Creo iQsmart3 and Supreme II scan speed

[Bukmop]

Hello everyone,

soon I need to buy a large scanner to scan large glass photo plates. I hesitate to buy between Creo iQsmart3 and Eversmart Supreme I or II. Scanning speed is essential to me. Can any of you who have one of these scanners scan the entire surface at 2400 dpi and write the scan time here. You can also write me the advantages of one or the other model because I'm still hesitant to buy. I currently have an Epson 11000xl Pro and expect much better quality and at least the same scan speed. If someone in Europe sells one of the scanners, they can write to me too.

[Pere Casals]

You have here a thread with interesting tips about the 3: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...Scanners/page3


If you scan at 2400 dpi you won't notice much an improvement over the 11000xl, you have to go well beyond to notice some real improvement. The iqs3 is 3250dpi effective able, but if you scan at 2400dpi (hardware) then you won't get 2400 effective, probably you may get some 2000, and the 11000xl can deliver 2200dpi effective.


If wanting to scan the full bed then you have to take the calculator and see what dpi you can use without the file being larger than 4GB, because some file formats have that limit.


I'd recommend you that before purchasing an IQS3 you order an scanning service with it and then compare with 11000xl result. Also see the drivers you have for modern computers, and check if you can get it serviced for the case you have an issue.


My guess is that for big glass plates in particular you would not find a better result from the IQS3. In fact it's difficult to see a real improvement for Potra 160 MF in this IQS3 vs V700 side by side: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1479178

Of course the V700 is a bit better than the 11000xl, but also MF film usually requires better performance that big glass plates.

[Bukmop]

Thanks for the quick response.

I also have a v850 pro and compared the quality and speed with 11000. The Epson v850 pro is better than halftone than 11000, but there is one major problem "no autofocus". I did a comparative scan of a 6x9 BW negative film with the Epson 11000xl, v850 and Nikon Coolscan 9000. I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners. In Nikon scans, I can see much more clearly the grain on film, which in order to be seen on the Epson has to be made USM. In your opinion, will I get a result close to that of Nikon?

I know about operating system and file size restrictions. I have been Apple user since 1992, and I have a PowerMac G5 with Mac OS 10.5.8, which is absolutely sufficient for Oxygen scan.
At 8 bit BW image size 30x40 cm and 2400 dpi resolution is about 1 GB and 2 GB at 16 bit. So this problem does not affect me in this case.

For a few days I read the topic you wrote to me and downloaded large files. But basically my question is scanning speed.

Has anyone done a comparative scan between the Epson 11000 and 12000. Although they are known to be the same and the only difference is replaced ccfl with led ligit. According to the Epson site, they have different pixels on the CCD, which means different CCD sensors and probably different quality.

Has anyone tried scanning Large formats with photogrametric scanners. There are also many good devices out there that scan at least 20x25 cm scan area. Unfortunately, these scanners are very rare and very expensive.

[SergeyT]

>> I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners.

Oh No! You can not say it here

[Pere Casals]

V850.. but there is one major problem "no autofocus".

For big plates you don't have that problem, the low res lens covering the entire width is focused in then external glass surface. The hi res lens covers 5.9".

the grain

There is the illumination collimation factor makes grain more or less evident, in fact older Nikons had a very collimated light that enhanced BW grain too much, a problem, this was corrected.

I scanned 2000 dpi with all the scanners and the result from Nikon was superior to that of the epson scanners. In Nikon scans, I can see much more clearly the grain on film, which in order to be seen on the Epson has to be made USM. In your opinion, will I get a result close to that of Nikon?

https://web.archive.org/web/20190115.../appendixc.htm

The Nikon scanner are very superior to the Epson for roll film, the Epson shines the more as the format gets larger. The nikon has a 8k pixels sensor, but it covers 1" or 2". The Epson has a 40k sensor but it covers 5.9" with the hi res lens, the Epson scans 4 35mm strips in the scan width while the Nikon takes 1 strip, so the nikon can make a much better work with rolls.

