture.... lets use a hypothetical 40x50mm sensor size, which it would take a 7000 x 8750 pixels = 61 MP. This equates to 88 pp/mm (pixel pairs per mm) To get the same DOF in the smaller format at the same size final print, you can reduce the f stop by the enlargement factor (and also the lens fl, but thats not relevant here) , which is 2.3x. (2.3 x 40 = 90 mm)... f22/2.3= f9.6. Of course, this assumes same composure.

Now run the math....

9.6 f stop
157 lp/mm aerial rez of lens (1500/f stop)
56 lp/mm 1/R

2.3 format factor to match 4x5 final size
25 lp/mm at 4x5 size


This demonstrates how a typical 4x5 color image shot at f22, scanned with perfect efficiency will match a 60MP digital capture on a smaller digital format. So why do scanned files have 6x more data? It's due to second generation oversampling requirement, which is Nyquist, regardless of what Phil once said. It's can't be more obvious.


Now you can see why those touting a 4x5 film capture is equal to 150 - 300MP digital capture is simply NOT comprehending all the issues at play. Many have stated, they believe what they see. Well, this explains why Mike R's Luminous Landscape test, of scanned 4x5 film vs. 39MP capture were very close, with the film just barely edging out the digital capture. this example above, suggests he is right. And even if his eyesight is poor as suggested, it's the same set of eyes being laid on both images. Also, he had several other people come to the same conclusion.


But then you have variables...such as Velvia will record more resolution than Provia, so the 4x5 film capture will win by maybe 15 - 20%......if you go to Tmax, the 4x5 capture will destroy the digital capture, probably by 40%+. But, as a more fair comparison, to match the DR of the MF digital capture, one must go to color neg film, now the 60MP digital capture will exceed scanned 4x5 film probably by 15%.

Anyway, the numbers are close, except B&W films like TMAX. Hopefully this will shed some light on how many MP are actually in scanned 4x5 film......vs how massive the scanned files are.

---

This threads was dead a long while ago but it's worth linking to some other sources.

1) 1500/f is rayleigh's value - some consider that it's pessimistic (see Dawes limit)
2) Chris Perez's lens test have some lenses a 67lp/mm for f/22 and up to 80lp/mm at f/11 for the 110 SSXL
3) We did some pretty definitive tests of LF with some good lenses etc and had maximum 'detail' for a 5x4 on Provia as about 200 megapixels equivalent
4) However in visual comparisons, the 5x4 struggled to match the 80mp digital back with it's high contrast. Once you enlarged significantly the fine detail of the LF showed through, especially colour detail.

So a 5x4 and Provia could be seen as about 80-140mp equivalent in my opinion depending on the criteria used to compare.

Tim Parkin

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/

Quote:

---

(I only use the scanner on its highest quality Max DR mode).

---

This is an extremely old thread! But I was reading and had to comment.

Do not do this. MaxDR mode should only be used in cases where it's obviously necessary, i.e. a black cat in a coal mine...polar bear in a snow storm...that kind of thing. It will burn out your CCD prematurely and not provide noticeable advantage for most films. This is not just me speaking, straight from Micheal Streeter himself.

Love my Eversmart Supreme II. It produces outstanding scans.

This is an old thread , yes and a good one.... I own an eversmart creo supreme (in service right now) and as life kind of turns things around if you wait long enough I am collaborating with another lab who is putting their new Phase One Cultural Heritage system in my shop.

So my thoughts or observations are as follows, I did test the Aztek, against the Creo and the Imocan years ago with surprising results.. nothing scientific I would say and open to debate, but the same medium format negative was scanned on three units to its best ability by each operator, the sharpening in all cases was turned off and only applied at final printing.
I balanced each image as closely as possible to each other and printed the files to 30 x 40 inches and made Cprints off my Durst Lambda.

We then showed the prints at normal viewing distance and good lighting to quite a large group of photographers over a long period of time. We asked them to rate the prints 1, 2, 3 - there was no indicators of which print came from which scanner.


We took about 100 people to sample -- Aztec 38- first votes Creo - 35 first votes Imocan - 27 votes
I then decided to buy the Creo and have been happy using Imocan and Creo ever since.


Now I can test the Phase One System against the Creo....... I have done preliminary tests of the Phase against the Imocan scanner and my gut (scientific no) tells me the Phase is better. When I get the Creo back from Service I will indeed do the same test again.
unfortunately the Aztek will not be in the mix as I do not know of anyone actively using one .

We are in the business of archiving old photographic projects , bringing them back to life out of storage containers, and actually showing them as silver gelatin, and PT pd prints on gallery walls.
The Phase One system allows us to scan at high resolution in seconds , rather 10 minutes each - this allows us to offer artists , galleries the ability to bring old film back to life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

Now I can test the Phase One System against the Creo....... I have done preliminary tests of the Phase against the Imocan scanner and my gut (scientific no) tells me the Phase is better. When I get the Creo back from Service I will indeed do the same test again.
unfortunately the Aztek will not be in the mix as I do not know of anyone actively using one .

---

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...40#post1454940

my results 5 years ago were that it didn't seem the phase system had a way to keep the film as flat as a drum scanner – I don't doubt the capability to render from the phase is there, but I suspect that may still be true...let us know your results...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

...The Phase One system allows us to scan at high resolution in seconds , rather 10 minutes each...

---

Speed of image acquisition should not be viewed as a notable advantage of one method over another. Especially in archival applications.
It is assumed that in order to acquire an image the source material has to be properly cleaned, mounted and positioned against the optical system and sensor.
How much time does it take to acquire, let's say, a 100 images at best quality with each system and how much time the operator spends in the process (vs the machine does)? Should the operator constantly "babysit" the process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

We are in the business of archiving old photographic projects , bringing them back to life out of storage containers, and actually showing them as silver gelatin, and PT pd prints on gallery walls.
The Phase One system allows us to scan at high resolution in seconds , rather 10 minutes each - this allows us to offer artists , galleries the ability to bring old film back to life.

---

I'm curious about the Phase system. I'd never buy one because of the cost but I can see the advantage for flat pieces, reflective targets. I'm a little skeptical of it for modern films, typically sheet films. I'm sure their lenses are very good and better than what I was using but I had a lot of problems with distortion and flaring when scanning 4x5+ sheet film targets. Even though my ESII takes a bit longer it actually is faster because the file needs way less work, and I can multitask while scanning.

Plus, when you're being practical about PPI, you only really need to scan 4x5 at about 3200, and 8x10 at 2000 or so. Those sizes more than satisfy the needs of 44" printers. At those sizes the Eversmart Supreme II is very fast.

I sold a phase one back and use the Eversmart Supreme now mostly because I wasn't terribly happy with the software and pixelation I was getting. The flatbed (fluid mount) gives me a much cleaner and more lifelike image. The Phase One was fun for about 6 months until I started printing some of the images. That said, I like doing B/W landscape and regularly shoot 4x5 and 8x10 as well as 6x17 formats. I can see using the back for studio work.