Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount Kit?

[Chester McCheeserton]

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1454940

I know many of you saw this couple years back but I'm re-linking to it. I as much as anyone, want camera scanning to be better, as I don't own a drum, imacon, or creo...but I'm really not sure we are there yet. The issue is film flatness and ability to focus precisely on a very narrow horizontal plane. Not resolution numbers or how far you can zoom in.

A great test would be one of you doing the stitching and feel like you've got the flatness thing nailed, post the same negative 100% crops showing film grain; stitch camera method vs dedicated film scanner (ie not epson)

I've done a fair amount of stitching in photoshop (both manually and using photomerge) and I think it's totally easy to make it work for 17 x 22 inkjet of a rock in black and white.
30 x 40 in color of a sky to nerds like us that are going to look at the print from 8 inches away, is another story. It would be hard for me to move to making prints from files I knew that I was introducing small seam lines in at the digitization step, maybe I'd get used to it I guess?

[interneg]

I've got one of those, too. It's a very good performer. I expect it's pretty close to the Apo Rodagon D 2x f/4.5 lens, but that's just a mildly informed guess. It's definitely different from the Apo Rodagon D 1x f/4.

The Magnagon seems to be designed to use a special filter on the front - and it's definitely very unlike the Apo-Rodagon D 1x in the shape of the front and rear elements. There is some evidence that suggests it might share some lineage with the 2x. Interestingly, I note that the Apo-Rodagon D spec recommends them for down to 5 micron pixel size sensors. I suspect there might be a common ancestor & some optimisation for the Imacon/ Hasselblad.

[interneg]

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1454940

I know many of you saw this couple years back but I'm re-linking to it. I as much as anyone, want camera scanning to be better, as I don't own a drum, imacon, or creo...but I'm really not sure we are there yet. The issue is film flatness and ability to focus precisely on a very narrow horizontal plane. Not resolution numbers or how far you can zoom in.

A great test would be one of you doing the stitching and feel like you've got the flatness thing nailed, post the same negative 100% crops showing film grain; stitch camera method vs dedicated film scanner (ie not epson)

I've done a fair amount of stitching in photoshop (both manually and using photomerge) and I think it's totally easy to make it work for 17 x 22 inkjet of a rock in black and white.
30 x 40 in color of a sky to nerds like us that are going to look at the print from 8 inches away, is another story. It would be hard for me to move to making prints from files I knew that I was introducing small seam lines in at the digitization step, maybe I'd get used to it I guess?

I'd agree about the challenge levels - I think the problems are very much those of mechanical precision inter-relating to the optical performance (which has to be good in the first place). I've made inkjet prints 60"+ across off 3 stitched 6300ppi scans from 120 in colour and BW from the Hasselblad X5 with convincing tonal gradients, though it can be demanding of precision in scanning & being reasonably attentive through the process. That said, for absolute finesse, a properly solid enlarger and a Rodagon-G or similar beats it in terms of the communication of sharper, finer granularity...

Everyone might also want to look at the Harvard DASCH imaging system - air bearings and granite surface plates for 2300ppi at high MTF might be a bit excessive, but it might give some people some ideas...

[Pere Casals]

Apo Rodagon 75mm 2X appears to give higher resolution, but gives more flare so better baffle system required. Sigma 70 mm Macro Art has very high contrast and almost flare proof. Overall I suspect most users will get better results from the Sigma with the more modern coating.

Sandy

Sandy, let me point that the Rodagon D 75mm x2 is a MF lens, covering a 87mm image circle. Used on a MF sensor or with a long linear sensor it is terrific, it would resolve 5 times more "effective pixels" than the ART.

Of course when used with a FF sensor it only yields 1/5 of its potential.

What I mean is that the D is a way better lens than the ART when the D works works the right magnification range, but as the ART is optimized for the FF circle it yields comparable to the D in FF.

------

I'd say that the higher flare is not because of worse coatings but because of the larger circle, only around 1/5 of the entering light hits the sensor, the rest (80% excess circle) of the light has the oppotunity to bounce in the (still quite reflective) walls producing stray light, if sensor was big enough this would not happen. It may be addressed with a cropping frame in the rearof the lens.

------

Both things also happen when FF glass is used in APSC...

