Used pro flatbeds - who are they ?

[sanking]

Do the high end flatbeds such as the Eversmart that are still being made new today still use SCSI and OS9 or have they been brought forward into the 21st century with USB or, heaven forbid, even firewire?! Which ones have updated hardware?

The software of current production IQSmart and EverSmart scaners has indeed been updated and runs on the latest versions of OSX with firewire.

Sandy King

[Matus Kalisky]

- Peter -

thank you for the list. That is exactely what I hoped to find out.

Do I understand well that the "Standard tray" is by default installed as the bed of the scanner (the one to be seen on a photo when the scanner is "opened"), or ... ?

How to check the bulbs?

I guess the Cezanne needs a callibration slide too. Are these standard IT8 targets or some special ones ?


- Sandy -

is the scanning software the only difference between the EverSmart Pro and Pro II ?

- Ted -

That would be very kind. My email is on the way.

------

All of the scanners discussed so far (and within financial reach) are SCSI. Should a cable and SCSI card come along or are (were) there some "standard SCSI cards"?

It was mentioned many times that a missing software could be a problem as it is expensive and sometimes even hard to find. On the other hand there seem to be many users around here so is it such a problem to get the software (and here I mean the standard one that orignaly came with the scanner, but maby the nstallation CDs got lost over the time) should be, uhm, well - possible ? I saw already a few auctions where the scannar was there but software was not. One Cezanne Ultra is on the ebay right now (though it misses probably more than just the software)

[sanking]

-
- Sandy -

is the scanning software the only difference between the EverSmart Pro and Pro II ?

No, the EverSmart Pro II contains a different (faster chip) processing board.

The EverSmart Pro can be upgraded to Pro II category with a new board, with firewire connection, but the upgrade is very expensive. About $5k.

However, there is no difference in scan quality between Pro and Pro II. Both scan at optical resolution of 3175 spi, anywhere on the board and all over the board at once.


Sandy

[Matus Kalisky]

No, the EverSmart Pro II contains a different (faster chip) processing board.

The EverSmart Pro can be upgraded to Pro II category with a new board, with firewire connection, but the upgrade is very expensive. About $5k.

However, there is no difference in scan quality between Pro and Pro II. Both scan at optical resolution of 3175 spi, anywhere on the board and all over the board at once.
Sandy

But is sounds that the firewire and high bit saves would be worth it .. or not ? With which operating systems are these two versions of the EverSmart compatible?

[joolsb]

Matus,

if you're in Germany, you might want to keep an eye on this site...

I think you'll find the scanners you are after are more common than you think.

[Matus Kalisky]

Matus,

if you're in Germany, you might want to keep an eye on this site...

I think you'll find the scanners you are after are more common than you think.

I found it yeasterday . But first I am trying to find out now what I want to get, what has to come along with it and how much it is reasonable to pay for it. Yeas - there are at least two Cezanne and thre EverSmart Scanners waiting. I just do not have those few thousands right now.

[joolsb]

The software of current production IQSmart and EverSmart scaners has indeed been updated and runs on the latest versions of OSX with firewire.

Sandy,

Does this mean that oXYgen is now compatible with Intel Macs?

If I was to get an IQSmart1 and then scan a 5x4 in two strips to get extra res, how easy would this be and would there then be much advantage to paying the hefty premium for an IQSmart2?

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi,

The Standard Tray is the biggest scanning surface. It's what most people would call the "scanning bed", much like the scanning glass on a copier. It is easily removable though. I also have a multi format tray, which is a metal try with spaces for 6 separate holders. The holders are clamshell type designs with anti-newton plastic. They are nice, especially for 4x5, but they don't easily hold negative strips, and I don't like cutting up my negative strips because that makes them much harder to store.

I basically built a frame that holds a sheet of optical glass at the right height. Optical glass is much, much cheaper than the Screen supplies, and it's harder to scratch. You have to wet-mount, though, or you'll probably get Newton's rings. If you get one of these, and you'd like to build a holder, pm me and I'll send you some pictures and measurements.


There is a function in the maintenance tool of ColorGenius for calibration. It uses a standard IT8 target, but there's some question as the the form that the reference file needs. I wasn't able to get mine to work with Wolf Faust's targets. I prefer to make separate icc files for various film types in any case. I use Wolf Faust's targets and some free software he lists on his site. This works very well color slides. For BW, I don't worry about ICC files at all. I've done very little color negative scanning, and Howard has a thread about some issues he's having.

