More advanced scanner for 4x5 than Epson flatbed?

[Pere Casals]

Bryan, this time I end my debate with you in this post, Pro expensive scanners also Artificially sharpen in the firmware or in the software driver, and they did it very well to the optimal point, the Epson does it less, so what the expensive Artificially sharpened inside with the Epson you have to do it with Photoshop, but the final image of the V700 has the same Artificial sharpening that the one of your Cezanne.

If you look those samples taken by Pali you will see that the final result is the same, this is because the "Artificial" sharpening is also the same. If it wasn't then you would see it in the side by side comparison.

For any following question I refer you to those samples, if you don't understand the thing from those samples then... sorry, I can't explain it better or easier.

[Corran]

Cezanne has options to turn off sharpening, but okay. No one cares anyway at this point as enough has been said on this topic.

[Tin Can]

I think we do care about products we can buy new...and how well they work.

I am no longer a fan of old electronics, even my tube radio collection is not worth operating or selling.

I look at them only.

Let's try to keep film alive even if we have to make it ourselves.

Kudos to Denise Ross and her Light Farm.

[Corran]

I can't seem to find the archival digitization systems I've seen once or twice, for sale generally to libraries. I believe they were very expensive.

Just recently, a simple pseudo-DIY system was put on Kickstarter - just add camera. 3D-printed. It was still about the price of a used Epson V800 I think, so was criticized on price heavily.

There was a thread on the rangefinder forum where a couple college kids designed a novel camera-scan system that used small-sensors and a large number of images to scan at extreme resolutions. Near the end of the project they seemed to have disappeared, despite claiming to want to put it into production. I liked this idea because small sensors gave the ability to scan in a smaller footprint (shorter lens-to-sensor distance). Tests showed really extreme resolution despite the cellphone-sized sensor, due to extreme oversampling.

From my standpoint, no one has quite invented a reasonably-priced kit that would replace normal scanners for most people. A dedicated scanning desk with universal mounts for a variety of modern DSLR and mirrorless systems, with the ability to scan from 35mm up to LF easily and with automation to stitch multiple images for higher-resolutions would be ideal. One can do it themselves with off-the-shelf pieces and some work/know-how but something that is sold as an all-in-one package (including software!!) is key for this.

[Larry Gebhardt]

So with Hasselblad leaving the market there is no new scanner better than the Epson range. Is that correct? I had thought Aztek was still selling drums, but they seem to only support them now.

[bob carnie]

I compared my Eversmart Supreme Scanner (not wet mounted ) to a 100mp Phase One scanning system... They were both equal to my eyes in the final print.. It was an old map, I was quite amazed with the ease of using the Phase system.. problem is I already have the Creo and if it does equal quality then purchasing the Phase (even if it was a financial reality) would not make sense.

I would like to try the same experiment with a colour neg and transparency to see if I can see a difference.

I am devastated that the Flextight is going the way of the Dodo Bird. could it be due to global warming?

[bob carnie]

Bryan, this time I end my participation with this post, Pro expensive scanners also Artificially sharpen in the firmware or in the software driver, and they did it very well to the optimal point, the Epson does it less, so what the expensive Artificially sharpened inside with the Epson you have to do it with Photoshop, but the final image of the V700 has the same Artificial sharpening that the one of your Cezanne.

If you look those samples taken by Pali you will see that the final result is the same, this is because the "Artificial" sharpening is also the same. If it wasn't then you would see it in the side by side comparison.

For any following question I refer you to those samples, if you don't understand the thing from those samples then... sorry, I can't explain it better or easier.

Ok I will bite .. in any scanning situation that I have ever done NO Sharpening is the setting I use. Pere are you suggesting using sharpening when scanning?

[Larry Gebhardt]

A DIY DSLR scanner may also beat the Epson, but you should stitch around 9 (good) DSLR shots in PS for that (a 3x3 mosaic), this will be slightly better. A 2x2 mosaic won't beat the Epson, consider that a 50MPix sensor won't yield 50MPix effective, but a lot less.

One thought for camera scanning is the newer mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic S1R, Sony A7RIII and new A7RIV offer a multishot mode. At a minimum (A7RIII) you get true color at each pixel and with more shots you get extra resolution. So fewer setups will be needed to match the Epsons. This is significant since it will make stitching easier, especially on large featureless areas like sky. The S1R looks especially promising for this given it processes all the images internally, probably easily besting the Epson in one shot for 6x9.

[Oren Grad]

I can't seem to find the archival digitization systems I've seen once or twice, for sale generally to libraries. I believe they were very expensive.

Possibly the product line from these folks:

https://dtculturalheritage.com/

From my standpoint, no one has quite invented a reasonably-priced kit that would replace normal scanners for most people. A dedicated scanning desk with universal mounts for a variety of modern DSLR and mirrorless systems, with the ability to scan from 35mm up to LF easily and with automation to stitch multiple images for higher-resolutions would be ideal. One can do it themselves with off-the-shelf pieces and some work/know-how but something that is sold as an all-in-one package (including software!!) is key for this.

I agree with this. Include a well-regulated diffuse light source and a system of glass and glassless film holders. I expect that it would cost a few thousand dollars to do it with adequate alignment precision and durable construction, and taking into account how small the production run is likely to be. But I hope someone will take a chance on this concept.

[Corran]

Yes, a light source and holders too...

I think you are correct about the pricing, but I also think that puts it out of the range of marketability. Perhaps if different "levels" of system were available (with cross-compatibility) that encompasses different film sizes, perhaps it would be doable. I'm imagining one system that does just 35mm, one for up to 6x9, and then one for all sizes up to 8x10. Pricing around $600, $1200, and $2000 for the systems (with upgrade pieces to enable users to step-up to the next size). A lot of work to design, manufacture, and market such a device/system.