Would it be possible to modify an Epson scanner to get higher-res?

[Ken Lee]

Sorry, Ken, but that chart is meaningless....

There's a lot more to evaluating scanner resolution than a simple contrast chart.

Could you elaborate a bit ? How do you evaluate scanners ?

Thanks !

[Leigh]

Probably the best target is the fan, with radiating lines.

An alternative would be a clean edge at an angle to the X/Y grid of the scanner.
Look at that edge under high magnification and measure the step increment.

Either target should be chrome on glass.

- Leigh

[PaulSchneider]

Rick,

whouldn't it be possible to take all this:

1) Vuescan scanner software know-how, input from Ed Hamrick, developing stitching algorithmy

2) Digital Scanback-technology based on line-scan ccds (http://www.betterlight.com/how_they_work.html)

3) Some engineering prowess (cnc'ing a housing with microstepping motor in xy axes including parallel moving lightsource from top/bottom)

4) calling up rodenstock and asking them for the flextight/iqsmart rodenstock lens to be remanufactured

and create a new scanner?

[SURF]

What is limiting the resolution: optics or positioning?

Having seen that: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4147/4...5cc658b1_b.jpg made me think that the limiting factor is somewere in CCD-lens. I have no idea how that lens look like in Epson. In Scitex(Creo-Kodak) it is a normal round lens. Scitex scanners also have much better resolution in scanning direction but it is due to smaller numbers of pixels in there CCDs. I do not know if the Epson's CCD pixel number is the limiting factor or not.

[Ed Kelsey]

I really have to laugh at these ideas....just like the one about building your own drum scanner. Clueless people !

[rdenney]

Rick,

whouldn't it be possible to take all this:

1) Vuescan scanner software know-how, input from Ed Hamrick, developing stitching algorithmy

2) Digital Scanback-technology based on line-scan ccds (http://www.betterlight.com/how_they_work.html)

3) Some engineering prowess (cnc'ing a housing with microstepping motor in xy axes including parallel moving lightsource from top/bottom)

4) calling up rodenstock and asking them for the flextight/iqsmart rodenstock lens to be remanufactured

and create a new scanner?

Go visit the lounge and read through the thread Frank started on building a cheap drum scanner. I think you'll see that what you have described above is being discussed and even prototyped, though not to the extent you are describing.

Of course, your four steps above depart pretty significantly from the notion of modifying an Epson, which lacks the machinery needed to move the scanner head in that fashion and which would therefore have to be redesigned and constructed from scratch. If it was easy to develop that software to support the older high-end flatbeds using the lawn-mower approach, for example, Ed would have already done it. He's had lots of requests to support those older high-end flatbeds. My sense is that the effort required is so different from what he's already done, and the cost so out of proportion to the number of those scanners in existence, that it would make no business sense to do it. But with the right pile of money, it could be done, of course.

Have you considered the cost of your four steps above, and how that might compare to competing alternatives?

Rick "a typical engineer who sees many digits next to that dollar sign" Denney

[BradS]

I really have to laugh at these ideas....just like the one about building your own drum scanner. Clueless people !

let's not leave out the individual who's gonna make film and wants to know what people want in his new film....completely utterly clueless fantasy.

[BradS]

Rick,

whouldn't it be possible to take all this:

1) Vuescan scanner software know-how, input from Ed Hamrick, developing stitching algorithmy

2) Digital Scanback-technology based on line-scan ccds (http://www.betterlight.com/how_they_work.html)

3) Some engineering prowess (cnc'ing a housing with microstepping motor in xy axes including parallel moving lightsource from top/bottom)

4) calling up rodenstock and asking them for the flextight/iqsmart rodenstock lens to be remanufactured

and create a new scanner?

in engineering it is generally about what is possible but rather what is feasible. Yes, of course, it is all possibly but at a cost that I'm sure nobody would be willing to pay. Not to mention that, as Rick has pointed out, this describes an effort way beyond "modifying an Epson V750". It just isn't realistic.

[PaulSchneider]

I know that it sounds unrealistic at first. I'm just interested in different points of view and I believe that there's always a way of doing something that was thought to be impossible at first if enought will and dedication is in place.

Some companies already have many of the elements stated above. Take Seitz, in Switzerland for example. They have a lot of inhouse CNC experience (they actually build the Alpa cameras), they also sell utterly fast line scan cameras (Seitz 617) (160 megapixels in a few seconds!) and could probably easily create a modern scanner.

I'm sure Rodenstock could custom make some lenses for not too much money involved, especially if they can derive it from designs they've done in the past. They recently finished a 770 fine art xxl lens whose minimal custom order threshold was 20 (from what I've heard).

To simplify things, one could make the scan and lens systen non-zoomable so that only one kind of resolution, say 4000 dpi, could be recorded.

If globally 500 people would buy such a system for 2k USD we would have 1 Million USD in revenue, which might be realistic?

[PaulSchneider]

And don't laugh about the film idea either. Fotoimpex bought all the AGFA machines and could market colour emulsions pretty quickly. It's just that right now with kodak dominating the colour market the price point of a new color emulsion would probably have to be much lower to make an impact and to be commercially successful. Kodak my go bust in a few months, their film business will be sold to an investor which will relaunch the old emulsions after a hiatus of production. Maybe only a few months, mayb a year, who knows, but then maybe other people can fill in the void of color emulsions. Also the impossible project just needs some more r&d to finally create the new polaroid. That being said they're globally opening new stores in big cities and successfully selling instant film of dreaful quality. Who would've thought it would still be possible to make money of the polaroid machines without the polaroid patents and emulsions?