But at 2000dpi you should see not much real difference, IMHO difference comes from the excellent digital image optimization the nikon silently performs by default while with the Epson you have to do it in Ps. Also it can happen that a Pro scanner scans at 4000 to later deliver 2000, while the epson would scan at the nominal dpi you requested.

Make this comparisson, scan with the Nikon and the Epson at the max dpi, then in Ps downsample to 2000 dpi and sharpen to optimum, you should see the same, beyond any light collimation effect in the grains, and beyond DMax that's also much better in the Nikon, anyway the Epson using Silverfast multi-exposure improves a lot in DMax.


In Pro scanners like the Nikon you usualy find a good digital image optimization to speed up workflow, manpower is important in a business. The Epson is not Pro, perhaps it's prosumer, so you have to do that in Ps with a few clicks. Me, I prefer doing the image optimization on my own.

But basically my question is scanning speed.

The IQS3 has a 8k pix sensor, for large mediums, if wanting quality, it uses a zoom to take smaller crops that will be stitched. The Epson takes all in a single pass of the 40k sensor, so its speed will be difficult to beat.

the Epson 11000 and 12000.

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Epso...on12000XL.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190515...on12000XL.html

[Peter De Smidt]

What the largest sized plate?

[Bukmop]

Size is 18x24 cm and larger. The total amount of glass plates is several thousand.

So I'm looking for a scanner better than my Epson 11000 that has at least the same scan speed. I know I can scan on the v850 as well, but I'm looking to optimize my time and workflow. Let's not forget that a plate placed vertically in the v850 scans much slower than a horizontally placed one. Therefore, the v850 is not a high volume scan option.

Well, if someone doesn't have a Creo IQsmart3 run a scan of 2400 dpi 8 bit greyscale and tell you what time it is done. It's simple.

Things written by Pere Casals are clear to me. I have over 17 scanners - Epson (4), Nikon (7), Imacon (1), Konica Minolta (3), Noritsu (1) Canon (1) and more.

I do not agree with what was written about the number of pixels of the EPSON scanners. Either epson.com wrote incorrect information for 11000 and 12000, or you have other inside information, for example, from the CCD sensor manufacturer (would be great). For EPSON 11000 is specified - 87,840 pixels / line (2400 dpi) and for EPSON 12,000 is written- Effective Pixels: 94,500 pixels. Which leads me to think of different sensors in both models.

For the Nikon light source, scanners can also be debated, however, the Nikon 5000 and the Nikon 9000 have different light sources. In my opinion, the one described for grain is more for a Nikon 5000 which has a direct light source

[Peter De Smidt]

I would build a digital camera scanner. It would be way faster than any other way. How exactly you'd do it would depend on the required resolution. I have an old D600. I use it to take three pictures of an 8x10 negative. It is an order of magnitude faster than using my Cezanne. A newer camera, such as the new Sony with pixel shift, might do away completely with the need to stitch.

[Pere Casals]

S Effective Pixels: 94,500 pixels. Which leads me to think of different sensors in both models.

I guess that those pixels are in the vertical direction obtained by micro-stepping with the motor, not because of 94,500 R-G-B pixels in the sensor: from manual: Scanning Resolution 2,400 dpi x 4,800 dpi (Horizontal x Vertical).

The 12000xl may output oversampled 6400 dpi if you want, but it only takes 2400 samples per inch in the hor direction.



The V700/V850 samples 6400 in the hor direction with the high res lens covering 5.9" width, and 4800 with the low res les covering the whole width. With the highres lens it effectively resolves around 2900 in the sensor direction and 2300 in the motion direction.

[calebarchie]

I don't know anything about these scanners but have a look, you can get backlight units for most.

https://www.imageaccess.de/?page=Sca...sWheel&lang=en

If you are willing to sacrifice resolution these may offer greatest productivity.