Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: cezanne 5300 scanner

  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Re: cezanne 5300 scanner

    Oh it was a typo, it is the FT-S5000, it sounds like you know a good deal of scanners, what scanner are you using yourself?
    is the cezanne FT-S5000 the same quality as a proffesional scanner? i mean if you have a epson v750 and a drum scanner where does it stand?

    is it noticable on a 30x40 prints or only really large prints?

    thanks a lot peter

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    Barry, Well, those are good signs. Note that there is no Cezanne 5300. There is the original Cezanne, an FTS-5000, and the Cezanne Elite, an FTS-5500. Have the owner run the maintenance program and report what it says. If it is moved, the carriage must be locked in the home position. This is clearly detailed in the manual.

  2. #12
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA

    Re: cezanne 5300 scanner

    Hi Barry, I have the FT-S5000, as well as a dslr scanner that I made. At various points I had other flatbed scanners, an Epson and a Canon, and I had a Nikon Coolscan V scanner.

    The Cezanne is a professional scanner. It cost over $30,000 new. See Tim Parkin's post, #42, to see some comparisons, at:

    Yes, Imo the difference is noticeable on 30x40 prints.
    May tomorrow be a better day.

  3. #13

    Re: cezanne 5300 scanner

    Barry, if negatives are what you are going to scan, by all means, go and get a Cezanne, quick! I made the same experiences Tim Parkin made. First, the Cezanne has an awful lot of resolution, vastly more than the Epson, btw. Don't believe me? Check this out, std Cezanne FT-S5000, USAF test target:
    here is the documentation to the target:

    Depending on your judgement, you can see between 4600dpi and higher resolved. Mind you, this is the minimum resolution as USAF targets were not designed for digital image aquisitions, that'll be IMATEST for instance.

    Second, grain is very, very minimally emphazised. In terms of grain, its even beating my Tango when it comes to negatives. Third, the RAW data from the Cezanne is already log-encoded, which makes negative conversion quite efficient as the values do not need to be shifted that much. The log-encoding is probably done in hardware as this was commonly done around the time when the Cezanne was developed.

    I can give you samples if you would like to see how the output looks like.

    Best wishes,

Similar Threads

  1. Screen Cezanne FT s5000 scanner
    By hbjornson in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-Sep-2015, 05:41

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts