What are the film scanner options in 2017?

[Sasquatchian]

"I thought you were referring to a problem in Photoshop. Do you see any artifacts in the latest 2000 dpi image that I rotated in PS CS6?"

Yes I WAS referring to a bug in Adobe's interpolation schemes and I also said that if you rotated in even 90 or 180 degree increments, there's no problem because there's no interpolation. Well, I didn't exactly say that but I implied it. Then, I added that there was a resizing bug in Trident, but apparently, it's in a lot of different applications that use variants of bicubic interpolation. Sorry if that confused you.

I just downloaded your 2000 ppi scan and it's actually worse than the 4000 ppi original. Your scanner is not working correctly. You have a problem with both the green and blue channels, like the pmt's for them. Look at your file, either of them or both, at 100 percent, but just look at the green and blue channels by themselves. See, what you're doing here is comparing a broken drum scanner against a dslr. You might think that this technology is ready for the trash heap, but it's not really. Your scanner might be, and all three of the other Howtek models are significantly better than the 4000, so that might be coloring your findings as well.

But please, don't get pissed off at me for pointing out the areas of obvious issues. You seem more than a bit touchy about any sort of constructive criticism, taking it all too personally. I've used Nikon Scan, Linocolor, Epson Scan, Silverfast, DPL, and Trident on various scanners over the last twenty years, and, in MY experience, nothing touches Trident 4.0 for overall quality of scans, whether it's color or black and white negs, reflected or color transparencies. There are a few minor bugs that never got fixed, but it's still fantastic. Maybe you never used the latest version which was vastly improved over the earlier ones, but since you claim to have used every version I can only assume that maybe you never learned to get the most out of it.

Not sure why you seem so tweaked about mentioning Evan or Chris. I mentioned Chris only because he'd probably be the dude to actually fix the Ps issue, and you can thank my communications with him many years ago that moved us beyond the 30,000 pixel limit in earlier versions of Ps.

I wouldn't waste any more time scanning on your old 4000. It needs repair and will only give you the kind of results you're posting to your DB.

[Sasquatchian]

"It's a ridiculously large file. So large that I couldn't save it with any layers as either a tif or Photoshop file."

But you could have easily saved with or without compression in .psb format (large document format) with no practical limit to file size at all.

[Pere Casals]

"It's a ridiculously large file. So large that I couldn't save it with any layers as either a tif or Photoshop file."

But you could have easily saved with or without compression in .psb format (large document format) with no practical limit to file size at all.

You can also show the quality of a large file by also posting selected (small area) crops of the image, shown with all detail possible, like this Epson V750 sample:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

[Rich14]

I've uploaded my final scan, an oil-mounted D800E scan, Panorama5.psd.

I have new-found respect for anyone who oil mounts on a flat surface. My next attempt to do that will not be directly to the surface of the light table. That's certainly not the way to do this. I'll fashion a glass stage to sit just above the light table's surface on which to mount the film. That way, I can examine the quality of the mounting just like is possible with mounts on a drum. Has anyone else had experience oil mounting on a flat surface?

Let's see if anyone with eagle eyes can spot the one bubble I left untouched! ;-)

I'm not yet sure the oil mounting improved the image. It's slightly different from Panorama1 due to slightly adjusted exposure. Let me know.

With regard to file saving, and file size, I uploaded full scans, not cropped details so everyone could see everything in the image. But when I ran into gargantuan files, trying to keep all layers intact, I also considered I have finite storage in this Dropbox account, and I'm very close to the limit right now. So I reduced file size as I saw fit.

As far as our name-dropping "contributor" is concerned, I find his comments offensive and unhelpful and will ignore him from this point lest I really tell him what I think. His conclusions of my scanner's functioning are incorrect.

Pali, I'll be mailing your 4x5 later today.

Rich

[Rich14]

FWIW,

I am still getting the flare at the sides of the image. Much less so with this oil mounted one. Stumped.

[Rich14]

I have removed my drum scans from the Dropbox folder.

As I explained way back in this thread, this is not about my drum scans vs D800 scans. It's about my D800E scans and drum scans done by others on other equipment, including Tango scanners.

I explained that my scanner was showing symptoms of a loose power supply connection that actually got worse thru the course of the two scans I presented. That's been easily remedied. I ask that anyone who has downloaded those two scans or the downsampled file of the first scan kindly discard them.

I've pretty much supplied all the D800E scan data that I think can be squeezed out of my equipment.

Thanks,

Rich.

[Jim Andrada]

What are you using for oil mounting? I use Kami on flat surfaces all the time with nearly zero issues. What helped me was to use a small plastic squeegee to chase out the bubbles. You can get them at art supply stores. I've tried the little rollers/brayers, but find the squeegee works better for me.

[Rich14]

Jim,

Thanks. I also use a squeegee. It's probably a "muscle memory" issue with me. When one tapes one edge of a film to a drum and pulls the other end tight and tapes it, the tension also pulls the film toward the center of the radius of the drum. That tension in the plane of the film pulls it down against the drum surface.

That "feeling" was absent to me when I pulled the film and taped it to my light table. It felt like there was no assurance it was down onto the surface. Of course, it was, the squeegee pushed it down and the surface tension of the mounting fluid held it there. But it actually was just parallel to the surface, held by the fluid. No amount of tension by the tape made it any tighter to the surface.

I wonder if a piece of film that has a built in upward curl could eventually "pop free" and escape the fluid's surface tension?

No big deal. Probably just me. For practical purposes, the problem probably doesn't happen.

BTW, my favorite squeegee for a long time was a 3.5" "floppy" disk hard plastic case.

Rich

[Pali K]

Got the image back today and made quick scans using Scitex Eversmart Pro scanner. The scanner is old but wow!

Scan Details: 2000 DPI in AdobeRGB, 8 Bits, Custom End Points. No other adjustments.

JPEGs of scan.

1- Rotated and Resized Scans


2 - Above Scan with levels adjustments only


3 - Crop of above.


Download Original ES Pro Scan

Pali

[Pali K]

Heidelberg Tango Scan

Scan Details: Wet Mount 2000 DPI in ProPhoto RGB, 16 Bits, +10 Exposure Compensation (Max setting). No other adjustments.

JPEGs of scan.

1- Rotated and Resized Scans


2 - Above Scan with levels adjustments only


3 - Crop of above.


Download Original Tango Scan [470 MB File]

Pali