[Pere Casals]

I note that the Apo-Rodagon D spec recommends them for down to 5 micron pixel size sensors.

7 micron

https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Gra...00119141_0.pdf

[sanking]

Some of the early film scanners, including the Leafscan 45 (some consider the Mother of all CCD scanners) and the early Imacons, were basically reverse enlargers, and that is bascially what we are trying to do with the cameras, just using them in place of the primitive CCD stuff from the 90s. I actually owned a Leafscan 45 and stitched medium format film with it at 5000 ppi. The standard lens was the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 1:1. I still own the lens, pulled it from the scanner when I finally junked it. http://www.allari-photo.com/body_scancomp.html

There is fellow in Spain named Carle Mitja who has some interesting pages on this. Mitja is a photogravure worker from Catalunya who posts from time to time on the carbon forum on groups.io I moderate. I imagine Per knows him, or has heard of him?

https://carlesmitja.net/2017/09/12/i...n-with-camera/

https://carlesmitja.net/2016/04/05/f...zation-system/


https://carlesmitja.net/2018/01/01/i...ing-raw-files/


Sandy

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1454940

I know many of you saw this couple years back but I'm re-linking to it. I as much as anyone, want camera scanning to be better, as I don't own a drum, imacon, or creo...but I'm really not sure we are there yet. The issue is film flatness and ability to focus precisely on a very narrow horizontal plane. Not resolution numbers or how far you can zoom in.

A great test would be one of you doing the stitching and feel like you've got the flatness thing nailed, post the same negative 100% crops showing film grain; stitch camera method vs dedicated film scanner (ie not epson)

I've done a fair amount of stitching in photoshop (both manually and using photomerge) and I think it's totally easy to make it work for 17 x 22 inkjet of a rock in black and white.
30 x 40 in color of a sky to nerds like us that are going to look at the print from 8 inches away, is another story. It would be hard for me to move to making prints from files I knew that I was introducing small seam lines in at the digitization step, maybe I'd get used to it I guess?

[interneg]

7 micron

https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Gra...00119141_0.pdf

That change looks like it coincided with the release of the Apo-Rodagon HR. The older catalogues are definite on 5 micron.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151227...nline_7601.pdf

[sanking]

Per,

I know that the Rodagon D 2X was designed for medium format. That is why I own it, originally purchased it to use on the Leafscsan 45 in place of the Rodagon D 1:1 for scanning medium format film. A friend suggested it back then, I had no understanding of why but it worked nicely. But it should give very good performance on FF since we are using the central area of the lens, right? It did in fact perform very well on the Fuji GFX50R, with the slightly larger sensor.

Flare is no doubt due to stray light from large image circle, and of course it has no hood at all.

Sandy

[sperdynamite]

Sandy & sperdynamite: I'd be interested in seeing your results off HP5+ or something of that sort in the 2000ppi resolution range (and higher if you want) - mainly because I've found its granularity & the scanning device's resolution of that grain to be a fairly stiff test of the potential imaging capacity of a system. If you have other films that you mainly use, those are fine too - all I'm interested in is the ability to usefully resolve the granularity. I can throw some Hasselblad/ Imacon scans into the mix as comparators. I'd like to hope the CMOS shift & stitch sensors at least equal or outperform the 1990's CCD systems with their sometimes temperamental electronics and software...



For the record, the Hasselblad/ Imacon lens is a Rodenstock/ Linos 75mm Magnagon with a fixed aperture. It's a different design to the Apo-Rodagon D & is optimised 1:5-5:1 magnifications.

I could scan some HP5+ at that resolution. Are you thinking 4x5? I actually think I only have some 8x10 HP5 on hand but my camera is in the shop... I have a bunch of medium format HP5 however and was planning to do ISO/dev time tests with it.

Is there is a simple scanner PPI/pixel resolution calculation? I'm always confused about that. I.E. When someone asks for a 2000PPI scan what pixel resolution are you targeting.

[Pere Casals]

But it should give very good performance on FF since we are using the central area of the lens, right?

Sandy, those glasses are amazing, the graph shows that performance is pretty good in a 60mm circle, with sagital performance falling earlier, but it's still very good in that 60mm circle.



(Picture shows the 1x lens but graph is for the 2x at f/5.6. and 1:2)