The Colorgenius software allows 16 bit color scans but 8 bit BW ones. This is no problem though as I scan BW as a color positive. I then pick the best color channel in Photoshop to make my BW image.

[Gordon Moat]

One very short question on top of the previous ones. What does it mean if the the resolution of the scanner is different in each direction eg: 1200x2400 (Heidelberg Linoscan 1440) or 1250x2500 (Agfa DuoScan T2500) .. ?

thanks

Hallo Matus,

Depending upon the scanner, either the sensor or the optics move. The limitation on resolution is usually the combination of the sensor and optics. The stepper motor that moves either of these (or both) can allow more finite capture. What then happens is that firmware (or software) takes that extra half step data, analyzes the overlap from each pixel captured, and creates the final resolution in the files. So while the chip and optics might be good for 1200, having finite movement gets 2400 in one direction, mostly by moving half the chip pixel dimension. Functionally, the true resolution tends to be the lower number, though measured resolution can sometimes be better in the other direction.

An example is that if you scan at 1200, then you should get close to that actual resolution in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. If you scan at 2400, then your file will be 2400 in both dimensions, but the actual measurable resolution will be closer to 1200 in one direction, and somewhat short of 2400 in the other direction. When you are scanning smooth transitions of colour there is a slight advantage to scanning at the greater setting. If you are trying to capture greater detail that you might see on a loupe when looking at the film on a light table, then you might find the higher settings do not capture the extra detail.

This brings up how much you actually need in a scanner. It is tempting to look at file sizes and output, but again that misses some of what you actually might find useful. If we look at C. Perez (et al) tests of lenses, we find that around 60 lp/mm is a good target of useful resolution with large format film. Converting that to scanning settings gives us 3048 ppi, which I think is a better functional target. If we look at a common commercial printing request of 300 dpi, that gives us about a 10 times increase/enlargement above our (4x5) film size; functionally a good limit from 4x5 film. However, remember that this is only along horizontal and vertical axis directions. So if we have finite detail along an oblique (off axis) angle, there can be an advantage to have greater scanning resolution capability.

I think when we look at the capabilities of some medium format cameras (Mamiya 7 for example), we could make use of even greater capture resolution from scanners. Some 35mm cameras and lenses, in combination with certain films, can also allow great capture resolution. These systems can exceed the resolution of large format film, but are doing that in a much smaller film area. So while our scanning requirements for 4x5 or larger films can be less demanding, to really get everything out of medium format and 35mm requires even greater capability from our scanners. Functionally, a 100 lp/mm capture on film would need a scanner of 5080 or greater resolution (remember, horizontal and vertical directions, compared to oblique). However, with our tendency to use smaller cameras hand held, I doubt we approach the limits of our gear too often; it would be easier to assume 45 to 50 lp/mm capability from hand held cameras. So unless your smaller gear is tied to a tripod, or running flash in most of your shots, then you can get by with a less capable scanner.

All this, and the fact that many times we do not need giant files to make giant prints (we might make many more smaller prints, or only need to meet publications specifications), means that colour capture capability should be the primary decision comparison for getting a scanner. If you are getting less than 3.0 Dmax, like many new consumer low to mid level scanners, then you are missing colour information in the darker/denser parts of your images; at this point, I think it makes no difference what the resolution capability might be, you are missing information. In the commercial realm, you are more likely to have someone complain about colour than any other aspect; lower resolution can be tricked to making a sharp appearing image during post processing, but missing colour or too dense shadows cannot be faked nor corrected. The true Dmax capability is what you should investigate.

On the older Creo and Scitex, some of them are capable of greater scans per hour than others. In a production environment, this can be important. I think for your needs, you can get away with a lesser specification, and save a bit of money.

Newer versions are FireWire, and much easier to run. It does seem that Mac OS X 10.3.9 is a more stable way to run a scanner, though you can use 10.4.? with several of the newer software versions. If it is for a work environment, I don't recommend 10.5.? because there are still too many changes and updates happening. If you want to live on the bleeding edge of operating systems and technology, then expect some trouble using 10.5.? and any of the high end software packages. I think it is better to dedicate a slightly older stable computer to a scanning workstation.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[sanking]

But is sounds that the firewire and high bit saves would be worth it .. or not ? With which operating systems are these two versions of the EverSmart compatible?

Yes, in a production environment I think the upgrade would be worth it.

So far as I know the EverSmart Pro and EverSmart Pro II are only compatible with MAC operating system, OS 9.2.2 for the Pro (or older). I think the Pro II may be compatible with OSX with a firewire conversion.

Sandy